Comments by "Dr Gamma D" (@DrDeuteron) on "How Physicists Finally Solved The Infinity Problem" video.

  1. Not at all. Gravity is a field theory, like the rest of them, and when fields are quantized, there are quanta. Quanta get a name.
    4
  2.  @paulmichaelfreedman8334 partial nonsense. EM is a dipole, but that’s called “a vector theory”. Gravity is a tensor, but looks like a scalar (monopole) because mc2 dominates other terms like kinetic energy mv2, momentum change, energy gradient, stress, and pressure. Those are normal geometric concerns, color goes off into a hole nother thing that follows the geometry of an 8 dimensional space (one dimension per gluon), which has a sqrt(8+1)=3 charge types, called color. It’s so mathy, it’s very hard to find a nontechnical explanation.
    3
  3.  @goodfodder that’s just a colloquialism that serves to confuse non experts.
    3
  4. No and no.
    2
  5.  @vmoutsop  we explain it by energy. I the state with a new q qbar pair is lower energy it will appear.
    2
  6. So you know what entanglement means?
    2
  7.  @Flesh_Wizard it is zero on all scales.
    2
  8.  @technomage6736 no, we have complete data on them. The most accurate scientific theory and measurement ever is based on virtual particles. ( gee minus 2 ). We have them on lock.
    2
  9. that's because the experts can't solve strongly coupled quantum fields.
    2
  10. Strongly coupled quantum fields are hard.
    1
  11. No. Quarks.
    1
  12. Not that.
    1
  13.  @harriehausenman8623  well there is a Higgsino in super symmetry. Now if you followed the car progression (super car, hyper car) you'd fail, because hyper was used in the 60's with the "hyperon" which is now just called a strange baryon.
    1
  14. You’re late for the harvest.
    1
  15. I don’t think so. My pfp disagrees.
    1
  16.  @triplec8375  gluon flux tubes?
    1
  17. I would say it was partially coherent. Some made sense, some didn’t. But that is no different from any QCD or strong nuclear force seminar I’ve gone to, including those by Stanley Brodsky, and including the one by Stanley Brodsky on my PhD data which confirmed a theory of Stanley Brodsky with the innocuous name “constituent counting rules”.
    1
  18. Where did you get that idea? Quark number is a conserved quantity.
    1
  19. yes. but a note on color--there really is no such thing as a "red" quark. QCD is invariant under color rotations, so it's just a quark of any color, or combination. It's like in atomic physics were we quantize angular momentum against the z-axis. The actual axis doesn't mean anything, but we need to pick one to do math.
    1