Frank Wilczek won the Nobel Prize for understanding strong interaction between quarks and gluons
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2021
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Frank Wilczek: Physics...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- The Information: theinformation.com/lex to get 75% off first month
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
- Blinkist: blinkist.com/lex and use code LEX to get 25% off premium
- Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep.com/lex and use code LEX to get special savings
GUEST BIO:
Frank Wilczek is a Nobel Prize winning physicist at MIT.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I don't understand most of what he's talking about but admire the passion with which he talks about it and the process by which science comes to its conclusions.
That guy has more pens in his shirt than words I understood in this video
When I need a really strong interaction, I use gorilla gluon
When I need a strong high I use gorilla glue on my lungs
@@iamanidiotbut5523 Bro?
When I want a strong high, and an even higher do, I use gorilla glue on my lungs and my hair! 💁♀️💨
Humanity thanks this scientist!
an intuitive way of thinking in short range interactions is to imagine the force carriers have a mass. In the case of electromagnetism, the photon has zero mass and the associated propagator has the typical squared distance decay law which is proportional to the area of the sphere around the charge, but when the carrier has mass you need to multiply the force law with a negative exponential of the distance and the carrier mass factor. So the force becomes negligible at very short distance
But strong force becomes stronger with distance! exponentially more so, just like the carrier mass itself were negative. So I found the picture of negative mass gluons helpful to understand this
Jesus
Is this description a simpler combination of geometry of the sphere, and thermodynamics?
@@johnrowson7639 which one is that? sounds interesting
Genuine question: So is the baseline for forces inverse square decay with zero mass carriers? It would make sense for positive mass carriers to decay faster, but how is it that negative mass carriers have more energy with distance? Isn't the first thing to imagine a slower decay for carriers with less than zero mass (e.g. slower than inverse square), rather than negative decay? Since the baseline of zero is still decay, rather than no decay?
@@ToneWoN I love making sandwiches, specially with a good roast
12:05 - 12:31 "things get simpler at high energy" my first though when Wilczek said this was that a similar phenomenon occurs with The Doppler Effect (and i'm sure countless others) in the sense that if a car drives by you at a low speed The Doppler Shift is difficult to observe, but when a car flies past you at high speed there's no question of The Doppler Shift's existence.
thank you Lex you have helped my in this hard time thank you Shane haggblom.
We all gotta face some adversities in this world Shane, whatever yours are at this moment I hope you battle them and come out victorious, best wishes, Rube.
@Kube Dog Is Back only you from now on
shane haggblom shane haggblom
3:04 how can you not get excited when you see a nobel-winning physicist chuckling to himself at the thought of potential time travel ahahha LEGEND!
Enjoyed the full conversation guys
Do you think the number of pens (6) in his shirt pocket is an any related to his deep understanding of the uncertainty principle and how difficult it is to record results?
Just a thought...
We have to keep in mind that quarks have colors.
I’m lost but so intrigued
Subscribed 👍
Thanks lekx
Who goes to a podcast with 6 pens in their breast pocket?! LoL I love it 🤣 #alwaysbeprepared
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 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.
=============================
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
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 the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? 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 gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (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 Force" 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 Mesons. 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. 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 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.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. The 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.
.
Frank is probably the smartest guest Lex has had on in terms of brain power. Now we're ready for Ed Witten!!!
Maybe, but we can't judge smartness like that. Each guest (except some maybe) is arguably the smartest in their own right. But if I speak on your tangent, I'd personally put my money on Roger Penrose.
Wonder, how many big bangs it took, before cosmos came up with this version, pen guy unraveled one more glimpse off
It seem to me that crushing the quark sacks would be impossible since quarks always being perturbed.
Your the gest
I'm telling you this guy could probably do a mean Jeff Goldblum impression. Like he could be his future self in a transdimensional re-make of Independents Day. Well I guess Goldblum could already be his older self in Indie Day; unless they used a lot of make up/3d aging. Maybe instead someone could make an independent Indie-Day using all the original footage & mess w/the script so this guy could play Goldblum in the future or paralell universe. Or this guy could just go on SNL & have a sketch w/him doing Jeff.
Nice
What if WE are microscopic and living on an atom? What if that atom was just a small building block of something Much larger?
I'd be a quark
hmmm yes, Gluons. I concur, doctor.
I see. Verily.
1:00 The fundamental structure of the universe broke down again,it's like the 4th time this month.
Time to call *The Quantum Mechanics*
I love this podcast. And I’m glad the world as the both of you. That said, I still don’t understand why this scientist struggles so hard to breath while he talks. 😂
All respect, but is this guy the quintessential disheveled math genius or what?
Where does the word "disheveled" come into play?
The man has an array of pens in his shirt pocket
Best
Que? 🤔
Lots of brainpower radiating from that 6-pen in the shirt, 4 eyed, 2 handed, bald headed object
So in terms of FIELDS. Its the QUARK FIELD. Quarks don't actually exist as independent particle entities. Therefore it's misleading to even think of them in that sense. Instead you should explicitly state their true nature in describing them (starting in Kindergarten), which would be something like 'Quark Field manifolds' or 'Quark Field ripples' or 'Quark Field perturbations' or ANYTHING except 'particle'... QUARKS ARE NOT PARTICLES in the common English Grammatical use sense of the word. I'm shocked how this STILL isn't properly elucidated at the highest levels.
To that end, there are no particles. Many field types at common magnitudes simply have a high probability of presenting as particles.
It's semantics. This guy has a Nobel prize in physics. Do you?
Make better instruments
This guy rambles.
I don't trust this guy at all. Too few pens in his top pocket!
Or he's completely wrong
*Equations? Huh? It appears to me to simply depend on mathematics to provide an answer to the question is an avoidance of reality. Herein, we see a programmed robot unable to distil facts without reliance on numbers only. It appears to be a cop-out of the question asked. "Too difficult to answer your question effectively" Hog-wash.*
How can you not realize that the mathematics IS the answer, because its precision exceeds our day-to-day language by far? An explanation in colloquial speech is always going to be only a crude simplification and definitely not a reflection of reality - especially here, due to constraints of time given to explain these concepts, and their complexity. It's not an avoidance of reality if you produce precise equations and numbers that are verified experimentally to many decimal points - quite the opposite, it's the most damn accurate and objective representation of reality that we can achieve. It amazes me how dumb people who can't understand this simple point are. It wouldn't have been that bad if you had some humility - but no, you gotta post your useless comment and have the audacity to bash someone who has mastered a field that you can't even dream of being average in.