Theoretical physicist creating educational content. I share stories about physics and their protagonists complemented by nice animations, visualizations, and some calculations to take the viewer on an active journey of scientific discovery.
Dear Dr. Diaz, first of all many many thanks for your phenomenal video series in physics. Being a physicist myself I got highly interested in the history of physics in particular in the early history of quantum mechanics during the last several years. I can say with great conviction that your physics videos are absolutely outstanding ! Now to my question: Recently a perhaps very stupid idea came into my mind, when I listened to your depiction of the different ignition mechanisms of an atomic bomb, mainly the shot gun method used in little boy and the implosion method of trinity and fat man. Would it be possible to ignite an atomic bomb in the following way: Take a mass larger than the crital one (U-235 or Pu-239) and throttle down the exponentially increasing neutron flux by a neutron absorber, e.g. put a 'stick' of boron or cadmium right in the middle of the core. Of coarse It has to be dimensioned and shaped in a way that a chain reaction is safely suppressed. To ignite the bomb just remove the neutron absorber 'stick' as fast as possible, perhaps again by a shot gun method. The core would get hypercritcal and the bomb would ignite, in particular, if there is some extra neutron emitter (initiator) present in the core. I think the advantage compared to the conventional methods would be that the absorber (due to the low amount/mass of the absorber, how much of an absorber is needed ? I'm not able to do the math.) can be ejected very rapidly from the core, at least much faster than two subcritical core masses can be shot into one another. With this isn't it possible even to properly ignite Pu-239, which otherwise would suffer from a too early explosion (fizzle) initiated by the Pu-240 rest in the mixture ? What do you think ? I mean the idea is just so simple that I can't imagine people didn't already have thought about this. Thanks again !
Dr. Jorge, can you help to settle a debate? A friend argues that light is a particle. For evidence of this, he says that an electron must absorb the energy of a photon in whole or not at all. The energy of the photon can not be divided, so it must be a fundamental particle. On another day, he uses Compton scattering as evidence. He says the photon acts like a billiard ball. It imparts a portion of its energy to the electron and then gets deflected with the remaining portion. Do you see the problem here? Why do physicists think they can have it both ways?
In a nutshell, light is not a particle but it is not a wave either, it is something completely different. In some phenomena light manifests properties that we associate to waves (refraction, polarization, diffraction), whereas in other phenomena light manifests properties that we associate to particles (photoelectric effect, Compton scattering). This wave-particle duality is precisely the topic of my next video.
I am slowly realizing that learning a subject from historical prospective gives a much deeper understanding as compared to state pf the art, sanitized and polished modern content.
I personally believe that many of the misconceptions on quantum mechanics or conceptual holes arise because people jump directly to modern quantum mechanics and its ad-hoc postulates without studying the early developments. Even though the old quantum physics was rapidly replaced by quantum mechanics, it is the old quantum physics that led to the conceptual developments by Heisenberg, Born, Schrödinger, Pauli, and the others. Here I attempt to share these unfairly forgotten early times of quantum physics.
I completely agree with you but I just wanted to add that learning from historical development is great way to learn almost everything. Also modern textbooks completely overlook details of experiments which makes the experiments look boring and therefore most people interested in physics dream of becoming a theoretical physicist. It's really cool that you don't overlook details of experiments and also include seemingly minor details such as experimental condition's impact on O-rings and vacuum. Anyone who has worked in physics labs as a researcher can attest that seemingly trivial problems can make or break an experiment and if you are lucky, might lead to profound discoveries. For young children, your videos are also a good glimps in the life of an experimental physicist
I am a theorist and I see way too much praise for the theorists that came up with great ideas but little about the experimentalists who discovered anomalous results as well as came up with equally brilliant experiments that confirmed theoretical ideas. Plus the experiments from early 1900s are a beauty of scientific ingenuity and simplicity.
From the Lorentz Force: F=q*E+q*vXB In the lack of external electric field E but with the existance of external magnetic induction B: m*a=q*vXB If vecotor v is perpendicular to B: m*a=|q*v|*|B|*sin(alfa) If angle alfa between v and B would be 90 degrees: m*a=q*v*B m*v/t=q*v*B m*1/t=q*B m*(omega)/(2*(PI))=q*B (omega)=2*(PI)*q/m*B m is electron mass, q is electron charge, B is magnetic field induction, (omega) is angular velocity of particles. If angle alfa between v and B would be 270 then degrees: (omega)=-2*(PI)*q/m*B Point is that angle can be measured from up or from down of this two vectors and no of these two directions is more privilaged.
@@jkzero They are locally non neutral because the average depletion of charges in atomic volume (valence electron and nucleus charge) are creating the electric dipol. Charges are constantly changing their position in time. In respect of y-axis there are two possible states: possitive nucleus front and valence electron behind or valence electron front and possitive nucleus behind. Thats why the lines are splitted on two different levels. If they are in same level then the sum of charge is equal to 0. Thats why F=q*v X B gives two options of charge velocity vector v in respect of charge distribution in y-axis: v+ and v- or sinus (90 degrees), sinus (270 degrees) if we translate F=qv X B into F=|q*v|*|B|*sinus(alfa). The mutual charge velocity of nucleus and valence electron inside the atom is much higher than the group velocity of charge and nucleus in respect of x-axis (atom as whole). Thats why its effect have higher influence on line shifts. The reason why electron is not acclerated in opposite direction than the nucleus are the binding forces (electromagnetic centripedal force) which are holding group together however the magnetic part of Lorentz force according to angular motion of electrons inside the atom creating the angular motion of whole atomic group in respect of x-axis which is perpendicular to magnetic induction vector.
No wonder Ehrenfest offed himself - this stuff was too revolutionary but also the whole entropy problem. Roger Penrose understands that gravitational entropy is the opposite of the entropy of mass, hence our ecological crisis today.
earth have = glycolic (contain radiation as self protection and protect by being a conduit of single-volumetric-mass) = properties of material invert = auto critical-mass to absorb excess radiation happening today, after earth is restored-reset to 500bc, approximate, state
I’m a middle schooler and this confuses me so much cuz I have no idea about most of this, but it allures me still. I’m gonna be stuck here for the next 20 more minutes hahahahahhahaha 😉😉
Yes. But isn't there a scale factor that needs to be taken into account? The bigger the bomb, and the lower its "density" the bigger the fast/slow neutron ratio effect on yield would be? So is there a lower size limit below which you would actually want to use slow neutrons for a bomb? Or is this size threshold just so far outside of buildable object sizes that it's not relevant?
This is the type of experiment that Frisch and Segrè did in the early 1930s. For modeling this you need to solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation with spin. Here is an open-access paper with the details iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6455/acef83
9:08 Getting the perfect number was mostly luck. Bulk modulus is valid for infinitesimal compression at room temperature. To model the real implosion process correctly one needs to use the equation of state over the relevant range of parameters. In such simulation, the 2.5 times change in volume requires an order of magnitude greater pressure. Which is what is achieved in the bomb due to focusing of the shock wave mentioned in the text at 8:46.
@@jkzero Even the scientists in Manhattan project were not aware that plutonium would significantly compress, until they have worked on the implosion for roughly half a year. And then they believed for another year after that, that compression required slamming the pieces of plutonium together at very high velocity. Finally, it was shown that even a solid core would compress sufficiently to produce a big explosion. This was very much not an obvious thing even to the best minds in the world.
Consider what is the FOURTH dimension. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves what is balanced inertia. This explains E=MC2 AND F=ma. This CLEARLY explains the cosmological redshift. I have CLEARLY solved what is the coronal heating “problem”. Consider what is the FOURTH dimension, as two AND three dimensional SPACE are BALANCED. Consider what is the man (AND what is THE EYE) who is standing on what is THE EARTH/ground !!!! (Touch AND feeling BLEND.) Gravity/acceleration involves what is balanced inertia, as SPACE is electromagnetic/gravitational on/in balance. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity ON/IN BALANCE. Consistent with what are E=MC2 AND F=ma, gravity/acceleration involves what is balanced inertia; AS TIME dilation is CLEARLY and necessarily proven to be electromagnetic/gravitational ON/IN BALANCE. Great. (Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE.) This CLEARLY proves what is THE FOURTH dimension (ON BALANCE). Great. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, as gravity/acceleration involves what is balanced inertia; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS WHAT IS THE MOON will (and does) move away very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground. Now, notice what is the BLUE sky. Complete combustion is consistent with WHAT IS E=MC2. CLEARLY, I have proven what is the fourth dimension. Magnificent !!!! (BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.) By Frank Martin DiMeglio
The math, physics and history combined together make it all so stunningly captivating. I love that you never shy away from any mathematical derivations, and never shy away from any historical context and linear storytelling. More please! I feel like I see Griffith's Intro to QM book with so much vibrancy and color (so to speak) now with all of this context!
I absolutely love the linear history, along with the actual math! I knew it as a physicist, but always separate from the detailed history. I knew bits and pieces of the history. But never so presented as if I was there with Plank. I love the presentation of the things they didn't know, the intuition they yet had to grasp. I absolutely love the appreciation for the experimentalists!! I always wondered who they were but they were brushed off in physics class because a lot of attention to theory was prioritized (understandably so because it's a lot of material we had to go through and not enough time). I'm on my lunch break and can't stop thinking about this video. It was wonderful!
Thanks for sharing such a lovely feedback, I am glad you liked the video. This video was just the kick-off of the currently running series on quantum physics. Make sure to check the rest here ru-vid.com/group/PL_UV-wQj1lvVxch-RPQIUOHX88eeNGzVH
Here is Real: The Square Root of Nine is 3 3 = 1 The Square Root of 9 is 9 [also 18, which is the correct number of lines for A Dimensional Pyramid] The Difference is 3 so I Say The Square Root of 9 is 3 and 6 and 12 this Way 3 = 2 is 2/3 welcome to Quantum Physics Because there are validly Three 1’s in 3, each 1 in The Square Root of 9 can be multiplied 3 Times, making The Square Root of 9 equal to 9 itself: 3(1) 3(1) 3(1) Is Is Is 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- + -- + -- + 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 AND because 3(1) = 4 since 3+1 is also 3(1) [simply remove the parentheses and add], The Square Root of 9 is also 12 The FULL solving is being made available by request, it includes the 24 hour Earth rotation because 3^3-3 is Three 3's, this is Cosmic Clock Perfect: 3 Time 3 Time 3 The Difference 3 is Four 3's because The Difference MUST be existing for The Earth to maintain Life with a 24 hour rotation, it is a clause Correspondence goes to: Deanna Rachel Sellers Gaia Omni Dia 312 Valencia Ct. Winter Garden, FL 34787 *Original Posting Date and Times x.com/DeannaSellers33/status/1849122296683782286 <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Because there are validly Three 1’s in 3, each 1 in The Square Root of 9 can be multiplied 3 Times, making The Square Root of 9 equal to 9 itself:<br><br>3(1) 3(1) 3(1)<br>Is Is Is<br><br>1 1 1<br>1…</p>— Deanna Rachel Sellers, Hy (@DeannaSellers33) <a href="twitter.com/DeannaSellers33/status/1849800705906753951?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> unified field god almighty
I messed up. At 00:44 I said "1805" instead of "1905" shown on the screen, my mistake, I wish I could blame my bad pronunciation but it was a slip of the tongue. At 01:50 I say "in 1905" but too fast and it sounds like "1805" again; this was my deteriorated elocution. I included a comment in the errata but apologies for this, I hope it didn't deter you from watching the rest of the video.
