Empty Space is NOT Empty
Why Physics Stack Exchange recommends it
Physics Stack Exchange users, especially mmesser314, link it as background on quark and gluon fields and the strong force, often paired with Veritasium's video on mass and the Higgs boson.
Recommended by 1 people across 2 different months, 2014 to 2023.
What it is
A short Veritasium explainer arguing that the apparent emptiness of space and atoms hides quark and gluon field fluctuations. It uses a permanent-magnet analogy to show that clearing out a field takes energy, with input from physicist Derek Leinweber.
What people said
Recommends mmesser314 · 2020-01 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Can strong interaction be repulsive?”
Though they don't talk about repulsion, you can get an intuitive feel for the difference between the residual strong force and the intra-nucleon strong force from these Veritasium videos: [this video] and [LINK]
Recommends mmesser314 · 2021-10 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Is $E=mc^2$ relevant while accelerating a book across a table?”
See the Veritasium video Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson [LINK] . The earlier video he mentions is Empty Space is NOT Empty [this video]
Cites Alistair Riddoch · 2014-10 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Why do we believe in a "force" driven universe?”
Why do we not believe in the potential for a "unified force field" universe, to the exclusion of the belief in the potential for a mechanical, gear driven universe, if the correct shape for the gear were found? And why cannot the correct shape for that gear be this shape: And in light of the things we DON'T KNOW, is it "wild speculation" to consider such mechanical, gear driven, aether filed universe such as those envisioned by both Newton and Einstein (for five years prior to relativity), may actually exist?? Things we "don't know": the true nature of the inside of every atom [this video] the true nature of the Higg's Bosun [LINK] Please make note of the answer to the question, “does this mean w
Cites SRS · 2016-11 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Do the virtual particles have any mathematical meaning in vacuum in absense of real quanta?”
I have edited this question with its title. Virtual particles, as I understand, arise as intermediaries in the calculations describing interactions such as scattering between real particles and in drawing certain Feynman diagrams. My question is not whether virtual particles have real physical existence by direct observation. My question is, whether the mathematical language of " virtual particle-antiparticle popping in and out of existence ", is even mathematically meaningful whenever you take everything (all real quanta) out of space. By empty space, I understand, the vacuum of a free or an interacting quantum field theory. May be this video [this video] roughly explains my question. Can the va
Cites mmesser314 · 2021-05 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “Is $ud$ matter more dangerous than strange matter?”
You never find a single quark all by itself (Not counting truly extreme Big Bang temperatures). They always occur in pairs or triplets. See these old Veritasium videos - Empty Space is NOT Empty [this video] and Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson [LINK]
Cites mmesser314 · 2023-04 · Physics Stack Exchange · on “What is the secret behind the striking similarity between a quark pair and a bar magnet?”
Under the hood, it isn't as similar as it looks. For background on quarks, see these Veritasium videos: Empty Space is NOT Empty [this video] and Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson [LINK] As these say, if you try to separate a quark/antiquark pair, you have to add so much energy that you create another quark/antiquark pair. You wind up with two pairs, neither of which is separated. For background on magents, see the Veritasium/MinutePhysics video MAGNETS: How Do They Work? [LINK] As this explains, there are no N and S particles that could be separated. Even at the level of a single particle, the particle itself is a tiny magnet with a N and S end. A bar magnet contains a lot of these lined up.