The Best and Worst Prediction in Science 

lmao nice

major part of a typical Phd is to look like you're doing something :P

Every mathematician/physicist who has discovered a formula, take a cliché picture like that, just in case :)

Lmao

He has that same facial expression in every photo he appears in.

He burnt his brain xD

Are you alive ?

do u even know what quantum physics is??

@@sanchitkabra4839 If you think you know about it, you literally don't know about it. -_ Idk Idc

Are u there

I love how in physics you feel so good when you understand a subject, but then someone just says “hey by the way, you know electrons can just pop into existence for no reason?”

@@oerlikon20mm29 you shouldnt forget that they also pop out of existence. Its called quantum fluctuations. If you wanna look it up.

It's almost as if the universes is so uniquely and accurately programmed that it would suggest that it was programmed by a being of unfathomable intelligence and it wasn't just so random accident or happenstance.

@@kingdavid8657 no proof

@@kingdavid8657 in case you're connecting it to religion: a being of unfathomable intelligence existing outside our spacetime would not even recognise humans as "important" or "alive" in the sense we do.

lol

I'm a writer, I suck at math. This may have been in chinese and it wouldnt have made a difference to me.

Took physics in college, quit after second term D:

I'm quite good at math and this still went over my head.

+amol katkar Hahahah relatable xDD

I think I understood some of the pictures too.

I think bohr is that hairy pig, right?

hahaha.

I didn't realise this wasn't clear. What was the mystifying part? I may be able to help if you want.

+NotAsian As you offer... My previous understanding was that virtual particles are those which exist only briefly for interactions such as EM repulsion/w boson in beta decay etc. Why are other examples such as the electron posotron pair in nuclei undetectable and why do they exist?

Proud of you for following your intution

how are you doing now ? how was your exam ? I know I'm a year late but I'm too interested in this field and want to pursue it

@@khepri2420 lol, I actually passed it with a good grade.

@@janandreslotsch7940 Are you gonna specialize in research? Of what field? I bet it must be exciting. If only I was younger I wish I could've been a researcher, like my father was.

ditto

E

@Yusuf Jamal And some people complain about commenters.

...The people complaining in the comments who complain about comment complainers which are in turn a consequence of thousands of hours of complaints which are physical and metaphysical/hypothetical which were in turn a consequence of...

@Xylok hundreds of thousands of years of calculations?!

You’re right, but i’m still gonna make a little comeback. A picture say more than a thousand words and this is a video, sooo it says more than several thousand page books. This was just a fun comeback, please don’t get mad, because his comment is right

There is hypothesis that everytime we come close to figuring out the universe it gets more complicated

@@tomasmickus6254 Did you comment this multiple times? You didn't even have a reason to comment it, it's a stupid hypothesis because there is no way to ever even attempt to disprove it.

Hi Saitama!

@johnnytheprick nah, even if there are other phenomena that distrupt the accuracy of our theories, they are still pretty accurate

Idk how I just realized its virtual not vertical

virtual particles are like an earthquake on-going everywhere in the universe. it's kind of confusing that they are called "virtual particles" at all, because they aren't really particles, they just behave like them.

@@__jan isn't virtual kinda the opposite of real though?

@@shubham-sc3jn i didnt say calling them virtual is wrong, the confusing part is calling them "particles"

@@__jan And that's why they are called "VIRTUAL particles". You do understand that prefix and suffix together make up the meaning of the name? For example, pseudo-science.

Like when you live in virtue, you're not really living.

So does a dream.

@@chromo1858 No, it really doesn't...

@@DBZHGWgamer During the dream, it does seem real. When you leave the dream, it is only then you realize it was in your mind. If it helps, use the analogy of a very realistic computer simulation instead.

Well who knows, this is our point of view from a human being. A few hundred years ago (like ~200) us humans believed all matter were blocks, since how could matter be so complete and so perfect from our point of view and yet be so imperfect and riddled with holes if they were what we all know to be true today, that they are (more or less) spherical atoms?

You never know what biases we hold, some we know of, some we may never know of, at least in our lifetimes

An erg is equivalent to 10^-7 Joules, or one tenth of a millionth of a Joule.

+Tony Wells You must be fun at parties. Classic comment, but true.

BloozBeast I am awesome at parties after enough vodkas, don't worry.

Yeah, the several different units are annoying. I'd like to see how Ergs make the math easier.

tim turner Well, yeah. I figured that much. It's the same with Beer's law that uses centimeters instead of meters in the formula. I just wanted to see the specific physics of how it's used. I never saw an Erg before.

Are talking about quarks?

How many different flavor combinations are there?

Sounds like a cereal commercial XD

Thought it sounded more like a skittle (the colourful sweets) advert (commercial)

and short bus size fire balls that flys like Packman

:|

what?

vat?

Erg

Dont you know? An Erg is a Dyn times a Centimeter.

i love his vlogs more.

vlogs?

Alex SH Search 2veritasium

spaceface105 found it, thx tho...

They will eventually get it right.

urgh I hated phys chem in 1st year xD

What are you majoring in?

I also want to know what you're majoring in.

What is your majoring on?

Chemical engineering

well an erg is just 10⁻⁷ joules so the same thing basically

We should really develop a quantum unit of measurement that represents the minimum amount of energy anything can have and use that when referencing quantum energy levels. I call it... quenergy.

@@chrismanuel9768 i love it

@@chrismanuel9768 There’s no minimum energy level for all systems.

@ There’s gotta be something, right? Like, it sounds crazy to say there’s a minimum amount of distance or time, but the Plank Length and Plank Time exist. Couldn’t there be some equivalent for energy?

Jason Lee KY haven't*

Lmfao god tier

Well played ,thumbs up

I gauss you're right

@@laposgatti3394 gauss so!

Junge wieso bist du auch noch hier

@@jochenbach3541 Junge ficken sie sich Was antwortest du auf 4 Jahre alte Kommentare

@@XZenon ja ich habs halt jetzt erst entdeckt du Kugelfisch

@@jochenbach3541 gejr Kris jaemdi loenhat

1 X 10^-7 joule fyi

step 1 take a course in modern physics.

Step two, take same course again. Modern physics is changing faster each year. If it's not your job to keep up with this stuff, it's really hard to get a firm grasp on much of what these people are discussing. Petrus' suggestion is a good way to get little bites of info at your own pace, (admittedly with some very likely distractions along the way,) and decide when you've had enough brain food to sate your appetite. Wikipedia and RU-vid are both good for learning shotgun style, absorbing small amounts of many subjects. Just try to avoid the free energy scam videos!

Step 3 : realise that Wikipedia is a haven for misinterpretation of data.

Cool

@@juan125873a lol

Actually its a storm drain

Yep, I'm sorry for those who never took a physics class and even bother commenting on irrelevantly.

It takes time for me to find a good video and make a good comment.

wrg

Reading the comments three months after. Still boring. Maybe I'll try putting my computer into a microwave with the comments section open to make it EXCITING!

mastapima agreed. I am not a physicist. In fact I struggle with algebra. But based the information I have read, fields seem to be just are. Which by itself isn't an easy thing to grasp especially if you're stuck in a hard philosophical sense of causality....but I digress. So what I tell people instead, there are many things that we don't understand all of the way down to their most minute quantities, but accepting their utility because they work well with what we have, is good enough for now.

I had a maths professor who told us that he had once asked his professor how to think about the wave-particle duality, because he couldn't make any intuitive sense of it. The professor had replied that you shouldn't try to think about it intuitively but rather think of it in terms of equations. I was going to say that this shows how limited our understanding is, but it's probably more like the difference between the micro and the macro world. There are so many intricate details to the universe which don't have a very noticable effect on a larger scale. Shit's pretty bonkers.

this comment chain i find very interesting because i look at these equations in completely the opposite way, i find the equations irrelevant and the intuitive understanding much more important. the hardest part i have had to wrap my head around was the concept of higher dimensions other than our own and how they interact with us. if you want me to try and explain it in full reply and i would be happy to discuss it with anyone

Not yet.

Read Feynman.

Shame it doesn't apply anymore - it's all probability fields, not orbits.

Orbitals not orbits, it's different. An orbital is the probability field

Yeh, school tends to lie to us alot. I guess to make it simpler.

We just learnt the different energy level stuff. S,p,d,f.. orbitals... Ionisation energy.. I'm only 16 lol... I'm not quite the genius yet.

and if you want to be really strict with the terminilogy an orbital isn't a probability field, but a 1-particle-wavefunction ^^. it's the probability field or more precise the "sphere-areafunction" ( sry for literal and probably bad translation ) -1 dimension ( because otherwise 4-D ) that we get portraied in these graphics as an orbital.

It's not a real number, but it really is a number!

It's a real number. Just not termed as "Real" because we do not know it's value. More like a lateral number just because we do not possess the intelligence to comprehend it so we came up with a completely different dimension for measuring it.

Imaginary numbers are real

Imaginary numbers are just a mathematical concept that happens to coincide well with many physics equations. They just represent vectors orthogonal to real numbers. That's the only reason we use them.

@@bigsmall246 Just as natural numbers. They are just a mathematical concept that happens to coincide well with counting things.

I was thinking the same.

Me 2

i wasnt

*me, an intellectual*: **knowingly nods head** schrodinger's cat.

yeah, but the casimir effect shows that there must be virtual particles and we all agree on that, but as he said you can't measure the individual virtual particle e.g. just like you do with the spherical charge distribution of an electron

*all

Like yours :P

thats because early people comment before they watch the video, if they didnt, someone else would beat them to it

Like mine

And yours. (Not mine cuz I'm past the first 100 comments ;¬) )

Psyche, it's only me

i'm dissapointed, nobody registered "Erg" as an account just to reply :)

Ichigo...

Challenge accepted.

I'll never forget that debate where he shredded Lane Craig...

In addition, it would be nice to sometimes see an in-depth companion video!

Science is a method.

+Jakub Mik Exactly.

+Jakub Mik we do know that our universe has a certain density, and that ordinary matter just makes up a 5 % of it... So where are the other matter or energy coming from?

+Jeroen Bollen I think they meant the Science community,

MicrosoftNestleTea We scratched the surface of the community?

I believe you are correct my good human, but he did not bring it up. It is pretty heavy but interesting nonetheless

Hawking radiation is still theoretical. The Casimir effect is evidence for virtual particles (But there are other explanations.) but it doesn't let you measure the particles themselves. Like the energy levels it's indirect.

Yes, that is how the black holes lose mass.

He said In the video that the virtual particles are electron/positron pairs but this is plain wrong I wrote a really long comment about it

This has to relate somehow to Kerbal Space Program...

Profile pic goes for it

reported spam

i came so early better comment on this comment

gachiGASM

The profile picture is what gave it away.

I hope you find a use in the future.

how could a master in physics be of no use? I thought this type of hard science was in demand ._. pls explain?

The insight and understanding you have of the physical world has got to be worth something to you.

@@FranktheDachshund It makes your weed highs really intense.

@@1Plebeian 😅

No. We want to understand a pixel is just a byte stored somewhere, no what the picture represent. That's our everyday life

This is where deduction and induction breaks down I guess. Learning the bits to understand the whole has become too unwieldy.

This is the first actually interesting youtube comment i've read in a while lol

Elliot McGrath aww thanks :)

Aproblem is that if that's the case we expect virutal particles to 'clump'; the interactions between matter on various planes (ESPECIALLY if it's 'phasing in and out') will cause some volumes of space (Specifically those near matter) to attract and thus have far more virtual particles than others. But as far as we can tell virtual particles are constant, any volume of space has the same 'virtual composition' as any other. Phasin should also affect our matter, we should see 'real' particles vanishing for short periods, which would affect pretty much everything.

1. Get an electron that is not too depressed, so you have no problems to excite it to the next energy level. 2. Put it into your microwave. 3. ????? 4. Profit.

When he said microwave he didn't mean microwave as in a "machine that warms food" but as in "waves with a wavelength that is in the micrometer order of magnitude" :D

Smalde Ohh. Well, who would've guessed :p

Guess what wavelength is used by microwaves? :)

You can do this experiment by putting a neon tube in your microwave, it's this exact phenomenon that will occur. But i don't know about safety though, it might explode so don't try

and make the virtual particles pay for it!

Make subatomic particles great again!

dark matter matters!

The problem is obviously with all the strange quarks and they shouldn't be allowed in our hadrons. They are all terrorists and aren't like us. They even are called strange!

damn immigrants big banging our protons

no they are completely different.i can explain further if you want.

+Romero mukkolath i'm not him but i'd like a further explanation

excellent question, but I have no idea.. it seems probable. another thing comes to my mind: de Broglie wavelength of matter and string theory, where every particle is just a vibrating string with specific frequency. (How) are all these connected?

Lorpark​ see Schrödinger's wave equations actually describes the orbitals(basically a orbitals are those area which have the highest probability of finding a electron in the nucleus) the ORBITS bohr described are actually wrong because it doesn't satisfy Heisenberg's uncertainty principle(which states that you can't predict the velocity and the position of a electron altogether) Schrödinger's wave equation basically describes wave motion of electrons.

Contrary to what Romero says, they are strongly connected, indeed. Think of the schrödinger equation as a much more simplified version of the dynamics of the electron field for a very special case of an excitation. Schrödingers equation doesn't allow electrons to be created or destroyed, nor do they interact with other particle fields. It's what you get when you take a special kind of excitation in the electron field (called a fock state) and observe how it "behaves" when there's no significant interaction otherwise. You can simplify a lot of things and will be able to recover the schrödinger equation. Actually it's even more complex than that. The electron you would describe with schrödingers equation is not even a solitary excitation of the electron field, but rather a complicated composition of excitations of the electron field, the higgs field and the electron neutrino field. They interact with each other and form an "effective object" we can observe as an massive electron.

Explain please.. I want to know

Yes there is evidence, but it's indirect.

@@itszain6317 its to plates being pushed together because virtual particles hit it from the outside, but on the inside there i not enough space so there are no virtual particles to push back.

@@fritzzz1372 can you link a research/study showcasing this experiment?

Yes, they made an error there: in hydrogen the 2s(1/2) should be lower in energy than the 2p(1/2)

@@Schmidt975 but wait... hydrogen doesn't have a 2s orbital, it's in the first period. It certainly doesn't have a p orbital either o_o

@@acutepotato6792 One could indeed think so. However, reality is slightly more complicated. The periodic table indeed orders elements by the orbitals that would be occupied in the ground state of the corresponding atoms (that is: cooled down to absolute 0 Kelvin). However, most elements also possess many unoccupied orbitals that you can excite the electrons into, when you heat them up. In the example of Hydrogen, you have a singly occupied 1s orbital, but unoccpied 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p ... orbitals in the ground state. At a finite temperature (for example room temperature) you'll even occasionally find electrons occpying these orbitals (though at such low temperatures rather rarely). A transition from a high excited state to a lower one (or the ground state) releases energy (light), while excitation into excited states requires energy. As such: the excited states are responsible for the spectra of the elements. Atomic hydrogen, for example, has very beautitful spectral lines from transitions into the 2s and 2p orbitals from higher orbitals, called the Balmer series.

@@Schmidt975 that makes alot of sense. I didn't know that, thanks for the explanation :)

that's the Baader Meinhof phenomenon. you'll probably see that word again soon.

that's the Baader Meinhof phenomenon. you'll probably see that word again soon.

that's the Baader Meinhof phenomenon. you'll probably see that word again soon.

I know, but I just forgot that name

thanks for the reminder :P))))))))

A very small one ;)

They arise from uncertainty principle of time with energy: (ΔT) (ΔE) ≥ ℏ/2, Small amount of energy/mass can come into existence for a really really small amount of time.

VM Ware; look out for them also in Windows Server 2050.

Weird multidimensional waves but fair enough. Back to Thales and his idea of everything being just water...

You don't sound like an hater but like an ignorant. Please educate yourself.

You and people like you are a tax on progress

Without research like this, and the understanding of the universe that follows, you wouldn't be able to ask the question you just did. The modern Internet and all the computer technology that enables it wouldn't be possible without quantum mechanics. This sort of thing is what we call "pure research". It doesn't have to have a point. The point is simply to increase the sum total of our understanding. Engineering is what comes next, when you use that knowledge to solve some problem you have, and invent something new. Sometimes that happens by accident while doing research, and sometimes you have to do additional research as a part of engineering, but you can't even know what's possible unless you try.

Joshua Marcotte is right. Let me make a comparison with computer graphics, a lot of the algorithms we use in computer graphics today are beased on ideas of people pondering about geometry and light and how to make a mathematical representation of it hundreads of years ago. Back then not all of these ideas had some application but today they are indispensable.

+akanegally I did. I wrote this comment after doing 2 years of IB Physics HL and watching Crash Course Philosophy (up until the most recent Episode 26). I know this isn't expert knowledge, so I was curious about the applications of such information.

Doug G fields and forces are different.

Fields are just forces per location

Steve Jobs force fields are a type of vector field. But there are also other types of fields.

Damn, you guys really ruined the joke

field isn't force. Field is some quantity that is assigned to every point of some space. E .g. you can defined a temperature field in a room. ( that is the value of temperature at different points in room.

Dave Sterling So, virtual particles and "real" particles are identical?

Do you even know how SMALL an electron is?

do you know how big the electron field is?

Because occam's razor, there's no evidence suggesting virtual particles are spirits.

What evidence is there for spirits?

We have mathematical theories in place that demand the existence of such particles. These theories have predictive power. They predict reality and they work. The only thing we can predict about "spirits" is that they tend to appear to people that already believe in such bs. "Virtual particles are what others decribe as spirits". Do you understand how small a particle is? And I suspect that clusters of such particles don't just happen, wouldn't be detected by humans and wouldn't have any sort of pattern or characteristic. Come back with evidence.

Ah, no. He doesn't know that either. Nor do fundy Xtians, they just pretend they "know" but they have not the slightest idea.

Yep ... _all_ versions of Christianity, plus _all_ flavours of Islam, are automatically proven completely correct in every single detail the moment any scientist anywhere utters the words: _"We aren't really sure about ...."._

Just pause the video when he says anything over your head and google/wiki it.

[3 years later] "What?!? I'm only half done the video! Don't discover anything new till I'm done!!"

Hah, exactly. I've been watching videos on particle and quantum physics for years but it's never made complete sense. (I just like keeping up to date with current science.) Though I can recognize *concepts* and "common" analogies, I had almost no point of reference for this particular video, it was so dense.

@@TlalocTemporal just finished the video

Yes you are right

Thanks for introducing me to Mrs Allen

People are scared of investing because of the high rate of scam in the business

Making them to remain poor out Of ignorance

There are scammers but there are real brokers waiting for investors out there

Or the experiment was done wrong

@@benurm2390 good point, I'd presume there's a certain rigour applied to the experiments.