>>13260198>I'm not a physicistLike fucking pottery. Of course you're the type of pseud to defend the crank shit written on Reddit physics boards. Here's a board that's used by actual experts, where I contribute frequently.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8452/is-there-an-equation-for-the-strong-nuclear-forceCompare the quality of answers. And for the record, the problem is that the coefficient in front of that alleged coulomb term has the strong coupling constant which is itself a function of the distance. So right away the claim of infinite range is false, since a(r) also blows up to infinity at large r. Furthermore, that formula applies only to a specific quarkonium as a potential between two quarks, and is a far cry from what physicists talk about when we say strong force (which is mediated by color exchange via a gluon). Furthermore, quarks don't really exist in isolation in hadrons and are rather quantified via parton distribution functions, where there is an infinite sea of quark and antiquark pairs in any hadron. So this notion that potential applies only to the valence quarks in the meson. Shall I go on? Because I can keep going
