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.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
I am amazed by amounts of knowledge a typical particle physicist must possess. Surely, these animations took an incredible amount of work to be done. Thank you Eugene and Kira for such a rigorous explanation.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Speaking of the Higgs field, I wonder how the top quark gets massive enough, I mean, it's a paradoxical loop ( it's a bit short-lived, so it might not have had enough time to get mass, which means it couldn't decay, but it does, etc.).
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. _______________________________________________________________________________ Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
The way of explanation in his videos make it much easier for beginners to understand! Trying to find a simpler way to teach my son these things, this is perfect! Amazing visuals and editing. Talented person!
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=iIWTRwJlrGo 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.
What's the difference between pion (quark+ anti-quark) that proton and neutron exchange and W-bozone (the same charge, the same parity, the same decay products- electron+ electron anti-neutrino) ? Thank you PS please, like me to see the answer
Wow! W+, W-, and Z bosons were always (since I learned about them) such a mystery to me! This video helped me understand them more than any other video (or other media) I've seen on them. I'm still interested in learning more about "rest mass", but wow...this was amazingly informative!
@Cliff Jumper Thanks a lot for that long explanation! It did clear things up! I guess I thought that while weight depended on gravity, mass didn't change. But like with length and time, it seems that mass also changes depending on the observer and the changes become more apparent as the speed of light is (nearly) reached. I appreciate you taking the time to inform me!
The animation from 3:13 is one of the most jaw-dropping visuals of a wave direction in a quantum position Would be awesome if there was an open-source page to test around with it.. maybe help other wanderers create works of the imagination - perhaps one for chivalry as well as chirality HA!
I have a number of videos where I use that type of animation of Quantum Wave functions to describe a variety of phenomena. Examples are listed below. Quantum Wave Function Visualization ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KKr91v7yLcM.html Quantum Tunneling ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RF7dDt3tVmI.html Quantum Operators ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LZie2QC5Jbc.html Schrodinger's Equation ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jvvkomcmyuo.html
Another wonderful illustration as always. Bravo! Would you also please consider making a video regarding Noether's Theorem, Conservation law, and concept Symmetry? If so, that would be great.
1:24 I honestly thought you were gonna bring up supersymmetric particles for some reason. Also, DOUBLE THE POINTS AGAIN! Sorry, but I feel like that should be a meme on this channel 😅 .
So does the weak force act like a "force"? In which cases it repels and attracts like all the other fundamental forces? And if not, and it's only about the transformations, then why the name "force"? Or is there some kind of momentum transfer when the interaction occurs?
@@EugeneKhutoryansky Well, there must be always momentum transferred in any interactions, since all particles have it (btw because of this I dont understand how the attractive phenomena is possible. Negative momentum?) But what properties of particles define whether there will be an attraction or a repulsion with another particle via the weak force? Again, if of course the weak force really acts as a "force" because you haven't answered that. But still big thanks of course!
I have one thing to add: there is a close representation (not perfect, but close) in a branch of classical physics for chirality, and that’s the direction of the spiral in a screw’s thread It has a rotational element even at rest, and uses a similar ‘left/right-handedness’ for its ‘direction’, and even though they both exist, you’re most likely to find the one kind, since the other just flat out doesn’t work with the same hardware Granted that’s from mechanical engineering, not physics or mathematics, but engineering is one of the practical applications of maths and sciences, soooo 🤷♂️
Very interesting. I have heard some physicists do not like the standard model as they believe it is too complicated and incomplete. I cannot make an opinion as I am not a particle physicist, but I do try and understand what I see and read. I do look forward to seeing the evolution of particle physics over my lifetime.
Mam please please make a video on....how all communication process works....how sound waves converted into electrical signal...n most important how actually electrical signals converted into radio waves..what hardwarr runs there...n then how that signals get transitted throght air.
research US Army mos 31F network switching systems operator and maintainer. manuals should be online. Engineers write the manuals so an 8th grader can understand.
Superb videos and I hope you don't take this as a criticism but I find the background music very distracting. PLEASE consider making these excellent presentations _without_ music. If we were to attend a university lecture, the presence of music would be considered inappropriate. I hope you will consider my suggestion - or at least poll viewers for their opinion.
These videos are my punishment for not paying close attention when I was in school . Now I’m deeply in love science and compelled to watch these videos over and over with limited knowledge.
Are you planning a video on the Higgs mechanism? Like your QCD video, you could also add the interaction symmetry - SU(2) X U(1) - after all, not doing so is roughly analogous to showing a pictorial description of gravity sans the formula F=G(mm')/R^2. An overview of the Higgs mechanism may be the best place to start.
Extensive knowledge ---- huge Information---- difficult to perceive and diffucult to remember. Oh,MY GOD so extensive is this!! Oh, more than exhausting information. VERY ,VERY EXHAUSTING IS ALL THIS!!
The metaphor I prefer for virtual particles is that you're borrowing energy from the vacuum and you have to give it back. The more energy you borrow the sooner you have to give it back.
Single diagram relating all particles with actual values of mass/charge/spin etc - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg
Excellent job as usual, Eugene. I'm curious, is there an operator that returns the chirality of a given wave function or state vector, and if so, what is it?
Matter & space are made of microscopic mass, electric & magnetic particles. Increase in density of these particles induces repulsive & decrease attractive force. In heavier atoms density of these particles is higher which induces repulsive force. This results in spontaneous release of these particles along with other constituents of atoms. Relese of these particles decreases the density which makes the atom more stable. Density can also be increased by adding a neutron which also tips the density balance and split the atom.
Great video, as always. Hope you can help me out with a couple of questions: What do the shapes that you use to depict quarks in these videos represent? Also, I've encountered terms such as 'weak hypercharge' and 'weak Isospin' before but I've never understood what these properties are or how they relate to the weak force. Do you have any explanation that could help me with that?
Wasn't neutrino oscillation only theoretically shown by solar neutrino flux? I though there may have been a controversy here, and that the ratio emitted by the sun was correct, and they were not actually oscillating through space. Did I miss something? Have we actually seen a transformation or is it just based on what we think should be coming from the sun not equaling what we detect?
There is now a lot of experimental confirmation of neutrino oscillations besides just the solar neutrino problem, and neutrino oscillations are now believed to occur. Details are available at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
Brilliant and illuminating, as usual. Especially the last part about why the WF appears to us as being so weak. It is a kind of statistical illusion due to the rarity of such interactions. Meanwhile, the lifespan of a tau is itself very short. It adds up and makes sense. Though one may ask: why has Nature gone to the trouble of all this complexity??
I recently heard another explanation that all W boson interactions with quarks smaller than top occur because the W boson's mass can change due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principal in order to not violate conservation of energy, and that this is why beta decay is a rare occurrence.
Nice presentation! At 9 m or so it shows a clear parallel between W's boson theory and pi meson theory of nuclear force; EWT was initially called Quantum Flavor Dynamics ... is there a duplication (conceptual correspondence?) between EWT and the One Boson Exchange (pion, omega, rho) theory of Nuclear Force? Or is it a "refinement"?
Another quantity that is conserved is the amount of positive and negative electrical charges, between up down quarks and electrons. But this is only possible by theorizing that dowm quarks also have 2/3 positive parts in their electrical microstate and that when an electron joins it creates its macro state of -1/3, which would give a total, as an example of the simplest atom, hydrogen. 2/3 charge per quark, giving a total of +2 and 1 electron or one unit of negative charge. And an electron orbiting the proton. Being positive +2 and negative -2. And from this point of view we can predict the number of neutrons for any atom to be stable. Example For example niobium: 41 protons 52 neutrons and obviously 41 electrons 93 nuclear units times 3 Quarks per unit are 279 quarks times 2/3 charge are 558 thirds of positive charges 41 protons plus 52 neutrons with two Quarks dowm for each neutron and 1 for each proton equal = 145 quarks Down *3/3 parts of negative changes are 435 parts. Plus 41 electrons who are on 3/3 or negative charges equal to 123 of negative charges = 435+123 equal to 558 thirds of negative charges. Having han equivalence of 558=558 De This leads to a multitude of consequences in quantum physics, one of them being the belief that each particle in the Standard Model is itself unique and not the sum of any other particle. The Down quark being simply an up quark plus an electron giving the equivalence of the same number of protons as electrons AND what of positive and negative electrical charges between protons and neutrons and electrons. It also opens the possibility that the strong nuclear force is not the only cause of the nuclei remaining stable since there are so many protons in the same space, causing them to repel each other, also making it possible to explain exactly why the electron does not fall to the center of the atom. being that the positive charges of the proton should attract it to its center since a dance is created in which the positive charges attract the electron, moving the electron, creating magnetism and the negative charges being comparable, repelling the electrons from falling to the nucleus, thus also creating magnetism. then the electric forces of protons and neutrons that the electric field and the repulsion forces between electrons in the nucleus create the magnetic field, which also gives the answer to why every atom in the universe, regardless of its size or the time it has been in the universe, Universe transmits infrared light waves due to this dance. Also the fact that an electron that is believed to be repelled and is not affected by the strong nuclear force and that is therefore not part of the atomic nucleus is only a speculation since at the time of Joining the three, the two Ops and the down or the two down and the love in their three different colors, the color charge is complemented and it is necessary to reach very short distances between electrons and the nucleus in order to convert the up quarks into down. creating the hypothesis that an electron is the sum of colors complete also in itself and therefore the universal nucleus must be repelled by weak force neutrinos photons and other bosonic particles to break the tie of the color sum of the strong force in the electron and the strong force in the nucleus of the atom which in turn also hypothesizes that the electron is a primordial particle but is made of thirds of negative electric charges linked by gluons to the point of stability
Electrical csrga equivalences between ñfltlmed neutrons and electrons and how it is equivalence makes us predict the number of neutrons in each atom that it must have to be stable which makes us a prediction that would be impossible if it were not true since every theory involves an experiment or a prediction and if this gives a prediction it means that the possibility of it being a real fact is very high if you have a prediction on one or two or three atoms of the periodic table you could celebrate a coincidence but when you absolutely predict the number of neutrons in all the atoms of the periodic table is when we are talking about a major prediction
Greatly appreciate your efforts, your physics understanding, and your musical taste; hope you'll play Rimsky-Korsakov (Scheherazade maybe) in your next video :-)
I have a question. Why exactly do these particles spontaneously transform into different ones like the an electron turning into a -w boson and an electron neutrino. What causes it.
What makes a neutrino different from an anti-neutrino ? They have identical mass, charge (0) and spin (±1/2). Perhaps they are different because some pairs annihilate (opposite chirality) and some don't (identical chirality), hence the need of the concept of chirality, to explain neutrino annihilation. But then the rules are different for electron-positron collision where chirality does not matter for annihilation. While helicity makes sense, chirality seems to be completely made up to explain experimental results and bring some sanity to the zoo of particles and their rules of interactions.
You're welcome. The only problem that I have is believing that "zero" exists in the universe. It seems to me that even if a particle has zero mass, it should at least have a charge, "-0 or +0". But I don't know the mathematics. Maybe someone can explain how zero can exist in the quantum universe.
