I’m avid chess player and I enjoy your lectures with such pleasure as I play chess! Your charismatic appearance and very interesting lessons makes me listen you for hours without boring! Thank you!
0:10 starts of with deBroglie wavelength vs Compton wavelength 12:00 ish. What does amplitude and frequency refer to for photons? The number of photons, and the color, or frequency, of the the photon respectively 16:00 mass of proton vs quark (caveat) vs electron vs photon in eV
Hi doctor Sean! Your videos are really amazing! I cant believe that now I have a good notion about the most profound advances in the deeper nature of the universe! I never dreamed that I would know this much! Thanks a lot! I didnt even heard the name "quantum" back in my high school in the end of the 1990's! Thanks again! =)
A topic suggestion, not a question. I have heard scientists reference to how the universe appears to be fined tuned. None of them appeared to question the idea. Yet the late Dr Victor J Stenger wrote a book in 2011 titled "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning", where he argued against the idea. Please devote a lecture addressing how accepted or not the idea is that the universe is fine tuned.
Milliseconds are 10^-3 not 10^-6 (mentioned around 27:20 in the video). I know you know... first time I noticed a “mistake” so had to comment. Great series. Hope it keeps going for a long while.
Hi Professor . I have a question. If we approach the milky way from its outskirts out of the disk , naturally the gravity of galaxy must be stronger than the time we approach the galaxy from either above or below the disk. Because the mass of galaxy distributed in disk like( approximately). The same is true for every solar system and its planets. The question is ‘is this the reason the two voyager have different acceleration or speed?
Among other things, thank you for explaining the photoelectric effect. You really helped me grasp the concept.EDIT: also learned about "The Ring of Death" lol ☠️☠️☠️😅😆🤣 also learned why the various Supercolliders use the kinds of particles they do. Thanks for that too - also how to pronounce Debroy Lee the physicist lol 😆 I mean De Broglie
Is it possible that a wave could be arbitrary in 3 dimensions instead of viewing it on a graph that's 2 d what if it was on a 3d graph would it be rotating along another axis. Giving out a 3d look, like a helix. Idk something weird to think about. I know it's nonsense but F it
It's not nonsense at all. Classical waves that we can perceive like light and sound are 4D phenomena and sometimes we do make 3D plots of them and animate them to show the time dimension. Quantum waves can be calculated in 3D and sometimes are. The 2D traditional visualizations are usually there just for convenience because each graph is just showing an aspect of interest. I hope that helps, I'm not sure how you meant the _arbitrary_ part so you'll have to let me know if you meant something else.
Since quarks are "stuck" in other particles, would that mean that a neutron star with a quark core (this was proposed a couple of days ago) MUST have a core with protons which HOLD quarks? Or can there be a system where quarks by itself can 'live' long enough to be part of (or even create) a larger structure, without immediate collapse?
I think you can probably think of such a core as one big elementary particle all those quarks are stuck inside, the same way you can think of a neutron star as one big atom nucleus all those neutrons are stuck inside.
Today we know that neutrons (and protons) are not fundamental particles. This is similar to atoms, and both of these concepts of particle-ness originate from energy scales where they were found and where they seemed fundamental. You have very hard time breaking an atom with your "home tools" (chemistry, basic electromagnetism at home scale), and much harder time to break a proton (lone neutrons would spontaneously decay though). These "rules", and their stereotypical outcomes (atoms, or protons/neutrons as seemingly fundamental particles depending on the point in history where you are) don't quite apply the same way in higher energy density environments such as neutron star cores, and non-fundamentalness of neutrons gets "visible"...
Is it possible to create a particle with a coupling constant of zero, such that once it is created it cannot be detected? Would that violate conservation of information if the particle still exists but we cannot prove it through measurement?
Another question. What if we are the one breaking protons? I mean what if proton is one particle with no subparticle, and we break it down to smaller particles in Colliders?!
What I mean is that what if quarks does not exist? We create them by breaking protons. What if most not all of smaller particles are manmade and not real in existance!
@@gilbertanderson3456 I think by ‘the way they break’ you meant the outcome particles , their mass, the energy released and things like that. I am not convinced that these are absolutely convincing. The reason is that I believe we indeed do not know how they packed inside a proton. I think There could be another reason such as the scale of proton that they always break down to the same particles with same mass and same released energy.
Great "Stuff" Sean, keep it coming. I was not watching UA-cam when you began this series and just got caught up. Unfortunate, because I had tons of questions on space and time. ( When cosmologists try to construct a universe from unit tetrahedral volumes it is a disaster. If they use unit areas connected by edges and vertices it works fine, with the consequence that volume is an emergent property. Don't we live in a 2space ? ) ( If our spacetime is embedded in a higher dimensional space couldn't there be an additional spacetime embedded that is orthogonal to ours but "colocated"/"overlapping" whose matter is the source of our missing gravitation/dark matter and whose net back-reaction is the imaginary portion of the complex maths? ) ( I never liked the handwaved "matter attracts matter". It seems clear that a bare color charge is anathema to spacetime given the lengths the universe will go to so that it never occurs. (unlimited gluon production to insure confinement) Couldn't matter also be an assault on spacetime with the consequence that dark energy decouples? i.e. It's not Earth's " gravitational well ", it's Earth's " dark energy dampening 'bloom' " which creates a local gradient in the pressure of spacetime that has the same consequence as "gravity". ) ( Space can get larger in two ways. Unit expansion or foliation. They are not at all the same. I gather that you believe in foliation, yet all physists can talk about is the expansion of space ! All astrophysics can talk about is how the galaxies are moving away from us, even though there is no motion involved ! ) ( Time is an illusion. Everything does happen "at once" from the point of view of a photon or an orthogonal time dimension. There is some kind of periodic signal that propagates at one second per second which the CNS perceives. Consciousness = Perception of time. Everything we experience after that first perception just results in internal world-building. De-sync = Catatonia/Coma. ) ( Many scientists speak as if there are two kinds of photons, the usual kind which is emitted and later absorbed and another kind which can be just emitted into an everexpanding space never to be absorbed. I call bullshit. If time does not pass at lightspeed then the photon is absorbed at the same time it is emitted. The photon "knows it will be absorbed when it is emitted", therefore it will not emit until it has an absorbance point. Isn't the ability to shine a laser anywhere we like in space proof that we are in a bouncing cosmology? ) ( Few. Sorry, I know you can't respond, but I had to get those out. ) Re: The Feynman diagram e- --> e- + gamma that you say is an acceptable building block but never happens in the real world; what about Chenyenkov radiation and Synchrotron radiation? Aren't these examples of an electron emitting a photon to lower it's momentum? Finally, I request a future talk on gluons, the most dissed particle of the Std. Model. I constantly see "news articles" report the number of basic particles as 17 or often fewer. I count 26 because I believe in the sterile neutrino. 7leptons+6quarks+1EMboson+3WFbosons+8SFbosons+1Higgsboson Why are there 8 gluons rather than 9? Wikipedia talks about a forbidden singlet with no good explanation. Red+Blue+Green = color-neutral Great, that gives us hadrons Red+antiRed Blue+antiBlue Green+antiGreen all color neutral Great, that gives us mesons. antiRed+antiBlue+antiGreen = color-neutral Great, now we've got antihadrons. Red+antiRed+Blue+antiBlue+Green+antiGreen = color neutral Oh No! Now we've lost a gluon? Huh??? I thought I read long ago that theorists claimed EW symmetry breaking destroyed a gluon color D.O.F. so that 9 gluons shared 8 D.O.F. and hence were 8/9ths real and 1/9 virtual. ( or at any one time 8 were real and 1 was the "disfavored flavor of the moment".) TELL US SEAN, WHAT'S THE REAL STORY.
Nuclei of atoms heavier than hydrogen have generally more neutrons than protons. E.g. carbon has 6 protons and 6.011 neutrons on average. Oxygen is an exception, though.
I’m avid chess player and I enjoy your lectures with such pleasure as I play chess! Your charismatic appearance and very interesting lessons makes me listen you for hours without boring! Thank you!
13:30 hence why we use red light in darkrooms. red light is not enough to excite the silver in silver nitrate.
What's a darkroom? :)
@@ScotClose a room that has minimal light.
Brantley Myers I see. Now what’s “film”?
Scot Close A room where the light has been turned off for a long time 😆
I've been neglecting this channel lately, wish I could focus more on this stuff, the stuff that I truly desire to know. I will catch up. Thanks Sean.
Are we ready to have a class about the quark and gluonic fields and strong nuclear force interactions? YES
Maybe , quarks are cool
I would like to hear about the missing degree of freedom that makes nine gluons become eight.
We know Sean doesn't have to do this series for long. But he does, people are people whoever they are.
@Francis Ray
Rite?
0:10 starts of with deBroglie wavelength vs Compton wavelength
12:00 ish. What does amplitude and frequency refer to for photons? The number of photons, and the color, or frequency, of the the photon respectively
16:00 mass of proton vs quark (caveat) vs electron vs photon in eV
Hi doctor Sean! Your videos are really amazing! I cant believe that now I have a good notion about the most profound advances in the deeper nature of the universe! I never dreamed that I would know this much! Thanks a lot! I didnt even heard the name "quantum" back in my high school in the end of the 1990's! Thanks again! =)
So the boson lepton a gluon and it quarked like a duck ?
A topic suggestion, not a question. I have heard scientists reference to how the universe appears to be fined tuned. None of them appeared to question the idea. Yet the late Dr Victor J Stenger wrote a book in 2011 titled "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning", where he argued against the idea. Please devote a lecture addressing how accepted or not the idea is that the universe is fine tuned.
You are genius 😉 I luv your please keep posting ❤️🙏
I think in case of light, if you increase the amplitude large enough you’ll get gravitational wave instead of gamma or anything resembles light
Milliseconds are 10^-3 not 10^-6 (mentioned around 27:20 in the video). I know you know... first time I noticed a “mistake” so had to comment. Great series. Hope it keeps going for a long while.
he meant millionth of a second, not milliseconds..muons decay in the millionth of a second into electron, neutrino & anti neutrino.
Hi Professor . I have a question. If we approach the milky way from its outskirts out of the disk , naturally the gravity of galaxy must be stronger than the time we approach the galaxy from either above or below the disk. Because the mass of galaxy distributed in disk like( approximately). The same is true for every solar system and its planets. The question is ‘is this the reason the two voyager have different acceleration or speed?
Professor, will be great if you explain in a video
your paper of Dynamical compactification from de Sitter space, thank you!!
Among other things, thank you for explaining the photoelectric effect. You really helped me grasp the concept.EDIT: also learned about "The Ring of Death" lol ☠️☠️☠️😅😆🤣 also learned why the various Supercolliders use the kinds of particles they do. Thanks for that too - also how to pronounce Debroy Lee the physicist lol 😆 I mean De Broglie
Proton straight outta Compton
Compton Scattering is what happens when it wasn't a good day, and I had to use my AK...
Lol
Is it possible that a wave could be arbitrary in 3 dimensions instead of viewing it on a graph that's 2 d what if it was on a 3d graph would it be rotating along another axis. Giving out a 3d look, like a helix. Idk something weird to think about. I know it's nonsense but F it
It's not nonsense at all. Classical waves that we can perceive like light and sound are 4D phenomena and sometimes we do make 3D plots of them and animate them to show the time dimension. Quantum waves can be calculated in 3D and sometimes are. The 2D traditional visualizations are usually there just for convenience because each graph is just showing an aspect of interest.
I hope that helps, I'm not sure how you meant the _arbitrary_ part so you'll have to let me know if you meant something else.
Nice modern description of light 💡!!!
Since quarks are "stuck" in other particles, would that mean that a neutron star with a quark core (this was proposed a couple of days ago) MUST have a core with protons which HOLD quarks? Or can there be a system where quarks by itself can 'live' long enough to be part of (or even create) a larger structure, without immediate collapse?
I think you can probably think of such a core as one big elementary particle all those quarks are stuck inside, the same way you can think of a neutron star as one big atom nucleus all those neutrons are stuck inside.
Today we know that neutrons (and protons) are not fundamental particles. This is similar to atoms, and both of these concepts of particle-ness originate from energy scales where they were found and where they seemed fundamental. You have very hard time breaking an atom with your "home tools" (chemistry, basic electromagnetism at home scale), and much harder time to break a proton (lone neutrons would spontaneously decay though). These "rules", and their stereotypical outcomes (atoms, or protons/neutrons as seemingly fundamental particles depending on the point in history where you are) don't quite apply the same way in higher energy density environments such as neutron star cores, and non-fundamentalness of neutrons gets "visible"...
Is it possible to create a particle with a coupling constant of zero, such that once it is created it cannot be detected? Would that violate conservation of information if the particle still exists but we cannot prove it through measurement?
Sounds like a sterile neutrino to me.
Another question. What if we are the one breaking protons? I mean what if proton is one particle with no subparticle, and we break it down to smaller particles in Colliders?!
What I mean is that what if quarks does not exist? We create them by breaking protons. What if most not all of smaller particles are manmade and not real in existance!
We have broken protons in colliders. The way they break leads us to believe they are composed of quarks and gluons.
@@gilbertanderson3456 I think by ‘the way they break’ you meant the outcome particles , their mass, the energy released and things like that. I am not convinced that these are absolutely convincing. The reason is that I believe we indeed do not know how they packed inside a proton. I think There could be another reason such as the scale of proton that they always break down to the same particles with same mass and same released energy.
thanks.repetition. repetition. Something is sinking in! Also hilarious. You, Barry Harris, Richard Feynman, George Russell.
Great "Stuff" Sean, keep it coming.
I was not watching UA-cam when you began this series and just got caught up. Unfortunate, because I had tons of questions on space and time.
( When cosmologists try to construct a universe from unit tetrahedral volumes it is a disaster. If they use unit areas connected by edges and vertices it works fine, with the consequence that volume is an emergent property. Don't we live in a 2space ? )
( If our spacetime is embedded in a higher dimensional space couldn't there be an additional spacetime embedded that is orthogonal to ours but "colocated"/"overlapping" whose matter is the source of our missing gravitation/dark matter and whose net back-reaction is the imaginary portion of the complex maths? )
( I never liked the handwaved "matter attracts matter". It seems clear that a bare color charge is anathema to spacetime given the lengths the universe will go to so that it never occurs. (unlimited gluon production to insure confinement) Couldn't matter also be an assault on spacetime with the consequence that dark energy decouples? i.e. It's not Earth's " gravitational well ", it's Earth's " dark energy dampening 'bloom' " which creates a local gradient in the pressure of spacetime that has the same consequence as "gravity". )
( Space can get larger in two ways. Unit expansion or foliation. They are not at all the same. I gather that you believe in foliation, yet all physists can talk about is the expansion of space ! All astrophysics can talk about is how the galaxies are moving away from us, even though there is no motion involved ! )
( Time is an illusion. Everything does happen "at once" from the point of view of a photon or an orthogonal time dimension. There is some kind of periodic signal that propagates at one second per second which the CNS perceives. Consciousness = Perception of time. Everything we experience after that first perception just results in internal world-building. De-sync = Catatonia/Coma. )
( Many scientists speak as if there are two kinds of photons, the usual kind which is emitted and later absorbed and another kind which can be just emitted into an everexpanding space never to be absorbed. I call bullshit. If time does not pass at lightspeed then the photon is absorbed at the same time it is emitted. The photon "knows it will be absorbed when it is emitted", therefore it will not emit until it has an absorbance point. Isn't the ability to shine a laser anywhere we like in space proof that we are in a bouncing cosmology? )
( Few. Sorry, I know you can't respond, but I had to get those out. )
Re: The Feynman diagram e- --> e- + gamma that you say is an acceptable building block but never happens in the real world; what about Chenyenkov radiation and Synchrotron radiation? Aren't these examples of an electron emitting a photon to lower it's momentum?
Finally, I request a future talk on gluons, the most dissed particle of the Std. Model. I constantly see "news articles" report the number of basic particles as 17 or often fewer. I count 26 because I believe in the sterile neutrino.
7leptons+6quarks+1EMboson+3WFbosons+8SFbosons+1Higgsboson
Why are there 8 gluons rather than 9? Wikipedia talks about a forbidden singlet with no good explanation.
Red+Blue+Green = color-neutral Great, that gives us hadrons
Red+antiRed Blue+antiBlue Green+antiGreen all color neutral Great, that gives us mesons.
antiRed+antiBlue+antiGreen = color-neutral Great, now we've got antihadrons.
Red+antiRed+Blue+antiBlue+Green+antiGreen = color neutral Oh No! Now we've lost a gluon? Huh???
I thought I read long ago that theorists claimed EW symmetry breaking destroyed a gluon color D.O.F. so that 9 gluons shared 8 D.O.F. and hence were 8/9ths real and 1/9 virtual. ( or at any one time 8 were real and 1 was the "disfavored flavor of the moment".)
TELL US SEAN, WHAT'S THE REAL STORY.
Awesome video Thx
10^-6 sec is a microsecond, not a millisecond. Minor misspeak there, no big deal, comment left for those new to the engineering scale.
oops
It's a milli-onth of a-second. 😉
I came to say the same as you, but no reason to repeat. Have an upvote.
All the stars the size of the sun, wil become black holes. All black holes together will become the big bang. A Loren Emmerich production was here.
"Most of the earth is neutrons not protons" Can you explain? Thanks
Most atoms contain more neutrons than protons, specially the heavier the are, the higher the neutron/proton ratio is
Nuclei of atoms heavier than hydrogen have generally more neutrons than protons. E.g. carbon has 6 protons and 6.011 neutrons on average. Oxygen is an exception, though.
In the City. 🎼 City of Compton...
Good Ol' Watts...
horizon like event horizon?
Axions, magnetic monopoles, yay.
Fun fact: every time I get heavier, I get bigger.
The Ring of Death Muon Collider😂☠😱
Antman's suit can increase and decrease his mass, gezzzzzzzzzz.
First