On Quarks and Turbulence by David Tong

Public Lectures
On Quarks and Turbulence
Speaker: David Tong (University of Cambridge)
Date: 20 December 2023, 04:00 to 05:30
Venue: Chandrasekhar Auditorium, ICTS, Bengaluru
Abstract:
In this talk, Prof. Tong will describe two of the biggest unsolved problems in physics. Why are quarks trapped inside protons and neutrons? And what is turbulence? Along the way, he will discuss what it means for physicists to understand something.
About the Speaker:
David Tong is a theoretical physicist at the University of Cambridge. He has held research positions at many universities worldwide, including TIFR in Mumbai. He works on quantum field theory and has applied this in areas ranging from cosmology, to the physics of materials, to pure mathematics. He is the author of multiple lecture notes covering different areas of physics.

[@mrjaysahli]

What I love about Dr. Tong is that he explains things in terms that even a layman like myself can understand. He makes learning physics fun, and he is a sincerely great man who, I hope, will win a Nobel Prize one day soon!

[@deanschulze3129]

The first 7 minutes is a stammering introduction. You can skip right to the lecture.

[@andrewfleenor7459]

Specifically about 7:47

[@ryam4632]

It's a record!

[@matthewking4098]

Ridiculous

[@TheTurtleSoldier18]

He was at least able to give a 7 min stammering introduction. If you were to give a 1 min introduction in Hindi, you would be seeing stars. So relax. 😅😅

[@JonnyMath]

It's always a pleasure to watch professor Tong's lectures!!!🤩

[@sainath6159]

Attended this in person, loved it 💙

[@peterfireflylund]

Props to the AV Team. Your contribution is noted.

[@iloveasheni]

could you imagine how many more people would watch and listen to these if they let someone with an ounce of style, help design these basic ass 2000's powerpoints and set up a camera with more than 12 pixels? even still I love listening to this guy speak

[@paulchung5642]

I am inspired by David to devoelope into science of theology and philosophy in terms of vacuum fluctuation in QFT. I adore his lecture!

[@ayushdoesphysics]

Amazing lecture!

[@srujankulkarni7347]

Attending this in person was a blessing

[@space-time-somdeep]

Beautiful lecture...

[@henrywilson5072]

Brilliant lecturer. Love that man.

[@ramonwinterhalder]

The strong force becomes slightly easier to deal with in the high-energy regime, where confinement is not an issue anymore and you are able to calculate predictions by using perturbative expansion. This helps us a lot when dealing with QCD in the context of colliders like the LHC. Of course, this breaks down at smaller energies and becomes much much more complicated. This is why predicting the mass of a "simple" think like a proton is utterly complicated, and predicting the very complex scattering behaviour of high-energy protons at the LHC is fairly easy (at least up to a given order of perturbative expansion).

[@shivanshtiwari6794]

I wish I could be there, Thank you ICTS

[@majs534]

This was an excellent lecture! ... Also, it's remarkable how long th question period was. I appreciate the well developed culture of questioning the students have in Indian educational system. They have no fear of asking questions. The opposite is true in the west!

[@rbettsx]

...and such good questions! Asked with no fear of seeming stupid. Open minds. Generalizing, of course, I think the session did feel different from one, say, in the UK.

[@rememberrohit]

At 0:50:22 , the front two corners of the square at the inflow boundary are lit brightest because the flow velocity at the corners goes to infinity. One of the fascinating ill understood aspects of modeling the N-V equations. Clearly, in real life situations no such velocity field is observed over an obstacle.

[@Bertie.athenaeum]

What. A. Lecture! ♥️

[@sarthaksingh5405]

From a legend

[@Bertie.athenaeum]

@@sarthaksingh5405 indeed!

[@narayankhanal9662]

Great❤❤

[@NoName-ew6ey]

Turbulence - when a fluid is going nuts. Just perfect.

[@SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. -------

[@howardleekilby7390]

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ the old millpond Feynman jumps in the sound of water ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥

[@TheVincent0268]

starts at 8:00. and again at 12:30

[@pikiwiki]

thank you for this

[@rodkeh]

International Center for Theoretical Sciences Swindles!

[@jamesraymond1158]

This talk begins at 18:25

[@Faheemsnotes]

❤

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

31:00 "Computer simulation of absolutely nothing." So a computer simulation of "Seinfeld"!

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics. Start at start.

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

Skip forward to 7:39 to reach the talk.

[@thesentinel9361]

Andrej Kolmogorov.Mathematiker

[@rudypieplenbosch6752]

The presentation starts around minute 13.

[@rafisics]

13:11 On Feynman Lectures: "If you want to learn physics, this is not a place to learn physics. If you already know physics, this is a brilliant place to learn more physics..."

[@kjlkathandjohn6061]

Why heat emissions from a black hole, though no quantum movement as a property - Higgs field collision - No gravity When a plane wing speeds through the air, it does not curve air but compresses it, and force is felt by the wing. We, earth, solar system, galaxy, we are racing through a very rarified "atmosphere" called space; rarified at a macro level, but at a quantum level, not so empty. A plane wing does not "curve" the air, nor curve any temporal measure. Massive bodies do not curve space nor time; massive bodies instead are racing through space, compressing everything, including at the quantum level, like the Higgs Field, bosons, etc. But compressing due to the quantum "stuff" flowing into all the matter of the body and finding resistance from the quantum energies of all the mass in the massive body. We are pushed to the center of the earth as the compressing Higgs field flows through us colliding with us at a quantum level, yet held on the surface of earth by the macro structures of the body. All material motion is from collision, and at the quantum level our mass is being collided with by "Higgs Vibrations" equalling about 32 ft.per second per second from where I sit. Space, with all its fields, is being actively compressed as we turbulently swirl and soar through it at a couple million mph. There is no attractive force called gravity - that would not be collision, so it cannot be. All material motion and change is from collision; there is no attraction.

[@dwivedys]

Is my sitting here, watching this video a solution to Schrödinger’s wave function 😊

[@jemhoare2105]

it's all turbulence in the rate of the expansion of the universe

[@kennethessenwanger268]

David Tong: I understand your restraint in speculating too much since you are a Theoretical Physicist with a reputation to maintain. I’m a retired electrical engineer and therefore willing to speculate a bit more (quite a bit actually). If Michaelson and Morley had flipped it on edge, they would have measured the deflection: it’s called light lensing in a gravitational field. The earth AND its gravitational field are moving through the Aether, dark energy/vacuum energy, not earth alone. The flow of the Aether is what gravity is (The River Model analogy). It’s what holds us down on earth. General relativity’s curvature of spacetime is the result effects, not the root cause physics. Furthermore, this curvature from massive objects in a flat universe of vacuum space is expanding, so any Aether wind must be really faint (if at all) and difficult to detect, but apparently supports gravitational waves. The speed limit c is of that of causality. Light happens to be capable of reaching it as well. The massive Baryonic particle (like protons/neutrons made of quarks/gluons), at “the 30 thousand foot level”, appears to convert the in rushing Aether dark energy into dark matter (DM) and pushes it out into the galaxy and on out to the DM halo, possibly by tunneling or whatever makes scientific sense. Nevertheless, the CMB appears to be a good reference frame for the Aether: everyone doesn’t have to agree on using the CMB if it serves that purpose in the physics of our universe’s horizon, beyond which will never “matter” to us (pun intended). Efolding expansion does seem to limit applicability of special relativity at astronomical distances. Aether is statistical flow of vacuum energy which is quantum mechanical. And perhaps even turbulent as you investigate. The universe and quantum mechanics are not closed energy systems; hence the flat universe’s vacuum energy density a constant density appears to extend to infinity. No apparent need for mult-universes or more dimensions, but ok if existing. Herein, lies my belief in a universal theory of everything. To be revised as it reveals itself thru good science and speculation (hypothesis) like you are doing. Awesome presentation!

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.

[@MetaPhysStore0770]

Frog emerge from Tª-d/d+P⁰L=E

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

37:30 Hooke's Law!

[@antoniescargo1529]

Skip intro.

[@leojack1225]

You an audience with strong stomach to ask to digest something involving turbulence and quarks.

[@Achrononmaster]

@15:00 you can get Frogs from Schrödinger, just supply appropriate initial value/boundary conditions that have mummy and daddy frogs mating. You cannot get Love though. You can only get physics from physics. Feynman, like Tong and many others, was biased by the ideological creed of Materialism, perhaps the most pernicious ideology of all time. It's pernicious because it is easy for simple minds to fall prey to irreconcilably ideological faith in it, worse than any religious faith I've ever encountered. Like Gödel thought, I think materialism is a prejudice of our times. But as far as it motivates useful science it has been a useful prejudice. Thing is, you do not actually need this prejudice to do amazingly good and honest science. You (the materialist) only _think_ you do.

[@pranitmunjal9719]

It's preemptive to dismiss the potential for understanding love through scientific inquiry. Love, like many human emotions and behaviors, is indeed influenced by biological and hormonal factors. While it may not be reducible to a simple equation like a physical phenomenon, advancements in neuroscience and psychology suggest that aspects of love can be predicted and understood through empirical study. Additionally, equating materialism with an ideological creed overlooks the complexity of scientific inquiry and the diverse perspectives within the scientific community. Just as Feynman and others contributed to physics without being solely motivated by materialism, researchers can investigate the nature of love without being confined to any particular ideology.

[@MinMax-kc8uj]

I would be very careful pronouncing French names with that 'ier.' Fourier and Navier...