Gluons | Standard Model Of Particle Physics

[thegeffc]

love the video man

[borissman]

how trust-able is this anyway?

[ericajjful]

very interesting thanks

[CACBCCCU]

"Tight Borromean rings" apparenty is the best image-searchable description for the octahedrally cube-corner-dimpled object I was trying to describe. It's basically composed of 3 orthogonally-oriented interlocking donuts. I'd suggest the dimples are similar to cube-corner reflectors in that they have a influx-directing/outflux-orien­ting property capable of greatly altering gravitational binding energy conservation in nucleons. That gravitational binding may manifest itself as the strong force.

[CACBCCCU]

The eight octahedral-face-centered color-bridgover-point dimples of an octahedrally-dimpled tri-toroid knot I guess are a good basis for SU(3)-type of logic. Lines passing through one toroid, close to a dimple, by one of its three creases and through the center, pass just as close to an opposing dimple, where intersection with a different toroid (color) of the three is assured. Two directions exactly through the same dimple and the center can mix all three torii (colors), 8 independent modes.

[CACBCCCU]

All three rings touch together in each of the eight face-centered dimples of the tri-toroid, implying the dimples are locii for color-exchange couplings. The low-energy-appearing regular equilateral octahedron lattice array avoids face-to-face dimples, while the space-filling lattice array of flattened octahdra maximizes face-to-face dimples.

[CACBCCCU]

The centers and corners of a body-centered cubic lattice carry the vertices of a space-filling lattice of flattened octahedra, where every octahedral vertex is shared with five neighbors. A face-centered cubic lattice carries the vertices of a regular lattice of equilateral octahedra, where every octahedral vertex is shared with one neighbor, which seems to be a lower-energy type of configuration.

[CACBCCCU]

Many depictions of three interlocked torii show eight three-sided dimples, each of which matches the orientation of a cube-corner in the cube-corner octhadron concept I mentioned. The toroid concept seems to have a low-energy character compared to the ribbon loop concept.

[CACBCCCU]

I've seen quark triplets drawn as three interlocking torii and as the three faces of a flattened Mobius ribbon loop. I guess mesons are like two interlocking torii and the two faces of a a flattened normal ribbon loop, going further with those ideas. The torii seem like orbitals stretched in time. I like to think three is a stable configuration because there are three dimensions, which seems to give a nod to the torii concept. Seems the fermionic aspect goes well with the flattened loop concept.

[CACBCCCU]

Light bosons can impart axial rotation onto corner-reflectors, I suppose. I guess if the spinning orbits of Earth/Moon are replaced by correspondingly-spinning 2-headed coins of the same masses,each would eventually not be spinning relative to the other, and they'd probably be facing together. If the spinning coins are scaled down and bound by flux-tubes instead, the same result would apparently apply, but perhaps more rapidly, and a different spin, a spin that's axial, seems built into it.

[CACBCCCU]

Even a toy geometric model with 8 and 3 built into it is maybe at least mildly interesting when thinking about quarks/gluons, and I guess that's a part of why a corner-reflector model appeals to me, there being a maximum of 8 cube-corners meeting at a point, with 3 faces per cube-corner. Each such packed point seems to have a definite dualistic character in comparison to a nucleon, with its three objects having eight independent multi-nucleonic-orienting exchanges.

[CACBCCCU]

Gravitons have apparently been simulated as gluon pairs with some success. Also, the optical center of a corner-reflector is supposed to coincide with its center of gravity.

Anyway, the thought occurred to me that, in a solar system run by gravitons, all the gravitons not intercepted by system components could practically be ignored and the system would work the same; this got me thinking about more extreme systems that conserve their binding forces by the so-called flux tubes of gluons.

[Darcin8or]

Jesus, i can understand this but i cant make all the bestofsience to play in a playlist.

[CACBCCCU]

My view of quantum gravity and entanglement is that nucleons (quark triplets) behave as if they have an external-input-reactive gravity-quanta corner-reflector type of scattering property that puts gravitational interactions between quarks at a higher occupancy than gravitational interactions between nucleons and so on up the size scale all the way to galaxies. Three quarks could form the edges of a 2nd-order corner-reflector, a well in the middle serving as the concave middle-corner.

[CACBCCCU]

My approach to generating 8 independent gluons would ignore the red-antired, blue-antiblue etc (the 3 matrix diagonal elements) completely. They all have no effect individually so mixing them together to come up with something that does seems ridiculous. Instead I'd consider 120 degree CW/CCW rotation transforms on the triplet's face axis to transform every quark, bearing in mind that such rotations cannot be duplicated by three flips, owing to the dirac string's (abelian) couplings of fermions.

[CACBCCCU]

Seems like they had to cover all of the diagonal elements of the 3X3 quark/antiquark color matrix and had only two distinct gluons left, so they had to combine multiple diagonal elements into one gluon, requiring mixing states. Makes more sense to me to see the two remaining gluons as CW and CCW rotations 120 degrees around the center axis of the color triplet, turning RGB into BRG in one rotation and into GBR in the other. The fermionic string effect means two CCW turns isn't like one CW turn.

[CACBCCCU]

All 8 kinds of gluons are said to be independent in that none of them can be made from any combination of the 7 other kinds. One could argue that a CW flip and CCW flip that pivots on the same corner of a triplet produce the same result, so there's no independence. But to me that seems wrong because the distinct effects on the background field of either direction, CW or CCW, should be considered. To me it's like with "Dirac's string" on the electron, seeing a quark as another fermion. JMO.

[CACBCCCU]

I'm trying to make glouns fit into a 2^3 scheme instead of SU(3)'s 3^2-1 scheme, but not sure what the experimental basis was for demanding eight glouns with the two mixed-states on the diagonal of the 3x3 color/anticolor matrix as usually given. Anyway, seems one can take a triangular triplet and rotate it CW or CCW around four major symmetry axes, namely the three corners and the center, giving 8 unique dynamic translations easily divided into two peer-sets, having six and two members. JMO.

[willmtemple]

Who else thought of Back to the Future when he said Flux Tube and a little "flux capacitor" appeared in the background?

[uut0]

im wondering what the things are that move in the gluon in this video

[MarvelsofaLifetime]

This video makes me want to get high and look through a fucking microscope.

[MarvelsofaLifetime]

Sorry, I didn't have any room for that period at the end Lol.

[jerreaudriessen]

gluon gun?

[MCavarg00]

My head is going to explode!!! OMG!!! Particle physicists must have twice the size of brain normal people do!

[eulercircles]

I am liking these videos - but it seems to me that they do a lot of narrating while not explaining much. That's kind of driving me up the wall, and the story's the same with most science documentaries I see on television...

[ricfaz25]

Quarks, Bosons, Gluons? What other particles will be discovered? Some one answer this question for me: When will a particle be found that is undoubtedly the tiniest and most basic form of what we call 'everything'? When will no other different kinds of Quarks, Bosons, and Gluons be discovered? Maybe the most basic particle or entity in physics is pure energy itself. But then, what is the pure energy consisted of? These are redundancies, and there is no answer because the answer is infinate...

[8DX]

Hmm I wonder what happens if you put gluon.

[viktorj85]

shiznet, the best I can hope for is to be cryogenically frozen then be awaken 1000 years from now I guess 0_o

[sidewaysfcs0718]

so a fiel is made out of bosons ..and bosons mediate force ..

but is this force?? whats it made of O.o?

[sidewaysfcs0718]

i think i get it cus i also saw a vid of how the LHC works and they give protons more energy increasing their mass 7000 times :D

[dobberdoss]

yeah, using "colours" as a replacement word for "properties" is just confusing the situation. as it still tells you fuck all about the 'property' changes. Who came up with that bright idea?

[NeedsEvidence]

@dobberdoss

The word "color charge" is just a name, but it is a useful one since, according to theory, composed particles always appear "color neutral" from the outside. The three quarks of the proton represent the color combination red/green/blue, which adds up to white (i.e. color-neutral). The two quarks of the so-called pion represent for example the color combination red/anti-red (because it is a quark plus an anti-quark, hence anti-colors), which also adds to a color-neutral state.

[oggleman]

I'm so confused. I just heard that most of the mass in a nucleus resides in the empty space between the quarks, and now this. My tiny brain can't take it.

[omegavalerius]

Don't worry, I think that is a common feeling among us non-physicists. The main thing is the quest for knowledge and the methods used. You don't have to understand everything in order to make progress on this life long journey.

[Yesitis808]

Im not even going to try to understand.

[NeedsEvidence]

@oggleman

Most of the mass is the nuclear binding energy between the quarks (carried by gluons, the carrier of the strong nuclear force).

According to Einstein (E=mc^2), the binding energy translates to a mass m=E/c^2. It is essentially this mass you measure when stepping on a weighing machine (the masses of the quarks amount less then 4%).

[sidewaysfcs0718]

wait, i thought the higgs boson is the particle that generates mass..

like it is attached to particles and give it mass ...but for some particles like photons it isnt attached ..so the photon can moove at "c"

[NeedsEvidence]

@sidewaysfcs0718

Yes, the Higgs boson gives mass fundamental particles of the standard model, but this is not the whole story.

The mass of the proton (which is not fundamental but consists of three quarks) equals the sum of the mass of the three quarks plus the mass m=E/c^2 of the binding energy between those quarks (in this case the latter dominates).

All kinds of energy comes along with a measurable equivalent mass, according to Einstein.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

so ur telling me when measuring mass u also need to measure the energy's mass equivalence?

hmm...is that why its called TeV GeV and so on?

giga-electric-volts ..

couldnt they just measure it in kilograms :D like 10 ^-28 kg :|

[NeedsEvidence]

@sidewaysfcs0718

No, what I mean is that the mass of the proton has two completely separate components: 1) The mass of its three quarks, plus 2) the mass corresponding to the binding energy between those quarks. You can measure 1) or 2) either in units of kg or GeV. The formula E=mc^2 provides the conversion between both units. The unit GeV is much more convenient than kg.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

think i get it..

but the gluons themselves dont have mass? their field has energy wich creates mass right?

cus this would make much more sense if we find the higgs particle ...

[NeedsEvidence]

@sidewaysfcs0718 "but the gluons themselves dont have mass? their field has energy wich creates mass right?"

Exactly.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

wouldnt this also mean that all energy is actually higgs particles? or is it 2 separate things?

[NeedsEvidence]

@sidewaysfcs0718 No, it doesn't mean that.

[bethslifebeforedeath]

@sidewaysfcs0718  i'm not a physics student, i'm studying philosophy and trying to get the physics straight in my head, basically, i want to know if gravity works when there is no mass? are these gluons excempt from mass?

[bethslifebeforedeath]

@bethslifebeforedeath i meant gravity at the end, not mass sorry

[MarvelsofaLifetime]

@bethslifebeforedeath - Gravity is an effect caused from space being curved. Space becomes curved from Mass. Gluons do not have any mass, so do not cause Space to curve, and thus does not cause Gravity. More simply put, because Gluons have zero Mass, they can not affect Gravity. But you asked if Gluons are completely exempt from Gravity, and the answer is that, as far as physicists know of, yes, Gluons are completely exempt from Gravity – because they do not have any way to interact with it

[guitarchug95]

@MarvelsofaLifetime Gravity does the affecting, but never is affected surely? Gravity never changes and effect causes change. Gravity doesn't just affect mass, but momentum and energy too, or why else would light be affected by a black hole?

[tjblues01]

@bethslifebeforedeath Gravity is a curvature of the spacetime and can bend a light. And as you know photons don't have a mass and still have to obey law of gravity. With gluons is a little different story. There are no "free gluons", they only exist as an interaction between quarks. Just as a wave - you can measure it's length and energy it's caring. But you can't weight it.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

wait wait ..i had an idea ...

if the higgs gives fundamental particles mass , but composite particle's mass comes mostly from the movement of the components ..

coudlnt this mean that fundamental particles could smaller components that gives them mass?

and photons arent made of anything smaller wich is why they move at c?

oh wait ..photons can decay :( there goes my idea.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

hmm ...maybe when a photon decays it decays into more massless particles that then start spinning around eachother and that appears as an electron positron pair?

i know this sounds stupid ...but i dont see a reason it couldnt be true ...

maybe when particles are truely fundamental , their energy doesnt convert to mass , but when particles are interacting they do have mass?

but im probably wrong ...still ..the rest mass of a proton ..isnt actually all rest ..its alot of kinetic energy ..

[bytedildo]

colour charge? WTF is that...cmon...it's easier to believe in god..:D

just kidding

[frankjohnson123]

@bytedildo I really don't see how you can believe in a god if you know this much about the universe. Maybe another one of the infinite universes has one, but probably not this one.

[bytedildo]

hehe, i was just kidding, but somehow we know so much about universe but still from philosophical stand point I see no answer to the invisible question ;)

[NeedsEvidence]

@bytedildo

The color charge is indeed something you can measure. It is absolutely essential to explain the data of many particle accelerator experiments.

[vince19811981]

My knowledge in quantum physic is not that bad, but could somebody explain to me what did he mean by colour charged??? no,... seriously, help!

[logoth80]

colours are symbols. once quarks bump, they swap properties (colors)

[xccmx]

Look up quantum chromodynamics, it's the standard model theory of the strong nuclear force. It explains how quarks are held together to form protons and neutrons. Since there are three quarks in a proton or neutron, and each quark has an independent charge, you need three force descriptors. Positive and negative aren't enough, plus they're already taken. Therefore, red, green, and blue were chosen to describe the forces. Hence color charge and chromodynamics.

[NoAntecessor]

Keep in mind, they aren't actual colors, just descriptors. It's for a quantity that we can't properly define without making up a new term, hence chromodynamics.

[opaldragon75]

If my mind could only retain and comprehend all this cool knowledge!

oh well, good excuse to watch it again and again and again!

[bla34112]

enh.. i am amazed.. however utterly confused....

[jebus6kryst]

Wow, simply wow. It is amazing how far science as come. Stuff like this could not have been thought possible 100 years ago.

Simply amazing.

[Iced1992]

To most, it can't even to this date. *sigh*

[the75ricardo75]

A HEAVYWEIGHT ask to be my friend is a PRIVILEGE.5 STARS

[IdoloR]

lul wat? (o_O)

[aimforcentermass]

Ah, now everything makes sense.

[nub50wn]

wow now that was interesting, thanks.

[barakameek]

i have found some thing on you tube that i really have no idea about...but i like it

[AGrandt2]

incredibly complex, incredibly fascinating, incredibly headache inducing.

[nonreligionist]

This is all incredibly facinating! ...And incredibly confusing... lol

[SongsofFallenHeroes]

A quark's different types are called flavors. Gluons and flavors. I am not certain they were trying to make this too difficult to understand. :)

[HarshColby]

"what makes the next scientist think that maybe they are made of smaller pieces? Is this just discovered 'accidentally' or by maths and induction?"

They built accelerators that smash atoms together hard enough to break them into pieces, then study those pieces. When they've studied all those, they build bigger machines, like the LHC that's just come online again.

[anglaismoyen]

Do scientists just follow inductive logic from what they already know until what they have is a little more accurate?

I'm not sure if I can put across my question the way it is in my head but there you go.

Say we know that atoms exist but think, as we once did, that they are indivisible- what makes the next scientist think that maybe they are made of smaller pieces? Is this just discovered 'accidentally' or by maths and induction?

[GeekyAtheist]

It's usually done by answering questions. The atom model didn't answer every question known, and out of those questions arose the hypothesis of quantum mechanics. Eventually these hypotheses are tested and either proven or disproven with experimental data.

For example, newtonian dynamics couldn't explain the odd orbit of Mercury. Part of Einstein's relativity application was how it could calculate Mercury's actual orbit. This is an example of science asking and answering questions.

[quill18]

@anglaismoyen - I think, as with many things, the answer is "it depends". I would suggest that in MOST cases it's that we have observed a phenomenon that we then seek to explain. However, a good counterexample is the neutrino, which was "discovered" when some math just wasn't working out and is was put forward that a very small, neutral particle must exist to fill the void. It was only years later that neutrinos were confirmed experimentally.

[anglaismoyen]

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of; 'filling in gaps', essentially, or fine-tuning the maths.

[logoth80]

usualy some experiments lead to falsifying/correcting what we know. atoms themself are a 'concept'. they exist, but everything about them, is only testable by fancy experiments. protons/neutrons are mostly empty space, so any visualisation is just a graphic representation of physics. ongoing process of thesis/experiment/calculation/­falsify, that might never end, or might just end when we reach the limit of whats testable.

[MrFacet]

sounds magical...

[dreadpiratedan]

Gluons.

Scientists are fecking hilarious.

[ChelseaHysteria]

That's so fuckin trippy.

I don't know how anyone can see science as boring.

[TheBronzeDog]

Always wanted to learn a little bit more about the strong and weak forces. Didn't expect the oddities described of gluons.

[HolidayNova]

another amazing video!

[AtheismandSkepticism]

Great video

I've just started my particle physics II course at university.

Interesting stuff.

[Dragos1591]

What, just what, what is the point of a "First" post?

[isegoria1]

"Troll light"

[AtheistThatsATheist]

Last(so far) So suck on it!!!

[Darthshepius]

yey, i like ypou

[Darthshepius]

cause your first, and thate makes you special!!