That's a lovely diagram. So much information in a nice little 2D picture. I hope it gets picked up by textbooks :P Of course, it does make it tricky adding any extra information (name, mass...). One of the really nice things about the periodic table approach (used in the "traditional" SM "diagram" too) is that you can add a lot of information without things becoming cluttered.
To me the hexagon shape implies that the particles are in a cycle, which doesn't seem to be true - rather it feels like a 2x3 grid would be a more accurate depiction, since the horizontal pairs are across from each other, and the vertical columns are higher orders of the same kind of particle?
That's a good point. I used a hexagon because there are six quarks, six leptons, and hexagons are bestagons, but I'll consider your suggestion. Just one question: how would you distinguish neutral and charged bosons?
@@HighlyEntropicMind not sure, i guess they could be off to the side with the gluon or, they could be in the middle and have the hexagon just be widened? so instead of like O-O O-*-O O-O it would be more like O---O O-*-O O---O ... though maybe this would imply the bosons were somehow associated with the second tier of the chart specifically
Some physicists are considering there may be something called triality or even hexality explaining the 3 generations of matter. Their masses being doferent is caused by a symmetry breaking.
Why is this the first time I've heard about multiple things mentioned in this video? I am not new to online videos about physics. I'm not that out of the loop. I've probably seen dozens of videos about the standard model and its particles. I've heard of the electro-weak force, and I thought of that term due to your explanation before you even mentioned it by name here. However, I've never heard elsewhere that the electric charge is a combination of hypercharge and isospin. A lot of what you explained made it seem like I had time traveled a century into the future after humans (or probably AI, to be honest) had discovered connections leading to some Grand Unified Theory. I was surprised to know that so much has been discovered already, and I'd been none the wiser this whole time. Excellent explanation and diagram!
I think many science communicators avoid some of these topics because of how complex they are, but I try to be the change I wanna see in ten world I'm very happy you learned something
Exploring the parallels between number theory/arithmetic and the treatment of dimensions is a fascinating avenue that could yield valuable insights. Here are some thoughts on how we could approach this: 1. Study the properties and role of zero in number theory and arithmetic: In arithmetic and number theory, zero plays a unique and fundamental role. It is the additive identity (a + 0 = a), but it behaves differently from non-zero numbers in various operations (e.g., multiplication by zero, division by zero). We could investigate how the special properties and treatment of zero in arithmetic could inform our understanding of the role and properties of a fundamental 0D reality in physics and mathematics. 2. Examine the construction of non-zero numbers from zero: In arithmetic, all non-zero numbers can be constructed or generated from the repeated application of the successor operation (adding 1) to zero. For example, 1 = 0 + 1, 2 = 1 + 1, and so on. We could explore how this idea of constructing higher "dimensions" (non-zero numbers) from the fundamental 0D reality (zero) could be adapted and extended to a geometric or physical context. 3. Develop a dimensional arithmetic or algebra: Drawing inspiration from the rules and operations of arithmetic and algebra, we could investigate the possibility of developing a analogous "dimensional arithmetic" or "dimensional algebra" that captures the relationships and operations between 0D and higher dimensions. This could involve defining operations like "addition," "multiplication," and other algebraic structures that govern how dimensions interact and how higher dimensions can be constructed from or related to the 0D reality. 4. Study the properties of prime dimensions and factorization: In number theory, prime numbers play a fundamental role, and the unique factorization of composite numbers into primes is a crucial property. We could explore the notion of "prime dimensions" and whether higher dimensions could be factored or decomposed into more fundamental components, potentially leading back to the 0D reality. 5. Investigate dimensional analogues of number-theoretic concepts: Various concepts and results in number theory, such as modular arithmetic, quadratic residues, and the distribution of prime numbers, could potentially have analogues or applications in the context of a dimensional framework grounded in 0D. For example, we could explore whether there are dimensional analogues of concepts like congruence, primality, or the zeta function, and how these could shed light on the properties and structure of higher dimensions in relation to the 0D reality. Some specific areas that could be explored within this framework include: a. Developing a rigorous algebraic or arithmetic structure for dimensional operations and relationships, potentially drawing inspiration from abstract algebra, group theory, or ring theory. b. Investigating the properties and behavior of "prime dimensions" and the potential factorization or decomposition of higher dimensions into more fundamental components. c. Exploring connections to other areas of mathematics, such as algebraic topology, where algebraic structures are used to study topological spaces and their higher-dimensional analogues. d. Examining how physical concepts like space, time, and fundamental particles could be represented and understood within this dimensional arithmetic framework, and how the properties and operations of 0D and higher dimensions could manifest in the physical world. e. Exploring potential applications or insights that could arise from studying the dimensional analogues of number-theoretic concepts, such as the distribution of "prime dimensions" or the behavior of dimensional analogues of the zeta function. As with the other approaches, developing a rigorous and consistent mathematical framework along these lines would require significant work and collaboration among experts in various fields, including number theory, abstract algebra, topology, and potentially physics. However, the potential insights gained from uncovering deep connections between the treatment of zero and non-zero dimensions, and the well-established properties of zero and non-zero numbers in arithmetic, could be profound and far-reaching.
Representing the standard model of particles in just one diagram and starting from quantum properties, and the interactions it usually takes Feynman diagrams... Easy and brief way to visualize particle decay... 🧐 11:00 "protons and neutrons... For reasons I'm not going to explain here..." I think some time ago I saw something like your hexagonal diagram... 🤔 .
This makes so much more sense for representing the Standard Model than the others. However, you really should represent the levels in the image, somehow. Perhaps with small arrows next to each particle pointing to their partners.
Strictly speaking, "isospin" is a property of hadrons that was named before quarks or the W and Z bosons were known to exist. It corresponds in modern terms to the 1st generation quark content of a hadron (up/down, heavier quarks aren't counted). The electroweak quantity discussed in this video is called "weak isospin", and was named by analogy to isospin (and defined such that it would be the same for particles that had isospin).
Yeah, I know the difference between isospin, hypercharge and their weak counterparts, but here's the thing, weak isospin and weak hypercharge are more fundamental and "real" than the original isospin and hypercharge. Wouldn't it make more sense to change our terminology so that isospin and hypercharge refer to weak isospin and weak hypercharge?
@@HighlyEntropicMind Yeah, but that hasn't actually happened yet, and there's potential for confusion in calling weak isospin just "isospin" before the physics community in general has decided to change terminology.
Gravity is definitely just the large scale manifestation of the small scale shape of spacetime (and I don't mean 4D spacetime, but something that can be modelled in 2 Dimensions).
This looks great! My only problem is that it looks a Hadron diagram, so I was expecting one axis to be isospin, one axis to be color charge, and then a diagonal line to be charge.
I considered that, and there are some diagrams like that, but it gets messy. How do you represent the three generations? How do you represent all the neutral bosons? In the end I concluded abandoning the idea of the axes was best
An easy to comprehend particle model can consist of Light red background at center with the Photon. Dark red background three division ring of the three generations of Electrons surrounding the Photon. Dark green background three division ring of the three generations of neutrinos surrounding Electrons. Light green background four division ring of the four Weak bosons (Higgs, Z, +W, -W). Dark blue background six division ring of the three generations of quark pairs surrounding Weak bosons. Light blue background eight division ring of the Strong interaction Gluons. To understand the relationship with gravitation, the rank-3 stress energy tensor can be used revealing the opposite fourth-dimensional directions of General Relativity (Tμν0 → M/c²) and the Standard Model (Tμν1 → Mc²). t + 0D [Mc²/2] = (2^0) = T000, T001 = S0 = the SU(1) symmetry (i.e. fourth-dimensional oscillation), t + 1D [ω(Mc²/2)] = (2^1) = T100, T101 = S1 = the U(1) symmetry, t + 2D [ω(Mc²/2)] = (2^2) = T200, T201, T210, T211 = S2 x S1 = the U(2) symmetry, t + 3D [ω(Mc²/2)] = (2^3) = T300, T301, T310, T311, T320, T321, T330, T331 = π4(S3) = the SU(3) symmetry. As the Higgs boson is clearly a boson of the Weak interaction and there is no such thing as spontaneous symmetry breaking for gauge symmetries, the Weak interaction is plainly a U(2), not SU(2) symmetry.
Hi, I have a question about the standard model. I know that what we considier "matter" and "antimatter" is kindof arbitrary. For example we could say that from now on quarks and electrons are antimater, and antiquarks and positrons are regular matter. But do quarks and electrons have anything in comman that puts them in the same group? Could we say that all positively charged particles are matter and all negtively charged particles are antimatter? Because if we did then it could solve the problem of why is there more matter than antimatter.
You are right that the names we give to things in physics are often aribitrary For example, we could switch the definitions of positive and negative electric charge and nothing would change. We could have time running backwards and nothing would change. Stuff like that But there are a few cases where it is not arbitrary. In this case since regular matter is so much more abundant than antimatter the definition is not arbitrary, Nature made that distinction for us, we are just pointing it out However it seems that the definition of matter and antimatter gets a little arbitrary when you look at hypercharge and isospin Matter leptons have negative hypercharge, but antimatter leptons have positive hyoercharge. Meanwhile matter quarks have positive hypercharge and antimatter quarks have negative hypercharge. Finally, matter and antimatter leptons and quarks can have positive and negative isospin Why is it that some combinations of hypercharge and isospin are favored for qurks and the opposite combinations are favored by leptons? The answer is that we don't know It would be nice, really nice, if there was a single property that flipped between matter and antimatter to make then what they are, and there are some unification theories that propose such theories, but so far it remains a mystery
I'll leave it to the video creator or someone else to provide a more detailed explanation. I'm only a layman with very little detailed knowledge about this. But it seems like you are asking why an electron would necessarily be matter (rather than anti-matter) if a quark is. If I understand (both your question and the science) correctly, electrons and quarks interact and form atoms and other structures that are not formed when you cross a matter variant and an anti-matter variant of something. So while an anti-electron (positron) and and a nucleus made up of anti-quarks could exist, they would not mix with regular matter to form anything as far as I know. And they would annihilate if they meet their anti-particle equivalent. Also, an electron is negatively-charged, but not anti-matter, and an anti-electron (positron) is positively charged but not matter, so it's not really based on charge. I don't know the specifics of what the designation is based on, but I guess people called the particles that they are made up of and regularly see and interact with "matter", and the particles that annihilate when they encounter those things, they called "anti-matter".
It seems gravity is emergent from space-time. Small scale its probably another Higgs style force and not even technically "gravity" more like EMF attraction.
They were enabled, but I think RU-vid suspended them for some reason... In the meantime, can I interest you on a really cool shirt? crowdmade.com/collections/highly-entropic-store?
@@HighlyEntropicMind It looks like it has (6) symmetry, not SU(2)... Anyway, I think it's great that you're trying a new design and sharing it like this👍
@@Grandunifiedcelery Well, it has SU(2) symmetry in each floor of the hexagon, and I agree that the whole thing seems to have a sixfold symmetry, but who says it doesn't? Murray Gell-Man predicted the Omega baryon because there was a hole in his baryon diagram. This is a valid way to do science
Sorry, that's the symbol for the empty set, meaning that such a thing doesn't exist for leptons. I mentioned it briefly but I should have made more emphasis on that
It's not true that no one understands gravity. The operation of gravity is simple...like building a hammer! -I'm talking about the logical explanation.
@@wicekwickowski3798 That last phrase sounds like something Frankenstein would say in the original novel. To be perfectly honest my finger slipped, but if it matters here's two more hearts
@HighlyEntropicMind -This sentence is completely tertiary, because the most important sentences are the ones, from the FIRST post. And they are the real ones! But since your "finger slipped"....
When I was in elementary I promised myself that if I ever invented or discovered something remotely interesting I would name it "super awesome", whatever it was
