This video is a small summary of the Standard Model of particles I hope you'll like it ! Don't worry if you find this too short, another longer video is coming up in a few minutes ;)
Your videos are awesome, really informative! The visual representations make it incredibly easy for the information to stick with me! I especially like your descriptions of general relativity! Keep it up!
How do you have so few subscribers and comments? This looks like something I'd find from one of the UA-cam channels with teams of people, like Kurzgesagt or something, but IMO you do even a better job then them, because it's in depth explanations and not just "clickbait science". Awesome job, for real. You deserve recognition for this. May I ask what you use to make the diagrams/animations? I'm considering starting something like this at some point in time.
Thank you very much 🙏 I use After Effects for all my animations. I honestly recommend trying it, creating this UA-cam channel has been one of the best experiences. Good luck !
@@ScienceClicEN I'll have to decide on a subject to talk about - probably multiple - and also probably get a better understanding of that field, especially if it's physics, because the last thing I'd want to do is mislead people, which just from watching your videos I've realized I would've done had I made a video explaining general relativity, for example, to an audience. But thanks for the encouragement, I really appreciate it!
@@angelmendez-rivera351 yes but this guy is saying they are concepts such as time which is a concept it doesn’t really exists our brains just make it up to fill in gaps it exists but not the way we think
@@wulphstein Time and space. :) It's a geometric model. Asking what it's made of is like asking what "spherical" is made of. It's a mathematical abstraction of reality that fits the data and allows us to make accurate predictions. Look at it this way, if two people were walking parallel to one another on a flat surface then they would maintain the same distance. If they did it on the surface of a sphere then, while still walking in a straight line, they would approach. You can test that and know which type of surface you're on. Years ago Galileo said that if you're on a train going 100kph and you throw a rock backwards at 20kph then the rock is travelling at 80kph with respect to the ground. It seemed self-evident. We know experimentally that if you are moving at some fraction of the speed of light and you shine light backwards, then it is still moving at the speed of light. So Galileo's transform was false and we need another. So to solve this, to translate between one frame of reference and another, we adjust the components - distance and time - to keep the velocity the same. This geometric system is called spacetime, it doesn't exist physically but it does allow us to make incredibly accurate predictions. Famously, the orbit of Venus was explained using this. The evidence is now beyond overwhelming. It's like energy, there isn't actually such a thing. Like inflation in economics, you can't pick it up, it's just a useful abstraction.
This channel deserves millions of subscribers - Fabulous voice, superb background music, fantastic illustrations - more important : crisp and clear explanation
Very clear and basic. Never seen an explanation so clear thus far... Can you make more videos on this so we can even better understand how these work/interact? I'm learning so much from this channel.
great explanations of the complicated things. Thank you! Would love to see a deep dive into each category like quarks, leptons, bosons to know what common proterties they share, how different they are and etc. Thanks once again for the great content!
As someone who’s just interested in physics and never studied it, these videos obviously always lose me at some point, but it’s quite remarkable to which degree it is made possible for me to follow them
I love the beauty of the chart of particles and forces you show. It is so clear and elegant. If the multiverse theory is correct then it has to be an even more elegant machine that is able to randomly produce these charts(laws). It would also have to be a powerful enough machine to create the particles and the 26 or so dimensions. Seems like an extremely powerful and complex machine.
I am extremely disappointed that this video only got 6, 000 likes! In fact, I'm extremely disappointed in everyone who watched this video and didn't like it! It deserves millions of likes and above! It simplifies all the extremely abstract concepts and complexities about the Standard Model of Particle Physics and make everything very easily understandable even to a nobody with absolutely education in physics. Wow. Roussel you're the best, and only Kurzgesagt is second to you!!! Please keep producing the valuable, simple-to-understand, and very informative content ! We really depend on you in Physics and no one else on UA-cam or anywhere else!
So if Higgs Boson is responsible for a mass, and is representative of the field, wouldn't that field be the spacetime itself and particles are just bending that field on macroscale giving the effect of gravity? I am sorry for my stupidity and please explain why I am wrong.
I also need this answer. But I think that Higgs Boson is not spacetime itself. I think spacetime is just the board and higgs bosson is a field layer "on top", the interaction is within matter and the field, and the board may then react as a consequence.... What I fail to understand is how the boson work. Also don't take any of my word, Im just another guy trying to make sense of this
If you look at the equations regarding the Higgs field and gravity description in general relativity via spacetime curvature, they are completely different. Gravitational field in GR is the metric tensor field, assigning a 4x4 matrix of values to every point in spacetime and participating in all things related to geometry of spacetime. Higgs is a scalar quantum field, meaning if it was a classical field it would assign just a single complex number to every point in space. A quantum version is a bit more complicated. But anyway it's just one of the basic quantum fields just like the electron field, photon field, quark field and others. They interact with each other via Yukawa interaction that doesn't really resemble gravity.
@@thedeemon I like you, you have answers and seem smart, if you don't mind, can I ask you if Im wrong with this? and sorry because i'm gonna say a lot of stupid things for sure: There are different fields one for each type of particle. Each field is a collection of infinite mathematical points. A particle appears to us as a probability cloud because of quantum propiertis, but the thing is that it alters the values of some mathematical-points in that field(because particles are information) and behave wave-like. Each particle is constantly emiting bosons or spliting into other particles, for it to reabsorbe or join again instantly. Now, when a particle is near another, it can emit a boson that instead of reabsorbed is absorbed by the other particle, thus creating an interation between particles or (between fields if are different types) So can we picture reality as diferent layers of information (fields), with waves going around (particles) and constantly emiting bosons or changing layers by spliting (interactions)?? Thank you in advance!
@@cinepo Yes, layers is a nice word here. Different kinds of fields are all spread throughout space, in parallel. And vibrations/excitations in one can cause excitations in some others, like strings of a guitar that can vibrate separately but also vibration of one guitar string can influence vibration of its neighbour. The bosons you mention are also such vibrations/excitations in the corresponding boson fields. How actively two fields interact, how easily excitation in one can create excitations in the other is determined by their coupling constant also known as charge. So electric charge of a particle says how strongly it interacts with the photon field. Other kinds of charges describe coupling constants with other gauge fields. This mental image might not be mathematically exact, but it's intuitive and helpful. If you dive deep into QFT equations you start seeing the world as a vector in infinite dimensional Fock space, where our 3D space is just one way of projecting it, but that image is much less intuitive.
Wow, I really enjoy the novel approach these videos take conceptually regarding the visualization; showing that new ideas are still available. A very small, almost an "non" issue really, yet important imo when explanations/visualizations are that fascinating and "convincing" would be the use of language in regard of "factuality" of the models versus true true true true ;) reality of nature. All those explanations are *the best* or *least problematic* in most cases we have *currently*. There is a major difference in "education", even more so in unsupervised education imo, between "The universe is like this." vs "This is *currently* our best/most succesful *model* of the Universe." Only the second one encourages further scientific investigation and progress. Eventually, with time some/all of those explanations/models will fall, regardless how fascinating and convincing they appear to us today. This does not diminish their todays value in any way. Anyways, thanks for those great new visualization ideas and explanations!
I was looking for a video that would explain what the difference between different these different particles were and this helped a lot. But i’m still a little lost on the Z0, W+, and W- bosons
The first generation of fermions "almost entirely" makes up the matter of the universe, except for neutrinos which oscillate between generations constantly?
Given General Relativity already offers a compelling explanation for the mechanism behind gravity, why is there a need for a Graviton particle or even a theory there might be one - how would it work in the framework of GR?
in GR you can calculate exactly the curvature of spacetime caused by a mass. But according to the Heisenberg uncertainity principle this is not possible
The general theory of relativity assumes matter behaves the way it is described by classical field theory, and this is inaccurate. Also, the graviton is just supposed to be quantum for the spacetime curvature field, in the same the photon is just the quantum of the electromagnetic field.
Is there anyway to show more words at a time with subtitles? It's so short, only showing like max 20 words at a time. Anyone know a way to increase subtitle length?
@Phumgwate Nagala I usually watch at around 2.5x-3x speed. But this has made me think...maybe their is an extension I can download that can increase it.
@Phumgwate Nagala I actually just figured out there is a little ellipsis icon below the video that provides an option to view the videos transcript!!! With timestamps too! So I could even search the whole video with ctrl+f for a specific word!
If gravity is the manifestation of spacetime curvature as described by G.R. Why do we need gravitons? Could I infer that their purpose is to create the interaction between matter and spacetime rather than directly between gravitationaly bound objects?
a graviton would just be a quantum of spacetime curvature, so it's not necessarily a new particle, it's just a quantum of a field we already know exists (the metric field that measures distance in spacetime). If gravity is quantized, then the GW the moved LIGO's mirrors a fraction of a proton diameter had on the order of 10^30 gravitons (meaning it behaved like a very classical wave), and one can be confident that we will never detect nor manipulate a single graviton, as we do with the quantum of the electromagentic field, the photon.
What software do you use to animate your videos? I would like to make similar videos for computer science and engineering. The quality of these is wonderful.
From what I remember, unlike photons, gluons actually interact with each other so there is a force between them, which makes the triangle representation of quarks joined together inaccurate and it should be in the shape of a Y instead. Can you comment on that?
@Michael Bishop Yeah, but it's still in the shape of a Y as that's geometrically the shortest distance, and considering that it takes energy to clear out the fluctuations, I'd imagine they would take the shortest path. Also, I don't exactly imagine another way to symbolically represent them in a simple way without overloading graphics.
@Michael Bishop I don't think it should be a completely realistic representation as the point of those graphics is to immensely simplify it and allow easy drawing. Something you could easily draw on a board in seconds. I mean, particles aren't colourful balls, it's a simplification. But quarks are traditionally drawn as a triangle because of lack of information, if I remember correctly. It was eventually replaced by the Y model but many people still draw them as triangles.
@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 The Y-shape model is less accurate than the triangle model, although both models are *extremely* inaccurate, as in, they are not even good approximations. It is actually not entirely known how the gluon-quark interaction works, so we have no working model of the proton yet.
I have even more questions now... 1.when you talk about second and third generation particles, that is because they appeared in that order after the big bang? or it is just because they are less abundant? 2. Are Bossons emited randomly in random directions? I think here Im getting confused because of how you animated and how did you explained it in the video "Are forces real?". I pictured bossons like a field, that can be "activated" one way or another by the influence (pressence) of particles. But if you say bossons are particles, then i dont understand electromagnetic fields... EDIT: Ok I have an answer for this one, so basically yes, bosons are emited randomly and constantly by particles but are reaboserbed inmediatly, unless two particles get near enough for the bosson emited by one particle to be absorbed by the other, thus causing an interaction. 3. Also, why gravity needs a bosson? If we assume that gravity is just the consequence of spacetime curvature, why we need a bosson to explain a gravity interaction between matter? Is because the interaction of gravity is between the matter and the spacetime and that is what this bosson would explain? or is it to try to debunk Einstein?
1.We don't know in which order different kinds of particles appeared. The 3 generations are grouped this way because due to their similarity in terms of charges they fit in a table nicely, and the generations are sorted by the rest mass of the particles. 2. In all directions, but not every possibility has the same weight in the total calculation. A scenario where two electrons exchange one photon has higher probability amplitude than a scenario with two photons, while a scenario where a photon is emitted sidewise and an electron suddenly changes its velocity, without other particles around, has pretty much zero probability. It's all about the Feynman diagrams and their rules, what terms they represent and in what equations. 3. Graviton comes up if we try to quantize gravitational field from Einstein's GR directly. Quantum particles don't have precise positions, they are usually in superpositions, like a "cloud of probability". So we ask: what spacetime curvature does one quantum particle create? If that particle is in superposition of being here and there, is the space bent towards this point or that point? How does it change when the wavefunction of a particle changes? In order to describe this all quantum mechanically we need to make the gravitational field of spacetime curvature also quantum, allow superpositions and operators that change that field, these operators in QFT are operators of particle creation and annihilation, all fields change by creating one particles and annihilating others. This way we naturally come to the quanta of change in spacetime curvature, those quanta are gravitons. Except this all approach didn't really work, even theoretically, so we still don't have a good theory about it, and maybe there are no gravitons at all.
@@thedeemon man, I can't thank you enough for this, you took your time to explain this to a stupid stranger on the internet, and I tell you, i'm very thankful for that. This always bothered me and I didn't have the oportunity to study physics, so my only way to understand this is watching youtube videos and hoping for the best. I know i am very far away from understanding General Realtivity or Quantum physics but one step closer is a huge thing for me. (Not only in this thread, I also saw your answer in the other comment, thank you for that too!)
*When you talk about second and third generation particles, that is because they appeared in that order after the Big Bang, or is it just because they are less abundant?* It is neither. A generation 2 particle is identical in almost every way to a generation 1 particle. The only two differences are (a) mass, (b) lifetime/stability. A muon has more mass than an electron, a shorter half-life than an electron, and so, a muon will decay into an electron. However, in all other properties, a muon is identical to an electron. *Also, why does gravity need a boson? If we just assume that gravity is just the consequence of spacetime curvature, why we need a boson to explain a gravity interaction between matter?* We need to quantize the general theory of relativity and the curvature of spacetime, because if we do not, then we are dealing with particles, which have no well-defined position, momentum, or energy, somehow causing a well-defined curvature in spacetime, and this is nonsensical. If one is not well-defined, then neither can the other one be.
The presentation of the standard model in this encyclopedic manner way is quite common, but in my opinion, suboptimal. It frontloads the viewer with an over-emphasis of jargon/terminology-- itself is not important-- and therefore not the most helpful pedagogic or heuristic method. You'll note that for this reason, Feynman specifically never listed the names of particles when he introduced the standard model to lay audiences (consistent with his anecdote about the lessons he learned from his father on nature walks , i.e. the value of terminology vs substantive knowledge). Nima Arkani-Hamed has also espoused a similar view; Anyways, I appreciate the effort and definitely appreciate the bulk of your work.
Universe = Only two things 1 - Space 2 - Huge numbers of indivisible particles in that space. For indivisible particle : ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html For Basic state of universe : IJSR vol.7, issue 3 Pages 273 - 275
The terminology is very important. That is why it exists. And I would not take Feynman as being the golden standard of science communication, because he was not great at it. He was an amazing physicist, but a subpar communicator.
Can you make a video on the weak nuclear force, there are a lot of videos on the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity, but almost nothing on weak force. I would like to know why it has two gauge bosons (unlike EM and strong force) among other things.
The weak interaction has three gauge bosons. The strong force has eight. When we talk about gluons, we are talking about eight different bosons, not one boson.
Could gravity be explained in this model as matter clumping the highs boson field? This clumping or concentration of the field act as a sink for other matter?
The "clumping", or more accurately disturbance, is actually the higgs boson itself, not gravity. If it was gravity all that would do is increase the mass of the object.
What is a "Spin Quantum Number?" Like what is it and how does it apply to these particles and their interactions? I've tried to wrap my head around it, but I just can't seem to understand it.
Part of me wants to know: if there are anti fermions, are there also anti bosons (as per supersymmetry)? Also, why are there three bosons for the weak nuclear force, but only one for the other two? And finally, if the higgs field causes mass, why is there a need for a graviton? Would the higgs boson not mediate the gravitational force, or am I not understanding it?
Antibosons are not a prediction of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry predicts something far more exotic. Antibosons do exist. The antiparticle of the W+ boson is the W- boson, for example. You said there is only type of boson for electromagnetic interaction and strong interaction, but this is false. The strong interaction has 8 bosons mediating: there are 8 distinct types of gluon, not just 1. The Higgs boson causes elementary particles to have mass. This has nothing to do with the gravitational interaction, which has little to do mass itself. The gravitational interaction has to do with stress-energy causing spacetime to have a curvature. This curvature being created is not due to the Higgs boson, but for reasons unknown. The graviton is the hypothetical boson which mediates the curvature of spacetime between all other particles.
I think all photons, electrons, etc are in orbit with a dark matter particle pulling them into apparent wave packets as they travel. This would explain the double slit, light polarization, uncertainty, etc.
What particle exchanges to cause the warping spacetime since force is viewed as particle exchange. Other particle exchanges happen in spacetime itself while we look for an exchange particle for the very thing that things happen in..... it is all bewildering....
*What particle exchanges to cause the warping spacetime since force is viewed as particle exchange.* No one knows, but the leading hypothesis is that the graviton is responsible.
As Gravitational waves have discovered almost 100 years after Einstein's Theory of Relativities and similarly, 1st M87 Black Hole pic had captured back in 2019; hope that one day in upcoming future may be Graviton would be discovered... One day. May be it would be a Quantum Gravity "particle"? ( though a vague assumption, but who knows...)
I appreciate that you made an effort to state that this stuff: are only theories and not facts. To often science and other subjects try to claim things as laws. Then things change. Such as Darwin's theories passed off as fact, But no proof. Then the proofs get debunked.
Spacetime curvature doesn't correalte with quantum physics because quantum mechanical equations are only compeltely solvable in minowski space (flat space).
Technically the graviton could just be a quantum particle, but string theory explicitly suggests gravitons would exist. But it also suggests (via supersymmetry) lots of particles that don't exist. So who knows?
A force field is just a tool or an idea that has a Force at every point in rhe universe. For ease of use, places where there is no force simply have a force of zero.
Such wonderful work you are doing. highly appreciate your outstanding work. would like to say that at 3:48 what if we use a nanoscopic scale rather than a microscopic scale?
Building Protons and Neutrons With Electrons and Positrons This post suggests that both protons and neutrons can be built from electrons and positrons, not quarks. First I will explain the drawing, then answer some questions that often come up. The basic premise is very simple. Singularity of protons created the universe through making electron - positron pairs in pair conversion in a Big Bang, or Little Tear. These in turn made the protons and neutrons that made the atoms. Drawing: Proton: two positrons with opposite spin circle around an electron Charge 1, extremely stable. Neutron: proton plus an electron OR two positrons and two electrons. Charge 0, decays in 10 minutes outside the nucleus. Hydrogen atom: same configuration as a neutron. Key difference is electron placement - see deuteron. Deuteron: a proton is bound to a neutron. The extra electron from the neutron binds the two protons together Deuterium (not pictured) is one proton, one electron and one neutron, or a deuteron with an extra electron that makes it extremely stable. Questions and Answers Q. Where is the missing antimatter? A. There, in the protons and neutrons. Q. Why don't electrons and positrons annihilate each other. A. Because they have different wavelengths in the proton and neutron. For example gamma rays and radio waves don't interfere with each other though they are both electromagnetic waves. Then too, the two positrons have opposite spin like the two electrons in an orbital. Q. Quarks? A. Quarks have problems. My other posts outline many, but for now here is a serious one: explain two charm quarks, each one having more mass than the proton, that can appear in the proton! Q. Neutron made of a proton and electron? A. Yes reconsider beta plus and beta minus decay using these models. Q. Why can't we make protons today? A. They were made in the unique conditions shortly after the Big Bang. Now most positrons are locked in very very stable protons, or neutrons. Q. What about deuteron and deuterium? A. Deuteron, one proton and one neutron, is a key to structure in the nucleus of atoms. The nucleus can't expand past hydrogen without neutrons binding to protons. Note how extra electron helps bind them together. Deuterium, not pictured, is one proton, one electron and one neutron. It is an extremely stable form of hydrogen: a key for the formation of elements in the universe after the Big Bang.
This video is a small summary of the Standard Model of particles I hope you'll like it !
Don't worry if you find this too short, another longer video is coming up in a few minutes ;)
Your videos are awesome, really informative! The visual representations make it incredibly easy for the information to stick with me! I especially like your descriptions of general relativity! Keep it up!
How do you have so few subscribers and comments? This looks like something I'd find from one of the UA-cam channels with teams of people, like Kurzgesagt or something, but IMO you do even a better job then them, because it's in depth explanations and not just "clickbait science". Awesome job, for real. You deserve recognition for this. May I ask what you use to make the diagrams/animations? I'm considering starting something like this at some point in time.
Thank you very much 🙏 I use After Effects for all my animations. I honestly recommend trying it, creating this UA-cam channel has been one of the best experiences. Good luck !
@@ScienceClicEN I'll have to decide on a subject to talk about - probably multiple - and also probably get a better understanding of that field, especially if it's physics, because the last thing I'd want to do is mislead people, which just from watching your videos I've realized I would've done had I made a video explaining general relativity, for example, to an audience. But thanks for the encouragement, I really appreciate it!
If you need any advice or if you think I could help in any way don't hesitate to send me a message I'll be glad to help (and to check out your videos)
I really like how well you structure these videos. You start from the very bottom and build up to the whole picture in a very concise way.
It is very attractive as à concept
@@warrenngombela7790 quarks and leptons are not concepts but ok
@@AURAXKIRA They are concepts which describe physical reality.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 yes but this guy is saying they are concepts such as time which is a concept it doesn’t really exists our brains just make it up to fill in gaps it exists but not the way we think
@@AURAXKIRA Time is more than just a concept made up by our brains. Time is part of spacetime, which is a very real physical thing.
I've just discovered this channel. Only the 2nd video I've seen but it really does seem very good. Thanks!
It's awesome. I've been binge watching since I discovered it and have learnt an incredible amount!
Literally the same for me too... Lol Great videos!
Me too! Where has it been all my life?!?!
What is spacetime made of?
@@wulphstein Time and space. :)
It's a geometric model. Asking what it's made of is like asking what "spherical" is made of. It's a mathematical abstraction of reality that fits the data and allows us to make accurate predictions. Look at it this way, if two people were walking parallel to one another on a flat surface then they would maintain the same distance. If they did it on the surface of a sphere then, while still walking in a straight line, they would approach. You can test that and know which type of surface you're on.
Years ago Galileo said that if you're on a train going 100kph and you throw a rock backwards at 20kph then the rock is travelling at 80kph with respect to the ground. It seemed self-evident.
We know experimentally that if you are moving at some fraction of the speed of light and you shine light backwards, then it is still moving at the speed of light. So Galileo's transform was false and we need another.
So to solve this, to translate between one frame of reference and another, we adjust the components - distance and time - to keep the velocity the same. This geometric system is called spacetime, it doesn't exist physically but it does allow us to make incredibly accurate predictions. Famously, the orbit of Venus was explained using this. The evidence is now beyond overwhelming.
It's like energy, there isn't actually such a thing. Like inflation in economics, you can't pick it up, it's just a useful abstraction.
This channel deserves millions of subscribers - Fabulous voice, superb background music, fantastic illustrations - more important : crisp and clear explanation
Don't skip the ads that come before the video, this is the least we can help the most underrated channel on UA-cam
Best and more simple and comprehensible explanation of the standard model I have seen so far
Can you make video about Higgs boson, graviton etc..
Smallest Particle
ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html
Very clear and basic. Never seen an explanation so clear thus far...
Can you make more videos on this so we can even better understand how these work/interact? I'm learning so much from this channel.
I wonder what I like most about this channel: the science it nicely presents and visualises or this guy's tone and accent.
I am addicted to your channel mate!
This is a great video explaining a summary of these particles in an easy to visualize compartmentalized manner.
You're unbelievable at this ... Excellent job explaining difficult staff.
Thanks !
Excellent visuals again, thoroughly enjoyed!
great explanations of the complicated things. Thank you! Would love to see a deep dive into each category like quarks, leptons, bosons to know what common proterties they share, how different they are and etc. Thanks once again for the great content!
As someone who’s just interested in physics and never studied it, these videos obviously always lose me at some point, but it’s quite remarkable to which degree it is made possible for me to follow them
Welcome guys, to youtube. Your videos are amazing, you are going to have a great future as a channel. Keep it up !
That moment when you're describing A-Level physics but 1 trillion isn't in your script (1:58).
Haha, underrated and well spotted
I love the beauty of the chart of particles and forces you show. It is so clear and elegant. If the multiverse theory is correct then it has to be an even more elegant machine that is able to randomly produce these charts(laws). It would also have to be a powerful enough machine to create the particles and the 26 or so dimensions. Seems like an extremely powerful and complex machine.
Extremely high quality video!! Keep making good stuff!!
This is the best video I had ever seen.
Thanks :)
I have never seen such an explanation anywhere else.thank you so much
I am extremely disappointed that this video only got 6, 000 likes! In fact, I'm extremely disappointed in everyone who watched this video and didn't like it! It deserves millions of likes and above! It simplifies all the extremely abstract concepts and complexities about the Standard Model of Particle Physics and make everything very easily understandable even to a nobody with absolutely education in physics. Wow. Roussel you're the best, and only Kurzgesagt is second to you!!! Please keep producing the valuable, simple-to-understand, and very informative content ! We really depend on you in Physics and no one else on UA-cam or anywhere else!
Very interesting, simple to understand, perfect 👌
Your videos are amazing!
I continue to be impressed by the clarity and excellence of your videos!
This video is phenomenally well done. It’s structure makes it easy to understand while keeping it short and concise. Great job!
So if Higgs Boson is responsible for a mass, and is representative of the field, wouldn't that field be the spacetime itself and particles are just bending that field on macroscale giving the effect of gravity? I am sorry for my stupidity and please explain why I am wrong.
I was thinking the same thing. if the higgs field get distorted by particles , wouldn't that bend the space time?
I also need this answer. But I think that Higgs Boson is not spacetime itself. I think spacetime is just the board and higgs bosson is a field layer "on top", the interaction is within matter and the field, and the board may then react as a consequence.... What I fail to understand is how the boson work. Also don't take any of my word, Im just another guy trying to make sense of this
If you look at the equations regarding the Higgs field and gravity description in general relativity via spacetime curvature, they are completely different. Gravitational field in GR is the metric tensor field, assigning a 4x4 matrix of values to every point in spacetime and participating in all things related to geometry of spacetime. Higgs is a scalar quantum field, meaning if it was a classical field it would assign just a single complex number to every point in space. A quantum version is a bit more complicated. But anyway it's just one of the basic quantum fields just like the electron field, photon field, quark field and others. They interact with each other via Yukawa interaction that doesn't really resemble gravity.
@@thedeemon I like you, you have answers and seem smart, if you don't mind, can I ask you if Im wrong with this? and sorry because i'm gonna say a lot of stupid things for sure:
There are different fields one for each type of particle.
Each field is a collection of infinite mathematical points. A particle appears to us as a probability cloud because of quantum propiertis, but the thing is that it alters the values of some mathematical-points in that field(because particles are information) and behave wave-like.
Each particle is constantly emiting bosons or spliting into other particles, for it to reabsorbe or join again instantly.
Now, when a particle is near another, it can emit a boson that instead of reabsorbed is absorbed by the other particle, thus creating an interation between particles or (between fields if are different types)
So can we picture reality as diferent layers of information (fields), with waves going around (particles) and constantly emiting bosons or changing layers by spliting (interactions)??
Thank you in advance!
@@cinepo Yes, layers is a nice word here. Different kinds of fields are all spread throughout space, in parallel. And vibrations/excitations in one can cause excitations in some others, like strings of a guitar that can vibrate separately but also vibration of one guitar string can influence vibration of its neighbour. The bosons you mention are also such vibrations/excitations in the corresponding boson fields. How actively two fields interact, how easily excitation in one can create excitations in the other is determined by their coupling constant also known as charge. So electric charge of a particle says how strongly it interacts with the photon field. Other kinds of charges describe coupling constants with other gauge fields.
This mental image might not be mathematically exact, but it's intuitive and helpful. If you dive deep into QFT equations you start seeing the world as a vector in infinite dimensional Fock space, where our 3D space is just one way of projecting it, but that image is much less intuitive.
Duuude, this is an AMAZING channel!
I discovered today and this my 10th video , the way you explain is fantastic ,love from 🇮🇳🇮🇳
Thank you for much, excellent demonstration
Another brilliant video. As usual.
Sweet! Excited to watch this one
Great video and simple explanation. Thank you
Amazing video. Why did people dislike this?
I love this channel
These videos are a lot of fun and educational.
Keep up your good jobs!
Wow, I really enjoy the novel approach these videos take conceptually regarding the visualization; showing that new ideas are still available.
A very small, almost an "non" issue really, yet important imo when explanations/visualizations are that fascinating and "convincing" would be the use of language in regard of "factuality" of the models versus true true true true ;) reality of nature. All those explanations are *the best* or *least problematic* in most cases we have *currently*.
There is a major difference in "education", even more so in unsupervised education imo, between
"The universe is like this." vs "This is *currently* our best/most succesful *model* of the Universe."
Only the second one encourages further scientific investigation and progress. Eventually, with time some/all of those explanations/models will fall, regardless how fascinating and convincing they appear to us today. This does not diminish their todays value in any way.
Anyways, thanks for those great new visualization ideas and explanations!
Wonderful visualisation
Why does the narrator and the music sound like I'm watching some conspiracy video?
Cause it makes thinks more interesting hahaha Also doubtfull, wich moves you on searching more about then. Such a very good tecnique, isn't it?
Because gravity is not real, it's a hoax.
@@lowenzahn3976 you're not wrong at all, gravity is an illusion
@@AverageAlieny’all dumb or something?
@@AverageAlien💀
Please make a video too, explaining the four fundamental interaction in detailed. 🙏😄
I don't think the standard model needs to include gravity. What does gravity ever done for people besides bring everyone down! :D
Dear viewer, if you truly understood this video, you are a treasure to humanity. Please do something meaningful with your intelligence. Good luck.
does landing on Mars count?
@@DrDeuteron No, contribute to AI. Everything else is meaningless.
@@ayo9344 False statement.
@@DrDeuteron It would count, yes.
I was looking for a video that would explain what the difference between different these different particles were and this helped a lot. But i’m still a little lost on the Z0, W+, and W- bosons
I wish this channel would teach math as well, you are better at teaching than anyone else on the internet
The first generation of fermions "almost entirely" makes up the matter of the universe, except for neutrinos which oscillate between generations constantly?
Perfect explanation.
Given General Relativity already offers a compelling explanation for the mechanism behind gravity, why is there a need for a Graviton particle or even a theory there might be one - how would it work in the framework of GR?
in GR you can calculate exactly the curvature of spacetime caused by a mass. But according to the Heisenberg uncertainity principle this is not possible
The general theory of relativity assumes matter behaves the way it is described by classical field theory, and this is inaccurate. Also, the graviton is just supposed to be quantum for the spacetime curvature field, in the same the photon is just the quantum of the electromagnetic field.
Amazing video!😍
Is there anyway to show more words at a time with subtitles? It's so short, only showing like max 20 words at a time. Anyone know a way to increase subtitle length?
@Phumgwate Nagala I usually watch at around 2.5x-3x speed. But this has made me think...maybe their is an extension I can download that can increase it.
@Phumgwate Nagala I actually just figured out there is a little ellipsis icon below the video that provides an option to view the videos transcript!!! With timestamps too! So I could even search the whole video with ctrl+f for a specific word!
What a wonderful video!
If gravity is the manifestation of spacetime curvature as described by G.R. Why do we need gravitons? Could I infer that their purpose is to create the interaction between matter and spacetime rather than directly between gravitationaly bound objects?
a graviton would just be a quantum of spacetime curvature, so it's not necessarily a new particle, it's just a quantum of a field we already know exists (the metric field that measures distance in spacetime). If gravity is quantized, then the GW the moved LIGO's mirrors a fraction of a proton diameter had on the order of 10^30 gravitons (meaning it behaved like a very classical wave), and one can be confident that we will never detect nor manipulate a single graviton, as we do with the quantum of the electromagentic field, the photon.
Great video, good stuff!
Plainly explained. Thank you!
Perfection. Thank you.
Please make a video about the weak interaction some day!🙏
Amazing channel! Keep up the good work
Man, how can you explain things like these in such a simple way..😵
This is very basic interepretation to comprehend. Especially the music is attributed to my interest of this video.
awesome quality content! keep it up
Great channel
@ScienceClic English.
Hi, do you think you will ever make an in depth video on quantum coherence/entanglement?
Great videos btw
What software do you use to animate your videos? I would like to make similar videos for computer science and engineering. The quality of these is wonderful.
Glad you like them ! I am using After Effects for all the animations, and Photoshop to draw the pictures before animating
@@ScienceClicEN Thank you very much! I will learn it.
i like to see more video ...Regarding particale
From what I remember, unlike photons, gluons actually interact with each other so there is a force between them, which makes the triangle representation of quarks joined together inaccurate and it should be in the shape of a Y instead. Can you comment on that?
@Michael Bishop Yeah, but it's still in the shape of a Y as that's geometrically the shortest distance, and considering that it takes energy to clear out the fluctuations, I'd imagine they would take the shortest path. Also, I don't exactly imagine another way to symbolically represent them in a simple way without overloading graphics.
@Michael Bishop I don't think it should be a completely realistic representation as the point of those graphics is to immensely simplify it and allow easy drawing. Something you could easily draw on a board in seconds. I mean, particles aren't colourful balls, it's a simplification. But quarks are traditionally drawn as a triangle because of lack of information, if I remember correctly. It was eventually replaced by the Y model but many people still draw them as triangles.
@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174
Fundamental Particle
ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html
@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 The Y-shape model is less accurate than the triangle model, although both models are *extremely* inaccurate, as in, they are not even good approximations. It is actually not entirely known how the gluon-quark interaction works, so we have no working model of the proton yet.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 What makes the Y-shape model less accurate than the triangle model?
I have even more questions now...
1.when you talk about second and third generation particles, that is because they appeared in that order after the big bang? or it is just because they are less abundant?
2. Are Bossons emited randomly in random directions? I think here Im getting confused because of how you animated and how did you explained it in the video "Are forces real?". I pictured bossons like a field, that can be "activated" one way or another by the influence (pressence) of particles. But if you say bossons are particles, then i dont understand electromagnetic fields...
EDIT: Ok I have an answer for this one, so basically yes, bosons are emited randomly and constantly by particles but are reaboserbed inmediatly, unless two particles get near enough for the bosson emited by one particle to be absorbed by the other, thus causing an interaction.
3. Also, why gravity needs a bosson? If we assume that gravity is just the consequence of spacetime curvature, why we need a bosson to explain a gravity interaction between matter? Is because the interaction of gravity is between the matter and the spacetime and that is what this bosson would explain? or is it to try to debunk Einstein?
1.We don't know in which order different kinds of particles appeared. The 3 generations are grouped this way because due to their similarity in terms of charges they fit in a table nicely, and the generations are sorted by the rest mass of the particles.
2. In all directions, but not every possibility has the same weight in the total calculation. A scenario where two electrons exchange one photon has higher probability amplitude than a scenario with two photons, while a scenario where a photon is emitted sidewise and an electron suddenly changes its velocity, without other particles around, has pretty much zero probability. It's all about the Feynman diagrams and their rules, what terms they represent and in what equations.
3. Graviton comes up if we try to quantize gravitational field from Einstein's GR directly. Quantum particles don't have precise positions, they are usually in superpositions, like a "cloud of probability". So we ask: what spacetime curvature does one quantum particle create? If that particle is in superposition of being here and there, is the space bent towards this point or that point? How does it change when the wavefunction of a particle changes? In order to describe this all quantum mechanically we need to make the gravitational field of spacetime curvature also quantum, allow superpositions and operators that change that field, these operators in QFT are operators of particle creation and annihilation, all fields change by creating one particles and annihilating others. This way we naturally come to the quanta of change in spacetime curvature, those quanta are gravitons. Except this all approach didn't really work, even theoretically, so we still don't have a good theory about it, and maybe there are no gravitons at all.
@@thedeemon man, I can't thank you enough for this, you took your time to explain this to a stupid stranger on the internet, and I tell you, i'm very thankful for that. This always bothered me and I didn't have the oportunity to study physics, so my only way to understand this is watching youtube videos and hoping for the best.
I know i am very far away from understanding General Realtivity or Quantum physics but one step closer is a huge thing for me.
(Not only in this thread, I also saw your answer in the other comment, thank you for that too!)
@@cinepo It is never too late to study physics professionally. There is no age limit to study at a university.
*When you talk about second and third generation particles, that is because they appeared in that order after the Big Bang, or is it just because they are less abundant?*
It is neither. A generation 2 particle is identical in almost every way to a generation 1 particle. The only two differences are (a) mass, (b) lifetime/stability. A muon has more mass than an electron, a shorter half-life than an electron, and so, a muon will decay into an electron. However, in all other properties, a muon is identical to an electron.
*Also, why does gravity need a boson? If we just assume that gravity is just the consequence of spacetime curvature, why we need a boson to explain a gravity interaction between matter?*
We need to quantize the general theory of relativity and the curvature of spacetime, because if we do not, then we are dealing with particles, which have no well-defined position, momentum, or energy, somehow causing a well-defined curvature in spacetime, and this is nonsensical. If one is not well-defined, then neither can the other one be.
Some of these episodes are real cliffhangers and leave me thinking💛
excellent！
These videos expands the consciousness.
The presentation of the standard model in this encyclopedic manner way is quite common, but in my opinion, suboptimal. It frontloads the viewer with an over-emphasis of jargon/terminology-- itself is not important-- and therefore not the most helpful pedagogic or heuristic method. You'll note that for this reason, Feynman specifically never listed the names of particles when he introduced the standard model to lay audiences (consistent with his anecdote about the lessons he learned from his father on nature walks , i.e. the value of terminology vs substantive knowledge). Nima Arkani-Hamed has also espoused a similar view;
Anyways, I appreciate the effort and definitely appreciate the bulk of your work.
Universe = Only two things
1 - Space
2 - Huge numbers of
indivisible particles
in that space.
For indivisible particle :
ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html
For Basic state of universe :
IJSR vol.7, issue 3
Pages 273 - 275
The terminology is very important. That is why it exists. And I would not take Feynman as being the golden standard of science communication, because he was not great at it. He was an amazing physicist, but a subpar communicator.
Aren't particles just a manifestation of concentrated field (field of something?)?
Yes, particles can be thought of as localized disturbances in a field.
@@dankuchar6821 It's so crazy, we are made of field? So the field talks?
@@informing_ Ultimately, we are made of fields, yes, but emergent properties are a real concept that exists, so it really is more complicated.
Wow! Just Wow!
Can you make a video on the weak nuclear force, there are a lot of videos on the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity, but almost nothing on weak force. I would like to know why it has two gauge bosons (unlike EM and strong force) among other things.
The weak interaction has three gauge bosons. The strong force has eight. When we talk about gluons, we are talking about eight different bosons, not one boson.
Could gravity be explained in this model as matter clumping the highs boson field? This clumping or concentration of the field act as a sink for other matter?
The "clumping", or more accurately disturbance, is actually the higgs boson itself, not gravity. If it was gravity all that would do is increase the mass of the object.
I love learn about the world, let alone the universe 💯🤗
I love ur channel. one more sub :)
Every particle has matter and anti matter property but which dominate, in quantum mechanics results different for same experiment is above
Are you going to do a series on mass?
What is a "Spin Quantum Number?" Like what is it and how does it apply to these particles and their interactions?
I've tried to wrap my head around it, but I just can't seem to understand it.
He explained this in the previous video.
Part of me wants to know: if there are anti fermions, are there also anti bosons (as per supersymmetry)? Also, why are there three bosons for the weak nuclear force, but only one for the other two? And finally, if the higgs field causes mass, why is there a need for a graviton? Would the higgs boson not mediate the gravitational force, or am I not understanding it?
Antibosons are not a prediction of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry predicts something far more exotic. Antibosons do exist. The antiparticle of the W+ boson is the W- boson, for example.
You said there is only type of boson for electromagnetic interaction and strong interaction, but this is false. The strong interaction has 8 bosons mediating: there are 8 distinct types of gluon, not just 1.
The Higgs boson causes elementary particles to have mass. This has nothing to do with the gravitational interaction, which has little to do mass itself. The gravitational interaction has to do with stress-energy causing spacetime to have a curvature. This curvature being created is not due to the Higgs boson, but for reasons unknown. The graviton is the hypothetical boson which mediates the curvature of spacetime between all other particles.
How does the Gravaton differ from the Higgs Boson?? Is the HB supposed to interact with other particles by shooting Gravitons at it??
The Higgs field is completely different from spacetime curvature.
The more I learn about quantum mechanics the more it seems like we could be part of a simulation.
Look up how hard it is to store irrational numbers
Uh...
Why do you need two different particles for the gravitation? The higgs boson and the graviton?
It’s quite annoying that the one force our model can’t account for is the one that we are most familiar with in our daily lives
I think all photons, electrons, etc are in orbit with a dark matter particle pulling them into apparent wave packets as they travel. This would explain the double slit, light polarization, uncertainty, etc.
Can you elaborate, or are you just saying stuff?
What particle exchanges to cause the warping spacetime since force is viewed as particle exchange.
Other particle exchanges happen in spacetime itself while we look for an exchange particle for the very thing that things happen in..... it is all bewildering....
*What particle exchanges to cause the warping spacetime since force is viewed as particle exchange.*
No one knows, but the leading hypothesis is that the graviton is responsible.
As Gravitational waves have discovered almost 100 years after Einstein's Theory of Relativities and similarly, 1st M87 Black Hole pic had captured back in 2019; hope that one day in upcoming future may be Graviton would be discovered... One day. May be it would be a Quantum Gravity "particle"? ( though a vague assumption, but who knows...)
I appreciate that you made an effort to state that this stuff: are only theories and not facts.
To often science and other subjects try to claim things as laws. Then things change.
Such as Darwin's theories passed off as fact, But no proof. Then the proofs get debunked.
* Graviton has left the standard model but still came in *
Does it need the graviton if spacetime curves?
Spacetime curvature doesn't correalte with quantum physics because quantum mechanical equations are only compeltely solvable in minowski space (flat space).
THANK YOU
many thanks
Does the graviton only work under string theory? Or can it exist without it?
Technically the graviton could just be a quantum particle, but string theory explicitly suggests gravitons would exist. But it also suggests (via supersymmetry) lots of particles that don't exist. So who knows?
The graviton is a prerequisite hypothesis under any quantization of a gravitational field theory. String theory is merely the most popular candidate.
I just want to know. In Engineering, the expression F=ma = I*alpha, is that a force or force field? Help guys?
A force field is just a tool or an idea that has a Force at every point in rhe universe. For ease of use, places where there is no force simply have a force of zero.
Such wonderful work you are doing. highly appreciate your outstanding work. would like to say that at 3:48 what if we use a nanoscopic scale rather than a microscopic scale?
Before :41 seconds you say the standard model makes up all the particles in the universe. Is that true, or just the 5% of the universe we understand?
Just the 5%.
Anybody know the soundtrack name?
Neutrinos do interact with matter, through the weak force, and therefore not so often
He didn't say they don't interact.
Building Protons and Neutrons With Electrons and Positrons
This post suggests that both protons and neutrons can be built from electrons and positrons, not quarks. First I will explain the drawing, then answer some questions that often come up.
The basic premise is very simple. Singularity of protons created the universe through making electron - positron pairs in pair conversion in a Big Bang, or Little Tear. These in turn made the protons and neutrons that made the atoms.
Drawing:
Proton: two positrons with opposite spin circle around an electron
Charge 1, extremely stable.
Neutron: proton plus an electron OR two positrons and two electrons.
Charge 0, decays in 10 minutes outside the nucleus.
Hydrogen atom: same configuration as a neutron. Key difference is electron placement - see deuteron.
Deuteron: a proton is bound to a neutron. The extra electron from the neutron binds the two protons together
Deuterium (not pictured) is one proton, one electron and one neutron, or a deuteron with an extra electron that makes it extremely stable.
Questions and Answers
Q. Where is the missing antimatter?
A. There, in the protons and neutrons.
Q. Why don't electrons and positrons annihilate each other.
A. Because they have different wavelengths in the proton and neutron. For example gamma rays and radio waves don't interfere with each other though they are both electromagnetic waves. Then too, the two positrons have opposite spin like the two electrons in an orbital.
Q. Quarks?
A. Quarks have problems. My other posts outline many, but for now here is a serious one: explain two charm quarks, each one having more mass than the proton, that can appear in the proton!
Q. Neutron made of a proton and electron?
A. Yes reconsider beta plus and beta minus decay using these models.
Q. Why can't we make protons today?
A. They were made in the unique conditions shortly after the Big Bang. Now most positrons are locked in very very stable protons, or neutrons.
Q. What about deuteron and deuterium?
A. Deuteron, one proton and one neutron, is a key to structure in the nucleus of atoms. The nucleus can't expand past hydrogen without neutrons binding to protons. Note how extra electron helps bind them together.
Deuterium, not pictured, is one proton, one electron and one neutron. It is an extremely stable form of hydrogen: a key for the formation of elements in the universe after the Big Bang.
Sir if neutrino doesn't interacts with matter then how did we detected it ?
Neutrinos do interact with matter. I think you are misconstruing what he said in the video.