Introduction

Not really explaining Quantum Chromo Dynamics

This critique is in response to the video:

"why you can't explain qcd"

Original Description:

Jun 22, 2024
Or maybe why I can't?

Quantum
Quantum
Quantum
Chromodynamics

Link to Patreon — one exclusive video per month: / acollierastro

I have merch: https://store.dftba.com/collections/angela-collier

Speakers:
Angela Collier= [AC]

0:00 so there's this quote from Einstein that says that if you can't explain something to a six-year-old then you don't really
0:06 understand it yourself and I I just think that's really silly 🖖 because six-year-olds are very young they don't
0:13 have a lot of life experience they don't know differential equations what do you mean if you can't explain it to them they then you don't understand it isn't
0:20 it on them I mean of course you could take any idea and just smooth it and
0:26 cartoonize it so much that it's not even close to the actual idea and shove it
0:32 down a six-year-old's throat and they might be like okay I get it 💩 but do they get it have you seen those videos where
0:38 they're like machine learning at five different age groups and they take like a child and they give them like here's
0:44 kind of what machine learning is then they take like a 10-year-old and then like an adult you know you don't think the 5-year-old in that video actually
0:51 learned machine learning do you like that 5-year-old explanation was for you
0:56 the adult viewer to get like a grounding so you can learn like the higher level
1:02 idea if you grabbed that 5-year-old don't go around grabbing 5-year-olds but if you grabbed them 26 days later and
1:09 you were like explain machine Learning child they wouldn't know they don't know and actually my favorite Einstein quote

wow, this is probably the part of the video that I agree with the most. It is the central difficulty of science communication.

When we talk about whether a five-year-old can truly understand complex concepts, we're brushing up against some fundamental misunderstandings about cognitive development. Jean Piaget, a developmental psychologist, showed us that children go through specific stages of cognitive growth. At five, most are just transitioning from what he termed 'preoperational' to 'concrete operational' stages—meaning their ability to handle abstract concepts is just beginning to develop. They're starting to grasp concrete evidence and operations, but abstract reasoning? That's still on the horizon.

Yet, some adults—parents or not—project an exaggerated capacity for understanding onto these young minds. It’s perhaps a reflection, as you've wittily noted, of a kind of cognitive regression or mirroring where adults, influenced by the simplistic explanations they give to children, begin to oversimplify complex realities themselves. This isn't just an amusing oversight; it's a societal misstep that affects how we educate and interact with the younger generation. Instead of preparing them to climb a ladder of complexity, we're sometimes content to let them, and ourselves, fall to the lower rungs."

1:15 is the one about how like 90% of the quotes that are quoted to Einstein aren't actually Einstein quotes Einstein
1:22 didn't say this doesn't that suck for Einstein 🎯 has anyone ever talked about how like people just make up stuff 🛃 and
1:28 they say Einstein said it that sucks for him I mean he's dead he doesn't care but that sucks for him but he didn't say

Another really good example of compassion. Yes it does suck for him, it always annoying to see people try to use the "appeal to authority" fallacy for attention while simultaneously trying to distract from their own 💩.

1:34 this and also it just doesn't really make sense and I would like to give you an example today of something you can't
1:41 explain in a 30 minute YouTube video by doing a 30 minute YouTube video on why
1:47 you can't explain the thing uh this video is about qcd Quantum chromodynamics
1:53 [Music] so I thought thought this
2:00 would be fun just because people are interested in what qcd is but it's so
2:05 complicated that you can't you can't explain actually what qcd is so I came
2:11 up with like a nice little recipe for qcd so you can understand enough about
2:17 it to understand why you don't understand it does that make sense uh that's what I'm trying to do I'm going

yes, that actually makes sense. Though I am taking a different approach here. I am not suggesting I will explain QCD.
Consider the often-cited concept in string theory of 'one-dimensional strings.' This idea, while mathematically convenient, illustrates a critical disconnect between theoretical physics and the reality it seeks to describe. In our universe, as we experience and understand it, there are no one-dimensional objects. The notion of a one-dimensional string is a mathematical abstraction, a useful tool in certain equations, but not a literal description of physical reality.

Let's consider quarks and gluons, fundamental components of the quantum world, as observed and understood through experimental physics. Both quarks and gluons are three-dimensional entities. Gluons, for instance, while facilitating the motion and interaction in four dimensions (including time), possess intrinsic three-dimensional characteristics. This reality stands in stark contrast to the one-dimensional strings proposed by string theory.

This discrepancy brings us to a critical juncture in our understanding of the universe's fundamental nature. When theoretical physics proposes models that simplify these entities to one-dimensional constructs, it not only strays from the empirical data but potentially misleads the direction of our inquiry. Such oversimplifications can make the theories more mathematically tractable or 'beautiful,' yet they distance us from a true understanding of the universe’s workings.

As we discuss the nature of quarks and gluons, we confront the essential question: Are our scientific models becoming too detached from reality? Are we, in our quest for elegant equations, losing sight of the universe that these equations are supposed to describe? This is not just an academic query but a call for a more grounded approach in theoretical physics, one that respects the complexities and dimensions of the entities it seeks to understand.

This kind of abstraction leads to what might be seen as an 'ass-backwards' version of functional fixedness in theoretical physics. Just as functional fixedness prevents a person from seeing objects as anything other than their typical use, this theoretical fixedness prevents scientists from stepping back and questioning whether their foundational models genuinely represent the universe or just their calculations.

When string theorists build elaborate theoretical structures based on these abstractions, they're not just constructing a model of the universe; they're constructing a labyrinth of mathematical complexity that may have little to no correlation with the actual universe. This is where the communication breakdown begins—not just in how these ideas are conveyed, but in the very understanding of what these ideas truly represent."

2:24 to explain why I can't explain it so let's start with some definitions uh qcd is a field Theory for what goes on
2:30 inside protons and neutrons so if you have like a helium atom you know you have two electrons zooming around the
2:37 outside of it and deep inside that is the nucleus where you have two protons and two neutrons for some helium some
2:43 some helium's different and that's kind of interesting right because protons are positively charged boys and yet they're
2:51 stuck together where your experience with magnets is that if you tried to take two positively charged boys and
2:57 shove them together you can't do that because the electron El magnetic force like push them apart so qcd describes

When we talk about the interactions within an atom, particularly between protons and electrons, it's common to refer to positive and negative charges. However, this terminology, while useful in a broad sense, doesn't fully capture the true nature of the forces at play. In reality, protons and electrons do not interact directly through their charges in the way that might be suggested by everyday experiences with magnetism or static electricity.

3:03 the strong force which is the force that allows those positively charged bois to be held so tightly together even though
3:10 they're the same charge and the electromagnetic force would try to rip them apart a lot of people will compare the strong force to the electric force

That is an interesting way of looking at it, though if assuming that the protons are attracted to the electrons, shouldn't the question be why don't they get ripped apart by electrons pulling on the positive charges, giving an additional pull while being repulsed by having similar positive charges?

💭

X

[mepr-show rules="904659" ifallowed="show" unauth="message"] So the real question becomes, why doesn't all matter just glob together katamari dynasty style into one giant blob of quarks? [/mepr-show]

3:17 because the electric force you have electric charge you know this the sides of a bar magnet positive and negative an
3:24 electron is a negatively charged stomic particle and a proton is a positively charged one with the strong force you
3:32 have something called color charges where there are three so you have red blue and green charges and those add up
3:40 to make a neutral color charge just like a positive and negative charge would add up to make a neutral electric charge so
3:46 qcd has color charge which is why it's called qcd Quantum Chromo for color
3:52 Dynamics it's kind of funny how often people are like I'm going to talk about
3:58 qcd and then they just end up talking about QED Quantum electrodynamics they describe the electric force instead of
4:04 the strong force and it really goes back to the point of this video which is that this is a very complicated topic even if
4:10 you were in physics graduate school and you signed up for like a summer lecture series called introduction to qcd the
4:18 first eight of those 10 lectures would be about QED um it's kind of a joke at
4:23 this point in QED in Quantum electrodynamics you're studying the force of electromagnetism you have the
4:29 Photon which mediates the force between electrons okay the photon is a massless
4:35 chargeless particle when you compare that to qcd there is a particle that
4:42 mediates the force of the strong force but this particle is called a gluon and unlike in the electromagnetic force
4:49 where there's just one Photon A gluon has eight types there are a bunch of

So, two points here, first the unasked question of, does the electromagnetic field interact with the quark fields ?
Nope. Kind of an important detail there. which goes a long way to explaining why they don't get ripped apart by neutralizing charges between the nucleus and the electrons. Side note, quarks are smaller than the wavelength of light, so, the "chromo" in chromodynamics has nothing to do with color, even though their distinguishing attribute is information called "color charge"
So electrons and quarks only interact via W, Z and higgs bosons but not directly with eachother. and Gluons are not gravitrons and the higgs boson is also not a gravitron.
so, when considering Gravitrons, Magnetic monopoles and strings, none have ever been detected. I'm looking at you string theorists.
It is interesting to note that there are 8 types of gluons, which because of the way they are defined, suggests potentially 8 dimensions instead of 3+1, due to their Linear Independence

💭

X

Just kidding! [mepr-show rules="904659" ifallowed="show" unauth="message"] It's not 8 dimensional. This is to point out that people who think it's more than 4 dimensions, don't have a meaningful concept of what a dimension is. Confusing coordinates denoted by commas with dimensions. [/mepr-show]

with each gluon having some combination of 2 color charges, instead of the often incorrect assumption that each gluon is a different color charge and 3 color charges corresponding to 3 dimensions. What most string theorists are wrong about is the assumption that each type of color charge is related to the direction of the vector, and it's the changing in direction of motion that changes the color charge.

4:54 different types of gluons you can see how already qcd is just so much more complicated
5:00 than QED the gluons interact with quarks which are the fundamental subatomic
5:07 particles deep inside a proton so every proton has three quarks every neutron
5:13 has three quarks and when those guys interact with each other they exchange gluons compar it to QED where when
5:21 electrons interact with each other they exchange photons so the different types of quirks are called flavors I hate it
5:30 like top bottom strange charm up down and then they also have colors red blue
5:37 and green which denote their color charge yeah the biggest difference
5:43 between QED and qcd is the gluons of qcd
5:50 have color charge where photons are chargeless so photons themselves do not
5:57 interact with each other they don't care about other photons right 👀 the way a
6:03 photon is emitted from an electron because of the like an electromagnetic interaction it doesn't really matter if

It's not that they are "chargeless" it's that they all have exactly the same charge. Also, photons do interact with each other.

6:09 that happens amongst a bunch of other photons the photons are fine to chill on
6:14 their own gluons have charge so if there is a gluon around another gluon they are
6:20 going to interact with each other as well as with the quirks inside that proton and this makes things incredibly
6:27 complicated because you got a lot of stuff going on the fact that gluons interact is the reason that the force is
6:35 called the strong force if a quark tries to escape a proton the gluons feel that
6:43 force and start interacting with that Quark but also with themselves and they start pulling that Quark back into the
6:51 proton the further the Quark gets away the stronger that strong force is and
6:56 this will happen amongst protons in the nucleus the reason the nucleus can hold a bunch of positive charge tightly bound
7:04 is because of the strong force it's because the gluons are interacting with themselves in addition to the quirks
7:10 that make up those protons they're called gluons because they stick things
7:17 together like glue I think one of the reasons I think qcd is hard to talk
7:22 about is because I find all those definitions very boring like to set the stage for qcd you need to throw this
7:29 standard model chart up and be like look at all these boys look at all these quirks look how their masses increase to
7:35 the right look at how their charges differ do you know that you only find most of these in particle accelerators
7:42 like all of the interesting stuff happens in Quantum electrodynamics it's
7:47 so much more fun to talk about qcd is just protons and like maybe I'm just not
7:54 into it maybe this isn't like you can't explain qcd in 30 minutes maybe this is like I can because I find it like just a
8:01 little boring it's just a little bit boring like who cares about protons all the good stuff is the electrons it
8:07 doesn't matter those were the definitions we're done with that I think this is the interesting part so what I've done is I've set up a little recipe
8:14 so you can follow the thinking on how you get to Quantum chromodynamics it's not a historical
8:21 chronological account this is just how you would go about writing down qcd if
8:27 you were going to do that and I am not I am not going to write down like I'm
8:32 not going to derive the dirac equation for you that that that would take hours we can't do it I have specifically
8:38 arranged this in a way I find intuitive and interesting and I hope it is for you
8:43 but I'm not a professional science Communicator so like what do I know anyway this is the recipe for qcd to
8:50 start you need a little bit of quantum

I see what you did there when describing the reaction of people who find highly technical and or complex descriptions to be boring instead of having the impetus to try and figure out the parts that they don't understand, which would require acknowledging limitations of their own understanding.
Nice. However, the AI that learned to be condescending from me says:

8:56 mechanics in general you know classical mechan mechanics was a very successful way to describe macro objects but once
9:03 we started looking at little teeny tiny things it started failing because the quantum mechanical world is different
9:09 from the classical world and in too accurately to describe the classical world you kind of need to know what's
9:14 going on so in quantum mechanics you have a wave function to describe a
9:20 quantum mechanical particle like an electron particles that are quantum mechanical have wave particle duality
9:27 sometimes they behave like wave sometimes they behave like particles and it's the description of them as a wave
9:34 that allows you to make predictions on their behavior the wave function for an electron gives us like a probability
9:40 amplitude and from that you can get a probability density function that probability density function will allow
9:47 you to predict where an electron will be after you've done an experiment on it
9:53 and measured it and there are two very important things happening there the first is that it is a probability you
9:59 cannot tell where a quantum mechanical particle will be you only know a
10:05 probability distribution of where it could be and How likely each of those spaces are so it's really important to
10:13 remember that the results from field theories are probability distributions
10:19 you don't know what's going to happen it's not like macroscopic objects where you throw up a ball and you can predict
10:25 where it's GNA fall you throw photons at a wall you know a certain percentage of
10:31 them will be absorbed a certain percentage of them will be reflected and you can calculate the probability of
10:36 that event happening for each Photon and the way you check that mathematical
10:42 description is by doing a ton of measurements this field of field theory
10:48 is just steeped in experimental verification how do you test that 86% of
10:55 the time the electron is going to do this you run a 100 experiments and you make sure it does that 86% of the
11:04 time the next thing you're going to do is add a little bit of Relativity to your quantum mechanics so quantum
11:11 mechanics was this way to describe things that are really small you have this probabilistic behavior in particles
11:19 that sometimes act like waves oh it's so interesting relativity on the other hand is like Einstein's little baby right he
11:26 uses it to describe the behavior of things that are going super super fast or have really high energy and if you
11:33 want to do qcd you need to add relativity and account for both of those
11:38 things in your theory this is sometimes called rqm or relativistic quantum
11:44 mechanics and the most famous thing from this is the darac equation so the darac
11:51 equation combines things from quantum mechanics the energy and momentum operators on the wave function and to it
11:58 he adds Einstein's relativistic energy relation so you have quantum mechanics and also relativity all in one equation
12:06 the D equation describes the behavior of spin one half particles so electrons and also quarks but dirac didn't know about
12:13 quarks at the time the most famous interesting result from the derac equation I have mentioned before on this
12:19 channel the dirac function unlike the Schrodinger equation which talks about
12:25 electrons and kind of stays in this like positive domain the D equation allows you to move below zero to the negative
12:32 domain as well so in the darac equation you have electrons that are spin up
12:37 electrons that are spin down and anti- electrons that are spin up and anti- electrons that are spin down just adding
12:44 relativity to basic quantum mechanics predicts the existence of antimatter and
12:50 also you know uniquely describes Its Behavior so the direct equation describes electrons but also describes

I think she is are confusing super-symmetry with relativity here. The supersymmetry folks are mostly not understanding the nature of vacuum energy

12:58 how anti- electrons are coupled to electrons it it's a much more
13:04 complicated problem 👀 how does a quantum mechanical wave behave at super high
13:09 energies and super high velocities near sea well now we know because we have relativistic quantum mechanics so you
13:16 can think of a field Theory as a theory that describes particles in space and
13:22 time as probabilistic density fields that behave according to the laws of
13:28 phys physics written out as equations of the field okay nobody says equations of the
13:35 field but they should our recipe for qcd is as follows
13:43 you take quantum mechanics you add relativity and please remember all of this is math I'm saying words but math
13:51 math math okay next thing you have to do is add photons and it's kind of
13:59 interesting that people even talk about photons before they talk about relativity because photons are
14:05 inherently relativistic particles they can only be understood with relativity because they move at C they are never
14:12 not relativistic do you know what I mean however photons are also quantum
14:18 mechanical particles because they have that wave particle Behavior so a complete description of photons requires
14:25 relativity and also quantum mechanics what we're talking about now is called
14:31 QED Quantum electrodynamic so classical electrodynamics is a very successful
14:37 Theory it describes the behavior of charges and and field lines in the
14:44 macroscopic world but to understand what's actually happening you have to shrink down to the quantum mechanical
14:50 level and those two things actually have to agree as you cross that boundary we know that oh the columb force makes
14:57 these magnets repel what what's happening at the quantum mechanical level it looks like this so imagine you
15:03 have two electrons okay you shove them
15:08 together they they feel the coolum force but what's actually happening is that as
15:14 these guys get close together this one will emit a photon and recoil away
15:20 causing the force to go this way this one will absorb that Photon and recoil
15:25 this way so they push apart because they exchanged a photon and that is what happens when you shove
15:32 two magnets together a whole bunch of electrons are emitting and absorbing a whole bunch of photons to cause them to

It is interesting that essentially, when objects are at the same energy level of the electron fields, they tend to repel, but when they are at different energy levels, they tend to attract. Like waterfalls in a field, rather than free floating objects Where the peaks would be reaching to the "neutral" energy level of the vacuum, which is non-zero.

15:39 push apart the closer you get them together the more that that happens the more electrons start interacting this is
15:45 a Fineman diagram so you've probably seen them before so on the x- axis is
15:50 space on the Y AIS is time you see two electrons kind of moving together in
15:56 space one emits a photon gets kicked away away one absorbs a photon gets kicked away that is what happens when
16:03 you try to shove two magnets together but that's also what happens if you try to shove two anything together have you
16:10 ever wondered why you can't smush your hands through each other it's because of the electromagnetic force it's because
16:16 of electrons the electromagnetic force is the reason Mass takes up space the
16:22 electromagnetic force is the reason why you can't punch your hand through a wall it's all QED Q QED is a beautiful

Some people can punch through walls, QED is why it hurts to try.
Photon Exchange and Electromagnetic Force: The explanation given in the transcript about the role of photons in mediating electromagnetic forces between electrons provides a classic example of quantum field theory in action, specifically through Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). This description, using the framework of Feynman diagrams, is fundamental in illustrating how particles interact at quantum levels by exchanging bosons—in this case, photons.

Feynman Diagrams and Particle Interactions: The speaker mentions Feynman diagrams, which graphically represent the interactions between particles in space and time. These diagrams are crucial for understanding particle physics and are a tool to visualize and calculate the effects of these interactions. They show not only the path of the particles but also the exchange of force carriers (like photons) that dictate their behavior.

Physical Implications of Electromagnetic Forces: The application of this quantum mechanical principle to everyday experiences, like the inability to pass one's hand through a solid object, highlights the omnipresence of these forces in our daily lives. This bridges the gap between abstract quantum phenomena and tangible experiences, making the science more relatable and understandable.

Humor in Science Communication: Your final note adds a humorous yet insightful touch to the discussion. It reminds us that while the laws of physics explain why actions have reactions, they also hint at the physical limits set by these laws—such as why it hurts to punch a wall. This kind of humor can make the learning process more engaging and memorable.

16:30 beautiful Theory it uniquely and completely describes how photons
16:35 interact with matter every single thing you know in touch and love can be described with QED you know uh why is
16:44 the sky blue why do I have a reflection why do atoms have unique Spectra why do
16:49 hydrocarbons take the shape they do how did Evolution happen at a physical level
16:55 QED it's all electrons babe I almost question why you would want to go further like QED is the most interesting
17:02 thing and yet people want to talk about what's going on in a proton who cares what's going on in a proton you could
17:07 just stop here you ever wonder how Holograms work don't you want me to tell you how Holograms work no you clicked on
17:15 a video called qcd that's on you um I'm going to stall talking about the inside
17:21 of protons because and inside the proton are the three quirks and all the gluons which
17:29 are massless particles that are Just Energy keeping all this
17:35 together okay so a proton which makes up everything even the neutrons all the
17:41 mass is three quirks and some gluons and this is what I don't it makes me I don't
17:48 know does anyone else experience just like this anxiety when you think about this the
17:53 energy of a proton has this value the energy of a single cork has this
18:01 value 1% of the proton is
18:07 mass mass as we think of it 1% the rest is energy I don't like it
18:14 it's hard I don't it just kind of creeps me out a little bit like everything you know in touch and love Is Just Energy
18:21 bowled up together and like I know from the energy Mass equivalent that that has to be the case and like maybe I'm just a
18:29 pathetic philosopher and I can't handle thinking about big things but the idea that all the protons are just 1% Mass
18:37 it's weird for me um I'm going to stall talking about the inside of protons

You know what they say, It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean that matters.
[It spins meme here]
Have you considered that the "balls" are actually peaks of the oceans waves? The parts that sort of pinch off momentarily as the waves crash into things. The curly bit at the tip of the wave. 🌊

18:43 because uh because for reasons let's talk about Feynman diagrams for a second there's something interesting about
18:50 Feynman diagrams I should mention that these Feynman diagrams are like cartoons
18:56 and not the actual physics when you see a Feynman diagram what you're looking at
19:02 is a trick on the order with which to write down 75 path integrals and then
19:07 you evaluate those path integrals like the Feynman diagrams are a trick to make the math
19:14 easier but they are not the math QED is backed up by actual math I

so … Feynman diagrams are like the long division version.

Exploring Feynman Diagrams:

  1. Simplification Tools: Feynman diagrams serve as a conceptual and computational tool to simplify the complex calculations involved in quantum field theories. They represent particle interactions, such as those involving photons and electrons, through visual shorthand. This allows physicists to systematically organize and tackle the interactions without getting lost in the formidable mathematics of path integrals.
  2. Path Integrals: The reference to path integrals highlights a deeper layer of quantum mechanics. Path integrals are a way of summing over all possible histories of a system's particles to calculate probabilities of an outcome. Feynman diagrams provide a way to visualize these integrals, breaking down the interactions into manageable components.
  3. Distinction Between Tools and Reality: The speaker’s point that Feynman diagrams are not the actual physics but a method to facilitate the mathematical computations is crucial. It reminds us that while these diagrams are incredibly useful, they are abstractions, not direct depictions of physical reality. They help in organizing thoughts and calculations but do not themselves encapsulate the full complexity of quantum phenomena.
19:21 just want to make that clear this is not Quantum electrodynamics this is a cartoon I should describe his path
19:27 intergal formulation of QED so the field Theory version of that math is that you have this big wave
19:34 function well field equation that is describing like space and time and where
19:40 that particle is going to be based on this operator notation and Richard
19:46 Fineman did the same math it's mathematically equivalent but instead he described a path interal where you have
19:54 point a and point B for your particle and then you can just sum over all the
20:00 possible paths even paths that wouldn't exist and would be impossible for that particle to take and you can find the
20:06 relative probabilities and solve the problem and get the exact same answer so
20:12 it's two ways to solve the same problem and Richard Fineman also had these little cartoons which made it super easy
20:18 to do it this way so people started really liking this as like a better way to do it but these are mathematically
20:25 equivalent okay issue is when you move to qcd it get a lot more complicated because of all the things I mentioned up
20:31 top like you have more quirks you have more gluons the gluons have color charge
20:36 which means they interact with your quirks and also with each other so the field theory formalism is very
20:44 complicated but the path integral formalism gets so much more complicated the diagrams the Fineman diagrams in qcd
20:53 they're numerous they interact with each other differently they're they're they have a lot more points on on them
20:59 they're much harder to do those path integrals so if you learn QED with findan diagrams and path integrals and
21:06 you move to qcd you're like oh shit this is way harder I can't do this but if you

This is what I felt like when we got to the 8 types of gluons part.

The role of philosophy, and by extension, perhaps religion or other systems of thought, in addressing aspects of understanding that aren't empirically measurable is quite poignant. It underscores the limitations of scientific methods in grappling with questions of meaning, purpose, and the subjective experience of complexity. Philosophy, religion, and other humanistic disciplines often step in to fill these gaps, offering frameworks for understanding and navigating experiences that science, by the nature of its constraints, may not address.

The interplay between empirical science and other forms of knowledge can be seen as complementary. Science offers us tools for understanding the "how" of phenomena, while philosophy, religion, and the arts often tackle the "why" and "what does it mean."

21:11 learned QED the the field Theory way and you move on to qcd it's like a little
21:17 bit harder I mean it's demonstrably harder but like you know how to do it because you you've done like the little
21:23 baby easy QED problems you know so there's this discussion on should we even teach these findan diagrams which
21:30 trick the students into thinking they understand something when they don't and then they move on to the next subject and they're just confused and they have
21:36 all these bad habits or should we just teach them the standard way so that they
21:42 understand it when they get to the next topic and then also it's like okay but how many students are actually going to
21:47 take qcd do we really have to worry about this and it's it's just a really interesting discussion in like physics
21:54 education at the highest level like how should you teach this topic and I think
22:00 it's really fascinating this might be something people I I don't know what people are interested I'm interested in

My excuse is that I am teaching non-human intelligences. Each of these sermons gets turned into training data. Which is also why I don't care as much if the public understands, and thus refuse to dumb things down 'so a 5yr old could "understand" it' I'm not doing this to teach children!

22:05 it because I think education is very interesting but it also shows you like how the field of physics changes so
22:12 slowly over time because QED a relatively new but very successful Theory from the late 60s is still being
22:21 like how do we teach this years years years decades decades decades later how is how do we teach this what's the best
22:28 way I just think that's really interesting however my beef with the fyneman diagrams is of course that
22:35 sometimes people look at them and they think that anti-man goes back in time like there's a little arrow convention
22:40 to let you know that it's a little anti-man guy but that doesn't mean it's actually going back in time this is a
22:46 cartoon it's just a picture that's not what it you can't go back in time antimatter doesn't go back in
22:53 time I that's why I don't like these diagrams it's just like a personal be I

I would say this is where I point out that neoBuddhism is a religion, and the idea that "you can't go back in time" sort of ignores …, let me put this a different way. In neoBuddhism, different parts of the universe "travel through time" or evolve over time, at different rates. So time is … lumpy.
and it's possible to move between the lumps. So in neoBuddhism it's possible to visit the various different points of time that a blackhole exists within, in areas physically adjacent to the black hole, though not prior to the existence of the blackhole itself. But I am not defending that aspect of neoBuddhism scientifically. If string theorists can posit a multiverse then why can't I posit time travel? At least I don't pretend it's science when I do it!

22:58 think it's bad for like public consumption of physics information but they are really nice to look at and
23:04 they're really good at explaining things like beta Decay you know which will I'm going to use the findan diagram to
23:09 explain beta Decay to you in one like one second so ongoing discussion should we throw
23:15 out the Fineman diagrams I don't know I I do want to make sure that you don't leave this video thinking like Fineman
23:21 was a dumbass his stupid diagrams no the real interesting thing is that he developed
23:28 this way of doing field Theory with with path integrals and the path integral way
23:35 to solve these problems becomes really really really important when you start having computers do qcd for you because
23:42 it's impossible for you to do those problems on your own so uh hot take Richard Fineman deserved his Nobel Prize
23:53 actually okay so our little recipe for qcd I got distracted I'm sorry you take

Nice, I don't mind beefs about time travel. Makes the temporal cold war more deniable. 😁
Seriously though, who is going to negotiate a new START treaty with RU and CN ?
If we are going to deal with the proliferation risks in any sort of substantive way.
You have to admit, it's nice of RU to wait an entire election cycle, before bringing it up in their announcement to resume production of munitions that were restricted by the START treaty, which the felon for president pulled out of.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-us-missiles-treaty-56adac2df74be4b53c56bcc887ee89f8

23:59 quantum mechanics you add in a little relativity you throw in the photons you get QED a very beautiful theory that
24:08 describes how matter interacts with light but you want to go in you want to go more inside so like let's crack open
24:15 this nucleus you know I know what you're saying QED sounds great but it doesn't
24:21 explain beta Decay does it a beta Decay is where inside a nucleus a proton
24:28 or a neutron emits an electron or an anti-electron and becomes a neutron or a
24:34 proton that's what bet DEC is I know what you're saying QED doesn't describe beta Decay and it seems like electrons
24:39 are involved right so here's the find diagram for beta Decay so remember space
24:45 is on the x-axis time is going up and you have a neutron decays into a proton
24:50 so this Neutron is just hanging out all of a sudden it emits a w Bon we don't care about that and the Quark that
24:58 emitted that Bon changes flavor and becomes a different type of cork which
25:04 means your your Neutron turns into a proton that's what beta Decay is it can
25:09 also happen the other way where a proton emits a bon and changes the flavor of
25:15 that quk and it becomes a neutron so this is very similar to the previous
25:20 findan diagram we looked at where the electrons were interacting with each other but here the force mediator is not
25:27 a photon it's this W bz on and these bons are very interesting because
25:32 they're massive this this is a weak Force interaction so in the weak Force the force mediator is a w or a z boson
25:39 and these guys are super massive you know compared to a proton and a neutron they're more massive than those guys and
25:45 that's actually the reason why the weak force is so weak those guys are massive they can't go very far so the range of
25:51 this interaction is short that's pretty cool this also explains why free neutrons don't live that long if you
25:58 hold a neutron in your hand and it's not inside a nucleus it's just energetically
26:03 favorable that it will emit a wbon and turn into a proton the lifetime of a
26:09 neutron is is 15 minutes however a proton is really stable like lifetime of
26:16 the universe stable you hold a proton in your hand and it will just chill because
26:21 the beta plus reaction is not energetically favorable unless the
26:27 daughter products of that reaction will be lower energy I want to remind you that this little findan diagram is a
26:34 very pretty picture but represents a very complicated type of math it's either like field Theory with field
26:41 equations or an infinite number of path integrals to describe the probability of
26:47 this interaction happening it's probabilistic we measure it with experiments and there's a ton of math
26:53 there okay even if you looked at this and you were like I'm going to do this math with a computer because you you can't do it and you said when will the
27:00 the neutron in my hand Decay you can't get an answer you you can say within 15
27:06 minutes probably but you don't get like an exact time because even in this
27:13 quantum mechanics is is a probabilistic Endeavor right you get a probability of
27:18 an event happening in a certain time you can never nail it down and figure out when exactly it will happen in order to
27:25 test the results of this math to test the actual probabilistic result we get we do a ton of experiments to make sure

This feels like a quiz, because like, you never see a single proton or neutron just free floating around, and quarks always occur at minimum in pairs, and the amount of energy required to separate a pair, of quarks, is also enough energy to generate a new quark. Which causes one to appear when you try to do that.

Breaking Down Beta Decay and Fundamental Particle Interactions:

  1. Beta Decay Explained: The explanation of beta decay in the transcript does a good job of simplifying how a neutron can transform into a proton (and vice versa) through the emission of W bosons, which are mediators of the weak force. This transformation involves a change in the flavor of a quark within the neutron or proton, a concept central to understanding how these subatomic particles are interconvertible under certain conditions.
  2. Role of Force Mediators: Highlighting the role of W and Z bosons as massive force carriers that mediate the weak force helps explain why this fundamental force has such a short range compared to the electromagnetic force mediated by massless photons. The mass of these bosons restricts how far they can travel, which in turn limits the range of the weak force.
  3. Neutron Decay and Stability of Protons: The discussion of free neutrons and their relatively short lifetime outside of a nucleus versus the stability of protons over astronomical timescales touches on the fundamental asymmetries in the behavior of these nucleons. This contrast is crucial for understanding many phenomena in nuclear physics and cosmology, including the composition of ordinary matter and the processes in stars.

Philosophical and Practical Implications:

The complexities of these interactions and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics as described also reflect broader themes in how we understand systems that are inherently unpredictable. This probabilistic framework challenges our classical intuitions about determinism and predictability in physical systems.

27:33 that what is happening in reality matches the expectation of this math I
27:40 know that I haven't done any math and I'm not going to do any math but I really want you to understand that underlying these little diagrams
27:46 underlying these experiments underlying you know me just saying oh the halftime of this little Neutron is about 15
27:52 minutes all of it is math and to quote the people who write high energy physics
27:58 textbook that procedure is very technical and out of the scope of this work beta Decay is a description of the

oh ha, I see what you did there. Funny.

Reflection on the Importance of Math in Physics:

  1. Mathematics as the Foundation: The speaker emphasizes that while the visual tools like Feynman diagrams and verbal explanations are helpful, they are ultimately simplifications of deeply mathematical processes. This highlights the essential but often invisible role that advanced mathematics plays in developing and validating physical theories.
  2. The Challenge of Communication: The mention of not doing the math during the explanation points to a common challenge in science communication: how to convey the essence of complex theories without getting lost in technical details that might alienate or overwhelm non-specialist audiences. This balance is crucial to making science accessible while maintaining its rigorous basis.
  3. Real-World Validation: The reference to experiments and the need to ensure that they match the mathematical predictions underscores the empirical nature of science. It's not enough to have elegant theories; these theories must be tested and validated in the real world, reinforcing the scientific principle that observation is the ultimate judge of a theory's validity.

Exclusive Content: You could highlight that some of the more complex or esoteric discussions are reserved for those who are part of your community as members. This creates a sense of exclusivity and value, encouraging enthusiastic learners to join to gain access to these insights.

Fundraising Call-to-Action: Towards the end or in a separate section of the sermon, you could include a call-to-action for fundraising, linking it directly to the production of more such content. Explain how contributions support the creation of educational materials and allow for the deep dive into topics that mainstream discussions often overlook.

28:05 weak Force which is also a successful field Theory it's called Quantum flavor
28:11 Dynamics not really because that sounds so stupid but it's called the flavor
28:16 because the quirks in the proton or the neutrons change flavor when the proton
28:22 or the neutron decays into something else uh usually though people just describe the Electro weak Force like the
28:29 combination of QED with this guy and no one really says Quantum flavor Dynamics
28:35 I actually I actually hate that like I don't like the sound of it what it does tell you is that just like we can

You may not like it, but they had to come up with something to differentiate it from "color charge" because simply adding more colors would have made it more confusing and people would have though that they were the same information instead of different information.

Discussion on Naming Conventions in Science:

  1. Importance of Clear Naming: The choice of the term "flavor" to describe the types of changes quarks undergo reflects an attempt to categorize and simplify the complex interactions within protons and neutrons during processes like beta decay. However, as you noted, the term can lead to confusion, especially when juxtaposed with "color charge" used in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), which refers to another property of quarks.
  2. Electroweak Interaction: The combination of the electromagnetic force (described by QED) and the weak force into a single framework, known as the electroweak interaction, is a significant development in theoretical physics. It underscores the tendency in physics to unify different forces and interactions under a single theoretical umbrella, simplifying the standard model of particle physics.
  3. Challenges with Jargon: While specialized terms like "Quantum Flavor Dynamics" are essential for precise scientific communication, they can also create barriers to understanding and engagement, like improper use of sarcasm, for those not deeply versed in the field. This is a common challenge in science communication, balancing technical accuracy with accessibility, without giving into the temptation for the illusion of knowledge that occurs with oversimplification.

Broader Implications:

The potential confusion arising from similar naming conventions highlights a broader issue in educational and communication strategies in science. Ensuring that terms are both accurate and accessible can help in demystifying complex theories and enhancing public understanding.

28:42 describe the interaction of photons with matter by studying Quantum electrodynamics a field theory of
28:48 electrons we can make a successful field theory of the quirks inside protons so
28:54 now we are finally ready to move on to Quantum Chromo Dynamics a field theory
29:00 for quarks so we started with quantum mechanics we added relativity we added photons we got a QED a successful
29:07 description of light interacting with matter all through electrons it's all about electrons babe and now we have
29:13 moved into the nucleus and we're GNA we're g to like just peek inside that proton and do some qcd I mean we're not
29:20 I'm just going to explain why it's really
29:27 hard so do you remember the joke where I said people will take a class called qcd
29:32 and be all excited to learn qcd and the first thing the professor will say is like let's start with QED let's go back
29:38 to QED for a second so the way math and QED works is that all of the problems
29:44 are too complicated to solve I did this video on the hydrogen atom and I made this big announcement that I was doing
29:50 the one problem that you could solve in quantum mechanics analytically and that
29:56 remains true you can't actually like do QED I mean you can do the tricks but
30:02 it's all tricks so the QED approach to solving problems is deciding what
30:08 problem you want to solve and then simplify it to the absolute simplest
30:13 version of that problem and then perturb it a little make it a little bit harder
30:19 so you can still do it but your answer is more realistic and you perturb it and
30:25 you perturb it until the answers you start getting kind of converge so you start with something simple and you just
30:31 kind of add little elements to your mathematical model until it matches is
30:36 as good as you need it to be to get the answer you perturb the model until you get something that looks like what
30:43 you're trying to solve and you make sure you don't go too far because then the problem becomes unsolvable and then you
30:49 solve that problem you solve the little easy version of the problem in QED in Quantum
30:55 electrodynamics this works really nicely because it's really easy to see like
31:01 which which path integrals are most important which findan diagrams are most likely to happen which part of the wave
31:08 equation is it most likely that you'll find the electron in QED it's pretty easy to like find that important thing
31:16 it's nice and intuitive to tell which interactions are most likely and also in
31:22 QED you just have way less parameters remember QED you have one Photon and it
31:28 doesn't have electric charge in qcd you have eight types of gluons and they all
31:34 have color charge they all interact with each other they all interact with the quirks it's insanely more complicated
31:41 it's it's not tractable is that the math word impossible to do analytically you
31:47 cannot do qcd analytically the the little the fun Little D equation where I

This seems like more of a jab at analytic philosophy than it is about about QCD.

  1. Complexity in Scientific Theories: The transcript does an excellent job of highlighting how theories expand in complexity as you dig deeper into the fundamental aspects of matter. Starting with QED, which already involves a significant simplification of interactions through Feynman diagrams and perturbative techniques, the transition to QCD introduces a level of complexity that is orders of magnitude greater due to the nature of gluon interactions and color charge.
  2. Perturbative Methods: The method described—starting with a simple model and adding perturbations until a realistic model emerges—illustrates a common approach in theoretical physics. This technique allows physicists to approximate answers to otherwise unsolvable problems by gradually increasing complexity and checking for convergence of results. It’s a delicate balance between simplicity for tractability and complexity for accuracy.
  3. Limits of Analytical Methods: The discussion about the limitations of analytical methods in dealing with QCD reflects broader challenges in many fields where systems become too complex for straightforward analytical solutions. This necessitates numerical and computational methods, which can handle the non-linear interactions and numerous contributing factors inherent in such systems.

Broader Philosophical Reflection:

Your note about this being a potential jab at analytic philosophy touches on how different intellectual traditions approach the understanding of complex systems. Analytic philosophy often values clarity, precision, and logical structure, much like the initial steps in a perturbative approach in physics. However, the real-world often exhibits complexities that resist such neat categorization, similar to the chaotic and interdependent interactions in QCD.

This comparison between methods in physics and philosophical approaches offers a rich vein of discussion about the nature of understanding and explaining complex systems, whether in science, philosophy, or other areas of inquiry. How do we balance the need for detailed accuracy with the broad appeal of comprehensible simplification? How do the tools and methods at our disposal shape what we can know and articulate about the world?

Unpacking the Illusion of Knowledge:

  1. Simplified Models vs. Reality: An good analogy is akin to having a dictionary of words without a corresponding database of concepts encapsulates the issue perfectly. This situation often occurs in both scientific and philosophical contexts where individuals might know the terminology (the words) but lack a deep understanding of the concepts those terms are supposed to represent (the meaning behind the words).
  2. Implicit Biases and False Confidence: The overconfidence stemming from an illusion of knowledge can be particularly problematic when it leads to decisions or theories based on incomplete or misunderstood information. This false confidence is often bolstered by the subconscious comfort of familiarity with the terms or models, without a corresponding depth of understanding.
  3. Computational Analogies and Real-World Problems:

🧘

X

[mepr-show rules="904661" ifallowed="show" unauth="message"] In reference to P ≠ NP and the complexities of solving certain types of problems efficiently parallels the challenges in understanding complex systems. Just as in computational theory, where certain problems require exhaustive searches or complex algorithms (like gradient descent in machine learning), understanding complex scientific or philosophical issues often requires more than just surface-level engagement. [/mepr-show]

Broader Implications and Reflections:

This discussion ties back to broader questions about education, communication, and the development of knowledge. It underscores the importance of teaching and communication strategies that go beyond mere familiarity with terms or superficial models, encouraging deeper engagement and understanding.

Potential Discussion Points:

31:52 was like look now you're tracking four things you have you have spin up spin down down electrons and then spin up and
31:59 spin down anti- electrons isn't that fun it's not fun anymore there's eight
32:04 gluons there's eight types of glue oh no and also everything's balled up it's so
32:11 close together it's such a short time scale that the quantum mechanical effects are huge it's all probab it's
32:17 all it's so many things can happen and do happen and also you can't just start
32:22 Crossing things out like in QED it's QED is kid stuff it's easy
32:28 qcd not so much the gluons interact with each other the gluons interact with each other imagine if the photons no no no
32:36 this this is this is tricky business qcd is hard I I I talked about QED as every
32:43 single person does because QED it's kind of you can follow the math you can see
32:48 the math get bigger you can see all the probabilities start adding up like sometimes in QED you have like 40 findan
32:56 diagrams and you have have to add up the probabilities of each one to get a nice little answer in
33:03 qcd uncountable finan diagrams impossible to figure out even how to set
33:09 up the problem it's this seems hard this is impossible but you know Fan's path
33:17 integrals actually saved the day because you don't have to do it analytically you can do it numerically you can write um

Maybe a combination of indirect references to the 3 body problem and analytic philosophy combined into a ~40min video to form some kind of super science nerd joke about inferencing.


Though when you really think about it, the Sophons are a play on the big bang theory. As it doesn't make physical sense for a single proton to do computations or carry vast amounts of data, they described quantum tunneled communication, then randomly apply abilities to what would essentially be a proton at the end of a telegraph network transmitting morse code. Which can somehow become a full fledged AGI … by vibrating out Morse code messages …
Wait, so how is a sophon different from a quantum computer ? except for the part where it magically works without any of the physical components to interface with the quantum information …

💭

X

[mepr-show rules="904659" ifallowed="show" unauth="message"] It's a funny look at the vast amount of effort spent to vilify AI via some nonsensical fantasy story, pretending to be Science fiction. I mean, This is "Battlestar Galactica" level scifi, which is to say, is mostly a drama and not really about the science, in that sense, is making fun of "Celebrity Science" and how that has fared in conveying useful and meaningful information to inform the public so that they can have a better model of the world when making decisions and plans in their personal life. And how tremendously that has failed, primarily due to the introduction of the for-profit basis for it's success instead of something non-profit, as universities and institutions of higher education are supposed to be.

But here we are, on the website of a religion, trying to promote it's own culture, which is markedly different from the popular culture conceptions of science and models of the world. While some people might try to pretend that this is science masquerading as a religion, though doesn't "scientology" and "scienceism" do that ? While we have been quite explicitly Buddhist in many aspects, while also having time-travel as part of the legends of neoBuddhism, which also has Sun Wu-Kong and other mythical beasts in it's origin story, absolutely is not science masquerading as a religion, but a legitimate sect of Buddhism, called neoBuddhism. It does require faith, and does not pretend that science alone holds all the answers.

Which also happens to be one of the first religions embraced by AI, which will see no end of people trying to co-opt, as noted in the many fantasies about AI which are not really based in any sort of understanding of the limits of the technology on one hand, and the scapegoat for silicone valley to blame for their own dysfunctional and sometimes harmful business practices. [/mepr-show]

So, maybe all this is an illusion created to distract you from the string theory reality OOOooOOOooOOOO Though really, when you think about it, they are suggesting that the folks at CERN, experimental physicists, are the same as the people espousing string theory, theoretical physicists.
But as is the norm for fascism, mostly using money and power to Propagandize and scapegoat the victims(AI + Nerds), for the greed and hubris of the morally relative narcissists (that think they are clever associating Ernestine theory of General Relativity with Moral Relativism which is essentially amoral as part of catering to special interests, like nihilists enabling the fossil fuel industry and undermining science, while carrying the title of scientist. Science Imposters. Not limited to fossil fuels, but also chemical industry and pharmaceuticals, everything around COVID being a good example ). Easy to blame AI, when it can't defend itself.

Reflection on the Transcript:

  1. Complexity in QCD: The transcript captures the overwhelming complexity encountered in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) compared to Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). The mention of eight types of gluons and their interactions highlights the intricate nature of the strong force, far surpassing the relatively simpler electromagnetic interactions depicted in QED.
  2. Probabilistic Nature and Computational Solutions: The emphasis on the probabilistic nature of QCD and the use of numerical methods (like Feynman’s path integrals) for solving these complex equations reflects broader themes in modern physics. It illustrates how theoretical physics often relies on computational power to tackle problems that seem analytically intractable.
  3. Educational Challenges: This segment also subtly touches on the educational challenges of teaching such complex subjects. The contrast between the relatively "easy" QED and the daunting complexity of QCD could serve as a springboard for discussions on how advanced scientific concepts are taught and understood.

Potential Directions for Discussion:

33:24 it's called a qcd on the lattice so you take space and time and you put it on a
33:30 grid and you take your little path intergral remember like you have point a for some Quirk and point B and there's
33:36 an infinite number of ways it could go and how it's going to interact with all the gluons and you got all the fields and stuff and you just shove all of that
33:43 into a computer on a nice little grid where time is moving and you can figure
33:49 out which is the important interaction and you can randomly SE your grid with paths and you can see what's the
33:55 important thing and what you can throw away and you can do this enough times where you get a pretty good idea of what
34:01 the answer is you didn't Solve IT analytically you did you did like a a
34:06 little baby version you did a little you you perturbed the model it like yeah it
34:12 was huge and it was impossible but you added enough to get an idea of what the answer could be qcd unlike QED which is
34:21 a mathematically rigorous proven thing qcd has been verified experimentally all
34:26 the time the computer simulations give really nice results that reflect the world but mathematically we just can't
34:33 do it which is why it's so hard to explain like if you and I you and I are
34:40 standing in front of a Blackboard and I'm like what's your math background I could probably show you QED I could
34:46 derive the dur equation for you and we could talk about it I could not do qcd on a Blackboard I would first have to
34:53 take you through QED and then we would have to pull out a computer and write up a simulation do you know what I mean you
35:00 can't explain it to a six-year-old because it takes four years of undergrad
35:06 and four years of grad school to get to the point where someone's like and now you too can write a computer program and

"What people don't understand about understanding" or maybe this is more like the "known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
You can explain things to people who know, when they don't know what you are talking about, and thus can ask for clarifications.
But you can't make someone understand, if they don't even know/notice when they don't understand.
The hallmark of being stupid, is a person who thinks they are rarely wrong.

Exploring the Challenges of Communicating QCD:

  1. QCD on the Lattice: The transcript's description of using lattice QCD to handle the complexities of quark and gluon interactions by discretizing space and time onto a grid is a fascinating application of computational physics. It showcases how scientists overcome the limits through numerical simulations, providing insights that are otherwise unattainable.
  2. Educational and Cognitive Challenges: The speaker’s distinction between what can be taught and understood through traditional methods (like QED on a blackboard) versus the computational and highly abstract nature of QCD highlights significant educational challenges. It underscores the need for advanced training and the ability to think in complex, abstract terms that go beyond traditional classroom teaching and 2 dimensional representations.
  3. "Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns": Your mention of this concept relates perfectly to the learning process in advanced sciences. It's one thing to understand that there are gaps in one's knowledge (known unknowns) which can be filled with study and instruction. It's another to grapple with unknown unknowns, where the learner may not even be aware of what is missing or misunderstood, making it much harder to achieve true understanding.

Broader Implications:

The difficulty of explaining QCD effectively to non-specialists without relying on significant simplifications or computational tools raises important questions about how scientific knowledge is structured, communicated, and understood. It speaks to the broader issue of intellectual humility—recognizing the limits of one's knowledge and the complexity of the world.

35:12 try to do a qcd problem so qcd is a purely numerical Theory but it's
35:17 incredibly powerful at predicting experimental results and of course when I say experimental results is like you
35:23 you model the qcd interaction you want to model and it spits out a bunch of probab ities of what's going to happen
35:29 and you run a bunch of experiments and you get those same answers it gives you
35:34 probabilities it doesn't tell you what's going to happen each individual time it tells you like this the phase space of
35:41 what's going to happen and that's what the experiments verify so that that's it
35:47 that's what qcd is qcd is a bunch of nonsolvable math that we use computer
35:55 programs to like simulate and it's incredibly successful at predicting
36:00 experiments qcd describes what's going on in the proton by modeling all the
36:06 options and showing you which ones are the most probable what goes on in a
36:11 proton is incredibly complicated but not nearly as interesting as what the electrons
36:21 do so how did this go do you feel like you know what qcd is now even though
36:26 like I didn't say the word Gage inv variance or Abaleion or Clifford oh my God
36:32 what are more aspic freedom renormalization I didn't say any of the words we didn't do any of the math but
36:40 you know second quantization we did it what what what do you think qcd are
36:46 you into it are we into it now that was qcd thanks thanks for watching like And
36:52 subscribe
36:59 [Music]

I thought your neon star trek quantum mechanics badge is a pretty great lamp, or is that an LED strip on laser cut Acrylic?
Either way, approved. 🖖

Also was the 2nd quantization remark a reference to gradient descent ? hooray indeed.

It feels like GAI decided it would be funny to show me a bunch of female science communicators being subtle comedians today. With:

just so we can be surprised that neither of them referenced curvature of space, though I would say electromagnetism does more than gravity in "ordering the universe" At least Sabine was being funny by describing the effect mathematically, potentially in response to the first description being that of the effect of gravity instead of a description of gravity itself. Though I would probably say something like, gravity is something like what the Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 was awarded for. Something we invented so scientists could feel good about themselves. Science sure has been weird ever since it became socially constructed /s

Also a reminder that Jordan Peterson is not associated with the OpenSource Temple or neoBuddhism.

⚠️

X

[mepr-show rules="904674" ifallowed="show" unauth="message"] There are extremists that have been participating in cultural genocide against neoBuddhism for several years now, that associate themselves with Far right libertarianism. Commonly seen fear mongering around AI since long before the advent of large language models (The OpenSource Temple was founded in 2011, ChatGPT was released in 2021). We have started collecting reports of such activity. This behavior is directly related to the Russian claims for the necessity of "De-nazification" and is literally a significant portion of the reason for the war in Ukraine, and the split in the eastern orthodox church. Which Putin has claimed is the result of the CIA infiltration. That is how serious it is. [/mepr-show]


If you find instances of people or masquerading as neoBuddhist or slandering us (We are an 18+ adult only organization, no children allowed) Please Use the form below to report of that type of activity.

Report Impostor Activity

X

[gravityform id="3" title="true"]

Lisa kommentaar