What Is the Equation for the Strong Nuclear Force?

Previously, I described how the weak nuclear force really is a force even though it’s almost never described as one. Instead of a simple inverse square law like gravity and electromagnetism, it decays exponentially so that it weakens over a very short distance.

But there’s one more piece to this puzzle. At the popular science level, no one ever explains what the equation for the strong nuclear force is, either. It does have one, and it’s simple enough to explain, but no one ever mentions it, which is a shame because it’s actually kind of cool.

This equation is called the “Cornell potential” or the “funnel potential”:

Here, α and σ are constants associated with the strong force. The main function of the strong force is that it holds the quarks inside a proton or neutron together. It holds atomic nuclei together, too, but that’s a side effect. The Cornell potential tells us how this works when we take a derivative to convert it to a force:

The first part of this is an inverse square law. In other words, inside a proton or neutron meson, quarks actually undergo a gluon-mediated scattering interaction governed by an inverse square law just like Coulomb’s law. The difference is that there’s a second term in the equation, and it’s a constant. Regardless of the distance between them, two “unpaired” quarks will be attracted to each other with a constant force on top of the inverse square law of about 10,000 newtons[1] (which is a weirdly normal-sounding number equal to about one ton of force).

Continue reading
Posted in Physics | Tagged , , | Comments Off on What Is the Equation for the Strong Nuclear Force?

How Is the Weak Nuclear Force an Actual Force?

Fundamental Forces
“Of these four forces, there’s one we don’t really understand.” “Is it the weak force or the strong—” “It’s gravity.”

It’s time for another physics explainer. In an earlier post, I explained Lagrangian mechanics and why it uses the weird (to physicists) equation L=T-V. I thought I might do some more posts like that, and I found a topic that should make a good one. So, let’s jump over to nuclear physics and figure out what on Earth is going on with the weak nuclear force.

Physics says there are four fundamental forces of nature. There’s gravity, which pulls masses toward one another. There’s electromagnetism, which pulls opposite electric charges toward each other (and pushes like charges apart). There’s the strong nuclear force, which holds the quarks together inside protons and neutrons. And then, there’s the weak nuclear force, which…causes radioactive decay?[1]

♫♪ One of these things is not like the others. ♫♪

In any popular science book or really even undergraduate textbooks (to my memory), you’ll see the four forces described this way, and you may be thinking: “Wait a minute, one of those isn’t actually a force.” Three of the fundamental forces are described how forces are always supposed to be described: by how they push or pull on particles. But the weak force isn’t. It causes this other process to happen, and no one ever mentions it pushing or pulling.

Imagine if someone said, “Gravity is a force that makes things change shape.” And it’s true; gravity makes stars and planets form into spheres, and it makes a raindrop splatter into a pancake on the ground. But that sentence is still completely missing the point (even if it doesn’t sound like total nonsense). It would be silly to talk about gravity just making things change shape and not even mention the main aspect of it—the actual force part of it—which is that it pulls masses together.

That’s how weird it sounds to me to say, “The weak nuclear force causes radioactive decay.” So, what gives? Well, that’s what I’m hoping to explain with this post.

(And I’ll get to the strong force in the next post. Ironically, that one is more complicated, even though it sounds simpler.)

Continue reading
Posted in Physics | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Flat Earth Challenge Follow-Up: Refraction

One year ago today, I posted a Challenge to Flat Earthers on this blog. I proposed an experiment that could photograph the curvature of the Earth directly without having to worry about camera distortions, which is what Flat Earthers usually point to to explain away such images. If you hold a ruler against the horizon in view of the camera, it will give you an absolute standard for what is straight. With a ruler to measure against, you don’t have to be at the edge of space, but only up in an airplane to see a little bit of curvature in the horizon.

I was going to put my proverbial money where my mouth is and do this experiment myself the next time I flew, but then 2020 hit, so I haven’t flown since then–nor have I have any takers on the challenge.

However, this is about a different topic. I admitted in that post that there is one other thing that could cause an apparent curvature in the horizon: refraction. Refraction is the bending of light through…anything, really, but in this case, it’s mostly to do with air. In various weather conditions, air can bend light so that distant objects appear higher or lower than they should be. This is the basis for a various phenomena that are colloquially called mirages.[1] Refraction can also make the horizon appear lower than it really is, and thus the edge of a flat disk would look more curved that it should be.

More generally, one thing Flat Earthers like to say, possibly the clearest[2] positive evidence to support their claims,[3] is that they can take photographs that show distant objects that should be behind the horizon.

Take this photo of the Chicago skyline, for example. It taken from the other side of Lake Michigan, 60 miles (100 km) away. If you do the math, the skyline should be behind the horizon on a round Earth. What’s going on?

Continue reading
Posted in Debunking, Science | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Flat Earth Challenge Follow-Up: Refraction

#19 – The New Wave

S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television A Reader's History of Science Fiction

In this episode, I review the recent history and current status of science fiction on television during the streaming era. TV recommendation: The Orville
  1. S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television
  2. S3E4: Larry Niven Interview
  3. S3E3: Cameron Kunzelman Discusses Sci-Fi Video Games
  4. S3E2: Robert Silverberg Interview
  5. S3E1: Jim Harris Discusses the Classics of Sci-Fi

In the 1960s, science fiction went through a major change as the New Wave moved it away from the hard sci-fi of the 50s into a softer, but more socially conscious space. In this episode, we overview the new ideas, themes, and authors of this period.

Book recommendation: The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester.

Selected other books:
The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester
Non-Stop by Brian Aldiss
Hothouse by Brian Aldiss
Greybeard by Brian Aldiss
High-Rise by J. G. Ballard

And, in the spirit of the season, you can see Santa Claus Conquers the Martians free on YouTube. It’s public domain in the United States due to various errors on the part of the studio, including releasing it without a copyright notice. Or, there are RiffTrax out there, too.

Check out this episode!

Posted in A Reader's History of Science Fiction, Uncategorized | Comments Off on #19 – The New Wave

New Video: Multiplication Tables Visualized

Actually, I posted this video a couple weeks ago, but between my podcast and professional stuff, I haven’t gotten around to reposting it here. I’m trying to catch up on actual blog posts I have planned, so I thought I should share it. Check it out.

This video is a tribute to Mathologer’s video about multiplication tables and the Mandelbrot set a few years ago. You can see it here.

This is an animation of modular arithmetic, which is basically the kind of arithmetic you do on a clock, except instead of 12 hours or 60 minutes, the circle adds up to an arbitrary number. In this case, there are 360 points on the circle.

The lines show multiplication by the number in the top left corner. Take multiplication by 2, for example. Go around the circle, and draw a line connecting 0 to 0 (which is just a point), 1 to 2, 2 to 4, 3 to 6, and so on. When you get to 180, you have to start over, so you connect it to 0, 181 to 2, and so on. You can see this at 00:06 in the video. The resulting heart shape formed by the lines is a cardioid, which is the largest bulb in the Mandelbrot set. Each number up to 360 produces a different pattern, many of which are interesting.

This isn’t the only video of animated modular multiplication tables on YouTube. Mathologer’s original video spawned many copycats, a few of which are larger and more complex. But I did do something that no other video I saw does. My version pauses at many of the interesting numbers so that you can see the patterns more clearly. Without that, it’s hard to tell what’s going on, much less appreciate the complexity of the structures.

I animated this whole thing using Python. Maybe I’ll post the code later if I decide on an appropriate venue. The music comes from Tchaikovsky’s “Pathétique” Symphony, specifically the second movement, which is a waltz in 5/4 time instead of the usual 3/4. I thought the odd time signature befitted the strange spinning of the patterns in the video. Public domain recording courtesy of Musopen.

I have another, more complex math animation that I’m working on. If you want a sneak peak…well, I haven’t rendered anything yet. But you can click here for the inspiration.

Posted in math, Video | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

#18 – Movies in the Golden Age

S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television A Reader's History of Science Fiction

In this episode, I review the recent history and current status of science fiction on television during the streaming era. TV recommendation: The Orville
  1. S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television
  2. S3E4: Larry Niven Interview
  3. S3E3: Cameron Kunzelman Discusses Sci-Fi Video Games
  4. S3E2: Robert Silverberg Interview
  5. S3E1: Jim Harris Discusses the Classics of Sci-Fi

Like books, movies and television also went through a golden age in science fiction in the 1950s. In this episode we explore the trends in the visual medium at the time and how they compared to print.

Movie recommendation: The Day the Earth Stood Still.

Rotten Tomatoes’s list of top sci-fi films.

Check out this episode!

Posted in A Reader's History of Science Fiction, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Book Review: Ready Player Two by Ernest Cline

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Ready_Player_Two_-_book_cover.jpg

In 2011, Ernest Cline wrote the bestselling book Ready Player One about a boy competing in a high stakes video game contest in the future virtual reality world of the OASIS. In 2045, the OASIS basically is the internet and is humanity’s escape from a world ravaged by global warming, an energy crisis and social unrest; and its ownership is up for grabs in the biggest video game in history. (It also sparked a 2018 film adaption, which was pretty good.)

But now, it’s 2020, and Ernest Cline has written a sequel, imaginatively titled Ready Player Two. And now, it’s 2048, and Wade Watts/Parzival won the contest three years ago. Shortly afterwards, he finds a final gift from the OASIS’s creator, James Halliday: a working brain-computer interface, that makes the OASIS feel like real life and takes it to the next level, literally and figuratively. It also triggers a new contest…and ruins his life. And then, things get much, much worse.

I’m having trouble parsing how I feel about this book. Technically, it’s very well done, and it kept me engaged and listening (to the audiobook) at a much faster pace than I normally go. Emotionally, though, it didn’t work for me. It didn’t take me to the same place of wonder and excitement as the original. The stakes were higher; the adventure was more over-the-top, and the technology was more miraculous. (And, honestly, the ending was still pretty good, too.) But I don’t think it was where the story needed to go.[1]

(I didn’t look at other reviews until after I wrote my own, and it looks like I might actually be one of the kinder ones out there. Go figure.)

One of the people I saw reacting to the announcement of a sequel said that they always recommended Ready Player One to their friends as one of the best standalone book out there, which I can definitely agree with. It didn’t need a sequel. In fact, even with Ready Player Two out there, I would still recommend Ready Player One as a great standalone. Ready Player Two is just too different.

My rating:

On the merits: 4.0 out of 5.

As a sequel: 2.5 out of 5.

Warning: spoilers below.

Continue reading
Posted in Book reviews | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Book Review: Ready Player Two by Ernest Cline

#17 – Arthur C. Clarke

S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television A Reader's History of Science Fiction

In this episode, I review the recent history and current status of science fiction on television during the streaming era. TV recommendation: The Orville
  1. S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television
  2. S3E4: Larry Niven Interview
  3. S3E3: Cameron Kunzelman Discusses Sci-Fi Video Games
  4. S3E2: Robert Silverberg Interview
  5. S3E1: Jim Harris Discusses the Classics of Sci-Fi

Arthur C. Clarke was the fourth of the “Big Four” authors of the golden age of science fiction. In this episode, we explore his work and his unique writing style, especially centered around “sufficiently advanced technology.”

Book recommendation: The City and the Stars.

Other books mentioned:
Childhood’s End
A Fall of Moondust
2001: A Space Odyssey

The Colours of Infinity on YouTube.
Clarke’s three laws.

Check out this episode!

Posted in A Reader's History of Science Fiction, Science Fiction | Comments Off on #17 – Arthur C. Clarke

#16 – Ray Bradbury

S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television A Reader's History of Science Fiction

In this episode, I review the recent history and current status of science fiction on television during the streaming era. TV recommendation: The Orville
  1. S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television
  2. S3E4: Larry Niven Interview
  3. S3E3: Cameron Kunzelman Discusses Sci-Fi Video Games
  4. S3E2: Robert Silverberg Interview
  5. S3E1: Jim Harris Discusses the Classics of Sci-Fi

Ray Bradbury is most famous as the author of Fahrenheit 451, but he was an important and unique figure in science fiction at-large, a master of short fiction with a colorful, Hollywood-centered career. Here, we explore some of his most notable works, and his philosophy in writing.

Book recommendation: Fahrenheit 451.

Bradbury’s 1999 interview about his writing.
Bradbury in Hollywood.
Gautham Shenoy on Fahrenheit 451.
Louis Friedman’s tribute to Bradbury.

Other books mentioned:
The Martian Chronicles
The Illustrated Man

Check out this episode!

Posted in A Reader's History of Science Fiction, Science Fiction | Comments Off on #16 – Ray Bradbury

#15 – Robert Heinlein Part II: Politics, Religion, and Sex

S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television A Reader's History of Science Fiction

In this episode, I review the recent history and current status of science fiction on television during the streaming era. TV recommendation: The Orville
  1. S3E5: Modern Sci-Fi Television
  2. S3E4: Larry Niven Interview
  3. S3E3: Cameron Kunzelman Discusses Sci-Fi Video Games
  4. S3E2: Robert Silverberg Interview
  5. S3E1: Jim Harris Discusses the Classics of Sci-Fi

Robert Heinlein’s later career went to some unusual places, including books with heavy philosophical and political themes, while still continuing with his classic hard sci-fi rigor. In this episode, we explore the highlights of his later work.

Book recommendation: The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

Other books mentioned:
Starship Troopers
Stranger in a Strange Land
Time Enough for Love

Floyd Gale on Starship Troopers.
Cory Doctorow on Heinlein’s less savory works.

Check out this episode!

Posted in A Reader's History of Science Fiction, Science Fiction | Comments Off on #15 – Robert Heinlein Part II: Politics, Religion, and Sex