Beyond the Atom: Remodelling Particle Physics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 сер 2021
- Everything in the universe is made up of just a few different types of subatomic particles. Learn more about these particles and how physicists have built their knowledge of them - including the discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
The video is part of Perimeter’s Beyond the Atom resource. Download the teacher's guide, modifiable worksheets, and supporting materials at: resources.perimeterinstitute.....
Perimeter's educational outreach programs and resources like these are made possible in part thanks to our donors. Be part of the equation: perimeterinstitute.ca/donate - Наука та технологія
Ha, I attended lectures at Cern in the late 80s early 90s, this content would have taken a week on gigantic white boards - now it takes a few minutes and is accessible to everybody - Bravo :)
⁰
But did you win?
This was a very pleasant presentation to watch. Nicely done. The analogies presented were spot on and the comments at the end brought something to mind regarding the future of the LHC and the search for dark matter. So I will offer this analogy... Water (regular H2O) takes on 3 different states depending upon its current energy level (solid, liquid, and gas). Perhaps the same is true in the search for matter. If regular matter is just energy is a different form, then I wonder if anyone has considered that dark matter is just another form of energy, and not necessarily a conventional quark or even a more basic particle. Perhaps it is something (including known particles) with exotic characteristics that simply are not being measured or detected yet. The folks at the LHC may have already seen dark matter/energy, but could not recognize what they were actually looking at. Just a thought.
@Science Revolution this was hilarious thank you for making me laugh in the morning!
Cool.
This is fascinating.Physics at high school in the 1970s was a guy in a white lab coat with a Pyrex beaker with an ice cube and thermometer in it. My attention was soon lost. Thanks for rekindling my interest nearly 50 years later.
Man, your physics teacher was doing experiment. This, no matter how fascinting it sounds, this is a story. And experiments are the essence of science, stories are just outcome.
Yes fascinating. Now they get up and tell us all this fantasy stuff about their latest theories. Without a shred of evidence. And ignoring the observations. Notice these fantasists careful don’t mention how their theory cannot explain 95% of the mass of universe Can’t explain gravity. Can’t explain why quasars, supposedly the best indicator of distance and expansion of the universe tells us that the universe ISNT expanding! Can’t explain why galaxy rotation speeds DO NOT match predictions made by current theory. Cannot explain why the predicted mass firework show created by an imaginary black hole in our galaxy...failed to do anything at all, contrary to theory. Can’t explain why the spectacular discovery of a so called black hole several years ago not only failed to have an accretion disc which itbshould have had.,...it also disappeared a coupl of months later next time they looked. Even though these fantasists theories told us black holes last and should last for billions of years. 😅Etcetc..
What i love in particular about this video is, you are carefully explaining what a MODEL actually is, and how is it constructed / supported / verified. I hope this will help someone to stop saying things like "this is just a theory". Thank you so much for this perfectly prepared, professional video!
Look at this video ua-cam.com/video/uU6VMPeuxRo/v-deo.html and then try to tell me how your theory which says only particles can create all the observed tracks seen in Collision chambers. You won’t be able to. Fact is maths can show how just 3 overlapping wavefronts from the short bursts of radiation emitted by colliding protons can produce particle like paths. No need for imaginary particles when for centuries we knew light was DEFINITELY a wave. Thanks to honest theorists like Young, Huygens etc, Who only based their theories on what they could observe. Not like now when theorists base their theories on what they can make up and lie about.
Why weren’t there science teachers like this when I was a kid. Well Done pure magic. Loved this video
Cos high school pays far less than Permium Institution. B4 u say its not all money, I'll say what happens is that top tallents of the nations just never join such low paid job sectors.
Funny how it's always a flaw with the teachers.... never the students.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 honestly the curriculum nowadays is so watered down you don't even need a BSc to teach highschool physics.
@@JackAndTheBeanstalkr Yah. At around ~2003, when I was in highschool, I came across a Chemistry book from British period (= when we were still under British India, b4 1947). The British era book is definitely lacking many recent development. For example, QM and spectroscopy wasn't that developed back then. But I was surprised to see that by depth and detail they're comparable to modern day college books. More importantly, the approach of that book was far more practical. Felt like back then highschool was designed to be "adequate level education" for regular jobs while higher studies were truely for "higher" studies.
Holy particles! This video is so perfect, I'm taking particle physics right now as an undergraduate and this summarizes very well the introduction I had. Good job to everyone involved.
Wow!! I am really impressed, it's like this channel is a time machine that whisked me back to early high school days when these topics were presented in the most boring and disjointed manner by someone that did not have a clue really but had to present the material.
I love it when a new PI resource drops right as I am planning my physics courses for the year. As always thanks.
@Zenful Pariah LOL explaining the detail behind the whole of particle physics may take a little longer than 26 minutes.
THAT was fabulous. She is such a wonderful communicator!
This is really fantastic. The metaphors used combined with their animations make it super easy to understand. I'll be sharing this with anyone who wants a great first look into qm.
Impress me. I have a theory to change the world. But I am stuck in india, with the worst passport anyone could ever have. This country sucks,
That was probably the best narrative for explaining particle physics i've ever seen! In an ideal world, everyone involved in producing this video would have the salary of a pop-star.
Notice everyone involved in this video...probably made more a year than anyone associated with any pop star video. Including the star. Considering most pop stars only make a million once. Whereas a quantum fantasist makes close to a million every couple of years for 40 years including during their hi pad retirement pension years.
"On the spectrum" means, in part), that in the intro when she talked about proton beams going in opposite directions, but made hand gestures to illustrate two beams going in the _same_ direction it caught my mental gaze and I missed the next bunch of things she said.
You can go back and listen again
@Science Revolution Uh, that change already happened, it’s called Quantum Field Theory and it’s the most successful scientific theory ever developed … it has spawned countless technologies and new disciplines of science, I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it considering you would have had to use a device containing millions or billions of nanoscale semiconductors (a quantum technology) in order to post your comment.
Sadly, quantum physics hasn’t been able to provide us with time machines (yet) and, thus we can’t send you and your opinions of modern science off to where they clearly belong, the mid to late 1800s.
@Science Revolution okay, the word “quantum” is misused and misapplied everywhere, I’ll give you that. Can you think of why that is? Hint: it’s the same reason every car manufacturer started adding fins and spoilers to their cars when space exploration started.
The “quantum” in Quantum Field Theory refers to the fact (yes, fact) that energy is not only conserved but also “quantized” - available only in discrete indivisible bundles.
When you apply quantum theory to your old “why doesn’t the electron lose energy and spiral into the proton in the middle?” question (which I strongly encourage you to look up and try yourself) it becomes plainly obvious why the electrons stay in those shells and never seem to lose momentum - Coulomb’s law and gravity are for macroscopic objects like planets and chairs, not Planck-scale wave-like fluctuations of quantum fields like electrons and photons.
Oh, and Feynman was referring to the “Why?” of energy bundles, as in, why are there energy bundles? He is also frequently quoted as saying that “nobody understands quantum mechanics”. This was also referring to “Why are there fields? Why are there super positions? Etc.” Until very recently this was a question that science avoided like the plague but has been gaining in popularity, especially in the science philosophy crowd, and is now called “Quantum Foundations”.
One final remark: I invite anyone who doubts the advancements we’ve made since developing quantum mechanics and quantum field theory to read up on all the technologies, innovations, and inventions that were _required_ to design and build the LHC (Large Hadron Collider at CERN) and LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational wave Observatory). You simply cannot achieve what these machines do using inaccurate theories, “retarded” physicists, or bad science.
very clear and precise summary of today's understandings and the addition of pre and post LHC understanding adds spice to production.
What motivates you to claim clearity where there isn't any?
I loved this intro to particle physics. It's smart and sassy, with some intelligent humor, and it's really well produced and presented. Great job everyone!
Oh cool..This is high school stuff in India though lol
@@mananagrawal7458 Yes, it's pretty basic. I was hoping that when it said "Beyond the Atom", it might have gone into String Theory or Phoenix Theory. Maybe next time.
@@randymurphy yes but well string theory is not really in the fundamentals as it probably can't be definitely proven
@@mananagrawal7458 All theories are just that "theories". They're models for making predictions, and if the predictions come true time and time again, the model is deemed sound. Particle physics isn't really any different. We don't really know what these "particles" are made of. They are just regions with properties we have given labels e.g. charge, mass, and some kind of force. But is there really any "stuff" beyond that? If not, then what does that say about the material world. These are the questions that go "beyond particles" ( for me ).
@@randymurphy You make a compelling argument my friend, but in a youtube video aimed for the viewership of mediocre minds as it may sound "not nice" or something but still they wouldn't go at depth only a breadth explanation visually is the norm.
You use these special tweezers to pick up the particle, and drop it into the intake port on the collider. It takes a delicate touch.
I am a fourth-year astrophysics student. I love videos like this because it gets young students interested in physics.
Having said that, if you are going to study physics, be prepared. If you struggle through your Calculus classes, it will only get harder.... much harder.
Furthermore, you may only take one or two classes talking about fun things like black holes or particle physics. Even quantum mechanics doesn't really talk about colliders, gluons, higgs etc. In QM class, you learn the very basic fundamentals of particles; how they behave in basic settings.
It's fun, but be prepared.
My self think that nature in physics wont be that hard, as well nature math should be more logical and easy to understand, keep an eye open cause main physics might be the most understood thing of all other branches in college.
Simple and informative.
Thanks for sharing.
no doubt the best and more consistent and coherent explanation of the constituent particles world...
(as our current models were developed and corrected... so far... )
just a bit elaboration on the diverse 'known fields' and their co-existence--- what is their nature (as far as we know...)
and how they permeate through reality to gave us the 'living experience' and 'perception of reality'
would be great!
What a brilliant production !!! Perimeter you rock !
Excellent explanation in a very simple & demostrated way. Very nice to view it.
Excellent production. Thanks!
Great presentation with some cool graphics. Enjoyed! Thank you.
What a spectacular video. Very interesting, very well explained.
Well explained using interesting analogies!
Very nice & simple way of explaining complex physics. Thank u.
"The Beginning of Time ", when matter began to move.
I was in a bus from Paris to Milan, via Geneva. Near enough to the LHC
Mass is slow energy
So good! Thank you PI
Doesn't it seem strange that the announcement of the fair certainty of the discovery of the Higgs was July 4, 2012? Like many others, I knew what the announcement _must_ be, the buzz was unending, yet still my heart raced. It seems like only yesterday, but it was nine years ago! Now we're trembling at the edge of the new restart--so much excitement!
Awesome video. Great production and content.
Had to laugh! Did a David Attenborough with, ''Particle Physicists. There they are in their natural habitat.''
This should be shown in every single physics class.
A lovely style, love it.
That's how physics should be taught. Thank you I wish I would have been a physics teacher to follow your footsteps, love it.
love your explanations
Thank you and love you all.
Good presentation. I really enjoyed it.
Really nicely made. However, I wish videos like these would list and describe some of the technical applications of The Standard Model in commercial products (e.g. cell phones, materials manufacturing of things like solar panels and graphene, atom hydrogen bombs, etc., so the average person won't think of The Standard Model of Physics as "la dee da... and then we'll move on to another theory. What a waste of billions of dollars."
Amazing video, what a great watch.
Hey, I overlapped with Brigitte V. on an experiment at Fermilab :-)
BTW, very nicely done...
Interesting style, love it.
Excellent! Great video :-)
Very nicely done 👍
i love the way she explains!!!
I think you have the understanding of the quarks of being (down/up) and backwards/forwards in the action that keeps the quarks together and the understanding of the electron/photon of being (backwards/forwards) in the Higgs boson field, and the understanding of the Higgs boson of being (left/right), now its the understanding of the (center), because you have 6 sides of the inside square, now its the understanding of the center action of that square that effects the outside of the square, the 8 directions of quantum mechanics.
Does it mean if energy is not moving from one place to another place but is in one place for a long time (i.e within certain volume) then it can be called as mass/rest mass??
Example:binding energy??
Kind of - "energy" comes in the form of one of the particles in the standard model zoo. The leptons (electrons and heavy versions of the same), the quarks (that make up the protons, neutrons, etc) and the "force carriers" like photons (or gluons, or W, Z or H). So a matter object, "at rest" has the energy that makes up it's electrons, protons and neutrons, as well as the energy that interacts with all the forces, e.g. what holds it all together (photons, gluons, etc). The energy holding collections of particles all together is the "binding energy". The binding energy is small for chemical bonds, and big for nuclear forces. So particles + binding is it's rest mass. If you do work on the particle to speed it up, it now has added kinetic energy (or inertial mass, since E=mc^2). So what the particle physicists are doing is taking a normal isolated proton, speeding it up and whacking it head-on into another one going the other way. Since they added a bunch of extra energy to both of the particles by speeding them up, they can get that energy back out in the collision as other particles, or collections of particles.
Thanks you, thanks you, thanks you, you demystify atoms for me. I can now die happy.
Brilliant production
Awesome video!
Beautiful
Brilliant presentation
In my best David Attenborough impersonation:
And there they are; Particle Physicists in their natural habitat; all dosed up on caffeine, sugar and Psilocybin mushrooms. Their chalk dusted fingers endlessly scrawling Feynman diagrams onto black board in a ceaseless search for the dark matter particle that would catapult them to a Nobel Prize and international stardom.
and again the higgs field is portrait as giving mass to particles while in neutrons and protons the mass comes from the virtual and real gluons inside it and a portion for the quarks. only for some particles is the higgs field contributing for mass. for a better understanding of the higgs watch Leonard Susskind lecture on : de-mistifying the higgs boson.
Thanks guys
From 3:57 to 9: 40 practicly you say the following that energy may create mass, that this 2 are the same thing, that you cant tell which one really is from one onother, the only thing you can tell is that one goes left and the other right - or up and down, the thing is that this pairs go always oposite, if one goes one corner the other goes the oposite etc. correct me if I am wrong.
At time 8:52 there is a picture of how matter comes out of the blue, where one say goes up side or north and the other goes down or south that such a thing is that we dont see the foton with so much energy that then becomes mass at the right time seen in coliders.
To me energy and mass sure are the same thing but in different states, say plasma state is the neutral kind of like the sea water; light is kind the vapor that goes up the sea and CMB its cold-light or broken diffracted back light as rain so all is a cicle like rain here in earth.
The above is seen in DNA pictures, one shows how light diffracts back from a sphere so 2 intense lighted arcs are produced, same thing is seen in whater melons, cosmos pictures like quasars are very identical to the DNA picture just described.
Hannes electric solar diagram fits better for all systems: subatoms, atoms, cells, our body, we inside earth, earth inside the solar sistem, our star inside our galaxie, our galaxie inside clusters of galaxies, cluster of galaxies inside of super clusters of galaxies and why not on and on so to form our universe, and why stop in here? why not could our universe be an atom of another body? but to me must have an end, i mean cant go over and over,the systems with time get rigide then with time colapses. Hannes diagram are 2 mayor blocks divided by an equator with arows pointing to converge at the center is my guess so to redue the cicle. - My opinion is that this diagram must to have another seperate equator very near each other so the up side equator belongs to south side block and the bottom equator belongs to the south side - actually to me this 2 blocks just mix a bit at the center producing the white sphere as seen in our galaxie
To me what you call energy is the change from one state to the other and this changes make turbulanses so the system moves.
"Everyone loves smashing things together." - Physics
“If you wish to understand the Universe, think of energy, frequency and vibration.”
Nikola Tesla
Oscillations actually
holy shit the tesla cult need to touch grass
My man Tesla ! 🤙🏽
Tesla was a pimple on Rutherfords ass
CERN MISTAKE::
With the Unruh effect would also cause the decay rate of accelerating particles to differ from inertial particles
so with the Unruh effect would also cause the decay rate of accelerating particles to differ from inertial particles ..
CERN is an accelerator of particles so that made accelerating particles which has not the same decay that "inertial" particles in the same referent
Many years ago my chum Tootch had an album titled “ Quark Strangeness & Charm “ which I then believed had merely something to do with the effects of smoking weed whilst enjoying the said album . - Having digested the information in this fantastic lecture , should i revisit the album to discover greater depths in understanding just what Hawkwind were getting at ? 🤔
Hi, I believe I can explain Gravitation as a 4 dimentional phenomenon.
I'll explain(pardon my english)
We know a linear accelerating frame
mimics gravity, that is, a 3 Dimentional motion is mimicing gravity on a 2D plane.
Imagine a body moving in a 4 dimentional space, if there's a 4th dimension and if everything is moving in that frame, we will never experience that in a single 3d plane (like a 2D motion can't be observed in a single 1D frame). But if there's a difference in velocity between any two objects, we will experience that difference as Gravitation in 3d space, that velocity difference will appear as a time dilation around the two objects, because of this time dilation one object will appear as it is falling with an acceleration.
A 4 D motion is mimicking Gravitation in 3d space... We say light travels with a speed c, what if it's not the light, what if everything in this world is moving in a 4th dimension...
It's secured in online repository & has a digital ID, try not to copy 😉 I couldn't publish it as a peer reviewed paper...
It might be a stupid idea, still it's my idea, forever...
Before our imagination attaches to particle physics it would be advised to read Art Hobson's paper, There are no particles, there are only fields.
Great video.
Where do I go to pick up a subscription to the Particle Enquirer?
I'm not sure whether I'm more surprised to hear that it's the largest machine ever built or that it's LHC for short.
I'm buckling up my seatbelt cause I know I am in for a wild ride
As if, you'll need Robert Sapolsky for that.
Where can we buy the standard tool box
Ernest Rutherford was from New Zealand.
Very,very, interesting...
So, the electron plus and minus particles stuck together are like the kids of a proton and neutron who snuck away in the missile of the night and eloped. Would account for all the charges.
Theres nothing that beats a smart yet pretty gal talking about smashing things together! I like to keep the particles from interacting though.
👌Made ya look!🤣
A question - if you have TWO beams of protons striking each other head on at nearly the speed of light - are they actually colliding faster than the speed of light?
It makes sense
No, the speed of light is constant and relative. Anything with mass cannot travel at the speed of light.
@@LeighRobinsonBushcraft Yes, but what happens when opposing masses collide at say 99.99% the speed of light - what is the relative speed of the collision?
That's a great question. The answer is no. That's because as they get closer to the speed of light, time slows down. So the protons don't 'see' something headed faster than the speed of light towards them.
@@JohnSmith-hn6kv I thought it was something like this. Thanks.
So refreshing to see lots of brilliant woman talking science.
How does the big bang theory account or explain the higs field in that theory?
It's produced in the big bang like everything else. The details are unclear! :)
At 2:18...I had to imagine Steve Irwin saying those words. "Crikey...there they aaaare...in their natural habitat. Look at those equations on 'er board...she's a beauty...eh?"
The 3 Quarks that make up the neutron or proton,... how was that determined? 2 down, one up, 2 up one down.... sounds so precise. How was that tested? So much of this sounds as if a mathematical equation was used to describe something and if the math worked,... then it was assumed that nature followed form and function.... we didn't really see it per se.
"we didn't really see it per se" - perhaps you could google the subject and find out what physicists have been up to during the last, say, 60 years?
They bounced electrons off of protons and looked at how they were scattered. By looking at the angles they were able to determine that there were 3 particles in the proton. Since a proton has a charge of +1, the three interior particles had to have fractional charges that would add up to +1. Similar scattering experiments found 3 particles inside the neutron. Using a different combination of the 'quarks' they had come up with for the proton, they had a neutral particle which matched their observation of the neutron. The scattering experiments are similar to what they do when they bombard crystals with x-rays to determine how the atoms are arranged in the crystal.
@Dan Edwards have you ever wondered exactly why it is that the human came into existence? Given that are basic function is ambulation, and lift and carrying. But more so to the point, following directions. So for thousands of years all we did as a herd was to observe in such detail that when as a kind of data that became surveys, and then, by whomever given a names that my have become lost in the discoveries as secsessive civilizations, brought to us into the present, under what historical means of conveying as a secondary obsifications of the actual truth. The primary duplicity is that voice of reason, we thinks of it fondly, if we think of it at all? For those of us that do, and populate the consciousness that precedes time and space. Doing so in a conceptual image driven language, that may as well be otherwise described as intuition. Is this a particular tool not used in uncovering al manner of things hidden. From where then dose this collective consciousness derived from?
Is this a quality of which any of the subatomic particles could then be looked upon too then perhaps find that in fact exists a kind of intelligence and If so is it possible to have this possibility due in part to the hags bosons fields, then would it not also stand to reason, some near sub atomic size innersessuary beings as a herders of the humans. That which moves over land, an invention of a terrestrial organization something aquatic something very old….
@@malavoy1 @Dan Edwards have you ever wondered exactly why it is that the human came into existence? Given that are basic function is ambulation, and lift and carrying. But more so to the point, following directions. So for thousands of years all we did as a herd was to observe in such detail that when as a kind of data that became surveys, and then, by whomever given a names that my have become lost in the discoveries as secsessive civilizations, brought to us into the present, under what historical means of conveying as a secondary obsifications of the actual truth. The primary duplicity is that voice of reason, we thinks of it fondly, if we think of it at all? For those of us that do, and populate the consciousness that precedes time and space. Doing so in a conceptual image driven language, that may as well be otherwise described as intuition. Is this a particular tool not used in uncovering al manner of things hidden. From where then dose this collective consciousness derived from?
Is this a quality of which any of the subatomic particles could then be looked upon too then perhaps find that in fact exists a kind of intelligence and If so is it possible to have this possibility due in part to the hags bosons fields, then would it not also stand to reason, some near sub atomic size innersessuary beings as a herders of the humans. That which moves over land, an invention of a terrestrial organization something aquatic something very old….
the best video i've seen so far:):):):):):):)
How much haven’t we learned and yet we have the audacity to believe we know everything.
i finally understood a very complex thing
1:16 : She says about two proton beams travelling in oposite direction but her hands (point fingers) move in the same direction , different phase. Or am i wrong ? (lol)
The raisin bun got my interest.
GREAT 👍
If two protons are going around the LHC at near the speed of light in opposite directions come together - is their collision speed >C? Or does relativity say that their closing speed is nearer the speed of light but remains
From the point of view of a stationary observer in the laboratory, they would be closing a distance faster than the speed of light. That is because closing distance is just a mathematical relationship, not a physical object. Is that what you meant? You would measure the energy and momentum of each, and then measure it afterwards, I think those are the pertinent variables.
@@ElectronFieldPulse if one were to be sat one one of the protons what speed would we see the other approaching?
@@billgiles3261 - Something under the speed of light. Put it this way, no matter the speed one of the protons is traveling, if light was suddenly ejected from the approaching proton, it would still travel at c, in any frame of reference. Since the proton has mass, it would be seen as traveling as slower than c. But that is when talking about viewing one specific physical object from any frame of reference. From any frame of reference, a massive object will travel sub light speed. A stationary observer would see the closing distance as faster than c because the closing distance isn't a physical object. The moving proton would be looking at another proton, which is a physical object, and it would be undergoing extreme time dilation.
@@ElectronFieldPulse thank you.
Would there be different particles in samples of rock from a different planet?
Welp... time to make my annual pilgrimage back to Alpinekat's LHC Rap.
The analogy of starting with the music visualizer and reverse-engineering to find the notes BLEW. MY. MIND. 🤯
I wonder if we will live to see what comes next after the standard model.
I believe most physics agrees that the standard model is not the final answer, largely due to the exclusion of gravity among other things.
I hope I'll live to see at least some hints of it.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy”, Mark McCutcheon.
How are there 26 down votes at the time I'm viewing? This is gold. I'm going to be showing my kids.
It perpetuates the impression that the Higgs field is what gives everyday objects their mass, indeed at 21:07 that the protons are 2000 the mass of an electron. In reality while the Higgs field gives elementary particles their individual mass, this only comprises about 1% of the mass of proton & neutron baryons which are composites of quarks.
I think the Higgs boson can be split like the ve-e and the vu-u and the vt-t.
According to one source, every electron is made up of 100 Ultimatons... as the smallest form of matter there is.
But since matter and energy are made of the same "stuff", is it really all that surprising that electrons and protons are not your typical balls of stuff.
When the higgs field is everywhere - is it probably static? Only growing with the universe but beside this not moving. So everything moving is passing the static higgs field?
There is no such thing as a higgs field. It is nothing but a swindle and a scam and the results of the LHC test prove it.
All fields (matter fields and force fields) fill the universe in constant fluctuation. You can think of each field as an ocean, even when it's still there are tiny ripples that can interact. All fields in the SM are like still oceans, meaning their average energy in the vaccum is 0. However, the Higgs field has a non-zero average energy, this is why it interacts with nearly everything all the time. The Higgs boson is just an excitation of this field and we can detect it because it decays by generating other longer lived excitations in other fields, which are the particles that we detect. As an analogy, the Higgs boson would be a big wave crashing onto a cliff and the sound waves that are produced are the particles produced in the decay.
nice one
If E=MC2 = True then can we explain structure and evolving definitions of M/C? If it is that simple how can it be so complex?
You forget to mention a key information.
Proton and neutrons are made of quarks hold together by gluons. But the quarks account only for the 1% of the mass of the proton; the other 99% is made of gluons - which are massless. But they partecipate in producing gravity. The greatest mistery of particle physics.
In general relativity, mass is not the only source of gravity. Other sources are energy, momentum, pressure and tension. These are all aspects of the energy-momentum tensor.
Who were the 105 people who disliked this gem of science popularization?
Me, for one. It's click-bait. The title does not state this is just educational for people who don't know much.
Wow bigger machine! LHC! 🔥1:19 everyone
Models and experiments...all very cute.
very great kids think in terms of fields
Nicely done. But.... the LHC did not discover anything after the Higgs anymore. It would be fair to point that out.
The LHC did not find the Higgs either. They found absolutely nothing of any value except that quarks are actually made of only electrons and Halflecs. Positrons are erroneous science.
Once there was a fellow called ETHER.......Albert shoot at it. And disappeared!!!!
Now there is a friend of ETHER called HIGGS FIELD. He is very concerned that Albert may came back......
Good point!
Nice foray into atom smashers.
Quantum physics seems to be making sense out of apparently 'non-sensical' and absolutely strange behavior of sub-atomic particles..
Yes, especially since it isn't talking about particles, at all.
What are fundamental particles made of, they must be made of something because they exist .
what is the medium these particles occupy... is it nothing ... is nothing (space) energy... what is distance ???
Moscow Aviation Institute - MAI - International Student's Page has given the following the thumbs up. It's all clearly correct.
The Institute of Physics, Patna has now given the following writing the thumbs up. Excellent.♥️
THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY IN A BALANCED FASHION IS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED:
"Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are F=ma AND E=mc2, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. INDEED, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great. The ability of thought to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is FULLY INVISIBLE AND black. The perpetual motion of WHAT IS THE EARTH is NOW explained. GREAT !!! The idea that THE PLANETS are "falling" in what is "curved space" in RELATION to what is THE SUN is PROVEN to be NONSENSE. So, the falling objects must be considered in RELATION to WHAT IS THEN THE ORBITING EARTH. GREAT !!!!!!!!!!
By Frank DiMeglio