David Gross: Millennium Prize Problem: Yang Mills Theory

[@adamkadmon6339]

This really was an absolute top-notch lecture: a perfect balance of technical and intuitive content, sailing between the Scylla of waffle and the Charybdis of obscurity.

[@kamilziemian995]

Extraordinary, beautiful lecture.

[@jonathanbaxter5821]

I just listened to this on my daily hike. Brilliant lecture.

[@elihendrickson8447]

What a treat it must have been to be there.

[@Unidentifying]

Wow I finally deeply understand it, incredibly clear lecture

[@dannydandaniel8040]

Wow this was a fantastic lecture. How did I miss this?

[@realdarthplagueis]

This is so interesting. Thank you for sharing the video!

[@JasonWalsh-b4n]

YOU'RE WRONG; DAVID GROSS IS VERY INTERESTED IN THE TOPIC!😊

[@ika5666]

A possible regime for classical QCD could be a gluon star or, more realistically a star made of gluon-quark plasma.

[@youtubesucks1885]

QCD is asymptotically free. The weak-coupling or classical regime is a quark gluon plasma.

[@debmalyamukhopadhyay795]

Does the mass gap in Yang-Mills theory mean massive gluons ?

[@int_fx_dx]

it means that a bound state of gluons, which themselves are massless, is massive. such states are usually called glueballs

[@matt13r1]

The answer is 6 nerds!

[@Denosophem]

I could be wrong: pretty sure the comment is in regards to human anatomy specifically the gullitias maximums and how the shape of it plus the quadriceps and hamstring are developed in such a way that leave a space for air flow... "formally known as a thigh gap" Least thats what i got from it.

[@Denosophem]

Most likely my interpretation was made due to the verbage in sequence used in conjunctionn with the username whom commented originally lol In order to understand all knowledge avaivable currently to mankind, i must say everything has to be taken into account plus interpretations such as this one just simply makes éducation a bit more fun.

[@kr-sd3ni]

you can immediately say by looking at the board that the lecturer is a physicist and not mathematician. messy board with whole lot of equation and letters out of thin air pops up.

[@27merk]

The limit doesn't exist if "a" goes to zero. "a">0 & "a"

[@go-away-5555]

Look up perturbation theory

[@valor36az]

They should have invited someone more interested in the topic

[@brendawilliams8062]

I was mixed up. I thought it was primes problem. Interesting problem though.

[@qbtc]

If I bring back to this age all the great minds of the past, ie, Newton, Gauss, Euler, Einstein, Maxwell, von Neumann, etc., who would solve the most Millenium problems if any?

[@d7ffab979]

Gauss proofs Riemann Hypothesis, Navier-Stokes equation and Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer-Conjecture.

[@standowner6979]

None of them.

[@standowner6979]

Just because they were good on the areas they worked doesn't mean they would be great at everything

[@levansaginashviliskidney8726]

@@standowner6979 Newton, Gauss, Euler, Poincaré, Hilbert and Ramanujan worked on everything

[@Lucky-sb2tu]

…What must be the other 6 problems?

[@oneshot2028]

So will anybody who solve this Yang-Mills existence and mass gap problem get the Nobel Prize or the Fields Medal??

[@klnnlk1078]

That person would 100% surely win a Fields medal, on the other hand, as far as I know the problem isn't that important for real physics so I don't know about the Nobel prize.

[@oneshot2028]

@@klnnlk1078 Well, I just realized the Fields medal is only given to people who are less than 40. What happens if he is over 40?? Bad luck I suppose. No medal for solving one of the worlds hardest problems.

[@klnnlk1078]

@@oneshot2028 Ahh yeah, I forgot that detail, like the case of Andrew Wiles, when he proved FLT he was already over 40 and therefore didn't get the fields medal.

[@oneshot2028]

@@klnnlk1078 Then he will get the Abel Prize for sure I think.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@oneshot2028you may not want to be Clint Eastwood and a fish bowl doesn’t interest you. So: maybe just to calculate is enough

[@davidwilkie9551]

"Mathematics should not be allowed to stand in the way of physical processes".., yes, but it's the same QM logarithmic singularity positioning mechanism.., (amateurish interpretation of Quantum-fields probability pulse-evolution including gravity), for Math-Physics from Physics-Math, extended by the expectation of Mathematical precision that "should" correspond with measurement technique accuracy. ("This changes Everything", actually, observable cause-effect and theoretically) Something like "expectation values" in theory and error bars in practice. Any reasonable person would expect that this is common knowledge, and also the natural causes of confusion. "Many a slip between the cup and the lip".

[@angrymeowngi]

Not sure how you interpreted that but it sounds to me like the quote: "in theory bees cannot fly" and we know that they do fly. The abstraction (math) of a physical process should not take precedence over the observable reality. Any theory should approximate an explaination of reality. Reality is the ultimate arbiter of what 'is'. I think it was a simple as that. The mass gap has been proven experimentally but the fact that the rigorous mathematical proof (same with the theory of how wings and body proportion to flight) does not yet exist should not be a basis for invalidating the current physical process that is currently happening (bees flying).

[@davidwilkie9551]

@@angrymeowngi well I don't know how to read this particular picture either. From Euler's Intuitions about the equivalence of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional positioning of logarithmic numberness dominance aka resonance, the physical objectives measured in Mathematical Abstractions are simplified focus on probabilistic communication of timing information, so that is the reasonable interpretation for why the flight of the bumble bee didn't add up mathematically, the measurement of sync-duration positioning of the wings leaves out the supporting system of the vortices pushing back on the return stroke. Fruit flys and midges are interesting too.

[@metatron5199]

Ronald Rodriguez the problem of does the mathematical abstraction works is certainly an issue but also it is much more complicated as we can have multiple mathematical models which explain a physical process, so it begs the question which one is right? This is where knowledge of mathematics does come in to play (usually) as it has seem to be the case historically the more beautiful simple solution tends to be the correct answer as it is more rooted into mathematics on the whole and subsequently the rest of physics as well. Just like to point out we have three levels of abstraction taking place when creating a physical theory, so this is the proper even though may be unpopular by many account of the structure of a proper physical theory. 1. the mathematics itself which is purely abstract, a formalism if you will 2. We than add to that formalism of the pure abstract math a commentary on what does the math postulate exist i.e. It give us the ontology of the physical theory 3. Now to complete the entire model we are building we take all of that and add on top of that a nomology (from nomos which means the law and and ology from ontology) which is the explanation of the physical laws by which are comprised of the two lower order explanations I have listed before. So this is the three primary steps that are being performed when creating any proper physical theory no matter what, even though there are many physicists who are not even aware they are making such conceptual moves when doing work in theoretical physics due to the fact that many modern physics theorist are not well trained in philosophy. Which is quite ironic as all of the greats which they refer to (usually) were well trained as this can be seen in their published papers, as they were very concerned with explaining fully what exactly they are doing in their work on physics. It goes back even to Newton who was well aware of the philosophical depths he was working at when creating the laws of Newtonian mechanics... it soo very sad that so many working physicists today have no clue about this, and hence why there has now been so much confusion within the field of physics and specifically surrounding quantum mechanics and having a universally accepted interpretation of quantum theory, and I'm not saying that there aren't physicists who are working today who are not well aware of everything I just wrote bc there most certainly is/are but unfortunately they are in the minority instead of the majority....hopefully what I have said is clear and makes sense as I tried my best to condense the formal explanations down into a quickly readable and digestible comment... cheers

[@jaredhouston4223]

I see you everywhere, How's it been?

[@山山-y4q]

   🍎 Color charge propagation speed is √1√2√3=√6 times the speed of the propagation speed of electromagnetic waves. 8π/c^4 of the Einstein equation is 8π/√6^4= 8π/36=(1/4)(8π/9)=(2π/9), and E =mc^2→m√6^2=m6 , Rμν-(1/2)gμνR= 8πG Tμν /c^4= (1/4)(8π/9)G Tμν, // gluon // or (1/4)(8/9)GTμν (π=1, c=1), ･･･❶ E =mc^2 ⇒ m√6^2=m6, // E=m1c^2, E=m2c^2, E=m3c^2, E =m6c^2 // I think the mass gap problem of Yang-Mills theory was solved with E = m6 . Speed of EM light √1c, ･･･❷ propagation speed of 2 color charges √2c, ･･･❸ propagation speed of 3 color charges √3c, ･･･❹ propagation speed of quark lepton √6c, ･･･❺ 達磨さんが転んだ！ 発音の数は10。 Daruma-san has fallen ! The landscape of the QCD Lagrange Density, which has been decomposed into Gluon and Quark Lepton, has five expressions. A macro example of a membrane space is the solar system. The sun's surface activity becomes D-BRANE. Prominence is an open string. Closed strings are released to the six planets by corona, the solar wind. Quarks and leptons correspond to planets, satellites, asteroids, dwarf planets, exoplanets, and interstellar materials.

[@Zealch_]

My friend whom I met in middle school (we’re both freshmen in high school now) was explaining Lagrangian quantum field theory. 😂 And then I showed him my 6D (2,0)-superconformal field theory which has no Lagrangian description, is holographically dual to M-theory on AdS, × S', and when compactified on S' gives 5D maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills.

[@abz998]

How do you get particles with mass from massless particles?

[@aurelianoskirzewski2448]

make them orbit each other: it could be interpreted that gluons have an su(3) "magnetic dipolar charge" (sort of), this makes them interact with each other. the total energy of the system could be counted by the movement of the center of mass and the rest energy E_0: m=E_0/c^2

[@ashsomogyi]

Aureliano Skirzewski this is a really interesting idea you have actually, I’d be interested to know more of what you think

[@angrymeowngi]

With the discovery of the Higgs particle--which basically assign a different particle/field responsible for the mass of known particles. You get a massless particle and make it interact with the Higgs which carries the mass or responsible for the mass component.

[@evalsoftserver]

The Particle WAVE Nature Slows down or Phases in itself,This make the Particle interact with itself through Waves in this case (ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE) This interaction creates a solidified Force which become massive Particles through Nuclear and Magnetic spin interaction which makes up the Nuclear Strong force (Nuetrons) and when the Magnetic moment Shears or Phases out of the ELECTROMAGNETIC Field you get polar charges or PROTONS

[@matt13r1]

@@evalsoftserver The answer is 6

[@matt13r1]

The answer is 6!!

[@amreshverma5747]

It's 42.

[@matt13r1]

@@amreshverma5747 it's 6.

[@triikraud1]

Modern mathematics is a situation where operators should be based on formulas, and not always look for and demand basic knowledge - there are limitations in the human mind. This is comparable to how a rally car owner needs to know how information is stored in the car's computer with electrons. Or a hockey player must know that he is not skating on ice but on a layer of frictional water.

[@ZeroStrikerBlue]

The answer is 6 nerds

[@arnagedemarce9636]

Time is a variable. For it isn't constant. And is currently measured inaccurate but we base our measurements to be constant. Thus all math consulting time is innacurate. (Daylight savings leap year 365.2... days) can't properly scale when your weight isn't recorded correctly.

[@michaelmcintosh6061]

F.R.B. ‘s