Jensen Huang: From Dishwasher to AI PioneeR- Creating a Legend! Taiwan ...

劉禹錫被人瞧不起時，就用這首詩懟了回去，讓對方無地自容【縱觀史書】#歷史#歷史故事#歷史人物#史話館#奇聞#文學

劉禹錫被人瞧不起時，就用這首詩懟了回去，讓對方無地自容【縱觀史書】#歷史#歷史故事#歷史人物#史話館#奇聞#文學 縱觀史書 views May 18, 2025 更多精彩內容，請點擊下方清單查看： • 曆史人物 • 曆史知識 頻道往期精彩視頻： • 明朝「最懶」對聯：上聯和下聯一字不差，卻成千古名對流傳至今【縱觀史書】#歷... • 康熙的女兒端靜公主被丈夫踢死，康熙得知後，是怎樣為她復仇的？【縱觀史書】#... • 李世民放了390名死囚回家過年，約定年後再斬，最終回來多少人？【縱觀史書】... • 寡婦出上聯：「野花不種年年有」，秀才對出下聯，抱得美人歸【縱觀史書】#歷史... • 蘇軾納了十二歲的小妾，初見時寫下千古名句，成為後世男人的花言巧語【縱觀史書... • 蘇軾見到友人妻子漂亮，羨慕之余為其寫下一首詞，感動世人近千年【縱觀史書】#... • 書生嫌妻年老色衰，出上聯：「荷敗蓮殘，落葉歸根成老藕」，妻子下聯成絕世經典... • 秀才出上聯：「呂府姑娘，下口大過上口」，下聯更絕，諷刺意味十足【縱觀史書】... • 蘇軾的小妹出上聯：「人曾是僧，人弗能成佛」，和尚的下聯卻讓她氣憤不已【縱觀... • 1997年，浙江古廟發現梁山伯墓，墓碑保存完好，揭開梁祝化蝶真相【縱觀史書... #歷史#歷史故事#歷史人物#史話館#歷史萬花鏡#奇聞#歷史風雲天下 縱觀史書 18.3K subscribers Videos About 縱觀史書

Prof. Leonard Susskind "The Mechanism of Quark Confinement"

Prof. Leonard Susskind "The Mechanism of Quark Confinement" Bhaumik Institute 1.25K subscribers Subscribe 504 Share Download Save 15,747 views Oct 6, 2023 Prof. Leonard Susskind talk, "The Mechanism of Quark Confinement". at the QCD at 50 Conference. (UCLA, Sept. 11-15, 2023). Transcript Follow along using the transcript. Show transcript Choices for families Explore simpler, safer experiences for kids and families Learn more

【光的真相曝光】暗光子理論顛覆量子物理學百年共識！｜Dark Photon Theory Overturns A Century-Old Con...

【光的真相曝光】暗光子理論顛覆量子物理學百年共識！｜Dark Photon Theory Overturns A Century-Old Consensus In Quantum Physics! New SciTech 新科技 90.9K subscribers Join Subscribe 1.1K Share Download Thanks Clip 58,951 views May 16, 2025 ✪ Members first on May 13, 2025 #量子糾纏 #QuantumEntanglement #DoubleSlitExperiment 暗光子理論，可能是自量子力學誕生以來最具顛覆性的解釋之一。本片深入探討暗光子如何重新定義雙縫實驗、量子糾纏與測量本質，並可能成為連結宇宙學與粒子物理學的關鍵橋樑。如果光不是波，那它是什麼？你所理解的“現實”，也許只是觀測的幻影。 📌 要點： 00:00｜引爆量子革命:暗光子理論是什麼？ 03:36｜雙縫實驗重解:我們一直誤解了光？ 07:00｜暗光子登場:隱藏狀態如何改變現實？ 11:00｜技術衝擊波:量子探測器該重新設計了？ 14:39｜測量的未來:什麼是我們還未學會探測的？ 17:39｜從實驗室到宇宙:暗光子與暗物質的潛在聯繫 參考 Reference: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract... The Dark Photon Theory may be one of the most disruptive ideas in quantum physics since its birth a century ago. This video dives into how the theory reshapes our understanding of the double-slit experiment, quantum entanglement, and the role of measurement — and how it could unify quantum optics with cosmology and particle physics. #暗光子 #量子物理 #雙縫實驗 #量子糾纏 #測量問題 #光的本質 #科學紀錄片 #DarkPhoton #QuantumPhysics #DoubleSlitExperiment #QuantumEntanglement #NewPhysics #ScienceExplained #QuantumMeasurement Chapters View all Music 1 songs Lord Of The Dawn Jesse Gallagher Lord Of The Dawn Music Transcript Follow along using the transcript. Show transcript New SciTech 新科技 90.9K subscribers Videos About 171 Comments rongmaw lin Add a comment... Pinned by @NewSciTech @李霏霏-z7s 2 days ago 文本不错，就是机器人读稿破坏了感觉。 25 Reply New SciTech 新科技 · 7 replies @StarGalaxy-99 1 day ago 感謝科學家們孜孜不倦勇於探索未知的領域，對“已知”也不盲目相信敢於提出質疑是最寶貴的科學精神。同時也感恩影片作者的製作和分享！ 5 Reply New SciTech 新科技 · 1 reply @NewSciTech 3 days ago 💬 你覺得「現實」是被觀察定義的嗎？ 暗光子理論顛覆了我們對光、測量與存在的理解。如果這是真的──你認為它對未來科技、甚至人類對宇宙的理解會帶來哪些改變？ 📣 歡迎留言分享你的看法，或提問我們接下來可以探討的物理議題。 🔔 訂閱頻道，将来的影片我們探討「量子測量中的自由意志假說」！ 7 Reply 2 replies @kazukotandava 1 day ago (edited) 我一直都覺得水波紋的現象用來比擬光的干涉現象是有點牽強，根本就不是一回事，甚至性質都可能完全不同。科學界卻奇怪地一致接受了這麼粗略簡單的類比。而且雙縫實驗本身也有點奇怪；理論一直引導人們覺得光子被迫穿過「狹窄」的雙縫…但人類用剪刀粗略地在紙板上切割出的所謂「縫」，比起一粒光子來說都應該是非常闊的。把「縫」割到1mm闊和10mm闊，也只是十倍的差距，為什麼對通過的光子的行為影響分別會那麼大？光子本身的「體積」（如果有的話）比起人用簡單工具切割出的「窄縫」，也幾乎是無限小。這實驗當中就有些很難說得通的地方和假設。 19 Reply 5 replies @mansingchan3608 2 days ago 其實都是半吹水 但是我也在想 經常說有反物質 那麼有沒有反光子？ 在我們看來反光子會否是暗的等等 當然只是我在天馬行空 但有否類似的學說會怎樣看？ 5 Reply 1 reply @crosspong6048 4 hours ago 我來翻譯啦！多重宇宙互相重疊干擾 Reply @高橋真雷 1 day ago 我認為人類目前所認知的數理科或量子力學不過是知道答案然後以現有的眼界去套入公式自以為可以用數理破解宇宙真理 人類不過是觀測到一現象然後不斷帶入公式去反推問題，比如答案是2，但可以1+1、3-1、2*1等等...所以人類目前所認知的一切就真的是正確的嗎? Reply @Hillias1 2 days ago 其實測量本身就係一個系統，所以施加影響力到光子是很正常！ 14 Reply @趙先生-f3j 2 days ago 你是否真正觀察過？我確定的告訴小編，即使是單孔，陽光照射下，一樣也會有明暗的光班，還是一長條，明顯是波干涉，請問有何解釋? 3 Reply @NealLin-is4cd 2 days ago 真是聰明的人類，眼見不一定為真，為全面，眼睛看到的只是世界的一小部分。 9 Reply 1 reply @joeljoel6362 2 days ago 一個光子，從來沒有人說怎麼輸出一個光子 6 Reply @jameszhang3877 2 days ago 好神奇啊！ 6 Reply @gogmaogfelix6734 2 days ago 科學的盡頭是玄學，現代科學真的是越來越玄了，現代科學：無法觀測、無法測量、無法確定。 16 Reply 11 replies @jcw-5993 2 days ago 那天不小心把書櫃上的聖經從櫃縫中推到地上結果變出兩本，我打開其中一本它寫：神說要有暗光子，於是就有了暗光子 9 Reply @jkliau76 2 days ago 如果真的改变之前的定义，那么我们不只是出现暗光子，我们也有了“暗电子”，“暗分子”。 6 Reply 2 replies @dianaunicorn95 2 days ago 光和声音的形成都是能量的形式转换结果，它们的活动方式都是以粒子的形式就像接力赛一样的运动着。……但，这种接力赛的转交过程不是把那一最初的接力棒一个一个的转交出去……而是，有第一个被初始能量撞击后的粒子撞击下一个粒子（这个粒子本就在那个位置）而这个被撞击的粒子又撞击下个粒子这样一个一个的转递下去……这传递速度之快，我们目前还无法观测到，但，可以逻辑推理去演绎它，同时这个被撞击的粒子在运动中是要消耗能量的……就像我们做能量守恒传导的连续球链，当你抬起第一个球并放下去撞击这个球连，你会看到球链的最后一个球会动荡起来……这就是光或声传播的状态。而随着能量被消耗殆尽，声或光也就消失了，这就是光、声的传导形式过程。之所以形成波动状态……那是由于，声、光的爆发点是一个什么状况，如果是中心爆发，这个撞击是向 360 度方向同时发生的，所以形成了环状，而形成波的起伏是由于每一个被撞击粒子向前移动必定受到下一个粒子的阻挡，所以这个粒子只好向阻力最小的方向移动，这时只有水面上方的阻力最小，所以它就向上方运动，随着它的能量的衰竭，它又回落到最低点，之后随着后续粒子的推动，它又得到了新能量，它又会重复着前面的过程……这就是光波声波的工作原理。……这个过程我们今天还无法直接观测到，就如同光、声的许多性能一样，都是逻辑推理推导出来的。……当量子没有外力驱动的情况下，是不会有能量外传……人眼可见的反射粒子……也就是黑暗状态。 Reply @eagleclime8552 1 day ago 薛丁鄂的貓，當你沒觀察，那貓就是既死又活的狀態，光的實驗也是如此，你不看他，他就是疊加態的波紋，只要你打算觀察，他就坍縮成確定的狀態。我也認同暗光子的存在，可以解釋波紋，但仍然沒有解釋如何坍縮的？這反而讓虛擬世界更為可能，二個糾纏粒子不論距離再遠，都能同時發生改變，就像一個程式的基礎設定值，二個糾纏粒子在這宇宙必須保持相反的設定值，才能維持這宇宙的穩定。另外， 如果人類的身體是物質，那麼人的意識是否是一種暗物質，意識與人體是一種糾纏。如果是，那麼人的意識就能影響到宇宙的暗物質，而透過暗物質起了變化，進而影響到暗光子，而與暗光子糾纏的光子，也因此受到了影響，不再是波紋狀，形成所謂坍縮。也就是說，這世界都是因為意識而坍縮成具像化，這世界是由意識所形塑的。這就是佛教裡的“象由心生”，而“菩薩畏因，世人畏果”的畏因，正是因為意識一旦產生，就己經影響了結果，就如量子擦除實驗的証明。救世界從人心開始，一點都不假，人心如果能坍縮而具像化，那麼世界的災難必源自於人心。 1 Reply 2 replies @什麼啦-w4i 2 days ago 雖然聽不懂 但好像很厲害 6 Reply @KennethChiu117 1 hour ago 還是沒有解決為什麼未來觀測會導致波函數坍塌，只是增加了一個複雜的因素去嘗試解釋單個光子的干涉原因，算是自我干涉的一種可能性。這理論還不如那個我們現在的世界是高維投影的解釋。 Reply @cocacola787 2 days ago 這就算是李校長講的靈界 一物二像 6 Reply @kejitang2345 2 days ago 基本正确，但是需要修改一下。这个问题我想清楚了 1 Reply @AllenKuokwyshell 2 days ago 人類對世界的理解就是知識不斷的演進的過程。無法理解與解釋意味著我們對世界裡解釋依然不夠正確。比如AI的黑盒子機制也許告訴我們智慧可能由無而生，同時告訴我們世界的無序到有序或許存在一個自然機制。量子的規則、自然界的法則這些底層邏輯是如此的真實又隱晦的支配著一切。我們的科學事實只是汲取於世界力量的一種方法。同時，思維的力量也許才是推進一切的動能。自然界的道理就是在你需要呈現實體的時候才呈現出來。就如同投影宇宙論那樣，這個世界只會用耗能最低的方式運作。你觀察到的世界表面，只存在你觀察的那個時刻。黑洞的量子訊息也只會停留在視界面上而不會在內部一樣。物質的實體化只有在於它需要的時刻。 1 Reply @aladdinabudula8193 2 days ago 以前是测不准就对了。现在又看不见就对了！ 11 Reply @xyl42 2 days ago (edited) 這個意思是我們一直以為踢出去的球不會改變空間， 所以，沒觀測到等於沒有東西干擾，所以，等於有東西超時空干擾 但是實際上球會在空間中留下我們看不到的痕跡 量子進入量子態就會被這些痕跡耦合出被干擾後的樣子 如果能在單發量子發射之前完全清空裝置路徑，重新發射 應該就可以驗證是否有路徑痕跡干擾問題 可能所謂量子的隨機就是空間中被無數干涉後留下來的痕跡背景干擾 那當然就會測不准 因為環境中本來就是數不清的環境痕跡干擾 1 Reply 1 reply @yonglinperng5836 2 days ago 如此說來，那首不見的暗能量，是否也是暗粒子 2 Reply @星图之上 1 day ago 原来，光也是要有”光”，才能被照亮啊！ 1 Reply @dielyf651126 20 hours ago ,很多解釋雙縫時,都輕描淡寫帶過去說不用去懷疑探測器. 一直覺得奇怪,怎麼能這麼斷言. 1 Reply @yufish9208 2 days ago (edited) 真的是越來越玄，“玄子”也該出來面對、解釋一切了吧....？ 2 Reply @josephrice229 2 hours ago 千萬別望文望圖生意與批評, 物理理論是收集很多資訊統計分析脈絡的當下結果, 也許會改變過去, 影響未來, 現在還自不懂, 等更多有興趣物理學家詳細解出及更白話文介紹給世界了 Reply @TWWang-o1t 1 day ago (edited) 有很多日常現象都可以説我們現有的光學不正確,不需要懂量子物理這些復雜理論喵,有很多光的技術應用,我們也只是用我們已知的光的特性就可以用,不表示我們完全理解光,其實不只光,大部分現代科學都不是最終完全體,我們都只是在用我們觀查的結果在做應用而已,所以做為人不要放棄思考,有一堆shiny東西等著被發現XD Reply @大哉乾元無終始 19 hours ago 我幼年有一個夢，擡頭望夜空裏的明亮星辰，明顯感知到祂們是高級存在，在觀察著我！那種被神佛觀察的感覺，很難用語言描述，畢竟祂們觀察我的時候，我其實和祂們是鏈接態…… Reply @山影-z4h 15 hours ago 黑暗時間城主❤（某電視劇 Reply @KeithHurd1 2 days ago 空不異色，色不異空，空即是色，色即是空 7 Reply @神仙-f8s 2 days ago (edited) 可以說隱變量出現了嗎？愛因斯坦的隱變量，就是暗光子，愛因斯坦又對了😂 3 Reply @faraway77777 2 days ago 粒波波粒然後直到永遠存在更遠的最好還會是粒波波粒…… 1 Reply @clchang0513 2 days ago 暗光子我不知道，但我小時後貪玩不睡覺，我爸媽都會罵我暗光鳥 1 Reply @ufoszeto 2 days ago 波粒隱三象性 https://youtu.be/Lln64m_NPA4?si=gsWIyjnAcPVHidg3 Reply @leviyeh9969 2 days ago 假設我們身處在亮光子的環境中所有測量工具都是針對亮光子來的，所以偵測不到暗光子，也或許暗光子存在另一維度，我們身處在不同維度所以找不到 Reply @waynechang630 2 days ago 没明白如果位置没改变， 只是明暗状态改变， 为啥会出现多条亮纹。。。 Reply @realthings 16 hours ago 和我的想法差不多，但我沒有去理會波的部分。 Reply @qwango0952 1 day ago 沒有說明所謂[ 暗光子 ]的任何物理現象甚至連[ 猜想 ]的數學架構都沒有的影音內容 , 真的是聽君一席話如聽一席話 粒子撞擊實驗中出現了許多[ 無中生有 , 有中消失 ]的物理現象 , 通通可以用80年前數學家費曼創造的[ 費曼圖解 ]來獲得到粒子與波相互作用來解釋與說明 愛因斯坦說 : 如果你無法簡單說明 , 就表示你還不夠了解 費曼在60年前因費曼圖解獲得到諾貝爾獎時他說 , 這小朋友不用學習一看就懂的工具也可以拿諾貝爾獎 , 哈哈哈 , 別鬧啦 ! 邀請我去斯德哥爾摩,天體營和喝酒才是真的吧 ! 1 Reply @大哉乾元無終始 19 hours ago 這是要打算探索其他的“不平行世界”了？可以躺在儀器裏去其他世界玩了？夢裏去的世界，某些科技比我們世界強好多；但是訊息本身是受到“世界膜”的阻隔，帶不回來詳細的信息的…… 怎麽感覺這些頂尖科學家要搞氣功了呢face-blue-smiling Reply @jerome6866 22 hours ago 亮態光子是肉體感官可感知部份，這部份組成我們感知物質宇宙，占比5% 所以95%暗態光子組成感官不可感知暗態宇宙，占比95% 暗態光子不可感知原因很簡單，因為是超光速粒子，即快子，即暗態宇宙=快子宇宙 宇宙創世第一道光是最高頻率能量，能量間的交會使的震動頻率層次減慢下降，最慢的速度就是人類可見的光速 光速不是宇宙最高速，而是最低速，是光的各層次中最賣的一層 光的各層次組成不同的宇宙，即是所謂的維度，就在我們身邊，只是不可感知，因為頻率不同 不可見快子宇宙一切由超光速粒子構成，快子宇宙=高維度宇宙，目前聽說共11維，第12維創造中 Reply @teenman3356 2 days ago (edited) 暗光子理論咁影子形成也有新解譯！如此看不見的（黑暗)就充滿暗物質、暗能量、暗光子只係目前人類科技未達標所以測不到！😂 Reply @kennykim1811 2 days ago 在暗物質跟暗能量都沒有得到驗證的前提下，又搞一個暗光子理論出來，雖然很新穎，但完全不看好會被驗證真實存在！ Reply @噜噜米 2 days ago 暗能量为什么一定要通过 探测 的手段去发现 其他的间接的非直接方法是否可以验证 2 Reply @oneli8492 2 days ago (edited) 光的波动性来自明-暗光子是谬论，暗光子具有微小质量可间接探测，而一般光的波动性显示没有暗光子！假如我们把“明光子”（普通光子）和“暗光子”，看作具有相同物理形态一致粒子，那么从波动频率上看，高频的“暗光子”只能作为，低频的“明光子”的，波动场的“载波频率”，通过分析信号传输的“载波方程”，一般的“观察者”的介入无法使得，作为”载频“的光子信号波动变化。因为频率由场方程和拓扑约束决定，经典探测器吸收部分暗光子，只能减少局部幅度，但不改变整体场分布，当量子测量可能导致波包坍缩，局部改变但不影响传播模态。也就是说，仅仅只有在“观察者”能够改变，作为低频光子”高频载波“的”暗光子“物理量时，才有可能对光子的”载波信号“进行调制，但分析证明不存在这种可能。 Reply @Jesu0040 2 days ago 科學家發展出一大堆的粒子，這些粒子性到底是實有還是只是觀測產生的鏡像？科學家要不要先確定？ 1 Reply 1 reply @0337-n2p 2 days ago 中微子有一左旋一右旋才能平衡，直升飛機也是一大轉旋一小轉旋 Reply @林天逸 2 days ago 恐怖了，所以光也有可能測不到？暗光速跟亮光速一樣嗎？ Reply @吹上天了 2 days ago 有天突然發現，印度的莫迪老仙突然宣布：他接受了神啟，發現了宇宙的一切真相，只要前往印度信仰他，就能得到啟發，但記住，一定要心誠實完全信仰老仙，心不誠則不靈😝😝😝 Reply @屁无捐 21 hours ago 我反而觉得AI读稿的声音显得很有文化的样子。 1 Reply New SciTech 新科技 · 1 reply @chenchen55688 1 day ago 這個頻道真的很會喇低賽 講20分鐘大概只有3句話有意義 1 Reply New SciTech 新科技 · 2 replies @realthings 16 hours ago 我大概知道科學家隱瞞的是什麼，因為我的想法，是從被隱瞞的部分出發，所以可以無視波的部分。 Reply @tonywu6087 2 days ago 跟[暗物質]一樣，都是為了解釋而假定出來的東西，然後又定義為無法以傳統觀測儀器去測量，所以沒找到也是合理，合理嗎? 等觀測到了再說吧，暗物質不是也有人說根本沒有嗎? 1 Reply @俠客-w9j 2 days ago (edited) 暗光子就跟暗物質有關，光子是看得到的有形物質，意識是看不到的無形暗物質（暗光子只是暗物質的一部分型態），所以觀測時意識會影響暗光子 1 Reply @茂川王-v6t 1 day ago 金剛經云：須普提，如來者無所從來，亦無所去，故名如來。你不想我，我就不出現，你一想我，我就立即出現。超越光速。這就是如來！ Reply @yingzijune489 1 day ago 如果我们所在的世界是一个巨大的Matrix，这其实可以理解为蒙卡模拟中最小步长的存在。光子在最小步长之内无法被测量（模拟/改变），除非我们的科技能达到造物主的水平。 Reply @jopang5735 2 days ago 電子雙狹縫實驗如何解釋?來一個喑電子? Reply @mansingchan3608 2 days ago 這根本就是一個猜測 而且是沒有印證下的猜測 是先猜測後才到處找別人的不解之處 都說是跟自己早已猜到一樣... 愛因斯坦都找太陽幫忙才印證出相對論 你呢？ Reply @PIKA_QAQ 16 hours ago 暗光子這個名字感覺好中二 Reply @user-ov9ds4bz4b 2 days ago 茅塞顿开，应该就是这样，空无并不空 3 Reply @lincedar 2 days ago 有沒有一種可能，其實那什麽子的，並不喜歡被域外人類打擾？😅 Reply @kery3492 1 day ago 我天啊，5分鐘可以講完的拖長20分，我以為有解釋光暗量子怎麼搞出干涉條紋，結果一直廢話。 1 Reply @ZhenhuaZhenhua 2 days ago 卧槽， 单粒子双缝实验可以用不发光的粒子做。不发光的粒子还能分明暗吗！ Reply @gbs5540 1 day ago 所谓的亮态和暗态，不就是古老中华文明的阴阳理论吗？没有科学者进行这方面的研究吗？中国人已经探讨了上千年，怎么换几个现代科学名词就成立新的理论了呢😀 1 Reply @lung415 1 day ago 觀測本身就是破壞性結果，把雙態崩潰成一態的機率結果。 Reply @mansingchan3608 2 days ago 其實愛因斯坦早就說量子力學 上帝不會擲骰子 意思或許正正就是還有東西未看清楚 多年後的今日始終都要面對一些說不通的位置吧 Reply @tinlu4137 2 days ago 應該說所有東西都是能量波。。。粒子性只是能量場的波峰或波谷。。 1 Reply 1 reply @mansingchan3608 2 days ago 其實愛因斯坦早就說量子力學 上帝不會擲骰子 意思或許正正就是還有東西未看清楚 多年後的今日始終都要面對一些說不通的位置 Reply @陈琦-n2m 6 hours ago 好，这样就不会往‘时间是幻觉’走了。 Reply @jihualiu5721 2 days ago 這是有可能的y 因為人類的感知是要限制的 Reply @shd1367 2 days ago 孤阴不生，孤阳不长 Reply @flashflexpro 2 days ago 观测不到，就是神。 Reply @jjw7571 2 days ago 自然原本是多維空間，光應該是簡單的，被人類的低維理解搞複雜了。 Reply @yslin1004 2 days ago 所有粒子都會產生干涉條紋，不是只有光子 Reply @yinguowang 2 days ago 恶习必须押上国际刑事法庭受审！ Reply @李有氣 2 days ago 量子是頻率能量！各個頻率各個表現， Reply @omgomg4556 1 day ago 全在堆砌形容詞，沒一點實料 1 Reply New SciTech 新科技 · 1 reply @0337-n2p 2 days ago 光靈=正常靈格 Reply @0337-n2p 2 days ago 暗光子=幽靈=病毒陰陰極別 Reply @0337-n2p 2 days ago 奈米芯片=類靈格造化學 Reply @yijenchen1557 20 hours ago 明明是理性的探索，搞得像言情小說！😅 1 Reply New SciTech 新科技 · 1 reply @kejitang2345 2 days ago 宇宙是非常非常硬的！ Reply @finbh4050 5 hours ago 暗光子？ 不是一直有傳言中的暗物質 那暗物質相對的暗光子 跟一般的物質與光子 那不就合理了 Reply @oneli8492 2 days ago 暗光子来自超高维空间！ Reply @Randy-gn2rh 2 days ago 這篇太難了 Reply 1 reply @脑控揭秘 2 days ago 爱因斯坦又赢了？😮 Reply @文小军-v4b 2 days ago 一个假如？？？那太多了 Reply @davidyeh9579 2 days ago 看來離「靈界」的證明不遠了。 Reply @DavidLee-hg5du 2 days ago 整個影片都在胡說八道而且根本沒有拿出真正被驗證的實證，從頭到尾都只在理論跟幻想階段。 根據我的理論，全宇宙都沒有任何意識，我只感受到我自己的意識，因此整個宇宙都是我自己意識的蔓延而已。 嘴巴講講都可以，但是要拿出事實驗證才是定理。 9 Reply 6 replies @robinluo2042 2 days ago 找了一个新的解释方法，然后什么证据都没有，最后假设这东西是真的话如何如何厉害，说了半天，原来只是个畅想。。。。毫无意义，我可以用中国的阴阳学说解说，道理一样。 Reply @0337-n2p 2 days ago 細菌感染=吃藥打針 Reply @sundesunshine 2 days ago 光的波粒二象性就如同耶稣基督的神性和人性，波动性是灵性无形的非物质的，粒子性是有形的、实物的 Reply 1 reply @0337-n2p 2 days ago 真實光學顯微鏡放大病毒內會看到灰黑光影動物頭或蟲鳥生物頭灰黑光影=物理陰幽靈格新冠病毒 Reply @jianliang9234 1 day ago 换个名字行不行。叫日音光子行不行。避免和暗子重名。 Reply @彭健忠-c3i 2 days ago 玄學與神學 都不應背離客觀的科學原則 一但背離 所有主觀的自以為是 各種瞎掰都將出現 Reply 1 reply @jauhueitang6879 2 days ago 暗光子理論是胡扯。電子、原子、大分子都能產生雙狹縫干涉那來的暗電子、暗原子、暗分子！ Reply @dfhuuyrsjppq 2 days ago 這種假設跟以前在找以太有什麼不同 Reply @tokumeig654 1 day ago 為什麼聽不懂在講什麼？ Reply @小棋許-m8o 2 days ago 一切都是幻覺 Reply @智-i5e 22 hours ago 都是假設性理論~所以~看看就好!別太當真了!! Reply @evilfox549 1 day ago 就是一個理論，哪天真的被驗證了再說吧 反正現在沒證據，怎麼吹都行 Reply New SciTech 新科技 · 2 replies @面面米米 2 days ago 现行的技术根本没办法不对光子进行干预的情况下对其进行"观测",所谓的观测决定结果,或者改变未来,完全就是扯淡.这完全是曲解了观测 1 Reply

Fifty Years of Quantum Chromodynamics (The Theory of The Strong Nuclear ...

Fifty Years of Quantum Chromodynamics (The Theory of The Strong Nuclear Force) - David Gross Institute for Advanced Study 144K subscribers Subscribe 144 Share Download Clip Save 5,156 views Jul 11, 2023 Prospects in Theoretical Physics 2023: Understanding Confinement Topic: Fifty Years of Quantum Chromodynamics (The Theory of The Strong Nuclear Force) Speaker: David Gross Affiliation: KITP, UCSB Date: July 10, 2023 Transcript Follow along using the transcript. Show transcript Search in video 0:14 okay so to cap off this uh wonderful first day of the school we have a 0:20 special treat a lecture by David Gross on 50 years of tcd and David is not only 0:28 one of the founders of qcd he's also one of the organizers of this school and uh 0:36 it's perfectly timed to be right around 50 years since the historic paper by uh 0:43 David and his graduate student at the time Frank wilcheck which was written 0:48 around a mile from here in chadwin Hall so yesterday was a 0:55 pretty nerve-wracking day because almost all flights to New York were canceled 1:02 and David's flight landed somewhere in Washington Dallas and then he said well 1:10 I think he set one of the world records in in the process of getting here maybe 1:16 for the number of uber calls and and the distance that this Uber 1:23 covered so so you truly won the extra mile or maybe 1:30 extra 200 miles on the way here so I'm very grateful to him for showing up and 1:37 we greatly look forward to this lecture thank you 1:47 um well this works foreign 1:53 it's really great to see you all we were 1:58 somewhat surprised the organizers in the workshop but what interest there is among the younger 2:04 generation and a 50 year old problem uh which we know has to do with the real 2:13 world and is enormously exciting and you 2:18 will learn a lot from the school I hope but you'll also it'll become clear that 2:25 there are a lot of open problems that you can help solve in the next 50 years 2:31 we don't want to you know qcd is going to be around for a few thousand years at least and uh it 2:38 would be nice to to finish it off or at least make significant progress this century 2:46 so I'll talk to you guys 50 years well 2:52 it's quite amazing uh to think back 50 years ago since on the one hand like 2:59 yesterday um especially coming back to Princeton on the other hand seems infinitely far 3:06 away um it's almost 100 years 3:11 anniversary to the birth of quantum mechanics in the form we know it still 3:19 um and so they're likely to be interesting celebrations next year the following 3:25 year um 3:30 but let me start the story at the beginning of nuclear physics with 3:37 110 years ago with Rutherford and boar 3:44 so the story really begins with Rutherford's discovery of the nucleus 3:50 over 100 years ago um which is my opinion 3:57 perhaps the greatest experiment of the 20th century there were three things that Rutherford 4:03 achieved in this experiment but first of course was to discover the nucleus the 4:08 second was to uh get a good classical picture of the atom and the 4:17 third was to immediately promote the quantum description of the atom and 4:22 the start of a 10 Years Journey to quantum mechanics As We Know 4:28 what he did of course was try to determine what the atom was made out of nobody had any really good idea 4:36 by scattering particles Alpha rays which alpha particles which he won the Nobel 4:43 Prize in chemistry for for discovering and using 4:49 you never won a Nobel Prize in physics I think if he had lived longer he probably would have for this much more important 4:55 discovery is students were the detector they sat in a dark room for hours and observed 5:02 the scintillations of a fluorescent screen where the scattered alpha particles scattered off 5:10 called nuclei gold atoms and uh he was very surprised that a lot 5:16 of the um particles came back at very large angles and uh 5:24 he calculated somebody told me that he didn't actually do the calculation that was disappointing 5:29 it's called the Rutherford cross-section but supposedly we had the help of a mathematician to 5:37 um use Maxwell's Theory to calculate the the cross-section and deduced 5:44 in fact that they're all of the massive or most of the mass and all the positive 5:49 charge in the atom was located in a very small region of space 5:56 you could only set a a 6:01 lower limit on what the radius of the nucleus was uh but that was a discovery of the 6:07 nucleus and in a sense LED immediately to a planetary model of the atom which 6:13 bore than turned into a 6:19 Bohr model of the atom and from there the quantum mechanics really required almost no new experimental evidence it 6:26 was all there you had to make sense out of out of this 6:32 uh the existence of quanta and the Bohr model of the atom which was very 6:39 successful most important perhaps 6:44 um Rutherford invented the method we still use today 6:50 to discover physics at Short distances you want to discover the properties of 6:56 matter at the summit Atomic lens scales smash protons on a fixed Target or 7:03 protons and protons or electrons and electrons scatter particles of particles lots of stuff comes out you analyze what 7:10 comes out probability distributions of the scattering events 7:16 uh we haven't improved conceptually on that tool in 110 years 7:22 even though it now we're reaching perhaps the limits of that tool from an economic and 7:30 technical point of view maybe we need to find some new method for exploring arbitrarily short 7:36 distances but we have it still Rutherford's of course we've greatly improved it all right see 7:43 greatly improved the detectors from these uh observations of pinpoints of light on a 7:52 scintillating screen but essentially it's the same thing so incredible experiment the atom the 8:00 nucleus and the experimental tool for for high 8:05 energy fundamental physics well 8:12 going forward 50 years or so as a graduate student so this talk by 8:17 the way is going to be um highly historical 8:23 the audience I see before me say most of the audience almost all the audience was 8:28 not alive 50 years ago but I also realized that for many of the 8:35 audience their parents weren't alive 50 years ago 8:43 um so 50 years or most of you seems like an awful long time 8:49 and I conjecture that very little of you very little of you actually know much 8:55 about the history of physics the history of the standard model is through qcd it's a mistake 9:02 it's not because it's interesting uh fascinating to understand your part 9:09 in a grand endeavor you know to join this incredible 9:16 march to understand the fundamental nature of 400 years old you're going to be part of it for the next 50 years 9:24 but also you'll learn a lot about how to think how to avoid going in Long directions 9:30 lots of things by studying history so might might be useful in addition to 9:37 enjoyable I admit this is my view of the history 9:44 of a personal point of view but that's always the case 9:52 the anyway so I entered graduates about 50 years ago at that point I was at 9:58 Berkeley which was the center of high energy physics that had the biggest accelerator in the world six TV sorry 10:05 six GB only down by a factor of a thousand but 10:11 it was enormously exciting because new particles were literally discovered every few weeks no hadrons 10:19 um and it was known by that time that there were two kinds of forces that acted 10:25 within the nuclei strong forces you know an electro what we now call electrolique or weak interactions 10:32 and I was always attracted by the strong interactions partly because well there were all these 10:37 continuing experimental discoveries very exciting but also it was especially 10:43 intractable new particles are being discovered all 10:49 the time they look just like the proton and the neutron which had been discovered 10:54 100 years before and they all seem equally fundamental equally Elementary 11:01 wasn't clear at all what were the basic constituents of nuclear matter 11:07 and then of course there was no principle to determine the Dynamics there was no 11:13 symmetry principle the principles that guided Einstein in the case of gravity 11:19 or there was no direct experimental clues that guided Maxwell 11:25 uh following in their footsteps people of course tried to construct theories of 11:31 Quantum field theories of pions and protons and but there was not based on any 11:38 under you know underlying principle and then if you wrote down a theory as 11:45 you power first tried to do introducing a carrier of the nuclear 11:51 force uh boson they would carry it was originally a spin one but then spin zero 11:59 a Pion which was shortly discovered one of the first particles in addition to 12:04 the neutron um it was clear that having introduced the 12:11 pine you could estimate the coupling of that Pi into nucleons to protons 12:16 and that coupling were strong so how do you calculate so we didn't know what the constituents 12:22 were we didn't know what the principle that underlies the Dynamics was and it was clear from the beginning that 12:29 you added the old storm coupling so you couldn't calculate 12:35 Tyson well known to this in this institute tried very hard after 12:42 the Triumph for QED which resurrected Quantum field Theory 12:47 on the doldrums of the 30s uh Dyson tried to construct a Quantum 12:54 field theory of nezons at protons and you know and to figure out how to deal 12:59 with strong coupling and uh I think somewhat characteristically of 13:06 Dyson after a few years of trying he was convinced that his ideas were 13:11 going nowhere there's a beautiful article I think it describes a discussion he had with Fermi 13:20 which deflated him so much that gave up and said uh 13:26 and said how it went to work on other things but again like many theorists 13:32 if they themselves give up they predict as Dyson did the correct Theory will not be found for a hundred years 13:42 the general feeling I must say was that something revolutionary would be 13:48 required and probably not in the framework of you 13:54 know not just following the lesson of QED the Revolution was needed 14:00 now in retrospect it's clear why the problem was shown was so big 14:07 and it's because we now know that the strong interactions are mediated by 14:13 gauge fields that couples to charges color to the colored quarks and gluons 14:20 and in the case of strong interactions the charges were completely hidden 14:26 the courts were hidden the ruins were hidden not not at all like QED where the 14:35 charges were quite visible and usable 14:41 there were no quarks and people started smashing protons 14:46 together uh right after the war when the government eager to build even 14:54 more powerful bonds or whatever we would come up with uh gave I created the field of high 15:00 energy and high dollar physics but no matter how hard you smashed had 15:07 grounds together all of it came out were other add-ons which looked similar to the original ones 15:14 and you never produced the visible charges of the basic 15:20 building blocks uh in addition Quantum field Theory 15:27 which was the framework that uh sort of was at the basis of 15:34 fundamental physics at the time and had a remarkable success in the case of 15:39 quantum electrodynamics in the late 40s early 50s 15:45 was under attack uh why was that well the big development 15:53 in the 40s 50s was renewalization hearing which was you know 16:00 retrospectively not such a big deal it was truly understanding 16:07 today we're in a profound way but then in a technical way how to deal with the 16:12 UV divergences that are that uh appeared in all 16:19 um quantum Beyond tree approximation in uh in any 16:25 Quantum field Theory but renewalization was thought by the 16:30 inventors and developers of the scheme to be a trick and sort of that's how it 16:36 was taught at the time this was a trick this was a way of sweeping Infinities under the rug 16:42 and it's so such a ugly way of dealing with what was 16:49 thought to be a profound problem the UV Infinities that uh it probably an 16:56 indication that a Revolution was needed they're also absolutely 17:02 in Quantum field Theory and among the high energy elementary particle physicists 17:09 really no useful non-perturbative methods um 17:15 in fact first course I took on Quantum field theory was from Stephen Weinberg 17:22 I'll show you many of you have read his books foreign 17:30 rules for higher spin particles and 17:36 he first lecture wrote on the Blackboard field Theory equals perturbation Theory 17:43 actually I don't think he said prohibition there I think he said field Theory equals final diagrams 17:54 there was a theory or we would call today an effective field Theory a phenomological theory of 18:00 the weak interactions Family Support family on Theory it was moderately successful 18:07 um there was no underlying principle behind it it was phenomenology but it worked 18:13 extremely well it's a very good effective field Theory but nobody had the Vegas idea how to 18:18 make it unitary how to renewableize it and so on it was not necessary at the 18:24 time experiments didn't demand it 18:30 Yang Mills Theory appeared very early 1954. but 18:37 it was plagued with massless posanswich nobody under stood how to remove seemed 18:44 to be there for an interesting mathematical extension of electrodynamics but not a realistic 18:52 Theory nonetheless of course here has tried to apply it 18:57 through strong interactions they coupled the gauge fields too the only symmetries 19:04 that they know about in the strong interactions which were flavors of the truth now today we 19:11 understand those are accidental symmetries there's no deep principle that says the 19:16 up and down Quark massages are are almost the same and so on it's not an exact symmetry it made no 19:23 sense and then there was a real Attack on 19:29 Quantum field Theory it came from my thesis advisor Jeffrey 2 19:36 and many other people but he was the leader of the Revolution 19:42 which said among the rest that all hydrants are equally fundamental they are looked the same 19:48 so let's assume they're no really Elementary constituents there might be an infinite number of hadrons somehow 19:54 they're all equally fundamental uh but then how do we construct a theory 20:02 so and there was a second idea called the bootstrap now the bootstrap is 20:08 something you've all heard of nowadays because uh it's come back in the Vogue and it's 20:14 very interesting it's so difficult to find a analytic unitary s Matrix as you know 20:24 very few exact examples some integral theories but 20:29 uh that wasn't understood at the time and um 20:38 and since there was no underlying principle and all 20:43 there's no Elementary particles maybe what you should do is try to find a 20:51 s Matrix that's what you observed uh based on that satisfies the general 20:57 principles especially analyticity which follows for locality 21:02 or causality and unit therapy that's the bootstrap program now the 21:09 boots that program back then was equally popular you could start doing stuff you 21:14 know writing some approximational left-hand side of the board and then 21:21 using by Crossing symmetry as a part for manual artisticity right something on 21:27 the right hand side and see if you could make them equal 21:32 General print those general principles the idea was would determine a unique 21:38 solution first we know nowadays that that's not the case there are many solutions for example qcd with any 21:46 number of flavor any number of colors 21:54 and we have now many examples of exact as major excuse 22:01 but that was the idea of the bootstrap and what it did was create a generation 22:08 you know a good part of a generation of young quizzes like yourselves who uh didn't know anything about 22:15 Quantum filter now on the other side of the Cold War 22:23 barrier of the Iron Curtain there was a perhaps more interesting attack on 22:28 Quantum field Theory the Landau poll or the problem of zero charge 22:34 which was uh 22:39 an investigation of an effective renewalization Group by a Russian 22:46 group that studied how the physical coupling 22:52 what over 137 in QED depends on the bear coupling 22:58 you include the quantum Corrections and take the ultraviolet cutoff to Infinity as you should to get stuck though 23:07 Continuum Theory and working the lowest order in if you 23:13 want in the beta functionalization group Lando in his group discovered what 23:19 that the physical correct coupling measures the value of the electric charge in a theory or the ultraviolet 23:27 cutoff Lambda vanishes no matter how big you make the bear coupling the coupling 23:33 if you want that defines the charge at the cutoff 23:39 vanishes which is a way of today we would argue 23:45 this such a theory the uh there is if true 23:51 and it probably is for Pure QED um although not proven uh means that 23:58 there is no Continuum limit QED does not exist as a a finite 24:06 well-behaved unitary Quantum filtering 24:11 and that's sort of what landed out concluded now the phenomenon of course 24:16 is screening you know if you put a charge into the vacuum 24:24 the virtual pairs that exist in the vacuum screen the charge 24:30 and that screening means that the electric force decreases you move away from the charge 24:38 increases the move towards the charge and at least in this lower starter 24:46 calculation uh that effect means that 24:52 keep the charge at Infinity which is how you do the measurement of the electric charge fixed the bear charge vanishes 25:01 and the theory is trivial so 25:06 Landau I mean this is probably true for all 25:13 nylons theories not an asymptotically free theory in four dimensions but 25:20 um land down certainly didn't have Good Grounds but you know he was 25:26 bald or jump to conclusions he said 1960 we 25:32 reached a conclusion that within the limits of formal electrodynamics by which he really means Quantum field 25:38 Theory a point interaction a local interaction is equivalent for any intensity 25:46 to no interaction at all fix the physical couplings 25:51 no interaction we are driven to the conclusions the 25:58 hamiltonian method for strong interaction is dead and must be buried although of course 26:05 with deserve an honor now 26:11 why do you say strong interaction same conclusion would be for QED but of 26:16 course he knew understood that the problem you know are so 26:21 the ultraviolet is so far away so much farther than the blank mass in 26:28 the case of QED the Lando poll if you want best 26:34 uh that it's irrelevant but for the strong interactions the 26:39 problem was immediate the coupling was strong and if you went higher and higher in energy it would diverge at some finite 26:46 energy so um now Orlando is a very powerful creature 26:53 and Soviet Union and uh 26:58 maybe it's not true for the whole Community but certainly his influence was enormous 27:04 and students young students like Sasha sitting back here 27:10 we're not allowed to work on Quantum field Theory they were smart enough to continue to 27:16 work on Quantum field Theory but under the guise that they were doing condensed matter here 27:22 right [Music] and he got into trouble she can tell you about some other time 27:32 so that was the situation theoretically 27:38 these are important lessons because you you know these were very powerful 27:44 people were very smart brilliant physicists land down two metal stem 27:52 uh so just remember that when all of us talk to you with great Authority 27:58 we might be equally wrong about not about most of the things 28:06 experimental situation was much brighter I must say I suppose just the opposite 28:11 of today theory was kind of um non-existent 28:17 but experimentally there were many new discoveries new particles new patterns 28:22 of particles new symmetries approximate symmetry is being discovered new 28:28 accelerators but even here there are interesting lessons 28:36 so many theorists and experimenters at the time believe that the secret of the strong interactions lay in the high 28:42 energy behavior of scattering amplitudes at low momentum transfer when you 28:47 scatter protons of protons 99.9 percent of the time what happens is they 28:55 just go forward spray a lot of particles in the forward Direction 29:00 and you can measure things like a total cross-section fraction scattered low momentum transfer 29:07 scattering now we know that that's not what we do 29:13 nowadays we look at that point one percent of the events which have larger momentum transfer that's how you look at 29:19 Short distances and discover new particles and new processes 29:25 so why were they doing this well 29:31 it was experimentally easy that's where most of the data works 29:39 they discovered some interesting patterns in diffraction scattering 29:44 Reggie Behavior constant total cross-section 29:50 the theorists develop theories or ideas about how to 29:56 describe diffraction scatter in total cost section and so on so there was a sort of mutual 30:03 confirmation of each other's biases for experimenters 30:09 it was good to study low momentum transfer because you had bigger statistics 30:15 always good theorists are told them that's what's really 30:21 interesting because they were studying Reggie polls and other things 30:28 and no one was really interested in the high momentum transfer experiments 30:35 which like Rutherford just turned out to be where the secret 30:40 of the strong interactions were to be found the theorists well 30:46 misguided the experimentalists were these were 30:53 harder experiments and nobody told them it might be interesting 31:02 so back to me my story after escaping from the bootstrap and 31:10 nuclear democracy which was dominant on the west coast of 31:16 the United States I came to Harvard where field theory was 31:23 acceptable yeah and I started 31:30 studying the properties what we would call today 31:35 the short distance behavior of composite operators and Quantum field Theory although again you know most of the 31:42 tools have not yet been developed operator products expansions kind of formal filter it was really nothing 31:50 but it was one could do this without 31:55 trying to invent our Quantum field Theory because there were operators that are experimentally observable 32:02 not in PP collisions but in EP collisions where you can measure Matrix 32:08 elements and correlation functions of current parenthesis couples electromagnetism or 32:15 to the weak horses so 32:23 at Harvard Callan and I would play the game of scene 32:30 what operator products in modern language would look like if you just made some model or more precisely used 32:37 free field Theory and uh 32:43 among the rest we wrote a sum rule for the structure function of deepened 32:49 elastic scattering so which will come to in a woman which measures 32:55 which is in modern language proportional to the energy medium tensor 33:01 and uh this could be measured in deep elastic 33:07 scattering deep elastic scattering was an experiment that was planned for the 33:14 slack the new slack facility which had an electron beam scattered electrons of 33:21 protons large momentum transfer but Rutherford experiment again but this 33:27 time using photons to explore the structure of the proton 33:34 and beer cane uh looked at the sub Rule and noticed that you know this this and 33:41 dimensional reasoning suggests yeah it could be written without any scale if you 33:48 notice this has dimensions of energy this has dimensions of energy 33:56 and suggested that perhaps these things scale 34:02 there are other some rules one could derive one of the most important actually was one with 34:09 Callan where again you know taking products like this how do you calculate well you assume some model which means 34:16 some free field Theory and well what turned out was that the 34:22 two cross-sections when you scatter Polo photons which have two velicities of 34:27 protons look at the total cross-section and it turns out that the ratio of 34:33 longitudinal to transverse polarizations in the photon are sharp leaders different whether the 34:40 constituents of the proton have spin one half or spin zero or spin one using free 34:48 filter and then 34:55 there are other some rules the experiments showed started in 1968 35:01 and 69 were reported deep elastic scattering at Slack 35:07 now this is an interesting experiment again it in effect discovered that the proton 35:14 looked at like it was made out of freely moving quarks 35:21 and not only that the scaling behavior that 35:26 is sort of inherent in free particles free point-like Behavior 35:33 seemed to work their Quark model some rules seem to 35:38 work and this of course 35:45 was the discovery of quarks scrum metal discovery of forks 35:50 now these guys were kind of bold at the time none of 35:56 the you know when you build a new Exciter a lot of proposals for experiments 36:01 this was so this is the Rutherford experiment in effect so 36:06 it was very strange historically that these are the only people who wanted to do it most of the proposals 36:14 were not even sure what they are because they go back and look but 36:20 it's really there wasn't a clamor to do this experiment everybody thought it would be boring 36:28 the lower energy lower momentum transfer experiments that measured the form 36:34 factor of the proton the distribution of charge within the proton showed that the 36:39 protons kind of diffuse so they thought the cross-section would be diffused like 36:45 Rutherford before Rutherford everyone believed that the structure of the atom was some kind of diffused mess 36:53 not interesting actually like most particles 36:59 experimentalists what they wanted to do was not understand the structure of the 37:05 proton but produce no particles 37:10 experimental hydrophysics always want to see bumps they want to see new particles they 37:16 don't necessarily are motivated by understanding new structure a new process 37:26 anyway it turned out much like Rutherford easiest explanation of these experiments 37:33 was the protons is made out of freely moving Point particles 37:40 pythons was feynman's work that looked as far as you could test them using 37:46 totally ill-motivated sub rules like quarks 37:51 so this was enormously confusing 37:57 now the fact the fact that some of my some rules worked and the experiments together 38:03 convinced me that hadrons are made out of Point like constituents 38:09 the constituents were quarks quirks were real 38:15 but then how could that possibly be you never produced quarks and experiments it 38:20 had to be confined we now say within has to be some strong coupling that 38:26 holds them there throwing interactions I think as we're strong so how come you 38:32 you could get free Behavior how could one explain scaling the 38:39 absence of course now again you might think okay everybody 38:45 got this message but that's not true it was only a small group of people who were 38:53 obsessed with this most people 38:59 uh for good reasons said well this is interesting but one 39:05 it'll probably go away now when something truly new is discovered 39:11 that isn't a sharp resonance and obvious discovery of a new particle 39:18 people are justifiably skeptical the errors in the initial experiments 39:24 were 20 30 percent hey girl boss 39:29 the energy was extremely low 20 GV 39:36 you're at every right to be skeptical on the other hand the 39:42 the conclusions were so striking that it uh 39:48 some people it was became an obsession certainly for me 39:53 so the obvious thing was scaling now scaling had not played any role in 40:01 in uh matching Quantum field Theory until that point 40:07 because scaling is not a exact symmetry of nature anywhere 40:14 in elementary particle Foods 40:19 somewhat later it became you know a big thing in commence metaphysics but 40:25 and the study of critical phenomena but that connection was still someone in the 40:30 future and at that time there was no interaction between people who were doing column filtering particle physics 40:38 and people doing what we uh 40:44 previous generation of my mentors called Squall of State visit 40:55 so I really was obsessed with trying to understand how this could be 41:03 it was clear that was trying to understand the scaling in the context of quantum field 41:10 Theory with Quantum effects destroyed scaling uh immediately 41:16 these some rules that we derived were simply invalid in an interacting Quantum 41:22 filter 41:27 by 1972 I had a plan a very definite plan 41:33 about how to make my advisor happy and kill quality filter 41:41 so idea was scaling was real the experiments were getting better it was holding up some rules were even better 41:47 satisfying um I really understood that the only way 41:53 scaling Could Happen would be that the opposite of QED the 42:00 at small distances large amount of transfer deeper elastic scattering your 42:05 probing the behavior of the theory in the ultraviolet short distances 42:11 if the coupling could vanish asymptotic Freedom which we call it 42:19 later um would solve the problem 42:24 and one thing we tried to prove was that that was actually required 42:30 and uh based on initial study of Parisi kurtalin and I showed that for 42:38 in a sense about uh the framework or Quantum field theory if you want to 42:44 explain asympatic Freedom you have to have sorry if you want to explain scaling if that's exact 42:51 phenomenal nature then you require us encountered freedom we did not discuss notable engage theories 42:59 because they are in fact well methods proof broke down 43:07 and then the idea was to show that asymptotically free theories not that there are no accidentally free theories 43:13 and that was you know conceivable to prove because if you have asymptotic freedom 43:20 at Short distances then you can trust motivation period short distance so you can do essentially one Loop calculations 43:27 and decide whether any given Quantum field theory is or is not asymptotically free 43:33 and they're accountable theories which are renormalizable 43:39 so that was actually proved by Coleman and I all of this 43:44 happened in 19 came out 1973 43:50 and uh there we showed that any Theory any number of scalar Fields been runoff 43:56 fields or barely engaged particles are a synthetically free 44:07 then the idea was to take the final Theory um 44:13 so at this point my first graduates appeared 72 44:20 or 70 yeah um thank wheelchair 44:25 when he still had hair and uh 44:32 and like you know excellent I have one more thing to do let's 44:39 calculate I want to be engaged theories and this indeed is just about a year 50 44:46 years ago so um 44:52 not only being engaged series of course had been around since 54. 44:58 1968 Weinberg wrote a lot a great paper called a model 45:05 of leptons which put forward what is now the issue to course you on Weinberg Salam Weinberg 45:12 rash house the theory of the electroweak interactions without the cork 45:18 why didn't he put in quarks Weinberg didn't believe in courts 45:23 at all you just thought that was not nonsense for obvious reasons 45:29 nobody's ever seen a pork and how could there be corkscreen so it was a model of leptons 45:37 but it wasn't renormalizable or he didn't know how to make it be normalizable he didn't know how to show 45:42 that it was a normalizable and so there was almost no work on the record week 45:48 again a lesson for you guys there might be things like that that nobody's 45:53 talking about that you won't hear about in these courses just lying around 45:59 but when it hooked development showed that you could renormalize a theory and 46:05 calculate suddenly there was a 46:10 and aside from the development of Electro week 46:16 Theory that had the impact of introducing people to functional 46:24 methods path integrals which were gave the understanding of how to write down 46:30 perturbation Theory or Edge theories ghosts and so on body of 46:37 public everyone had totally ignored the use of functional intervals in elementary 46:43 particle physics until then again there might be all sorts of tools 46:50 out there that nobody uses for 20 years more 46:58 and of course not to be engaged there so this was the last 47:04 and when we discovered that these theories possessed the remarkable theory of asymptotic abortion free filtered to 47:11 me by that time it was a complete surprise because I expected that there were no no 47:21 it was so Universal in for non lessons other freedom 47:26 that that's what I expected 47:31 and but the implications for me Rob is once you have that you that the only way 47:40 following the previous arguments to explain to you okay and scaling and one should look for a non-appeal 47:47 engage theory of the storm interactions and there was from then on there was no 47:55 choice these arguments the only possible theory 48:00 was the Angel's Theory as far as the gauge part of the theory 48:05 goes well 48:11 it had already been known phenomologically that quarks which have been identified 48:19 as which had been suggested as a way of organizing the 48:24 flavor symmetries of the strong interactions the approximate symmetries 48:29 of matter um there had to be an addition three labels 48:35 degenerate courts with three colors in order to explain 48:43 the magnitude of the E plus C minus photorecrusters Pi North BK 48:50 any other suggestions but courts are really thought to be 48:56 mathematical objects no problem attaching three labels to them although there were suggestions 49:02 that they might be associated with the with the quantum numbers of 49:08 of su3 gauge group so the 49:15 if you buy the colors in the three flavors that we knew about at the 49:22 time there was no choice but hey model based on three triplets of fermions within 49:28 issue three color gauge group to provide the strong interactions 49:35 and um that's qcv now why does qcds 49:43 why is it not synthetically free well it's obviously the opposite of screening it's anti-screening 49:49 and what is the physical motivation well it's best to think about it magnetically 49:55 you know euclidean Theory that's just 50:01 or in any Theory you could think about magnetically electrically magnetically 50:07 luas we put a an external magnet into the vacuum an 50:14 external colored magnet to the vacuum the virtual gluons are like permanent 50:20 magnets 50:27 so are by the white Forks but the Magnetic Moment of the Bruins much 50:32 bigger and they act like uh little magnets would do in the 50:39 presence of another magnet they align paramagnetism where the fourth at large distances 50:46 increases and at Short distances decreases 50:51 paramagnetism is the opposite of diamagnetism if you want to use an elect 50:58 a magnetic point of view and uh 51:04 that's that's a lot of freedom for you and you can work it out numerically 51:11 calculate the beta function that way that's of course not what we did originally 51:18 um oops anyway I'd always wonder why Landau 51:24 you know didn't say could have discovered all of this 51:30 um back in the late 50s by saying okay and anti-screening diode dielectric 51:37 vacuum is a dielectric medium that's really bad but what if it was 51:44 paramagnetic and he could have invented well the 51:49 English Theory already exists he could have come that way to this discovery but 51:57 hello yep 52:18 no it doesn't doesn't work actually it's harder 52:23 sorry why why doesn't it work well I actually we taught I tried that's 52:31 uh and didn't succe you know so why doesn't in QED 52:37 uh if you were if you're thinking physically about screening 52:43 right you conclude that the QED is not asymptotically free 52:49 you can also just think about the diagrams that contribute to charging normalization it's just a one little 52:54 diagram vacuum polarization diagram its sign is fixed by unitarity that's it 53:01 an immunity gauge theories the gluons are charged it's a more complicated effect in fact 53:07 the real origin of asymptotic freedom is because of the coupling of this external 53:13 charge to the virtual charges so it's really the triple glow on vertex doesn't 53:18 exist so couldn't give a general argument indeed 53:25 partly because they're more diagrams partly because it isn't in fact true 53:32 but to do that you had to do the calculation so that was so I didn't do that really 53:38 that was the point of doing the calculation with my new graduate 53:44 student who needed something to work on 53:50 anyway there are you know the one thing the great thing about history is what you 53:57 learn when you go back and read the original papers you learn a lot a lot more physics than 54:03 you do by reading the paper the many papers that come after second you learn about the mistakes that 54:10 people make you learn from that experience and what you 54:17 then there's the fantasy which I like to engage in but historians abhor which is what if 54:24 imagining other scenarios and there's if you think about it there's so many ways 54:30 that one could have arrived at what we know to be true nowadays 54:37 that's kind of fun to like Landau looking for paramagnetic 54:43 Quantum field theories prevent anyway let's we're making the mistake of 54:52 I always like so um 54:57 anyway that explained gave us a theory and a unique Theory there was really no 55:03 argument about what you could adding scalars to the theory 55:10 we tried can't destroyed asymptotic Freedom there was no 55:15 and everything we knew about the strong interactions were the few exceptions of outstanding problems like the U1 55:22 Ada Prime so on um we're consistent with qcd 55:31 but there was still the problem of why you always see quarks and uh in our 55:38 larger version of that letter uh we were 55:45 uh considered the possibility that that the Symmetry wasn't broken like the weak 55:51 interactions but exact ly and then well why don't we see these 55:56 Mass these blue ones and and 56:04 noted that there could be little connection between the free lagrangian to write down the spectrum of States 56:10 because of strong coupling and it could be that that suppresses all 56:17 but color schemer at stake now the idea was really at that point nothing more 56:22 than the fact that since the force gets stronger 56:30 extrapolation the perturbation Theory uh that could confine the courts 56:36 but that was a very uncomfortable idea because there was no 56:43 real understanding We Now understand 56:48 how that occurs well so 56:56 classically of course the force between quarks falls off like one of our gauss's 57:01 law and 57:07 atoms can be ionized and at the classical level of course 57:13 that's what would happen more or less it's the properties of virtual particles 57:21 in the vacuum or the vacuum which we now have pictures of from lattice cage 57:26 theory that modify the flex lines that 57:33 and squeeze the flux through a flux tube 57:39 now this picture uh was put forward 57:45 pretty rapidly by manual stand with others of an electronic a dual analog of 57:53 vortex flux tubes in a superconduct and very easily 58:01 electrical confinement is a kind of dual to Magnetic confinement of multiples in 58:08 the superconductor and as you heard in the previous talk point we talked 58:15 that or very vague analogy is one of the 58:20 directions where we might hope to prove or use 58:27 such ideas to understand mesons as flux tubes of electrical flux 58:33 and of course that kind of confinement produces a 58:38 linear confinement because the flux now 58:46 penetrating a finite area and we can see that on the lettuce 58:55 so that was a physical picture that came along and it's still after 50 almost 50 59:03 years we're trying to make that into a picture that has mathematical rigor 59:10 and more important analytic control 59:16 that's the goal of this collaboration won't confirmed 59:21 now historically qcd was not accepted by everybody of course 59:27 but it was immediate for a very small group of what I call spark people 59:36 it was really interesting to see how people reacted with an idea 59:42 like that but for the majority of my colleagues 59:52 the people on the West Coast didn't understand Quantum filter at all 59:59 Ken Wilson who should have discovered this was 1:00:04 motivated by the idea that all interesting 1:00:10 fundamental questions in physics are consequences of what emerges in the 1:00:15 infrared from some ultraviolet Theory which you didn't care about 1:00:21 and that the experiments which suggested simple feeling of short distances 1:00:26 would this would that was not just experimental too early to tell would disappear 1:00:35 um and then there were people liked my 1:00:41 colleague at Princeton Eugene vigner who could not accept that you could possibly describe a theory in terms of 1:00:48 particles you couldn't produce as asymptotic States because his definition of an elementary 1:00:55 particle was an irreducible unitary representation of the barnacore group 1:01:01 that you could produce the symbolic states to the observables which were estimated 1:01:09 but for this group and probably many others it was almost immediate 1:01:16 and in addition you could calculate 1:01:22 easily using perturbation Theory could make predictions 1:01:28 and that's what physicists like to do so there was a slow but steady growth 1:01:36 lots of calculations interesting applications immediately 1:01:42 but the real or yeah then there were very important theoretical milestones at 1:01:47 least for me one was latter stage Theory so Ken you 1:01:52 know who was misguided what he was looking for switched overnight 1:02:00 which I admire enormously and said okay let's calculate the mass 1:02:06 spectrum of headlines 1974 lattice Gage Theory what you heard 1:02:12 about today it has taken 40 years 50 almost 50 years 1:02:18 to get to the stage where you can now calculate the hydronic Mass Spectrum to better than a 1:02:25 percent and an increase in power 1:02:31 which Mike didn't mention by a factor of 10 to the 18. 1:02:37 10 to the 9 of that has come from Moore's Law computers 1974. 1:02:43 those of us who were alive 1:02:49 we remember how totally primitive it was 10 to the 9 came from Theory from 1:02:56 algorithm development understanding vermions better finite size effect 1:03:04 so that is quite you saw some of the evidence today it's quite amazing what they can 1:03:10 do but gotta remember one can have you know let's calculate 1:03:17 the Spectrum Wilson by the way gave up after a few 1:03:23 years says it can't can't work nonetheless people persisted luckily 1:03:28 but it did take an increase in power of by 18 orders and 1:03:38 um for me the cyborg is high squared Theory two-dimensional Theory 1:03:45 with no parameters except for coupling and developed design dynamical Mass Gap 1:03:51 and dimensional Transportation was very important to see and asymptotically free 1:03:56 Theory albeit in two Dimensions that for a large n you could solve exactly and develop the kind of non-preservative 1:04:04 mascot that we expect in qcd also at hoof's solution for large n 1:04:12 again of two-dimensional qcd which kind of confines trivially in a 1:04:18 way but still exhibited a model where you could see the fundamental quarks such or 1:04:25 distances but are never produced as a symbolic States was very reassuring of that possibility 1:04:31 in qcd but the real thing that changed the fear 1:04:39 acceptance was electron positron annihilation 1:04:45 are there the story is interesting the ratio of the total cross-section probably plus C minus to go to hadron 1:04:52 compared to electrons predicted by qcd 1:04:58 by just scaling to be a constant by qcd to 1:05:03 depend number of quarks number of colors charges of the quarks 1:05:08 and it worked very well one of the try early triumphs 1:05:14 of these ideas this is a plot of what the data looked 1:05:21 like in the summer of 1974. I was at a conference at the ictp and Trieste Burke 1:05:29 Richter showed this plot new experiments 1:05:35 at the E plus e minus storage ring at uh 1:05:42 Slack and he concentrated on this 1:05:47 these new data points which he said shows that the cross-section this ratio is not constant 1:05:54 it's rising linearly qcd is dead all those ideas that's all 1:06:02 scaling actually he knew about understood PCD 1:06:07 but scaling whatever it's all dead well as you know this is what happened 1:06:14 just a few months later now many of us in the audience 1:06:20 I think uh Jr and 1:06:25 um 1:06:31 pollitzer and George I had analyzed what I a charm 1:06:38 well the Japes eye would look like it would be very narrow because the coupling is going to zero it's a cool 1:06:44 object down state charm was accepted by all the smart 1:06:50 theorists had to be there had to be another Quark who crossed an electro-week anomalies and su2 1:06:57 like per week Symmetry and so on so on so 1:07:02 theorists again at that time were very timid compared to theorists nowadays they 1:07:09 hadn't had many successes so we didn't scream that well you've just seen charm 1:07:16 we said you're just seeing her 1:07:22 but then very dramatically this resonance uh this Porter Germany was discovered 1:07:30 and there were Within months 1:07:35 within days hours no archive then but rapid 1:07:41 pre-publication of lots of explanations but all the smart people knew well this 1:07:47 is charm and they could start calculating not just harmonium but other 1:07:54 uh charm excited States 1:08:01 and uh all the other explanations were garbage so this totally convinced lots of people 1:08:09 that qcd was on the right track and 1:08:15 well this is just the last 40 Years of using this probe 1:08:21 of Vector mesons as well as porcante pork 1:08:27 bottom not top 1:08:33 what about the experimental tests of asymptotic freedom of qcd 1:08:38 well as mitot said in his lecture logarithms run very slowly 1:08:44 so what is starting with a coupling which we now know is about 0.1 1:08:51 at the range of a few hundred GV and making predictions about what's 1:08:57 going to happen higher energies with logarithmic Behavior so this is uh 16 years after 1:09:05 qcd uh looks pretty good A bunch of experiments they all agree with the 1:09:11 running of the coupling but so there's a straight line to be honest 1:09:18 it's not easy to measure precisely logarithmically changing phenomena 1:09:25 and it really took more like 30 years to get precise tests this is 1:09:31 40 years pretty good uh nowadays these are deviations from 1:09:39 precise scaling that Hera these are just cross-sections 1:09:46 this is the best I could find today 1:09:52 there are updates but this is an indication of the Precision of the tests from many many different 1:10:00 experiments so that you can now measure but if you want the scale of the strong 1:10:07 interactions or the coupling at that scale to 1:10:13 less than a percent but 1:10:18 that's sort of the direct test of the investment letter Kratom but 1:10:24 using that let me calculate the cross-section the deviation from scaling 1:10:29 and the unbelievably precise tests of qcd at LHC 1:10:38 which is most of the events um 1:10:43 since they have any other any surprise discoveries uh 1:10:49 have greatly improved our faith and qcd 1:10:56 but the other you know we really wanted to calculate immediately as soon as possible was the Mass Spectrum of 1:11:03 hadrons and that's a hard problem that's not preservative that's not 1:11:08 the control of the vacuum all we really have analytically getting controllably 1:11:14 as lattice qcd which you started to hear about 1:11:19 today and uh as I said it does require it did require 1:11:29 noon technology and new ideas over many many orders and I do 1:11:37 but now is extraordinarily successful you'll hear a lot about that 1:11:43 there also been impressive calculations uh preservative calculations where one can 1:11:51 just use motivation Theory beta function now this is I just got a 1:11:56 preprint is now like five loops amplitudes which are used for the 1:12:03 backgrounds for new discoveries are required for the 1:12:09 back calculate the backgrounds for new discoveries and or tests of qcd 1:12:15 uh well you all heard much the last decade about credible developments and 1:12:24 understanding deeply new structures that allow one to improve the calculations 1:12:32 uh beyond the leading order which we did to Max deleted over next to next next to 1:12:37 the next to next very beautiful 1:12:43 um hinting at many deep structures enormously powerful and that will slowly 1:12:48 continue I just want to spend a moment on what I regard as the the truly still 1:12:57 for me the most appealing and remarkable features of this 1:13:03 perfect Theory and I I should really speak perfect field Theory 1:13:08 first you know they're really no infinities Noel for violent affinities no 1:13:15 Infinities at all no adjustable parameters and no new physics at Short distances 1:13:22 so what continues to Astound me is is 1:13:28 how we've ended up with an example uh so far of what a perfect quantum 1:13:34 mechanical theory of the world could look like of course we are 1:13:40 like a lot more but this is the minimum for the future 1:13:47 so they're clearly knowledge about Infinities I think that was clear from the lattice calculation the lattice as 1:13:56 Mike explained the lattice calculation you never 1:14:02 get anything that's infinite to find the coupling on the lattice you take it to zero not to Infinity 1:14:10 as you remove the cutoff and you know how to do that and uh 1:14:17 oil observables are calculable and you never have to 1:14:24 subtract Infinities or multiply by Infinity 1:14:29 so the conceptual problem with bugged people from the Iraq and 1:14:36 Eisenberg one of the beginnings of quantum field Theory through the 60s and seven of the existence of UV Infinities 1:14:43 kind of disappears 1:14:49 memory come to uh 1:14:55 no adjustable parameters the reason I read a beautiful article by 1:15:01 Feynman 1961 solve a conference gave a review of the present status of 1:15:09 quantum electronomics which was incredibly successful that a lot of 1:15:14 experimental measurements which he summarized in great depth was about 10 years after 1:15:20 you know the big to do and he he wanted he was dissatisfied he 1:15:27 wanted to see could Quantum electrodynamics really be a kind of perfect Theory 1:15:35 and so he said consider pure QED or QED has two parameters the mass of 1:15:42 the electron the points structure constant well let's put the mass to zero 1:15:47 could we calculate the mass could we calculate the fine structure constant people have been trying to calculate 1:15:54 Define structure constant wherever partly motivated by the fact 1:15:59 that its inverse is almost pure number 1:16:05 so consider pure QED with only zero Mass photons and electrons and protons 1:16:11 interacting with no other particles and having no cutoff 1:16:18 such a theory could not produce a finite electron mass now you might think that's because the theory is a chiral symmetry 1:16:26 but five minutes at that point made it clearer and remarked on it that he understood lambus recent work and chiral 1:16:34 symmetry could be broken you that's not an obstacle he said but the system is also invariant 1:16:42 to a change of scale conformal learner illness and there's no parameter to determine a 1:16:50 length and yet an electron with a mass involves such a letter 1:16:55 I'm not certain ly was always careful but it appears to be impossible to 1:17:01 generate a specific length from those scale whatsoever 1:17:08 but that's exact so he could have already concluded that QED somehow can't 1:17:15 be improved can't calculate the electron Mass can't calculate the fund structure constant 1:17:24 but as we know Quantum effects always break scaling Burns can not always but 1:17:32 can produce a physical Mass and then determine the coupling at this scale and that's exactly what UCD does 1:17:40 there are no essential adjustable parameters now of 1:17:47 course in the real world like in the case of QED there are other things the cork masses we understand have 1:17:55 nothing to do with PCD they have to do with the Higgs sector which 1:18:00 the number of colors who determines that 1:18:05 the number of Orcs 1:18:11 but yeah you do like Simon said throw away the quarks they're not essential 1:18:19 or keep the quarks Mass listed and uh then 1:18:25 because of dimensional transmutation which I summarize here the argument that 1:18:31 you're I hope know it uh all physical parameters 1:18:39 are in units of choose one the mass of the proton 1:18:47 calculable dimensionless numbers so qcd 1:18:53 is exactly the kind of thing 5 Min was dreaming of achieving a theory where 1:18:59 except for some scale which you need to measure masses Energies 1:19:07 everything is comfortable and that's true 1:19:12 true and your job is to figure out how to calculate at least in some rigorously 1:19:22 um systematic procedure 1:19:29 no adjustable parameter so for example that I always lay audiences explain that the mass of 1:19:38 the proton is really the confined NASA kinetic energy of the massless glons and 1:19:46 quarks that are rattling around in a confined region which sets the scale and 1:19:51 determines the mass and all mass ratios are calculable 1:19:59 and they're strong interaction of course defines that scale and is therefore 1:20:05 calculable as well now from a practical theoretical point 1:20:11 of view the most important feature the short term of qcd was that no new 1:20:19 physics at Short distances or high energies was necessary 1:20:24 and all theories we've had before knew that something was going to happen 1:20:29 at Short distances and that's what people expected but to the contrary asymptotic Freedom 1:20:36 means becomes simpler and simpler perturbation Theory becomes more and 1:20:41 more exact an immediate application of this 1:20:47 was that for a whole community of people so at that time was seriously sort of 10 years after CMB 1:20:56 tried to study early cosmology the early universe could be simple 1:21:04 also we had no problem extrapolating to to higher energies where the forces 1:21:10 could unify and finally a large number 1:21:18 so the implications of this 1:21:25 for the early Universe were really important because 1:21:30 if you imagine having to think about cosmology using nuclear physics oh my 1:21:36 God hadron Pals to Cork soup 1:21:41 pretty soon as understood that you've got a high enough densities in and temperatures 1:21:47 nuclear Quark protons had runs become settler they melt you have core grown 1:21:54 plasma we thought would be missed the cork glue on liquid that has 1:22:02 been discovered at Rickman but anyway that's all understandable perturbatively 1:22:09 more or less and so there was no obstacle 1:22:15 to extrapolating from CMB back to 1:22:21 as we do now through very very early times 1:22:27 their phase transitions along the way and this is another fascinating area of qcd which is 1:22:35 very different crowd than the people suited here but there are literally hundreds of theorists and experimenters 1:22:43 and experiments 1:22:48 and then of course the ability to to extrapolate to high Energies 1:22:54 uh LED very quickly after the standard 1:23:00 model was finalized to discovering that unification might very 1:23:06 well occur at extremely high energies these logarithms one very slowly 1:23:12 and that of course is the most important clue we have 1:23:18 to what happens near the plant grant them how the forces might unify together 1:23:24 with gravity and dominated speculative physics for the 1:23:30 last 40 years but also to some extent one of the very 1:23:35 large numbers that govern the structure of the universe that tell us why 1:23:40 why gravity is so weak at our scale of energies and why we are not black holes 1:23:46 is the Dirac large number problem one of his large numbers 1:23:52 which he said look nobody's ever going to calculate 10 to the minus 19. it's impossible 1:23:58 can't imagine a theory which could Calculate 10 to the minus 19. 1:24:04 and what he did was try to equative 1:24:10 invoked anthropic arguments because you know if this number would be 10 to the minus a thousand we would be 1:24:17 black holes right life couldn't exist right 1:24:23 gravity would be much stronger only a thousand nuclei would have 1:24:32 collapsed no black hole but the Iraq 1:24:37 like an asterox biography did he know about anthropic arguments 1:24:43 people were speculated using that those arguments already in the 19th century 1:24:49 instead he was better he was direct he uh he related this small number 1:24:57 two other small numbers the size of an atom compared to the size of the universe 1:25:03 some of them are time dependent so he said I can test this idea because then 1:25:10 some of the fundamental units that the Planck mass or so on would vary with time like the size 1:25:18 of the universe and that could be tested and has been tested and so far no 1:25:25 indication of because of a law cosmological variation of these fundamental constants 1:25:30 but qcd can calculate this number more or less 1:25:37 or at least you know from uh great qualitative point of view simply 1:25:44 it's the same picture always if at the unification scale which is 1:25:50 around the plank Mass the coupling is you know of order of our extrapolation of the 1:25:57 electromagnetic coupling and then you ask where does the proton 1:26:03 Mass arise from well it arises from the scale where the coupling becomes strong enough to confine these masses 1:26:10 corks and bronze that is given by the same kind of formula 1:26:15 and that from what we actually know is about 10 1:26:20 to the minus 19 19 plus or minus 2 which is good enough 1:26:27 so that we understand that large number 1:26:34 so it is kind of a perfect Theory it's a first example of a complete Theory 1:26:40 no adjustable parameters no indication of where it would break down 1:26:46 infinite bandwidth if you will but of course it's not the real world 1:26:54 luckily there are many questions we don't 1:26:59 understand and then of course we know there are other forces in nature the rest of the standard model and of 1:27:05 course gravity now I want to end with discussing 1:27:11 the other aspect of qcd which is remarkable and probably 1:27:16 a thousand years from now will be regarded as the most important thing 1:27:22 that we've learned which is the relation to string theory 1:27:27 which developed as a theory of restoring interactions at around the same time 1:27:34 motivated by experiment by the fact that Reggie trajectories spinning strings 1:27:40 were linear dualities between 1:27:45 one expressing physics in terms of particles in one channel and by crossing the other 1:27:53 channel etc etc so so much 1:27:59 and then of course nowadays by a theoretical experiments where we see 1:28:05 the fat strings that appear in lattice UCD and then of course by 1:28:14 um what we now have is in special cases 1:28:20 the beginnings of a precise Duality between our description of mesons as 1:28:28 either confining flux tubes or open strings in a fundamental string 1:28:35 theory and our understanding that uh gauge 1:28:42 Theory and string theory are not really different kinds of theories they're just different often different ways of 1:28:48 looking at the same phenomena or certainly part of the same conceptual framework 1:28:56 as was the understood early in pushing fundamental String Theory once 1:29:03 you have open strings mesons you have closed strings qcd you have blue balls 1:29:12 and that is the basis for a lot of the approaches you'll hear about in trying to 1:29:19 hopefully come up with a controllable 1:29:25 are analytic control of qcd 1:29:31 large nqcd is clearly an interesting limit in which 1:29:40 uh we understand that the theory must consist of 1:29:49 infinitely narrow stable blue balls I'm now ignoring the quarks 1:29:58 non-attractive theory of blue balls which is if you want the free field 1:30:04 limit of some Theory whose classical limit is 1:30:12 and goes to Infinity straight PCD 1 over n is kind of 1:30:19 the Quantum of action 1:30:25 might be a string theory might be something else but there is a classical limit which is the of something 1:30:33 looks a lot has to have an infinite number of glue balls and many other features which make sense 1:30:41 in string theory and it's probably a string theory although not the a string 1:30:47 theory we have yet constructed although much progress has been made towards guessing 1:30:54 what that theory might be in adscft of course gives us enormous guidance 1:31:02 the evidence of courses the structure of the perturbative 1:31:07 structure of qcd and Matrix theory in general one over n 1:31:13 one over one third phenomologically works very well much better than you might expect in 1:31:20 comparing prediction one of our own predictions of qcd with uh 1:31:26 with nature and of course the strongest argument currently is edsc FD 1:31:34 and you all know what that is so the Hope really is you know one hope 1:31:41 would be solve n equals four supersymmetric qcd that's a scale 1:31:47 invariant Theory it's almost solved 1:31:53 this perturbatively construct the dual string theory 1:32:01 well that's hard um 1:32:06 but not well that's hard 1:32:12 I'm running out of time okay that's not qcd it has super 1:32:18 symmetry which is not a future qcd um but you can easily break super Symmetry 1:32:25 by you know uh 1:32:30 pushing the masses of the extra particles for Infinity 1:32:36 but to form it then equals one or even real qcd in principle 1:32:41 you have to include quarks and interactions those can be treated 1:32:46 systematically in a 1 over NC expansion is a conceivable Direction 1:32:59 so let me just make a few remarks about the future 1:33:06 qcd has much more life than I ever expected the structures and of two-dimension of 1:33:16 perturbative diagnose Theory it's quite remarkable hints at something deep 1:33:23 but so far hasn't produced it but those calculational methods for 1:33:31 perturbative gauge theories are incredibly useful for experimenter and for theorists so that will continue 1:33:38 for sure numerical methods have reached a true level of maturity and uh they should be 1:33:47 available to people who are more interested in theoretical questions one of the purposes this collaboration is to 1:33:53 try to develop that connection because you now have a tool which has been improved by a factor of 10 to the 18 we 1:34:00 could take use of them make use of it better and of course there are new technologies 1:34:05 that will come along there are many many questions in qcd 1:34:11 that are great interest and Open Door experiments you can make predictions mostly having to do with time dependent 1:34:18 phenomena which so far a lot discussable by lattice cage Theory 1:34:24 oh and that experiment is still going and 1:34:30 although they're not discovering supersymmetry yet or new particles they are 1:34:36 measuring the properties of hadrons at LHC at 1:34:44 Rick at the electron ion collider which is a 1:34:50 colliding electron proton beam um in the next 10 you know over the next 1:34:57 decades all right see lhcb Alice the EIC the electronic equator there'll 1:35:05 be a lot of great experiments and you could be in the lucky position that my generation was in to actually in this 1:35:12 field make prediction and have them tested 1:35:19 it's a lot of pleasure coming from solving problems discovering new things in physics but believe me there's 1:35:25 nothing more satisfying than making predictions that experimenters put to 1:35:31 the test of nature and nature says so far it works 1:35:37 so far it worked never says yes it says maybe but with a smile 1:35:46 so I tried to summarize what have we learned fireman was once said you know 1:35:54 I love this in some imagine that today he would have said AI takes over 1:36:02 what statement would could we pass on to the Cockroaches or to the robots 1:36:09 that would contain the most information about physical world in the fewest words 1:36:15 and uh it's not an easy task one sentence all things are made of atoms little 1:36:22 particles that move around a perpetual motion attracting each other when they are a little distance apart but 1:36:28 repelling upon being squeezed into one another 1:36:34 I think I really I would like to see somebody do better 1:36:39 in one sentence no equation what have we learned from the standard 1:36:46 model well takes a whole slide matter is made out of 1:36:52 in one half fermions forces describe our Quantum gauge field three phases coulomb 1:37:00 screened or Higgs and a natural scalar fuel sector and 1:37:07 a confined strong phase with su3 color gay true 1:37:12 that's a one slide see if you can do better after 50 years what have we learned from 1:37:19 qcd well most important it is the theory of the 1:37:25 nuclear force Dynamics can determine all masses and 1:37:31 couples shouldn't be satisfied at this stage of any Theory it goes beyond 1:37:38 the well that even gener you know improves on the standard 1:37:45 models so all masses and couplings are calculable 1:37:50 but most importantly I think it's gate string duality 1:37:58 um the real hero is not a really engaged Theory page Theory 1:38:05 and it is the basic qcd and the rest of the standard model most of it 1:38:11 and of string theory or dual to it 1:38:16 and therefore of space-time and gravity that's the real hero of the story 1:38:23 but meanwhile I've come to the end 1:38:28 but not the end of the qcd Institute for Advanced Study 144K subscribers Videos About Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

唐伯虎最深情的一首詞，動人心扉、把思念寫到了極致！【縱觀史書】#歷史#歷史故事#歷史人物#史話館#奇聞#文學

唐伯虎最深情的一首詞，動人心扉、把思念寫到了極致！【縱觀史書】#歷史#歷史故事#歷史人物#史話館#奇聞#文學 縱觀史書 views May 18, 2025 更多精彩內容，請點擊下方清單查看： • 曆史人物 • 曆史知識 頻道往期精彩視頻： • 明朝「最懶」對聯：上聯和下聯一字不差，卻成千古名對流傳至今【縱觀史書】#歷... • 康熙的女兒端靜公主被丈夫踢死，康熙得知後，是怎樣為她復仇的？【縱觀史書】#... • 李世民放了390名死囚回家過年，約定年後再斬，最終回來多少人？【縱觀史書】... • 寡婦出上聯：「野花不種年年有」，秀才對出下聯，抱得美人歸【縱觀史書】#歷史... • 蘇軾納了十二歲的小妾，初見時寫下千古名句，成為後世男人的花言巧語【縱觀史書... • 蘇軾見到友人妻子漂亮，羨慕之余為其寫下一首詞，感動世人近千年【縱觀史書】#... • 書生嫌妻年老色衰，出上聯：「荷敗蓮殘，落葉歸根成老藕」，妻子下聯成絕世經典... • 秀才出上聯：「呂府姑娘，下口大過上口」，下聯更絕，諷刺意味十足【縱觀史書】... • 蘇軾的小妹出上聯：「人曾是僧，人弗能成佛」，和尚的下聯卻讓她氣憤不已【縱觀... • 1997年，浙江古廟發現梁山伯墓，墓碑保存完好，揭開梁祝化蝶真相【縱觀史書... #歷史#歷史故事#歷史人物#史話館#歷史萬花鏡#奇聞#歷史風雲天下 縱觀史書 18.3K subscribers Videos About 縱觀史書

中國動員打台灣了！美急了開聽證會：不惜一切代價，犧牲十萬人一周內擊退共軍！台灣人不敢面對的武統（中共特別委員會全中文字幕翻譯）

Eigenbros ep 112 - Understanding Yang Mills Theory

Eigenbros ep 112 - Understanding Yang Mills Theory Eigenbros 7.27K subscribers Subscribe 360 Share Download Clip Save 11,422 views Apr 16, 2021 Physics & Math Juan & Terence attempt to tackle the monster topic of Yang-Mills theory. Gauge Theory, topology, quantum field theory, differential geometry, group theory, and more all have a relationship with Yang-Mills theory. #YangMills #gaugetheory #physics Follow us on twitter: / eigenbros​​​​​​​​​​​ Support our channel: / eigenbros​ Our mailing list: http://eigenbros.com/mailing-list/​​​​ Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OIg3Px... Social Media: https://linktr.ee/Eigenbros​ Chapters View all Explore the podcast 73 episodes Physics & Math Eigenbros Podcasts Transcript Follow along using the transcript. Show transcript Eigenbros 7.27K subscribers Videos About Subscribe Twitter Instagram Patreon Linkedin 57 Comments rongmaw lin Add a comment... Pinned by @Eigenbros @flowerpt 4 years ago OK, my major accomplishment from this podcast is to understand where Yang-Mills fits into everything. Yay, even though I didn't grok 2/3rds of the content. I'll be back after I take a few more prereqs! BTW, I actually do know something you talked about - railroad gauges. The gauge is the distance between the rails. By convention it's measured from the inside of both tracks. Now, maybe, and I am just wildly speculating, it's called a gauge theory because the tracks seem to go infinitely in both directions, but you can discretely measure the width of the tracks at any point along it and get the same value. That meshes with my vague understanding of how gauge theories are useful for calculations of problems with similar attributes. Somebody fact-check me on this. 8 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @SpotterVideo 1 year ago 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. . Reply @____uncompetative 1 year ago 50:16 continued 2 So, this "abuse of notation" is just a summary of what I just expanded on in the paragraph above. You have no Spin 2 gravitons in Geometric Unity as it does gravity classically via squished space-time geometry. You have Spin 1 (vector fields) of Gauge Bosons such as SU(3) => 3² - 1 = 8 gluons and SU(2) => 2² - 1 = 3 chiral Parity breaking weak interaction mediating bosons called W⁻ and W⁺ and Zº and U(1) => photons all described by the Yang-Mills curvature equation. Then you have Spin 1/2 (spinors which require a 720º rotation to return to the same orientation and sign) which host the Fermionic fields such as electrons and quarks. Then you have the Spin 0 Higgs field equation which was based on the Klein-Gordon equation which gives some stuff mass. All of which can be thought of as different Ranks of Tensors in a state of quantum superposition on the 'Observed" that is the Ehresmannian manifold Y⁷·⁷ which has been turned into a principal fiber bundle from which the 'Observer' that is our X¹·³ space-time is recovered from that gauge group of U(64, 64) describing all phenomena as a section, kinda like a slice of American cheese from the stack McDonald's keep to make their cheeseburgers out of. So, presumably the Higgs part is square rooted into the mass-momentum part of the RHS of the field equation which would ordinarily be the stress-energy-momentum tensor multiplied by a scalar to diminish the effect a large mass had on the neighboring curvature of space-time described by the LHS of the equation R ‎ ‎ – ½Rg ‎ ‎ + Λg ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎= ‎ ‎8πG · T ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ → ‎ ‎ S ‎ = ‎ T ‎ μν ‎ ‎ ‎μν ‎ μν ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎c⁴ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎μν ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ω ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎‎ ω‎ Maybe this is what Eric is going for. However, it is based on a lot of inferences. Essentially, he wants a 14D description of the final single unified field omega from the point of view of it on Y and in looking at it in that 14D context you see it with all of its symmetries, which includes fields for Dark Matter. This makes the resultant equation a lot simpler than Einstein's Field Equations. Yet, this hides that it is 196 equations (14x14 dimensional Observerse) rather than 16 equations (4x4 dimensional space-time). I have come across a paper recently which suggested this idea was viable, however it is even more complicated to make sense of than Geometric Unity "This condition is also of interests due to its connection to the theory of Yang-Mills equation." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01429.pdf#page=2 Either you tolerate someone earnestly trying to unify incompatible laws of physics or ignore what I regard as a worthy endeavour. Eric Weinstein is generalising Einstein beyond the restrictive set of dimensional measures he selected for General Relativity and then argue that the universe would use an unrestricted set of dimensional measures to chart its 4D manifold, otherwise you have to explain "Why that choice of parameterisation?" and then this gives you 14 rather than 10 to play with, which allows for a Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) → Spin(7, 7) solution for a Quantum Field Theory of U(64, 64) Weyl spinors which is non-chiral, so it breaks no symmetries, and it includes Dark Matter fields which explains the rotation of galaxies. This 14 has to be complexified and then decomposed into this split signature, but complex numbers are common throughout Quantum Field Theory so this step seems reasonable. Geometric Unity basically falls out of being very very hands off about the design of the universe and letting it determine its own constraints, by not prematurely selecting something okay for defining gravity, but leaving no headroom for any other phenomena to be attached to those extra implicit dimensions. It could all be nonsense, but I don't see why String Theory should get to be the only game in town. Feel free to ignore Geometric Unity, but I don't see it justified that there is this intense hate for its very existence, or for Eric proposing it. I suspect those writing such comments are stuck in academia frustrated that they can't work on their own pet theory until they secure tenure. Something which looks less likely as their professor's health remains strong so their seat isn't vacated. I just thought people would find this interesting. I don't have a blog, so I am putting it here as it seems like a good place to elicit interest in this unification through Yang-Mills square root approach. Reply @roryisatall1 1 year ago Can you post links to the videos you put up plz! 🙏 Reply @AnakinSkywalker-zq6lm 1 year ago I noticed that Noether’s Theorem is listed as notice in the time stand. 😮 Reply @vtrandal 4 years ago (edited) At 9:10 the arrows being discussed represent the strength of the gravitational field along the road which is locally Euclidean [(the Minkowski space you guys talked about earlier and refer to as "flat"). Careful: at 9:55 you say the vector potential changes (including a change of direction as you tilted your right hand). It does NOT change. What changes is the cars’ up and down motion causing them to lose and gain momentum to the gravitational field as Matt said in the video clip shown previously. Despite these little snags your video is great. Even Matt O'dowd could be more careful when he includes the center of the earth in his local gauge invariance explanation. I would expect to be weightless at the center if the earth. No balls would roll. They would float. Okay: at 17:30 those pins are called railroad spikes (the taste of sodium saccharin, but you’re talking about the distance between the rails, the gauge). In physics we mean gauge as in temperature gauge; the temperature is the same regardless of the scale. But you knew this per your Gauge Invariance talk at 22:22 . 1 Reply @Airsofter4692 4 years ago For a source on gauge theory/Yang Mills, I would also recommend looking at David Tong's notes on Gauge Theory. In fact his notes on everything are great (especially GR and QFT), he basically has enough notes to cover most of a Physics degree at this point 7 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @finnjake6174 3 years ago Thank you for the recommendations at the end! :D 1 Reply @timberfinn 4 years ago Started reading the paper after you guys put it on Twitter, finally starting to understand yang mills somewhat lol. Thanks for the video and for suggesting that resource los eigen bros 3 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @KaliFissure 3 years ago Charge related components, charge electrical magnetic, are curves or bends in membrane, gravity is density of membrane. Reply @esb1874 4 years ago So happy I just found this podcast! I'll be tuning in for here on! Thanks from a fellow physicist! 1 Reply @BboyKeny 4 years ago 20:00 "For me this put a nail in the coffin" For me this put a gauge between the rail track. Great video, thanks!!! 1 Reply @LukePluto 3 years ago (edited) Just found this channel. Surprising to hear some bros talking about gauge theory and differential geometry, will have to subscribe and go through your vids. Hope u keep making videos! I recommend trying out a video on Ricci Flow; not sure how common it is in physics, but it's an interesting area explored more in pure math 2 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @johnrowson7639 4 years ago Thanks. Why didn’t you return to the equations you showed at the start, and relate the understanding of the theory arrived at? ( It would have helped me anyhow). 2 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @moosehead4497 3 years ago How come the highest quality podcasts like yours have only 5k subscribers? 2 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @riggmeister 3 years ago This is a very engauging topic! 1 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @ibrahimshehata7286 4 years ago Does anybody know the name of the channel explaining Schrodinger wave equation 1 Reply Eigenbros · 3 replies @nightwng1207 4 years ago Yang-Billz baby 4 Reply @KaliFissure 3 years ago This closely maps onto that Wolfram Physics Project. Reply @peterd5843 3 years ago man i wish this stuff made more money. I'd study it for sure :( 1 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @Grandunifiedcelery 4 years ago I enjoyed! Next, could you tackle the Grand Unified Theory? I subscribed your channel 8 Reply Eigenbros · 3 replies @R.U.READY. 3 years ago (edited) Hey guys love your channel but one suggestion: you guys need to invest in some different mic’s👍🤓 Reply @Bullypulpit 4 years ago If you collect your Universal Basic Income, you'll be required to work at one of the Yang Mills, in theory. 6 Reply @penbunny9078 3 years ago The theory of Railroad gage-gage Symmetry; Reply @chadgregory9037 3 years ago quantum physics be like "wtf we do bout quadratic variation" Reply @양익서-g8j 11 months ago 결국은 우리는 우리의 설계도와 아이디어를 깨닫고 선택을 하겠죠....죽음도 삶도 넘는 그 너머의 삶 Reply @____uncompetative 1 year ago 50:16 continued Edward Witten collaborated with Nathan Seiberg and came out with Seiberg-Witten theory. Eric Weinstein makes no claim on that, but says that the Seiberg-Witten equations or invariants were essentially the same as his work and recognised as having been originated by him when Witten wrote them on the blackboard at MIT. This doesn't mean Witten stole Eric's idea. It might be that Taubes knew Witten had been similarly inspired by Donaldson's work and/or the Uhlenbeck book and had equations very like what Eric was planning on making the subject of his thesis and may have been told some bullshit false reason why it wouldn't work because Witten was working on using them to develop his theory with Seiberg. So you might have The Origin of Species scenario where Alfred Russel Wallace came up with the theory of evolution before Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell urged Darwin to publish first to gain priority. This didn't happen, but the scenario could provide a template whereby Witten is the Darwin and Weinstein is the Wallace and history attributes the equations to Witten and Nathan Seiberg, improperly. Of course, I wasn’t there. I can’t corroborate this story. I have no reason to doubt Eric’s account, but it is possible there may be more to it so it could have seemed like theft and actually been Eric being put on a non-conflicting path when if he was left alone he would have got the credit for a significant pair of equations. Were this to be the case then Eric would have had his ideas suppressed by Clifford Taubes and that is inexcusable as Eric would have come out with his version of these equations in his PhD in 1992 years before Witten came out with anything similar (even if they independently arrived at the same result, as does happen in science). I think Eric would have been okay with this being that Witten happened upon the same thing as him, but it was painfully obvious that everyone who knew he had done this work and wasn't prepared to speak up about it, presumably because they did not want to be excluded from Witten's seminars, and have it affect their academic career advancement, were cowards and I think Eric did the right thing in leaving physics and it hasn't actually made any progress in the intervening years without him. String Theory has made no predictions which can be refuted by experiment. Sir Roger Penrose says it isn't physics. Had Eric stayed on in academia he would have become a string theorist and wasted his intellect on inconsequential mathematical fluff and less interesting conversations. Consequently, Eric pursued a career in finance whilst working on his speculative ideas in his spare time. These aren't complete, and haven't been through a process of academic peer review, but to make up for this there are a couple of email addresses on the first page eliciting constructive general and technical feedback from anyone who wants to provide it. I asked him if the Ship In A Bottle operator was bidirectional when he phoned me up, he said it was. I didn't have reason to make any further constructive criticisms beyond minor nit-picks about typesetting, such as a spurious '4' on the corner of the first page which has no reason being there. So, I don't see that there is a lot of point in emailing him about spelling mistakes, as others will probably have done that. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to help him reconstruct the formal definitions for the Ship In A Bottle operators which he says in the draft paper that he promises to reconstruct from scratch if necessary. I bought F. Reese Harvey's book on Spinors and Calibrations and the relevant sections seem to be on page 190-194 and 233-237 although the whole of Chapter 12 is probably relevant from its discussion of split-signatures to twistor fibers. Now, I can't see how any of this math is relevant to his informal definition of a Ship In A Bottle operator which is intended to "kill off the Weyl curvature contribution to recover Riemannian geometry’s ability to form Einstein tensors for gravity in such a way as to preserve Ehresmannian gauge covariance". Presumably this takes an extension of the Yang-Mills equation to 14D rather than the 8D Eric demonstrated was possible in his cited PhD thesis, and then applies the same strategy as Paul Dirac did to obtain a relativisitic equation describing the momentum of the electron from the Klein-Gordon equation, where to get rid of the squares wasn't mathematically possible with an actual square root operation, so his solution was to square his work in progress Dirac equation and leave the Klein-Gordon alone. This led to the terms of the latter being put on the ascending diagonal of a 4x4 table, to represent time and the other 3 spatial dimensions of space-time comprising the electron's momentum. Dirac multiplied his (equation)(equation) with itself to square it, and that led to a 4x4 table of results of that distributative multiplying out of every term with every other term in those ( )s. Then he cancelled every off-ascending diagonal term with its counterpart, recognising that matrices were involved. He then had two ascending diagonals to have his D-squared be defined by KG. Then all he had to do was actually root the terms of his D-squared, which was mathematically legitimate, and he had his Dirac equation. Eric is of the opinion this same technique can be used on the Yang-Mills curvature equation, I think after extending it to operate in 14D, and then "square root" it to obtain one for what would be Weinstein Field Equations (plural) in 14D, although due to the (Weinstein)(Weinstein) this would probably involve 196 equations (14x14) and require the use of software for manipulating tensor algebra (which exists). All this is merely pencilled in in his provisional draft paper in Equation (12.10) which is not mathematics, let alone physics, but should be viewed as a placeholder/reminder for outlined future work to be done in subsequent versions of his Author's Working Draft: ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ _______________________________‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ Einstein-Dirac = √ Yang-Mills-Higgs-Klein-Gordon https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric_Unity-Draft-April-1st-2021.pdf#page=58 Reply @osemudiame123 4 years ago Hey, what are your full names? 2 Reply Eigenbros · 2 replies @robmorgan1214 4 years ago We're got a serious linguistic and notation problem (we need Leibnetz2.0). Most physicists can't talk to each other let alone a mathematician or layperson... and the mathematicians in my experience are not able to manipulate let alone solve these kinds of equations or even complete an analytical (toy) calculation let alone a full numeric computation necessary to make a prediction or analyze REALISTIC data. We have compounded this mathematical tower of babble by naming things in very misleading ways that further confuse people and screw up everyone's ability to build intuition or explain these concepts to people with a "normal" (ie non mathematically overload) mental dictionary... FFS, we call the most USEFUL number system that we've devised to ACCURATELY REPRESENT ALMOST EVERYTHING* A MODERN HUMAN IS LIKELY TO ENCOUNTER IN EVERYDAY REALITY: "IMAGINARY"... it doesn't any more messed up than that. (waves, fluids, simple harmonic oscillators, e&m, aerodynamics, fourier transforms, spherical harmonic cows, simple circuits, QM, SR, QFT, WTF ...etc) 3 Reply @clintross7274 4 years ago Peanut butter pancakes Reply @StephenPaulKing 4 years ago (edited) fractal Calculus, dude! Think of what has to be done to do calculus on a Koch curve. :-P So long as we can string the local derivatives and (dually?) the functions together to span the curve we are analyzing, we should be OK. After all, we should be able to play with manifolds that are not smooth because of the computational complexity of the decision problem of whether or not a a pair of manifolds have a smooth diffeomorphism between them (ala a theorem by Markov). Reply @AMGOSUK 3 years ago Thanks for avoiding the MATHS for at least for the first 2 minutes. BUT -- you lost me after that. My observation takes me back to 1978 - when I chose to study engineering rather than physics because I could not get my heads around (or visualise) pure maths or the maths I would have to be awesome at if I were to seek to study physics after high-school. Since retiring I have watched a lot of lectures on cosmology and physics - but as soon as the likes of Suskin starts to speak almost 1-second after he starts we are deep into the Maths and I am lost. My ask is for a simple explanation based on our lived reality FIRST and then yes please explain the relevant math and evidence. 1 Reply Eigenbros · 1 reply @jamesbra4410 4 years ago Yeah we get it it's an 11 dimensional projection of a periodic fundamental period eigenmanifold of a spherically harmonic oscillator with quantum mechanical moment generating hypersurface rotations and a metric signature correcting for curvature variations. I take poops harder than this. Reply @clintross7274 3 years ago Peanut butter pancakes Reply