Explanations based on ideas & thought experiments.
In these essays, I do all the cool physics I couldn't do during my PhD (bc I got the bad end of the academic stick).
Physics For Physicists, but made simple :)
I'm a physicist who is improving her physics skills by exploring the ideas and ways we see the world. I rely on Albert Einstein's book "the evolution of ideas in physics" to prepare the videos. After all, I'd rather get information from the best possible scientists.
If virtual particles aren't real, maye particles in general aren't real. Just a misconception due to the history of the definition of an atom. take for example the double slit experiment. if we measure just one time, the copenhagen interpretation states the particle is in super position until it hits the detector. but if we continue to measure, like 2000 times, the wave nature reveals itself. if we think about particles as excited quantum fields, there's no point like object in space, just as there are no real particles, rather our interpretation of the wave function and it's probality density. also, it is possible to explain the casimir effect without virtual particles in a pilot wave theory framework with it's quantum potential. I can provide the math.
I agree with Andrewbordor4891 below, that the zero-point energy (the aether) causes pressure on matter, and probably is the root cause of the expansion of the matter in the universe. But I don't agree that it causes gravity just by itself. Gravity is more likely a separate type of field emanating from matter which pulls on any form of energy (and therefore also the zero-point energy). At a black hole event horizon for example, the velocity of the pulled zero-point energy is the speed of light, therefore light can't leave, it has a relative velocity (relative to zero-point energy) equal to the speed of light at the event horizon. So, imo the modern "aether" has a double nature, it pushes on matter, and also is pulled towards matter by the gravitational fields. Small matter objects follow the movement of the aether, caused by large matter objects. This double nature, causes a balance act which explains much of the behaviour of both the universe as an object, and the objects in it.
MAYBE IM MISSING THE POINT, but if numerous people measure variable / subjective "stuff" from different perspectives, the results will um er vary, even in a vacuum
In relativity, time is the distance along a world-line. It is a local and not relative. The "time" that is relative is unphysical, it is the arbitrary choice of a particular slicing of the gravitational field
The Bell inequality simply shows that the particles do not have a definite value before measurement and nothing else. However, everyone is wrong to assume this rules out every class of classical local hidden variables.
@@bustercam199 I did not look technically into the problem. Just as intuitive hunch I am still essentially siding for Einstein and Pauli, but of course not with a set of static "hidden variables", rather with a dynamic "mechanism" which allows after entanglement the spins to permanently remain out of sync (or negatively correlated, at least in a statistical sense, in such way they still match with Bell results and experiments). It would be nice to look into it, but life is too short... 🙂
@@W-HealthPianoExercises Agree. I think Einstein was correct because he understood physics is supposed to describe the dynamic behavior of a system and not just probability amplitudes that (incidentally) give a correct answer to final states--but do not rigorously describe how "particles" actually arrive at a particular quantum state. In its current state, quantum mechanics is incomplete and will never explain entanglement because there is nowhere to put it in the existing framework. But, even more importantly--it does not really exist in any meaningful capacity or in the mystical way imagined by the vast majority of the science community.
@@bustercam199 I agree with you. They got all backward. It's the macro world which is indeed a statistical representation of an underlying more precise behaviour of packets of energy. I imagine it will take a lot of time to get rid of all the BS which has trumpeted and still is. It has become like the financial world. Too much BS going around and being perpetuated without really turning on the cpu 🙂
It isn’t just electron capture. The electron spending some time inside the nucleus is also responsible for the hyperfine splitting (whose transitions give rise to radio astronomy) and for the ability to measure the proton charge radius spectroscopically (due to the small shifts in the hydrogen energy levels for s states when we take into account the finite radius of the nucleus or just proton for hydrogen).
Bell inequality violations are more general than most think. Check out MIT's John Bush explaining Bell violations in HQFT. You can violate Bell inequalities with classical light, Ising models, Brownian motion, chaotic balls and water waves. There is a lot of misinformation about this subject because few understand conditional probability on background fields (non-Kolmogorov probability). HQFT violated Bell in a simple system with water by modifying well geometries. Classical analogs exist for spin-1/2, superposition, entanglement, tunneling, Unruh radiation, Hawking radiation, etc. All of this is a media fabrication. Ask Andrei Khrennikov (arXiv:quant-ph/0003017) about what constitutes "non-Kolmogorov" probability. Quantum mechanics is an outdated theory. The Standard Model is a FIELD theory. QM can't even explain the Pauli exclusion principle. The field commutators vanish! Get it? Quantum states are an abstraction from field ontology. They don't really exist! Fields are trivially nonlocal and measurement is giving readings on a complicated and macro-level measurement device. The states are not really observable. There are no particles but fields. That is the MODERN understanding of physics. CS grads are ignorant. This stuff doesn't even rise to the level of the 30s, where field theory took over. There was only some problems developing the theory of renormalization, accomplished mostly by Ken Wilson by the 70s. These videos are embarrassing.
The simplist answer is they can't be squashed în the nucleus, 'coz of uncertainty principle în regard with their mass. If their mass would be the same as proton's, they certainly smash!
Not really, light is a wave and it isn't localised at a point so it isn't a particle - but it has discrete energy levels and a single energy level is one "photon" of light. You can't have a light wave that's 1.5 "photons", it needs to be 1 or 2 (or more). This is a particle-like property. Also when light interacts it does so at a specific point rather than across a wider area, which is another property we'd expect to see with particles.
Wow! you are amazing for sharing these secrets with us <3 thak you so much, it's really the best video for MatLab figures that I found on YouToube. If you can allow me to ask more secrets: how can I specify the "box" property to be "off" only for the figure, but not for the legend? And how can I specify the "font size" for the numbers on the axis to be different? And is it possible to also specify the axis thick marks, like the primary to be outside and the secondary to be inside? Thanks a lot ! Big hugh :)
5 месяцев назад
I have the same question about legend, have you found a solution? :)
The ultraviolet catastrophe was logically invalid thinking. They didn't realize atoms have finite size and the field around them is smooth, so as they bump into each other, the interactions are smoothened, low-passed by this gradual field gradient instead of the false assumption of the idealized model. Therefore ultraviolet light is radiated in very diminished amounts, and no ultraviolet catastrophe happens and the concept of quanization is not needed.
So, are they buzzing around or oscillating or what? How can they remain stability, when in some cases they are nearer and the other further from the nucleus, thus attracted differently?
Caused by gravity... the press of the dense aether on either side of the plates. Matter and the aether repel each other. The aether does not just disappear but bunches up in the space away from the matter, much like a berm left by a snow plow. This immense mountain of aether is what is pressing on the plates from the sides. It also presses downward, causing what we call gravity.
No. The aether or quantum space is pressing on the plates inward. There is denser and more aether outside the plates than between the plates. The net effect is a push of the plates together. Conventional thought is that all matter attracts other matter. The Casimir effect is that the root cause of gravity, denser aether or quantum space, pushes the plates together. The plates are NOT attracted together, rather pushed by the same aether that causes gravity.
@@andrewbodor4891Im gonna need amore in depth explanation, youthink that the vaccum generated by the closeness alongside the charge of the plats is not the primary cause but instead an effect of "aether?" What is that exactly?
I agree that the zero-point energy (the aether) causes pressure on matter, and probably is the root cause of the expansion of the matter in the universe. But I don't agree that it causes gravity just by itself. Gravity is more likely a separate type of field emanating from matter which pulls on any form of energy (and therefore also the zero-point energy). At a black hole event horizon for example, the velocity of the pulled zero-point energy is the speed of light, therefore light can't leave, it has a relative velocity (relative to zero-point energy) equal to the speed of light at the event horizon. So, imo the modern "aether" has a double nature, it pushes on matter, and also is pulled towards matter by the gravitational fields. Small matter objects follow the movement of the aether, caused by large matter objects. This double nature, causes a balance act which explains much of the behaviour of both the universe as an object, and the objects in it.
Hiya, I've got some questions as I am having issues implementing your code. Taking 1:08 as a screenshot, your code is split into two parts. For the part of the code "Picturewidth..." and below, do I need to copy this after every single figure I create on MATLAB or can I include it at the bottom of my document and be done with it? It would be cool if you could share a document showing the implementation of your code within a MATLAB livescript rather than in isolation (to made it idiot proof haha). Appreciate the work Ciao
