To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
Am i wrong or chromodynamics are totally unnecessary if we just accept that quark are only stable if there are 3 axes of charge. 3 charged axes (anti/proton) or 3 neutral axes (neutron) which also explains 3 flavors of neutrino. One for each axis. And neutrino mass is it's spin (all it is really) working on the vacuum energy, lambda.
@@KaliFissure Yo, this seems to make sense... I'm only an enthusiast tho, so don't take my word for it. But would you explain it a little further or with more details?
Yeah, even though it may seem delaying, many times it proves to be very helpful, especially for those with not that much knowledge on the video subject.
yeah I think that's really helpful but there has been a moment where the pause wasn't needed I think : it's when you talk about all the different colors of the particles, it takes a bit too long to mee ( 2:07 - 2:57 )
Finally! A video which gave me a satisfactory explanation for the strong nuclear force and how it works. The only thing that we are told in school is that "it exists". Thank you!
Couldnt agree more, To come across the term "strong nuclear force" so many times, to finally see it explained in a manner I could understand is truly appreciated, the visuals are fantastic as well, Learning so much
I understand that forces are mitigated by the exchange of particles. That's HOW. It doesn't explain WHY the exchange of quantum information pulls them physically together. That I've never been able to grasp.
@@scottbilger9294 Because the underline system is probably having underlying dimensions that work geometrically. That's why all forces involve 'movement' and why the exchange of information is limited by the speed of light. Imagine just pits and bumps in dimensions above our own that control the movement of those particles. Now, why those shapes exist is like asking why anything exists so, yeah. Good luck answering that. Even with a G.U.T. we won't find an answer to it, most likely. So, that's anybody's guess. Mine is that somehow there is an evolutionary system that resides in pure chaos, somehow, for whatever reason, nothingness can't exist, and so even the slightest bit of something, even if it's an amorphus blob without permanent physical laws that has the capacity to change, will at some point take on properties that allow it to create what you find yourself in today. You can't imagine how many people struggled with the question why is there something rather than nothing, and there is no real answer. It just is.
Truer words have never been spoken. I don't think I've ever met someone who properly understood what an electron is. They are a negative charge that orbits a positive charge. They are both a particle and a wave and yet also neither, really. Scientists still disagree on the physical interpretation behind the double-slit experiment and the wavefunction. They can only share space with another electron if they have different "spin"--which is a measure of angular momentum, but they aren't actually spinning, because they aren't actually particles. When atoms bind, the electrons get shared between them. (A process that actually reminds me of the quarks in this video quite a lot.) We can't see electrons. They are too small. When an individual photon of light hits them, they either absorb it or ignore it. This "particle" of charge, mass, and spin can absorb a photon (which is a "particle"/"wave" of the electromagnetic spectrum with no charge, no mass, and no spin, moving at the maximum speed that anything can move) Upon absorbing a photon, the electron moves into a higher energy state, and then eventually emits a photon to move back down. And that's just the basic quantum physics and chemistry of electrons. There's a whole world of electrical engineering that I know nothing about. And you want to make sense of quarks? Quarks will probably never make sense. The quantum world does not make sense, and they are simply too quantum for our classical minds to understand. No animation can ever fix that.
@@tomc.5704 The electrons of an atom do not orbit the nucleus. That's the outdated Bohr model. Electrons are 3 dimensional standings waves that surround the nucleus. Mr. Khutoryansky made a video about it. What an electron is outside of an atom I'm not sure.
You make the highest quality videos explaining quantum phenomena in maximum detail anywhere on the internet. With this level of depth, I feel like I'm actually learning this stuff and not just getting an overview of it. The pausing and animations are extremely helpful👍
John Doe, I understand that not everyone can donate on Patreon, and that is OK. I am just glad to have you as a subscriber and I am glad you like my videos. One of the best ways to help out is simply by sharing links to my videos and encouraging your friends to subscribe to my channel.
Fascinating! I don't think I would ever have been exposed to this topic without your channel! Researching a subject like this would seem intimidating, but your visualization of it really is terrific!
@@davidschadeberg3786 Nah, physics evolves over time and ditches older models. This may end up being very silly and over the top, though it may also not.
About as silly as Newtonian gravity looks to us? I.e. not silly. Both of them predict phenomena with great accuracy, and will (presumably) be replaced by theories to which they are approximations. For example, you can derive Newtonian gravity from GR and Maxwell's equations from the QM description of the photon.
Funny for a joke. But trust me we are approaching the end of what we can know. This thing, called quantum mechanics, will never sound silly, no matter how far in future we see. Its only a matter of time before we will have the Grand Unification Theory and we will have figured out everything, literally everything and there might not be anything left to be discovered in physics. Nothing is more advance than this. So trust me this will never sound silly
@@tarangpatil6952 i dont think there is going to ever be a point where there is nothing left to know. What i was reffering to WAS the day we finally find the unification theory. By that time we will have a way to reconsile gravity with what we understand about quantum mechanics and i think when we understand how it all fits together things like this will be thought of as groundbreaking at the time, but a complete misunderstanding of the data. Like when scientists used to teach about the 4 elements being present in all things. But i do beleive whole heartedly that our understanding of quantum mechanics is completley wrong. Even people who do it for a living dont get it. Personally i think its all a perspective problem. The universe isnt actually quantized. Just from our perspective it is. Just like the universe doesnt actualltly end outside of the CMB. But from our perspective it does. But perspective is more than just the way we look at something. It shapes the knowability of the universe around us. Things outside the CMB have no causal relationship to anything inside it so as far as were concerned it does simply end. But just because something cant affect our dimension doesnt mean its not a big part of understanding the way it all works as a whole. The biggest thing we know of is the observable universe. Smallest thing we know of is the planck length/time. And a cell is about right in the middle of those 2. The thing which we are made of. Huge coincidence? Or perspective problem? And as far as there being nothing left to learn..even when we have a unified theory the question of WHY anything is here in the 1st place will still stand and probably never be answered. To answer every question would mean humans have elevated to an omnipotent level and i dont quite see that happening
Isn't it kind of weird that there are a certain number of gluons (superpositions of color-anticolor gluons) when I thought there were another number (color-anticolor combinations)? Eugene used the color combinations instead of the superpositions for simplicity (just like the 3-quark model of the proton and neutron), but thatt means there should be 6 gluons (possible combinations minus color-neutral ones) instead of 8 (mathematical superpositions)
Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky i love all of your videos i am from india and here most of the schools(village side) didn't teach physics very well. now i am crystal clear at every concept in physics because of such amazing youtube channels like this!!!! Thank you very much your videos they changed my life totally,and i feel blessed that i found your videos.🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Your animations and descriptions are always so clear. I mostly watch to these to not forget what I've learned, and I always appreciate the time and effort you put into these. THANKS!
I like how you used colors for the fonts when denoting the color charge of the quarks and antiquarks. Next time I color-code my Feynman diagrams, I'll use red, green, and blue colored pencils to show the color charge.
The videos by Eugene are compelling. The pauses are important. Eugene is very good at distilling a subject to it's conceptual essence and I appreciate that. Thank you for this free gift.
Most likely not. QCD is in the realm of nuclear/particle physics and quantum field theory. Chemical Physics deals with things on the molecular level and doesn't really need to go this deep into theoretical physics.
@@YoVille451 Superb! But it gets worse. Here in Toronto, the University is working on a dictionary of Proto-Ugaritic. This gets things moved back a couple of "geologic layers" of language before the Greek. For now, though, you've got it as grounded as it's going to get, at least until you take it apart into "bright" and "medioparticipative particle." 🤣
The way you pause after you state a point is helpful to learn what you say more, unlike when people continue their point right after they already made one makes it not as easy to understand what they’re talking about. Love it.
excellent video. I like that it goes deeper than most videos, (e.g. talking about the virtual quarks) but still staying short. Great level of explanation. Thank you
Eugene WHEN talking about the weak force, please focus on it's unique symmetry breaking aspects that none of the 3 other forces exhibit and which (once truly understood) will significantly enhance our understanding of the universe (and where all that anti-matter went)
Thanks a lot for explaining us a such complex concept such as strong interaction, quarks and gluons with a relaxed voice and non-aggressive classical music. I love this tutorial.
Hi and thanks a lot for the nice video, your channel is awesome. I still have some questions however. 1. How does the fact that quarks exchange gluons, create a binding force betweeen these quarks. 2. When do particles transform into another particle ? Must a gluon hit a quark to transform it ? Do they have spatial extension ? When does a quark emit a gluon ? Does it happen spontaneously with a certain probability ? Thanks for anyone who has some (even shreds of) answers to these.
Hubert Bonisseur de la Bath 2. I’d imagine that the “color” charges and anti color “charges” try to balance each other out by combining with the opposite “charge” like an anti blue/red would be drawn to a blue/anti green. I assume this is what keeps them attracted to each other, always combining to satisfy, but always creating a new problem. That is my theory of why gluons hit each other, and might explain your question about the gluons hitting quarks
if we lasso each other from a distance , in a crowd of people, theyll get rounded up and contained in that rope. energy in motion is substance. the binding force is like a rope of tightly bound energy.
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link: ru-vid.com_video?ref=share&v=FoR3hq5b5yE You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit button for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately. Details about adding translations is available at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en Thanks.
Experimental Particle crusher..........I created Higgs and photoed..... light is a particle it has no set speed .....seen here and I will debate anyone on this. I have the proof. And might lead to cold fusion. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T-yzwPKGdgI.html
So dense in information I am only barely familiar with. The concept of a force that has three components, red, blue and green, instead of two like positive and negative is so hard to wrap my head around. Will watch this video at least one more time and try to find more information on the subject
The full video series, The Theoretical Minimum, by Leonard Susskind which seems to cover most of modern physics, appears to have had some sort of camera error on the part where he discusses SU(3), SU(2) and SU(1) and most of the lecture is missing, which has left me and probably many others following his series without much understanding of what seems to be a fundamental concept of particle physics. ( ru-vid.com/group/PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x1lo-O_kpZGk8 Lecture 3 | New Revolutions in Particle Physics: Standard Model, is much shorter than all the others videos). I'd love you to do a video on it.
Opposite signs of charge mean opposite signs of the interaction term in covariant derivative of a field, where you have a product of original field, gauge field (photon field, gluon field etc.) and a coefficient showing how strongly they interact, the charge. Sign of the charge basically says in which way the original field is changed when it interacts with a "ripple" in the gauge field. So every charged particle creates "waves"/"ripples" in gauge field (like photon field in case of EM interaction), and when those ripples affect other particles, charge of those particle says in which way they are affected, whether they move away or towards the source.
Because of the causality loop that occurs inside of a Dyson Sphere. You can observe this by doing a baryon sweep inside a Jefferies Tube. Simple logic really.
Your answer is the mathematical reasoning of measured values that are clothed in theoritical model. Rodrigo asks for a basic spatial-logic question: How can mutual blasting which is inherently mechanically repellent cause a bond, ie. create a thread that will not let any partical fly away. And the concept of thread is just the thing missing in the physics. However, both simple and philosophical mind needs it and it must exist in some form probably in a much finer not yet measurable plane. That there is nothing else, people have always said.
This is quantum mechanics, basic "spatial-logic" reasoning doesn't quite work there. It's not just "mutual blasting" that we naively visualize. If we imagine virtual particles as some kind of little balls with mass flying around, just like stones and basket balls in our everyday experience, of course this picture cannot explain the attraction. It's only when one starts to think about particles in terms of fields and their quanta, in terms of waves and wavefunctions that can fill whole space, it may start to make some sense. But one has to abandon our macro world experience of throwing balls.Remember that exchanging virtual particles is an interpretation of certain equations. Equations here come first, their description in terms of virtual particles goes second.
But why doesn't the exchange of a particle make the two quarks change momentum? I mean, if a quark sends a foton, it should go to the other direction, getting away from the other quark. And when the second quark absorb the foton, it should get away too. So how can they attract each other?
how do different quarks or gluons know not to produce another anti quark / gluon ex. a R-G gluon makes a -RG gluon how do the gluons not split again and cause a paradox of infinite particles?
Such "paradox" is actually a feature of perturbation theory (fixes by renormalization), which mainly happens because particles tend to become ever more strange once you try to follow them further and further to smaller times and lengths. But: 1) you never actually see, or touch the underlying building blocks of real particles, because this blocks are too unstable (hence, "virtual particles"; LHC is probably the closest you can ever get to them); 2) there're many other (and may be even better; including string theory) frameworks and their own "features", giving the same results; so, we only know that virtual particles are somewhat true because of very subtle phenomena, like Casimir effect and such. 3) do not forget, that both virtual and real particles are not defined unless you (or your measuring device) had been affected by them: meaning, there's NO way you could even hope to tell how exactly did they arranged themselves before they affected you, or your surroundings. It's like trying to find ancient civilization that didn't left any record; or (actually even worse) to picture each infinitesimal detail by only looking at copper knives - there're too many alternatives to fit, and in quantum mechanics they're usually even happen altogether. That's called "superposition", and it's NOT like "we just don't know what happened", but instead "if this and that didn't happened altogether - we would've left with another (such and such) outcome". You can start with revisiting a double slit (or even single slit) experiment to get a better idea.
Things that are "happening altogether" - is actually a bad phrasing I used here. It's really more like... Say, you have a "part" of your brain saying, that you want an ice-cream. And another "part" (I'm putting "part" in brackets, because I'm actually talking about particles), that wants to go to a movie. So, if only your whole brain was this, or that part - you would've left either in a movie, or with an ice-cream. But since this "parts" are equally strong, and (say) can't beat each other - you're ending up in a cinema and with an ice-cream. So, the lesson here is that all "parts" of a system actually do their own thing; but you only observe the system as a whole. Say, you can't interact with "parts" of your friend's brain, and neither they can: we can only observe and predict what's little we have. What we are able to interact with.
This Video helps a lot to understand. Really good content in a proper speed. In my opinion the Music doesn't quite fit, please choose some modern ambient or no music at all, your choice is a little bit distracting.
3:45 "Electric and magnetic fields don't exist." Actually, photons come from the quantum version of a combination of these two, the electromagnetic field.
The quantum electromagnetic field is different from the classical field. The classical field is a force and potential field, the quantum field is a field of potential particles
You're actually very incorrect on the bit about EM fields not existing. It's actually been mathematically shown that the fields are the fundamental aspect of nature (though admittedly in the EM case it's the Four-Potential which is fundamental, not the E and B fields), and particles are frame-dependent. Two of the results of this are Hawking Radiation and Unruh Radiation. If either is experimentally observed, then this will be proven not just mathematically but in reality as well.
This is correct and important. I'm guessing Eugene was moreso referring to classical electric and magnetic fields, but the quantum electromagnetic field absolutely exists, and is a more fundamental picture than the photon-exchange heuristic picture. Edit: However, I do agree with Eugene's sentiment in including that bit, and it would only confuse things to include this fact in an introductory video.
Being a biologist with poor high level maths capability, i hope i grasped the most fundament aspect of reality with Eugene videos. Many thanks for sharing this kind of knowledge. If i understood well how this should works, i would imagine the universe soaked with some liquid. I would suppose that matter is a condensed singularity/disturbance of this lattice fluid. And everything would share information by vibrating creating waves inside this lattice fluid. So in my understanding of the reality, i find easy to represent "things" as fields now! A dynamic vibrating space that could encode information and transmit it trough space. If i look at what i can understand more easily, what nature already give me as comparison. I found out easy for me imagining a pulsating liquid field, not sure tho if it is the best way to see it. ^^
Also im just a student of 12th grade so i dont have the knowledge beyond electrons, protons and neutrons. I have heard about quarks but i do not have any knowledge about them...
Think of it like this: Electromagnetism has a two-part charge, positive and negative, and since opposites attract, the lowest energy configuration is for each charge to have a corresponding opposite charge very nearby. Thus, positives and negatives cancel out and everything is electrically neutral. Color charge is a three-part charge (technically six with the three anti-colors). Just like how matter wants to be electrically neutral, it also wants to be color-neutral, often called "white." White can be achieved in two ways: Either combine red blue and green to make white, which happens in protons and neutrons; or combine a color with its anticolor, such as green - antigreen, which occurs in quark-antiquark pairs called "mesons." (This is why quarks appear in groups of two, mesons, and three, baryons) The quarks stay bound together by exchanging momentum through the gluons. The gluons themselves aren't color neutral: each one carries a color and a different anti-color, such as a red-antigreen gluon. This allows the quarks to swap colors with each other as shown in the animation. I hope this helped clarify things somewhat.
9:44 "Quarks can't be isolated." Actually, it can be possible for this to happen and create a so-called "quark-gluon plasma." You just need the temperature to be high enough, and anyway, the top quark decays so quickly it doesn't have time to be exchanging gluons (see ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iIWTRwJlrGo.html for more info).
Chris Smith do you think there was a “first quark”. That is, in the beginning of the universe was there a time when there was only 1 quark, even for an extremely short amount of time?
@@voges1001 Probably not, because space is not truly empty (e.g quantum field fluctuations, the birth and collision of particles and antiparticles, quantum field theory ect.). So that would probably mean that as soon as the first quark was created, an anti-quark was also created instantly.
Right? Something about those ten or fifteen hyper-ubiquitous classical songs is a real pet peeve of mine. They are great, objectively, but these songs are literally abused by years, decades, even centuries now of being absentmindedly overused it strips them of any genuine aural appeal and emotional quality, what’s left is pretty much nothing but a safe and familiar choice. If songs that do unfortunately suffer this curse of becoming so platitudinous they can go beyond simply being grossly overplayed to being temporally pervasive as well and eventually they end up being truly generic. So playing behind a video about a very abstract, interesting and thought provoking topic literally is music that is the embodiment of boringness. The irony is painful. Play some Kruder and Dorfmiester or Boards of Canada or Tycho, something that embodies originality and the capacity to captivate.
If you don’t like it, then make your own videos. Otherwise stop complaining. This man is doing us a service free of charge. You should be thanking him.
If you don’t like it, then make your own videos. Otherwise stop complaining. This man is doing us a service free of charge. You should be thanking him. Nobody cares about your musical taste.
I am a visual person-like to see what we are talking about-very well made -very calm performance, very educational, very detailed explanation, can see the world in the atomic level-easy to see through, congratulation for your performance. Very pleased to hear explanations like this.
I like the tempo of your videos, which is slower than of many others out there made by other science popularizers. You don't bombard the viewer with information and don't cut corners in order to fit in some arbitrary "viewer-friendly" time frame. Also, excellent choice of music.
