Or maybe why I can't? Quantum Quantum Quantum Chromodynamics Link to Patreon - one exclusive video per month: / acollierastro I have merch: store.dftba.com/collections/a...
"You can't explain it to a six year old because it takes 4 years of undergrad and 4 years of grad school-" Ok, so they must be at LEAST 8 years old. Got it.
Takes about sixteen hours to teach all of the coding needed for simulation, though. PDEs, if you cut out the timewasting geometry, accounting math, and trains leaving Chicago, another three months. The real issue is all of QM is just models, and what's behind the models is only vaguely represented by all of QED and QCD, so possibly a six year old, undistracted by all the noise adults have in their heads might be Mozart, and all of us Salieri.
shoving mathematicians into lockers? well... that's what physicists do on a daily basis because the mathematicians keeps bickering about rigorousness or something
By watching at higher speed, it actually enhances understanding because all points are presented temporally closely together, this mitigates issue like 1) low memory retention (memory fading before all points are presented) and 2) ADHD by focusing all attention at shorter time frame.
@@xponen Thanks! I'd been steadying myself to rip through at 4x -- *or more!* -- so I could not understand QCD even faster than my peers. Now that I know it won't work, I can get ignorant about something else instead. Saved my afternoon!
The video really delivers on its promise, at the beginning of my shower I didn't understand QCD and at the end of my shower I still do not understand QCD.
Oh, the flatulence jokes just waiting to be told… :P Just in case it satisfies anyone's curiosity, if we were to be strict with our Greek roots, I believe the topic would be called "quantum geumodynamics" - "gastro-" more precisely comes back to "stomach"!
@@dashoc9430 But cooking is known as "gastronomy" when attempting to sound important. I say they're trying to incite chaos along the lines of cosmologist/cosmetologist. About the only thing those two professions have in common is that they both need proficiency in Photoshop.
@@mal2ksc I don’t know exactly what the OP’s intentions were, but I took their comment to be humorous (and found it funny myself). My comment isn’t meant to negate it, but to complement it. Like the neutron to the OP’s proton, or the side to the their main :)
> sign up for a qcd lecture > Ask the professor if it's really about qcd or if it's just qed > They don't understand > Prepare a half hour RU-vid video about the difference between qcd and qed > They laugh "it's a qcd lecture" > Attend > It's all qed
My mental model of the relative complexity: QED: watching 2 or 3 billiard balls run into each other on a nice smooth pool table. QCD: watching a writhing ball of spaghetti the size of the solar system and oh yeah, the spaghetti is moving at nearly the speed of light and is made up of super-powerful magnets.
The more I listen to Dr Collier, the more I realize I don't know shit about fuck but also the more I enjoy realizing this about myself. Dr Collier is a superhero. Her power is knowledge. Her secret weapon is an anti-crackpot-Dunning-Krueger-syndrome-theorists mischievous smile. Thank you so much.
I'm procrastinating when I should be studying for my differential equations final exam tomorrow, and I saw this comment just as she said it. I feel this sentence in my soul...
I don't know if you have ever tried to explain something to a 6 year old, but they will ask you why about a thousand times while you are explaining something. To me, this is the root of the quote. It is not about being able to get the 6 year old to understand or have them be able to explain in the future. It is about being able to answer all of their why questions. If you can accurately answer all of their questions then you fully understand the subject.
i want to give you half marks for this. i feel like the skill einstein is talking about is the ability to conceive of a useful model that can be built out of simple chunks in a recursive process where each step can be stamped as an image in a small mind. consider one of those dog dancing competitions, for example, where the trainer has trained the dog in an inordinate number of little elements, including the stitches that link them into sequences. dumb dog, complex result. however, i also know exactly what you're talking about and i think it's an admirable skill to be able to answer a child's but-why questions until the child is exhausted before the adult. this is a different but similar process of being able to package concepts for a small mind, and requires a really secure sense of philosophy to understand all things in terms of well defined components. the difference though is that in one process the adult is controlling the structure because they can see what the end point is and how to get there, and in the other process the child is allowed to drive. i realise it can be a fine distinction
@@5naxalotlyou never let a child start on that path without pressing them to tell you what they think or to give you a guess why first - that tends to slow the why why why’s down.
At CalTech in 1970 (and probably in his books later) Feynman described trying to tell his father, an intelligent layperson, about what he did. I remember Feynman telling how, when his father asked “when the neutron becomes an electron and a proton, was the electron always there ‘inside’ the neutron?” “And I couldn’t explain it to him.”
But he did explain it to him. via his son talking about the “word bag” in his stomach that ran out of words. 😂. But maybe he got that analogy post 1970, yet it was a problem solved.
I remember someone asking if there was an electron inside the nucleus during beta decay. This derailed the lecture, and the question never was really answered.
When I was 6 years old I would get into trouble for mixing the colors of my Play-Doh. Imagine my horror if someone had tried to teach me that it was ok for quarks.
Einstein once said: "I have predicted many things in my life. My theory can predict Mercury's precession. My theory predicts black holes. But the prediction I am most proud off is that 12 year olds will incorrectly attribute quotes to me on the internet."
@@ohno5559 in ur proposal, are u going to dynamically cram wontons into the burrito? With a glueon layer of cheese? Or will the burritos be inside the wontons?
This is valid. In programming it is known as "rubber duck debugging" which is used for solving problems, at which you get into an answer while you are trying to describing the problem to someone else. To exploit this phenomenon, instead of bothering a friend to listen to you, they place a rubber duck and explain their hurdles and where they are stuck until you get an insight while you are bitcjing about it.
@@xantiommy work just had an outing and we ended the night at Dave & Busters, where one of my coworkers used all her credits on the rubber duck claw machine (honestly best value, cuz your credit doesn’t get used until you get a duck). Anyway, she gave them out and now I have an actual rubber duck to rubber-duck with as I develop. My coworkers didn’t know the term, and I showed them the wiki article, and the article’s main picture shows the same lil’ guy I got! Anyway, my troubleshooting ability is about to skyrocket
As someone who doesn't have a physics degree and sucks at advanced math, this video taught me basically everything I'd actually want to know about qcd.
What frustrates me about comments like this is that quotes wrongly attributed to Lincoln and Einstein are, in fact, wrongly attributed to Mark Twain! 😉
Quite the opposite. Without gluons there won't be even a single material that your Elmer's glue (in the theoretical case you could get any) would fail to work on.
One of the problems is that the approach that makes the leap from QED to QCD seem simple and natural is a really mathematically abstract one, where you take *gauge symmetry* as the most important thing that determines the whole theory. Usually when you study electromagnetism in a quantum mechanics class, gauge symmetry comes in kind of late as an advanced topic. If you express electromagnetism as potentials, you can do things to the potentials and simultaneously do something to the phases of the matter wave functions, and it's unchanged even if you do it differently at every point in space-time. And then you turn it on its head and say that gauge symmetry is what *determines* electromagnetism--you start with the relativistic QM of matter particles, then add gauge symmetry and the potentials have to come in, then you somehow breathe life into those and treat them as aspects of a physical field and you've got QED. Then you say, well, the gauge symmetry involved a mathematical object called a Lie group, and for QED the group is the simplest nontrivial one you can use, "U(1)", which is actually the same as a circle (messing with phases of the wave function, which go in a circle). Then you go from "messing with the phase" to "messing with some multidimensional space of color charges", which is a different Lie group, and QCD falls out, and then you mess with other quantities (the "flavordynamics" stuff Angela was talking about) and a big chunk of the Standard Model falls out. And whether the force carrying field has charge has to do with whether the group operations are commutative. But the class has this big mountain climb to even get to that point and it's very abstract. How do you even do that in an elementary context? I haven't quite figured it out. I recall Heinz Pagels trying in his book "The Cosmic Code", but it was a stretch.
@@DavidvanDeijk This is how all the forces in the Standard Model are constructed--it's all gauge theory. The part I left out is that if you do this you get force-carrying particles that have no mass, but the W and Z particles that carry the weak force are very massive, and that's where the Higgs field comes in. Even general relativity is a different kind of gauge theory, where the gauge transformations are on space-time.
My explanation of why QCD is hard (for physicists to do, which is kind of a different matter from why it's difficult to explain) is to show Feynman diagrams and explain roughly what they mean, then say: "you can always draw more and more complicated diagrams. With QED, these diagrams get less and less important, so you can often get away with ignoring them past a point, and get a pretty good answer by only computing the simple ones. With QCD, the complicated diagrams get *more* important, so you can't get away with that kind of trick."
Even ignoring the Landau pole, the # of diagrams grows too fast. It's an asymptotic series. The QED coupling constant is small enough that a reasonable # of diagrams leads to a "good enough" answer.
I left school when I was 14 and even then I wasn’t great at math or science. I didn’t understand almost any of this. I still watch all your videos the whole way - there’s something so enjoyable about someone talking about a very specific topic they have mastery over.
I love relearning all this stuff. When I studied it 40+ years ago unitary symmetry was the model and quarks were still somewhat controversial. Now everything's changed and I'm learning from people half my age.
I think the important thing is you successfully taught me that I don't need to know any more about QCD. I've tried before, but now I am happy to stop worrying about it. Thanks for the video Angela!
I'm so embarrassed. I used to think I understood some of this stuff. Frank Wilczeck wrote a book titled "Longing for the Harmonies" and I read it over and over and over until I was able to grasp his explanations. Now I realize he was explaining only the most basic notions of his field. He's a really good explainer. I'm just not a very good understander. Love the video!
If your average 5yo child is already familiar with advanced linear algebra, complex matrix calculus, Lagrangian mechanics, Dirac's quantum field equations, non-abelian Lie groups and the Yang-Mills gauge theory, yes, I think you can explain QCD to them.
Wow, you really give me hope! I’m a 66 year old retired woman and that you understand all this so well makes me happy. Thank goodness there is someone who understands this so well. Thank you.
23:31 I think you make a really good point about the Feynman diagrams giving people a false sense of understanding, and especially about the whole “antimatter does not go backwards in time” thing
She covered this in depth in another video, and while I was initially pretty... defensive? about the interpretation, because-hey, the math works-her larger point about "unphysical" solutions to equations (like Dirac Holes) has ultimately won me over and disabused me of much of my juvenile Feynman Fanboism.
@@3X3NTR1K I now imagine a little positron constantly looking over its shoulder in order not to stumble into a nearby electron while walking backwards.
There may be a lot of made up quotes of Einstein, but he is a very good frame of reference a range of things. Like how it took Einstein 4 years after getting his PhD to finally get a professorship gig. And what’s even more crazy is that it took him four years after his miracle year, after producing four seminal pieces of research that also includes his Nobel-winning work, to get a job as a professor. If it took a Nobel laureate 4 years after he did his Nobel-winning work to get the job he wanted…
"I am not a professional science communicator" says PhD with 150k+ subscribers on a RU-vid channel where she mostly communicates science. Jokes aside, love your content. Looking forward to finding out why my understanding of QCD is wrong. It's the one I thought I knew pretty well! Although I'm sitting here now wondering if anti-red and cyan are the same thing, so maybe not. Update: I'm not sure what I understand anymore, except this: to the chagrin of pure mathematians everywhere, Monte Carlo wins again.
This feels like, in molecular biology, going from understanding how certain proteins interact with other proteins or genes to developmental biology where you suddenly have 20,000-25,000 (ish for a eukaryote) points that all can be modified in many ways and exist in specific places at specific times. You can't really have an analytical explanation of multicellular development for now and im glad other stem people have similar struggles lol
This channel is a gift to the world. I have more than once thought about transcribing these videos, adding visual explainers to the pages, and printing them out as accessible pamphlets! (I haven't, though... copyright's a bitch!)
The main obstacles to these sorts of ideas are our procrastination and the excuses we make for ourselves. Copyright, shmopyright! Jokes aside, I can see how copyright is a genuine obstacle, but if you're really determined, try something short and simple. You can fit a lot of info in a tri-fold brochure (double-sided).
@@DJRonnieG I did make an A3 horizontal scientific poster for the "Why aliens won't be made of Silicon" video! And I mostly 'scripted' one other pamphlet of this sort too. I just wouldn't actually distribute/sell these. They're more like pet projects for myself.
@tomasroque3338 I hear you, I've done my own fair share of pet projects in various forms of printed material. There's something rewarding about creating something nice in print that you can hold in your hand. It's long overdue for me to make a "turtle care pamphlet". So many people adopt Red-eared sliders with precious little information about their needs. 🐢 In any case good luck and if you ever want to share any finished project, feel free to drop me a comment.
@@DJRonnieG Wow, I love that! I've laid out plans for a custom chess board where each piece is a different type of turtle (the movements and playstyle being analogous to each turtle's behavior and traits). But it would cost some to built it, and that's the kind of thing I'd have to pay someone else to do.
I wanted to know where this quote originated (expecting some 19th century romantic) and was wildly disappointed that the original is attributed to *Hank Green.* But then I dug further and found that, in keeping with the theme of the opener, it's a misattribution (he _popularized_ it but didn't originate it)!
Thank you. Fun explanation. When I got my Ph.D in physics, we were searching for quarks. I heard Feynman, Gell-Mann and others speak on Unified Field Theory at an APS meeting in D.C. I gave my first paper as a grad student and went down stairs after the talk. There was a standing room only crowd in the Ball Room. I wiggled in and found a place to stand and not block others. After the intro, Feynman spoke. Feynman had long hair light brown hair down to his shoulders. He was young and spoke with the accent of a Brooklyn truck driver. He opened with a pretty bold statement that was close to "I don't know what you know because I never read the literature". Someone gave his talk (Gell-Mann?) writing on an opaque projector with a black marker blocking 50% of the image (equations) on the screen with his head. We have still trying to do Unified Field Theory. Fun video.
The word "understanding" is kinda just a disguised query for a bunch of different things that are expected of people who "understand" a concept to be able to do with the concept, i.e. explain it, apply it, draw parallels to other concepts... like for many (most) words the true underlying reality is messy and complicated, the word just represents a pattern our brains abstract that reality into for convenience. Now _thats_ the real myth!
Except Feynman spent most of his time warning us that if understand something on paper because you're not smart enough or you've not spend enough time on it or you're not seeing it in the proper way and end up thinking like "come on, it is really complex, who can REALLY understand this? but i can manage the equations and say the right words, therefore it's ok" akin to a philosophical zombie, you're only fooling yourself.
Understanding buoyancy is easy, do you sink or float? Do you weight more or less than the water you can displace? It's a problem any child has asked and anybody after a couple years of school should be able to solve, assuming the boat is a rectangle or you just know the displacement. But there is so much more you could know: how the forces balance, hydrostatics, what is the force of the water made of, what is the force of gravity, what if you vary any or all of these in either space or time? Once you start asking these questions, you are now beginning to truly understand that topic.
This video reminds me of that time I brought a proton and a gluon to my favorite bar. We had a strong bonding experience. What a positive interaction it was.
Perhaps it's my background as a programmer, but I really don't see the problem here. For me it's kinda backward, most of the time I don't have an elegant mathematical model, or even an algorithm for a particular problem, so for me "let's just brute force (if feasible) or simulate" is the first kind of solution I go for. Finding or creating a neat algorithm that runs fast and produces the exact solution is a nice cherry on top, you use it if you already know it or if your code *must* run fast. Having a closed-form mathematical solution, a formula that just spits out an answer is like having a surprise birthday present. For me, the thought that reality doesn't fit into a math model is just a base assumption. I'm very happy to be proven wrong, but the closer you get to reality, the more factors your program must consider - the rearer such happy accidents occur. Like, generating _the_ optimal schedule for a school that considers a basic set of restrictions (no double-booking of instructors, classrooms, and students, balanced loads on students and faculty, no excessive movement across the building, etc.) is already computationally intractable. And that's all in the macroscopic world, so no wonder that we can't have exact probabilistic models for the QCD. It's kinda amazing that we can solve a hydrogen atom!
In addition to the NP problems, simulating natural phenomena is messy on its own. The two tests are: "is it fast (enough)" and "does it look plausible (enough)". Obviously how those are weighted varies on what you're trying to do (1 second of simulation per day is acceptable for like, Pixar, but certainly not for Nintendo). Even in the macroscopic here, there are tons of things that get commonly ignored because they play so small a part in the classical physics. (E.g. approximating friction as a simple coefficient, ignoring aerodynamics, etc. intra-molecular interactions in liquids, etc. depending on the ~~field~~ domain.)
Proton, unlike magnet, has degree of freedom in 4d, therefore repulsion between 2 protons changes in attraction. like with magnets: if to hold 2 magnets in 2 hands (dof=1) then repulsion wins, but if drop them (dof>1) then attraction wins.
@@michaelprozonicit's easy. protons starts to attract each other and make 1d lines (like with magnets if throw them on table) so one degree of freedom disappears. in that 1d line they became motionless (temperature=0)
Dang, you Fizzicists are so much more laid back. Whenever I went around with too many protons in my hand I was usually told "Get that $*':$@ back in the fume hood you idiot!"
@@user-ys3ev5sh3w ok, working on that now. how do i fit my beer can into a 1d line though and how many protons do I need for each 12oz can? Can you tell me which aisle at Home Depot has the protons?
Huh I actually didn't like the glasses, but neglected to mention because I thought it was irrelevant. I guess I was wrong, glasses appraisal in the comments section is approved behaviour.
I think you did a great job of explaining most of the stuff and got close to describing what's hard about QCD, but didn't quite get to the punchline. The hardest part about QCD isn't that the Feynman diagrams are more complicated, or that there's so many gluons and flavors - that's an annoying thing for sure, but people can still compute diagrams up to a couple of loops (especially using Mathematica packages). The hard and beautiful thing about QCD is that if you wanna describe the inside of a proton, it just doesn't make sense to compute Feynman diagrams because what's going on inside is nonperturbative. Feynman diagrams wouldn't give a meaningful answer in any way to the problem, even if you could compute and sum all of them! That's why we need to do the path integrals with lattice QCD. You got close to mentioning this when you talked about perturbing QED, but I think it's worth pointing out as another pitfall of Feynman diagrams. Not only are they a cartoon for the math, they are sometimes cartoons for math that we shouldn't be doing in the first place for certain physical questions. (I know that the main point of the video wasn't to explain why QCD is hard, just hard to explain. But I guess my point is that it's hard to explain if you start from Feynman diagrams, precisely because they don't work in the theory. But explaining it with just path integrals might be "easier"?) Cheers and thanks for all the fun the content!
Hi Angela! First of all, I loved the video! But I wanted to add on to what you said at the end -- that QCD can only be evaluated numerically (via lattice QCD). I just wanted to say that absolutely not! Most experimentally-relevant calculations of QCD are done completely analytically. It's literally what I did for my PhD and the ATLAS collaboration was even able to measure and compare to our analytical predictions. I know this isn't well-known in the community, so here's a bit of background: The idea that QCD can't be computed perturbatively ("knowing which Feynman diagrams matter") is because the strong coupling alpha_s is very large (0.118 at 91.2GeV, compared to 0.007 of QED). However, since alpha_s runs, it gets smaller as you go to higher energies (asymptotic freedom, as you mentioned in the outro). By the time that you get to experimentally-relevant energies (i.e. 13.6 TeV at the LHC), alpha_s is again small enough to be able to treat the theory as being perturbative. In fact, at experimental energies QCD is basically just fancy QED. So, recap: At small energies you need lattice QCD to say anything tangible, but at high energies QCD is just a regular perturbative theory. There is one additional complication however: The fact that colliders collide protons, which are low-energy QCD objects, and not quarks, which can be treated perturbatively. It turns out that this wrinkle gets handled by something called a "parton distribution function", which essentially connects quark/gluon cross-sections with proton cross-sections. In fact, because of this, your typical QCD experimental prediction pipeline looks as follows: 1) Experimentalists measure these parton distribution functions at other experiments, 2) A theorist computed the cross-section for some QCD process completely perturbatively/analytically, 3) They multiply their result with a parton distribution function. And voila, you've got yourself a phenomenological prediction for a proton-proton QCD experiment!
There is a reason for QCD : the subnuclear zoo. In the late 60s the number of particles discovered using particles accelerators numbered in the hundreds. QCD brought that mess down to a handful.
Really loved this video. One of those occasions where RU-vid throws up a spot on recommendation as weirdly I'd just spent my Saturday lunch time reading an article about QCD in Scientific American, possibly to the bemusement of the staff at Wagamamas but certainly to my own bemusement. Whilst I definitely didn't understand it, I did get the impression it is an exciting time for QCD theorists who seem to have solved long standing problems evaluating the strength of the strong force against distance in the limit and at low energies. Then to have this video pop up within a few hours was perfect. I'm never going to understand QCD but I feel I don't understand it on a deeper level now 🙂 - You have a new subscriber.
You definitely did reminded me of the book called «Thinking physics». It's not for 6 yo, it's for middle schoolers, but it starts with integrals and ends with quantum theory, and all of that with actual physics problems explained in a way middle schooler would be able to do them. The book is wonderful introduction to physics for younger teens, you could learn it in your 5th year of school.
My best understanding of that "Einstein" quote is that giving a satisfying simplified explanation of something requires a much better understanding than what you need to just feel satisfied by your own understanding.
Why is it that we’re always taught that Feynman diagrams should have time going upwards but when we actually use Feynman diagrams time is always going across?
I am studying chemistry. The moment you said "field theory" i was like: "Nope. I have no clue what those are, and if i find out i'll be stuck modeling molecules for the rest of my life. Byeeeee!!"
that really is a feeling when learning about stuff in your field of study. You don't want to learn too much about something or you'll get hired to work with/study it! In urban planning, I've ignored some friends warnings against studying GIS.
I think we over-emphasize the empirical aspect of particle theory, where we can't find when beta decay will happen, etc. and not that it's a probability distribution. Yes those mean the same thing, but it's a nitpick. I feel its more sufficient to my brain to say "we know that there's a 10% chance of an electron being 30 angstroms away from a point" than "we cannot actually find this electron"
One thing that bothers me just a bit, Feynman diagrams are not only used in the path integral formulation - like, you use Feynman rules all the time even if you are exclusively doing canonical quantization
One of the most enjoyable videos.ever. I read Feynmann's QED lectures given to the public, and he said that no one in the audience would understand QED, and that was okay because neither did anyone else. You captured that beautifully.
i've been a carer for schizophrenia for around ten years, i don't have any formal qualification other than a certificate that says i've done a carers course, but one thing i learned even before the course is that when someone is hallucinating saying "you're imagining things" results in a very bad day. anyway. i treat all people as if they are mentally ill, i find that most people have hard time understanding how to tie shoelaces, never mind einstein. so in order to get your point across and have it actually register in someone else's brain, you have to put things in the simplest terms - that, say, a six year old can grasp. cos most people are six year olds, mentally. including me.
"I treat all people as if they are mentally ill" if most people had a hard time trying their shoes, maybe your point of reference for mental illness is skewed? I get hyperbole but it's just kind of a weird thing to say
Excellent point, you can’t effectively communicate unless you can empathetically imagine their reality and respond with good will and respect their desire for agency. Anasognosia is a very difficult feature of schizophrenia. When the way you reason is distorted you cannot reason your way out of it. It can alienate loved ones, that they can’t just snap out of it and adopt the caregivers reality, but it’s not their fault. Thanks for the work you do and for sharing your insights!
I want to get it, but I am irresistably distracted by that glorious neon-chromo Starfleet sculpture in the background. Well played, Doctor. Well played.
It is possible to know what something is at one level without understanding how it works. We don't understand how most things work, so this is very common.
Quark star superconductivity is not boring - pulsars with mass up around 2 solar masses are likely to be quark stars, and those are likely to be quark stars, and those are likely to be _color_ superconductors. If that's not wild, and exciting QCD, I don't know what is.
I think that quote was from someone whose child kept asking "Why?" Not that you literally have to make the child understand, but that you have to keep going deeper and deeper into truly understanding the topic.
Angela: "QCD is a bunch of nonsolvable math that we use computer programs to simulate and it's incredibly successful at predicting experiments." Child: "Why?"
Thank you for explaining why I don't understand QCD except in a vague, limited, fragmented, intuitive way. I appreciate the jargon tossed in at the end. All in all I've learned something, had a few laughs, and at least have enough information to keep asking questions.
As an electrical(electro-magnetic?) engineer I 100% agree with the superiority of the electron over the proton. Hopefuly we can someday agree about the usefulness of the right hand rule and the passive sign convention haha
Actually the channel «All Angles» gives quite good introduction of QCD with algebra and group theory, and the group theory is so simple, kindergartener would be able to understand it. Simple symmetries and basic counting and arithmetics under 10.
I think it's so cool that there are some types of expertise it's impossible to "dabble" in. You have to devote yourself to it, to even take the first steps. I suspect that's always been true, even in prehistory.
@@chaotickreg7024 I don't think First Grade teachers believe they know everything about linguistics and math when they teach the kids the alphabet and how to add and subtract numbers. That's why the saying “lies to children” exists.
Thinking you can and doing so are two different things. It's not saying the opposite - there is an apple would be opposite to there is no apple. This is saying liking the way an apple tastes is opposite to saying there is no apple. The quote can mean any number of things depending on interpretation, but the explainer's perspective of their capability isn't one I see in it.
Appreciate the space between "8" and your exclamation mark when counting the number of gluon types in your table. Not leaving any ammunition for these factorial jokers 😆
