How Physicists Finally Solved The Infinity Problem

[@DrBenMiles]

Why did I pick this topic while also delusionally feverous... 🤒 I really hope this was at least semi coherent Dodge computer viruses and check how ESET can protect you or your business and how they support science on this link: www.eset.com/uk/protecting-art-smart/

[@omnijack]

Get well soon

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

There's a connection here. My thinking: Gravity is a monopole (attraction), EM is a dipole(positive and negative charge), and Strong force is a tri-pole (three color-charges). But then, what is the weak force? My knowledge is limited, but eager to know if I am spouting nonsense or not.

[@classicsciencefictionhorro1665]

You look healthier being sick than I do when I'm well. The strong force must be with you.

[@meinkamph5327]

We don't feel the sun's gravity because we are in orbit around the sun. Just like astronauts in the space station don't feel the gravity of earth.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@meinkamph5327 Technically, it's microgravity. Due to nothing being perfectly sperical/symmetric. Perturbations in the field always cause microfluctuations in the strenght. But you are right too, we don't feel those tiny changes.

[@Troyseph]

In the greek man's defense, it isn't his fault we named something divisible the "atom", when he clearly intended for the name to apply to whatever the smallest, indivisible particle was...

[@NavarroRefugee]

Yeah atom probably would have been a better word to use for the fundamental particles in retrospect.

[@darknase]

Well for all intends and purposes in this world, applied Physics (chemistry) reigns supreme, and there Atoms are Atoms.

[@rafaelgonzalez4175]

An atom can be split. Making that atom divisible.

[@rafaelgonzalez4175]

​@@darknasetheir.

[@Austin_Playz27]

ohhh now i get the name i think

[@e_d_v_a_u_s]

The Strong Force is made of rubber. It's that simple. Now I'm going to cure cancer, brb.

[@HobbesNJoe]

The universe is a weave of bungee-cords. (For the rest of the post, please imagine our 3-D world mapped to a 2-d tightly woven net, or web, or similar permeable surface.) Atoms are multi-dimensional features. Some of the material is visible directly; measurable and quantifiable. The remainder of the particles are “just beyond” on the other side of the surface. Stretch the “fabric of space” far enough (adding energy), and some of the atoms can pull through some of their hidden material into our observable universe. Alternatively, they can pop fully through the net and become un-tethered to our observable universe. An unrelated aside: Presently I hold the unproven hypothesis that atoms are like knots of bungee cord loops. Given no outside influence, they will automatically attempt to find their lowest energy state.

[@Escobamos]

It has the properties of both rubber AND gum

[@latt.qcd9221]

Cancer is also made of rubber.

[@a.baciste1733]

Alright, don't forget to stop and fix world hunger on the way back 👍

[@gracetonsanthmayor6687]

We getting out of solar system with this one🗣🔥🔥

[@vats_chauhan]

It's a big relief that we have to deal with infinity and not infinity + 1

[@Unmannedair]

Precisely, at least it's a closed set

[@harriehausenman8623]

I can't even count it.

[@Daniel-jm8we]

Next year, CERN will announce that they've discovered the infinity +1 particle.

[@harriehausenman8623]

@@Daniel-jm8we The Ultra-Higgs!

[@jpkellerman7056]

♾️+1 goes to infinity but simple ♾️ isn't expanding thus it will shrink in our expanding existence and thus goes to 0 over infinite time. It must be ♾️+1 but our measurements aren't accurate enough to measure the last 1 that someone forgot to carry through the calculation 😅

[@diGritz1]

Note to 6 year old self: Don't take your dad's watch apart to see how it works. Throw it against the wall. It will be much easier to explain off as an accident.

[@classicsciencefictionhorro1665]

If it is a Rolex sub it will make a hole in the wall but remain as intact as a nun's hymen.

[@Pseudo___]

@@classicsciencefictionhorro1665 and if its a Rolex dom?

[@tomholroyd7519]

I took my dad's record player apart. Throwing it against the wall would have left it in a very similar state.

[@narrativeless404]

Hey, it doesn't work like that! You can't send messages back in time, it would break causality So your 6 year old self will never be able to see it 😂

[@classicsciencefictionhorro1665]

@@Pseudo___ what is a Rolex dom?

[@jamesraymond1158]

Ben's videos are a great refuge from the crazy world outside.

[@thehappypittie]

Absolutely loved this vid. Thanks for putting in the effort even when you're not feeling well!

[@qfurgie]

8:32 Lev Landau looks about as happy as I’d expect after studying a ton of Quantum Chromodynamics

[@stevenverrall4527]

It is misleading to represent anticolors as subtractive primaries. For example, red plus antired equals black. However, red plus cyan equals white. Also, your graphical depiction of gluon flux tubes is wrong. Check out what Sabina Hossenfelder has to say on that topic in her blog.

[@jeffhogueison1656]

Yeah I was wondering about that, in art you mix color red and anti-red to get black so to speak with light.

[@nigelrhodes4330]

Renormalisation is often seen as handwaving but it often to get around unknowns such as this, we renorminaise this effect most of the time, I imagine most of the renormalisation's we apply have some deeper properties that are yet to be explained such as this.

[@triplec8375]

I assume you mean renormalization. I'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician, but I've seen the smoke and mirrors of renormalization in action. And yes, the infinities that arise should indicate unknown properties/conditions or some failure of the math. But, more typically, the renormalization is accepted without any concerted effort to find the deficiency.

[@nigelrhodes4330]

@@triplec8375 Correct< I am a layman too with an interest, I Plan to go back and study in the next couple of years so I am just dipping my toes into the actual mathematical side. I edited the comment so people actually understand rather than to hide my mistake. I like to learn rom them not hide them ;).

[@triplec8375]

@@nigelrhodes4330 I wish you great success in your future studies. We would all certainly be better off if more people could admit to making mistakes. There's no doubt that I make more than my share of them. Thanks for your reply. I can now boast that I know a Rhodes scholar

[@szymonbaranowski8184]

it still means we pretend to know while using work arounds...

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

08:05 _... but when they're pulled apart, the energy required to separate them increases until they're essentially impossible to move further away._ I once learnt that the energy is still finite but sufficient for the production of a complete quark- antiquark- pair, and you get mesons instead of separate quarks. For example if you try to pull a red up quark out of a proton, a new red up quark will be produced alongside an anti- red anti- up- quark will be produced and yoy end up with the proton unchanged and you are holding a neutral meson in your hand. Maybe, a down and an anti- down is produced, any you end up with a neutron and a positive meson. I don't know if both can happen. 08:12 _This is called asymptotic freedom ..._ Isn't this called confinement, and asymptotic freedom is when the quarks are close together?

[@DrDeuteron]

yes. but a note on color--there really is no such thing as a "red" quark. QCD is invariant under color rotations, so it's just a quark of any color, or combination. It's like in atomic physics were we quantize angular momentum against the z-axis. The actual axis doesn't mean anything, but we need to pick one to do math.

[@Roy_Tellason]

"...it gets weirder" That's been my perception of physics every time I look at it, for many decades now.

[@dustinfrost2603]

Yes! If we treat space as a combined solitary dimension (x • y • z), time as a second one, and scale as a third (either as a known value at that scale or a representation of the change in scale with the value), you get a coordinate value of mass as M^2 = S^2 + T^2 + C^2, just as you can then unfold space into three dimensions at the same proportion, you can combine/unfold the C dimension: πc1/α, or C's relation to S, T, and M respectively. Since you can plug any numbers into S, T, and C, this relationship carries ad infinitum or to the extent of observation.

[@JuliusUnique]

0:44 I always imagined it as a a rubber band which when overstreched causes matter to pop out

[@triplec8375]

It's a wonderfully useful analogy. It just doesn't translate to any physical process that we know of.

[@DrDeuteron]

@@triplec8375 gluon flux tubes?

[@triplec8375]

@@DrDeuteron Theoretically, yes. But we do not yet have an analytic proof of color confinement. Yet, I'm happy to stand corrected. Thanks!

[@robotaholic]

I love your channel and you and another videoit was too long in coming ! Take care mate

[@jaffasoft8976]

Fascinating insightful commentary. Is it known if the quarks that suddenly appear out of the void were always there or do they actually just pop into existence somehow from out of nothing? If they were always there is would be a finite classical universe as none have ever been lost or torn apart.

[@bozydarziemniak1853]

So as I understand this strong force it must have a form of F=k1*e^(x*k2) because it is only possibility to make such derivative: dF/dx=k3*e^(x*k2) possible to increments with distance as well as F=k1*e^(x*k2). Where k1, k2, k3 are respectievly constants and e^x is exponent. k1 is in unit [N], k2 [1/m] and k3 [N/m].

[@bearup1612]

So the strong force when neuons are close to gether is weak but as they are separated get stronger would mean that there is a force that has an elastic resistance and when at its maximum distance is rigid

[@PhysicsPlayground]

particles must essentially be vortices in spacetime. The trick is to find the math to describe the stable shapes. Spherical shapes could oscillate in and out like a vibration but that seems like this would radiate, so it seems toroid's and higher order knots look like more promising geometries where the energy can be contained in a rotation of a thin string like structure with an external pressure from the fabric of space.

[@WilliamTaylor-h4r]

2^32-1, everything that can transform, can transform independently. So a photon can transform independently. If you held something down, all the tiny parts would rotate.

[@michaeldance6879]

May the force be with you

[@trosc]

I am unsure why you don't have 20 million subs but here's one more and hope you get there. Amazing explanations

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

06:05 Isn't the anticolour to a certain colour also a linear combination of the two others, like it's depicted here (anti- red seems to be a combination of blue and green, just it is with actual colour mixing)?

[@juliavixen176]

These are cute names for the symmetries of the SU(3) group.

[@maxp3141]

Uh, the force is constant - potential grows linearly though so it’s kind of like a weird spring that doesn’t fight back at you more but stores more and more energy. If I remember my string tension simulation correctly. Of course that one was merely a quenched simulation, but for the purposes of this computation is actually appropriate.

[@adamb.c.1553]

Pretending for a moment that I actually understand what’s being said: Is it possible that the bond between quarks only appears to plateau after a degree of separation while, in fact, the quarks are either incapable of separating beyond a certain distance OR that the first quark simply follows the other(s) OR, lastly, that an entirely new quark can be created to replace any quark which is moved too far away from its coupling?

[@coldreality65]

question.. the quarks popping into and out of existence ,, where are they coming from and where do they go?

[@robotaholic]

👏🤩 I loved the ending

[@RedKrieg]

At 4:11 you have the fine structure constant on screen twice.

[@NrogarA]

Have found this video totally randomly. The chapter names got me laughing hard) Loved it!

[@Dellvmnyam]

Interesting. This is a better explanation how we wouldn't able to see individual quarks.

[@pav431]

Question: If quarks can never exist "alone" due to the strong force's efforts to conserve the color charge, what are then the theoretical physics that make it possible for quark-gluon plasma to exist within like, neutron stars? I understand there, matter is under unimaginable pressures and temperatures, but still, it'd mean that at a certain depth, the star is made up of "independent" sea of individual quarks and gluons, just "milling about". Or is my simple mind completely misunderstanding the concept of how such plasma works?

[@knutholt3486]

The strong force works much like a string, and just like a string, it breaks at some moment. But the energy put in at that moment, does not go away, and results in new particles created. Not either will the energy put into the string go away, but in this case it results in vibration and heat.

[@garyhuntress6871]

I really enjoyed this. I'd like to hear more about the strong force within a nucleon vs the force between them.

[@gepardmic6003]

Yep, the 5 Dimension i talk about little more wide then the one you talk about. You have to understand Infinity different from math to Quantum math, things got other rules in Quantum math 5 Dimension. 5 Dimension are what i call it, "The non time existence in time." In other words Infinity are not linear, you need to go into 5 D. The Pythagoras Triangle 3A 4B 5C When use infinity in Normal math this model breaks even when our logic says A B C are same value. This are here my Ü make sense to use. Going on to Infinity graph and the triangle reappear in simple term say'ed. Result looks like this. 3Ü=A (A = 3 infinity long) 4Ü=B 5Ü=C Normal graph and you can't see anything. Also: Ü*0=1 1/0=Ü 1/Ü=0 All this make sense in 5D rule system, it can even predict light entanglement. Einstein things lightspeed ... Dark matter and energy plus magnetar blackholes. At least give the tool to understand it.

[@oldtimefarmboy617]

Fundamental forces of matter: 1) Strong force = 1 with a range of influence of 10^(-15) meter. 2) Electromagnetic force = 1/137 with an infinite range of influence. 3) Weak force = 10^(-6) with a range of influence of 10^(-18) meter. 4) Gravity force = 6(10^(-39)) with an infinite range of influence. Fundamental Force Concepts. Georgia State University, College of Arts and Science, Department of Physics and Astronomy. 21 December 2012. 10^(-15) meter = 0.0000000000000001 meter = 0.00000000000000393701 inch

[@-Bill.]

Could you attempt to separate the quarks in an environment where the virtual particles are constrained from appearing? I thought in very confined spaces between two objects it can be difficult for virtual particles to be created due to lacking space, would quark binding energy be asymptotic there?

[@gewinnste]

At 7:30, did he actually say that the _vacuum permittivity (epsilon_0) increases for very large distances_ ? Because that would be the case if "electromagnetic constant decreases by 10% at very far distances", because the latter is 1/(4pi*epsilon_0). I just did several searches (including PubMed) and didn't find (nor ever heard) anything like that. Or is he talking about an effect caused by the expansion of the universe, red shifting etc.?

[@BrooksMoses]

Another commenter mentioned that what he should have said was that the electromagnetic constant increases by 10% at very tiny distances. "For example, at distances of 10^-17m (about 1/100th of proton size) it is ~1/127" compared to the 1/137 at any measurable distance.

[@dreamyrhodes]

I always thought "anti color" is more like complementary color. Like the "anti color" of blue is yellow (green + red) and blue and yellow together results in white again, not black (you're even using yellow in your example for anti-d).

[@denysvlasenko1865]

No, the "anticolor" is just the fact that color charges of particles can also be positive and negative, just like electric charge can.

[@juliavixen176]

It's the symmetries of the SU(3) group. The cute names like "color" and "flavor" are easier to speak as English words rather than something like isoweak quadrapole polarity. Gellman could have named them "Rock", "Paper", "Scissors" instead of red, blue, and green.

[@tiagotiagot]

Can the gravity gradient near the event horizon of smaller blackholes be steep enough strip protons apart and as the result of the kick from the creation of extra quarks, emit protons as form of radiation? Would this be a separate type of radiation from Hawking radiation, or just one of it's already predicted manifestations?

[@ehsnils]

If forces are waves then the wavelength of the strong force can be very long compared to the other forces. Because "why not"?

[@ShawnRavenfire]

Some of this sounds familiar. Is this what Lt. Barclay was discussing with Einstein on the holodeck in "The Nth Degree?"

[@jandlouhy6914]

Finally someone who knows what he is talking about ,thank You .

[@Trizzer89]

Would an amount of energy equal to the mass created by the strong force break the neutron apart?

[@johnslugger]

*We frame everything for our prospective and we are very small limited thinkers. The only logical answer is we are only one of other infinite bag bangs. The universe is endless and time never had a beginning and will never end. The only changes is the conversion of energy to matter and back again, forever meaning the universe is never the same but always changing shape and form through space.*

[@duncanfeyd4056]

Does it really "summon matter from nothing", or does it warp it on from somewhere else in space?

[@ZMacZ]

8:55 The landau pole, doesn't go into infinity, and here's the proof. If particles collide in a particle collider, they deform up to the point of breaking. Essentialy the quarks come loose from the structure they were in, and according to the landau pole, this would not happen, since the force keeping them together would be infinite, preventing breaking. However, the particles break, and thus the landau pole does not go infinite. There's the fact that the forces keeping the quark structures in shape are dual. One prevents increase of distance, the other prevents decreasing of distance, both limited far below infinity. For the Landau pole when a collision occurs, the only way to break the proton in it's quark constituents, is to be very much finite, otherwise a fully elastic collision would occur, not breaking the proton. Since they break => no infinite, because the quarks can only emerge from the structure if it gets moved beyond the landau pole limiting distance, a truly dependant requirement for quark emission. 9:52 The testing done indicated that indeed the landau pole is more like a short fast rise to a maximum, after which it won't rise much further. Once the treshold is surpassed, the rise to maximum completed, the quark structure breaks, emitting quarks as observed during LHC collisions.

[@ericmichel3857]

Great explanation thanks! So once these quarks bind with quarks from the void, are they still attracted to their original pair bond? So if you stop applying force to pull them apart do they go back to their original state only now with these additional quarks?

[@chandler4749]

When pulling quarks hard enough it produces two more . If we could pull hard enough for this to happen we could harness unimaginable energy

[@w9xk]

“Infinity plus one,” ha, ha! (At 4:45.) Of course, infinity is a concept, not a number. As you know, the infinity concept may have different meanings, depending on context. For example, the “infinity” symbol on my analog ohmmeter just refers to an immeasurably large resistance value. This value is likely finite, say a million ohms. Adding one to this value would indeed result in a larger value. Camera lenses also provide a setting for infinity. But the photographer must admit that this setting really refers to a “perceived infinity.” Adding one to this setting would result in something like “horizon plus one,” not a meaningful value. Yet if the subject “infinity” is truly infinite, it is an absolute. Then adding one can’t increase the value. Further, the often abused notion of “smaller and larger infinities” is a contradiction of terms. Either that, or such unfocussed thought suggests an on-the-fly redefinition of basic terms: Silly ciphering.

[@AB-pb8oo]

It feels to me like another confirmation that the concept of "infinity" is wrong at its core. There are no infinitely small things (due to Planck limit), the size and mass of the universe are enormous but also finite. Roy Kerr just suggested a plausible way for singularities not to be a thing in the black holes. For me (who is neither a physicist or mathematician) it looks like a strong hint from nature that ∞ in math is a bogus construct. I'd love to someday watch a thorough video on this topic, actually.

[@ic7481]

Typical particle physicist response: throw mathematics out of the window, and "shut up and calculate ".

[@sceptic33]

while chatting with an AI , i asked it to tell a story about multiplying itself by itself then adding something and re-iterating the process until it reached 0 or ∞ . i asked which it would get to, 0 or ∞. it concluded that 0=∞. was an interesting story.

[@ic7481]

@@sceptic33 I've used Chat GPT and some of the answers it gave were blatantly incorrect.

[@ianstopher9111]

If you don't like infinity as a concept, you can talk to Doron Zeilberger and the ultrafinitists, When you get items like Landau poles that means the model has reached the extent of its usefulness. Even the Standard Model is only an effective field theory: you cannot push it too far. QFTs are normally riddled with infinities but this is an artefact of how you start the model. Renormalisation theory is a lovely subject, that you should read a book or two on to appreciate.

[@ic7481]

@@ianstopher9111 Why were the founders of QE so uncomfortable with renormalisation?

[@jd-gw4gr]

is it possible that the strong force does not exist at all but is being mistaken for conservation of angular momentum of the electron orbitals to its center of mass the nucleus? question: how are the protons being held inside the circumference of the nucleus? it is possible the repulsive force of the proton balance by the attractive force of the electric field of the electron's orbital. conservation of angular momentum results in the quantization, not only of the diameter of the proton and the nucleus as well and but the orbitals themselves. similar to the gravitational attraction between the orbital of the planets in our solar system; and yet, it is the electrostatic forces that keeps all mass together everywhere on earth at the macroscopic level.

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

4:35 so is 0 to infinity "as big of a range as you can get" or "half as big of a range as you can get"? 🤔

[@xthe_moonx]

gluons are rubber bands. the more u pull on each end, the harder it gets to stretch it more, until it snaps with 'explosive' force.

[@Deeeznuuts4yoou]

4:11 you repeated the fine stricture constant number twice, there are 2 decimal points in that number.

[@Frank-qg4ik]

How would this affect entanglement?

[@thom7440]

Very good explanation. Thank you

[@jd-gw4gr]

the reason we use a fifth dimensional matrices to explain quarks and gluons is that quarks and gluons do not exist in a three dimensional world. these particles have to be ripped or smashed from the protons. we have practical use for protons and electrons in a three-dimensional world but not for quarks and gluons and if so, smashing them to release five dimensional particles in a 3 the dimensional world, that dog would hurt: " ... this is preventing quarks from ever existing in isolation" and they return to the dr. miles in the video refers to as the void.

[@sgramstrup]

If quarks pop into existence when two is pulled apart in qcd, does that also works with particle collisions, and further, does that mean that some of the discovered particles at cern was created like that ?

[@OneTrueBadShoe]

I am absolutely sure I have this wrong. I'm not a physicist. Pulling 2 paired quarks far enough apart can cause particle pairs that pop into existence to pair with these two particles. What if we kept pulling pairs apart, creating more pairs? Would that be possible because the energy expended to pull the pair apart is the energy equivalence of the mass created?

[@tajshoosh1196]

When I win the lottery, I’ll hire this dude to teach me physics … just no homework 😂 Excellent work from a great teacher 🙏🏽

[@fahdneutron]

dude i adore how you started the video , i love you channelllll 💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜

[@Life123love1]

Good thank you

[@rverm1000]

That could partly explain why backhoes and matter end up in the same neighborhood. But it doesn't explain why the blackhole has a big influence on normal matter. There's got to be another force that gets activated when normal matter collapses into a blackhole.

[@drdca8263]

.... gravity?

[@majaano]

Whoa. Trippy :)

[@RavenwingAcademy7511]

In Ancient Kemet they said "...Atwm came out of the NwN..."(where 'Atwm/Atum' would go on to become 'Atomos' and 'NwN' is the Nubio Kemetic word for 'space' that physical space comes from) modern ppl are just coming to a point where they can accept it.

[@eriknicholas7294]

12:25 Wait... You can create quarks from nothing by separating existing quarks?

[@replica1052]

infinite acelleration eliminates time - time is inertia infinite acceleration of space as opening sequenece af an infinite universe where planets are fed with stellar winds and stars and galaxies are fed with cosmic radiation - cosmic radiation origin by entropy

[@DCMAKER133]

Can someone explain to me or give me a source that explains why/how/where gluons can pop into existence out of nowhere?

[@stuartsmith8155]

The Universe is all energy.🤩

[@HotelPapa100]

"From the Higgs boson" And I'm supposed to believe your expertise after this platitude? ;-)

[@ryancory5958]

4:11 you pasted the same value in there twice. (2 decimals made me notice)

[@tiagolopes2101]

At 4:16, a number with two decimal dots… interesting new math 😜

[@thepetyo]

why do we think that if we can split particles into smaller subparticles, it means that particles consist of subparticles. I don't see the implication.

[@spoddie]

4:10 Why does alpha have two decimal points?

[@MichalCilekAI]

thank you, great job!

[@Williamfuchs420]

Wait… if the strong Force creates 99% of the mass and the Higgs the rest… and if Mass warping spacetime is Gravity… then isn’t Gravity just a emergent effect of the Strong force and Higgs not actually a force in of itself?

[@frankkolmann4801]

Fascinating. I even forced myself to watch till the end. The background music is faint, but it is still intolerable.

[@HobbesNJoe]

11:00 A weakness of the scientific method as applied by humans: data is suspect, until you have a conceptual model in which the data makes sense. Cause: best guess, the human inclination to cherry-pick data which already fits their current conceptual model. Solution: teach physics students the results of experiments, without telling them why. Let them form their own conceptual models. Potential Results: + More experiments we would not have previously thought to run. + A Cambrian explosion in the number of conceptual models employed by physicists. + New and more complete conceptual models.

[@juliavixen176]

They already do this... and also, a lot of times there _is_ an overlooked mistake in the experimental setup that needs to be found. It can litterally just be something like a loose wire plugged into one component of the detector.

[@kaleijuka8532]

Why does it become energetically favorable to pop in particles from nowhere?

[@Kelnx]

You know, we all talk about and read about and listen to others about this stuff, but if you take a moment to really think about the idea that Nature is so rigid with its rules that even at the level of subatomic particles, a balance must be maintained to the extent that literal particles that were not there before must "pop into existence" to satisfy the rules is completely and utterly mind-blowing. It's PFM. I learned it in school. PFM is real. (PFM means pure f'ing magic)

[@GeraldBlack1]

Time and energy pushing us forward, gravity and the void pulling us back.

[@skylerbowerbank5847]

The biggest issue in science that slows us down or prevents progress is definitely the difficulty people have going against the common thought All of out greatest breakthroughs nearly came at the cost of professional suicide, some actually did come at the cost of their lives, specifically any breakthrough that went against the predominant church at the time

[@drdca8263]

(Not actually true)

[@BloobleBonker]

Out popped quarks? Noone ever detected a single quark!

[@CatholicSatan]

Presumably, as quarks are interacting inside the proton, they have deeply entangled properties. But if a quark were to "escape" and virtual quarks "hanging around" become bound to the escapee and partner(s), what happens to the entangled properties of all those quarks? Are the virtual quarks (now made "real") - entangled presumably in some way at creation - then altered by their binding to the escapee and its partners? Or does entanglement fall apart?

[@tonywells6990]

Entanglement is most likely broken during high energy interactions, but yes, the quarks in a nucleon (eg. proton) are thought to be entangled, and the quark-antiquark pairs produced are entangled in meson production (for their brief existence) and then the quarks in the nucleon will most likely be entangled again after the interaction.

[@daveozip4326]

You’re describing the observed process of meson decay…

[@cazzone]

But, can you split a quark?

[@DrDeuteron]

So you know what entanglement means?

[@LDSG_A_Team]

Dude I'm down with a severe sinus/throat infection today. I feel your pain

[@duncanfeyd4056]

Hiw do they accomodate for conservation of matter?

[@damianlegion8455]

4:12 Wait, 2 dots? Someone, quick study, please! ❤

[@pyrotas]

Like nothing else we I know of…well except springs. I mean, come on.

[@Kc12v140]

If that theory is true, and they are capturing or coupling with virtual particles, then wouldn’t they also be effectively “creating” mass where it wasn’t before? Could this also be an explanation for dark energy/matter?

[@DrDeuteron]

No and no.

[@le0_fx]

Nice, thx!

[@Oler-yx7xj]

9:55 good old confirmation bias)

[@JASONMEYER-t2o]

MAKING MATTER OUT OF THIN AIR

[@rafaelgonzalez4175]

Infinite? That would suggest all elements are infinite. Not finite. Gold, not finite. Platinum, not finite. Helium, not finite. That is what an infinite universe means. Infinite elements spewed out into space. To fall down into Earth's gravitational pull.

[@daveozip4326]

It is interesting that the universe is mostly gluons... But I find it curious that anyone would get a Nobel for predicting infinity. One thing that seems evident is there is no place for infinity in the universe. In fact it could be the single most important thing that drives the universe - rather than the universe abhorring a vacuum, it seems the universe abhors infinity! …as a bonus to this idea, the one place where infinity has taken root in modern physics above all else, seemingly disregarding that fundamental principle, is in a black-hole. If quark-gluon densities can be allowed to increase slightly over our current observations this would allow neutron stars to form a black hole as their mass increases. Thus negating the need for a singularity. That would mean just under the event horizon would live a fairly normal, although more massive (and therefore smaller) neutron star. Yes the curvature of spacetime would be extrordinary but gone is the need for weird ER-bridges and white holes. It’s just normal astrophysics at that point.

[@eefaaf]

10:58 So Stanley Brodsky is a Theroetical Physicist? How extrarodinary. :)

[@randyzeitman1354]

Infinity plus one doesn’t exist. Infinity is not a number.

[@mletouutube]

Still... one can replace "force" by any other mystical word. The essence of the Universe is still unknown to mainstream...

[@regentmad1037]

so correct me if i'm wrong. pulling them apart creates matter from nothing.

[@jd-gw4gr]

It is interesting that brodsky would use qcd technology at long distances (macroscopic) to explain subatomic particle physics (microscopic) distances and fantastically-amazingly comes up with the correct model!!!! 😀 however, we refuse to use the same approach of which explains our planetary orbitals, from a view point of the macroscopic, to be a model for quantum mechanics at the microscopic. accepting a diracian-statistical approach to quantum mechanics. the case being, schrodinger's equation, which dirac, using einsteinian mechanics model to the wave equation, on a statistical bases, explains a cause and effect universe on a completely statistical bases. it is like mixing oil and vinegar, the two don't mix (statistically speaking). schrodinger himself was against a statistical approach and supported a cause and effect approach to modeling. we use cause and effect to explain the macroscopic planetary motion of our system, then why not apply cause and effect of the microscopic world as did dr. brodshy?

[@rm3141593]

😅😅 "...at least it's not infinity plus one." ha ha!