How the Strong Nuclear Force Keeps Protons and Neutrons Glued inside Atoms 

❤

The link is not accessible

I mean, technically it hasn't been observed. It's far too small and fast. It's just been infered by crafting a model that most closely fits the data that has been directly observed. It's best to keep in mind that this is merely the best model we have so far to explain our observations.

It might be somewhat stupid to believe something that you can't see. But thats what scientist back then believed as well. But people change and see the logic and reasoning of proving something you can't see. Example is the electron, we can't see it. But lets pretend we are trying to prove its existence, like the scientist back then. Since i can't see it i would create a hypothesis and design an experiment that would show that the outcome of the expirement would only occur if an electron is real and present. Of course im not gonna stop at one experiment, im gonna test every phenomenon that i can perform that can be explained by the presence of the electron. Others would recreate these experiment, and review that data until we have enough proof for the existance of the electron. Scientist couldn't see the electrons but was able to prove their existance. Skepticism if fine, go for it but be can't let it be just skepticism. And we surely can't just ignore the years of particle research done by CERN.

And that’s how actual scientists describe it. Thanks.

cool

super

amazing

stronk

Nice

It doesn't; you have a different force known as the weak nuclear force that repels neutrons from eachother. So in a given nucleas if you have too many protons, the positive charges create a repulsive electrostatic force that breaks the nucleas, and if you have too many neitrons the weak nuclear force overcomes strong nuclear force.

@@donovandelozier7156 I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Let's be clear I'm talking about effects due to the separation of nucleons feeling the strong nuclear force and not their numbers. Have a look: " The nuclear force is powerfully attractive between nucleons at distances of about 0.8 femtometre (fm, or 0.8×10−15 m), but it rapidly decreases to insignificance at distances beyond about 2.5 fm " This is because nucleons should be (approximately ) colour neutral and technically shouldn't feel any more strong nuclear force than neutral atoms do coulomb force. But when they are close, they do feel a force, as do atoms. It is usually attractive, however if the separation is less than 0.7fm the snf becomes repulsive. I was hoping for an explanation of why this is (maybe due to an intrinsic behaviour of the strong force between quarks), why 0.7fm is the special number

@@donovandelozier7156 Ty for the reply but I'm not talking about the forces balancing out in the sweet spot. The strong nuclear force apparently switches direction: it's attractive between 3-0.5fm but repulsive between 0-0.5 fm. Why? Apparently the strong force is always attractive but since the colours of quarks aren't perfectly cancelled out, this gives rise to the strong nuclear force which can switch. A bit like the electrostatic force between neutral atoms. But why can the SNF flip when the SF remains positive? Maybe I'm remembering things incorrectly

@Krokodil986 it doesn't switch... think of a tug of war; on one side you have the strong nuclear force, on the e other you have electrostatic force from all the protons and the weak nuclear force. Does that help?

@@donovandelozier7156 so you're saying that all those diagrams of the snf are actually describing the resultant force inside the nucleus even though it is explicitly labeled as SNF? In that case why is the stable nucleon separation accepted to be 0.7fm and not 0.5fm (at 0.7 this "resultant" force is non-zero, at 0.5 it is zero)

The SNF is a product of the SF so SNF isn't a fundamental force which is why it shouldn't be listed as one of the 3 (or 4) fundamental forces of nature. And the exchange particle of the snf isn't *just* a meson, it's a *type of* meson called a pion. That's why you'll see "pion" but not "meson"

@@Krokodil986 Thank you!

the QGP.

The strong smelling nuclear force, as proposed by the big fart theory.

Valence Quark are not perfectly symmetric due to uncertainty principle, the excess charge can escape as meson. IIRC.

Great question. I explain that in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WF2c_jzefKc.html

I thought the same

It is attracted to the quark of the opposite color charge in a nearby nucleon. Eventually, the quark is tugged so far that it snaps the connection with its original nucleon, a process that forms a new quark-antiquark pair. The new quark stays behind in the original nucleon to keep its color charge neutral, while the new antiquark joins the original quark to form a pion which, also having a neutral color charge, can be absorbed by the nearby nucleon.

Stronger than Elmers!

Too large = no chemical reaction Even larger = everything goes back to big bang

@@VuNam_MCVN That's consequence, not Cause.

confinement is the reason, which is a result of gluons carrying (anti)color charge.

Main reason is because gluons strongly attract each other, and with quarks, so they bundle up and resist moving away from each other. They do not follow the inverse square law like photons in electromagnetism for example The technical term for this is confinement.

The strong force has a shorter range because of its energy-time uncertainty relation. Different forces have different energy-time uncertainty relations, and "turning the dial" on the variance of the uncertainty relation will produce forces that have effects at a longer distance (but they are weaker, because it's a smaller energy over a longer distance).

Yes, it is a residual of the former.

The strong force gives rise to the strong nuclear force

some attract, some repel. pions, sigmas, omegas, rhos are the main ones. it's really complicated.

im pretty sure we have no idea why but observed that these particles appear to do that for some reason. thats just science

The exchange of color charges results in attraction. Color charged particles are strongly attraction to each other. The fundamental nature of this charge in not really known.

@@ArvinAsh Arvin, I love your stuff, but that is just wrong. Some color iterations repel, and some attract, and the way that is calculated is through representation theory of SU(3🇮🇴

@@DrDeuteron huh? The question was "What results in attraction?" - that's the question I answered. In nucleons, it's the exchange of color charge via gluons. We don't know much beyond that. If you have a better answer to the question, I'd love to hear it.

Time. Time is the answer. Tell me, how does the phone screen send pixels where it needs to show something? It doesn't. The pixels are already there. They are just sent signal to lit up. So all the photons are everywhere, all the time.

No, mass is energy at its core, but energy is not necessarily mass. Massless particles can have energy like photons and gluons. See the full video for an explanation.

@@ArvinAshTHANKS FOR THE REPLY!!! Love your videos!!!

Photons have _momentum_ ... which is kinetic energy in a different coordinate system. Photons are never "at rest", so they can't have "rest mass", but they do carry momentum between accelerating electric charges. You've got to use E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²

To expand just a bit, photons do have energy, and that is where its relativistic mass comes from, using the equation for mass-energy equivalence. If you were to take a box with perfectly mirrored insides and inject some photons inside, they would bounce around forever. From the outside of the box you would see it jiggle a little, maybe, but generally stay in the same spot since the average force vector of all photon impacts would be net zero. However, if you tried to accelerate the box in an arbitrary direction you would cause an imbalance in those impacts. Fewer photons would be impacting the side of the box as moving away, and more would be impacting the opposite side. Thus the box would resist being moved. Although the box and photons would have no more rest mass than the box on its own without photons, the nature of photons inside would increase its relativistic mass.

May the Force be with you

Repent what? SU(3), or all gauge theories. Pretty sure when God said, "let their be a massless U(1) minimally coupled gauge theory" [Gen 1:3] he meant it.

This is a science channel. Your fairy tales are off-topic

Boo

Get out of here with your delusional nonsense. You are unwanted.