The Best and Worst Prediction in Science
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2016
- The best and worst predictions in science are both based on the same underlying physics
Check out the Great Courses Plus: ow.ly/cePe303oKDM
Support Veritasium on Patreon: bit.ly/VePatreon
Special thanks to:
Prof. Sean Carroll
Prof. Brian Schmidt
Prof. Stephen Bartlett
Prof. Geraint Lewis
More on this topic: wke.lt/w/s/XDkwi
Patreon supporters:
Bryan Baker, Donal Botkin, Tony Fadell, Jason Buster, Saeed Alghamdi, Nathan Hansen
Virtual particles are a way of talking about fields and their interactions as though particles are doing all the work. This is why there is some controversy around using the term 'virtual particles'. Some people think the term is useful, especially since in calculating with Feynman diagrams you draw all the particle interactions that are possible (and then do the calculations to get the right answer). While others feel this terminology is misleading because virtual particles don't behave like real particles and can't be observed.
To everyone saying this sounds weird, remember this 8-minute-long video is a summary of several thousand-page-long books.
E
@Yusuf Jamal And some people complain about commenters.
...The people complaining in the comments who complain about comment complainers which are in turn a consequence of thousands of hours of complaints which are physical and metaphysical/hypothetical which were in turn a consequence of...
@Xylok hundreds of thousands of years of calculations?!
You’re right, but i’m still gonna make a little comeback. A picture say more than a thousand words and this is a video, sooo it says more than several thousand page books.
This was just a fun comeback, please don’t get mad, because his comment is right
2:03 '' Take a picture where i look like i'm doing something''
lmao nice
major part of a typical Phd is to look like you're doing something :P
Every mathematician/physicist who has discovered a formula, take a cliché picture like that, just in case :)
Lmao
He has that same facial expression in every photo he appears in.
I love it how Physics has so many "We are 99% sure that the value is x, and 98% sure the value is y, the only problem is they are very different values, both calculated with high accuracy"
I love how in physics you feel so good when you understand a subject, but then someone just says “hey by the way, you know electrons can just pop into existence for no reason?”
@@oerlikon20mm29 you shouldnt forget that they also pop out of existence.
Its called quantum fluctuations. If you wanna look it up.
It's almost as if the universes is so uniquely and accurately programmed that it would suggest that it was programmed by a being of unfathomable intelligence and it wasn't just so random accident or happenstance.
@@kingdavid8657 no proof
@@kingdavid8657 in case you're connecting it to religion: a being of unfathomable intelligence existing outside our spacetime would not even recognise humans as "important" or "alive" in the sense we do.
"not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine."
This is one of my favorite quotes ever.
The universe is too weird for us to even begin scratching the surface of what reality truly is... until the next newton or einstein comes around anyways, then they make something that get us closer yet further away from the truth
@@judgment5090 we are always getting closer to the truth. We simply reach the next set of questions to be answered each time we get closer.
@@bigsmall246 but still we aren't going to know everything about the universe.. some things will be left unanswered and the best we could do is assume and believe
@@itszain6317 why do we need to assume or believe anything that we do not know? Can't we just accept that we do not know it yet, which is why we investigate it in the first place?
Hmmm, yes, I understand some of these words.
I think I understood some of the pictures too.
I think bohr is that hairy pig, right?
hahaha.
I didn't realise this wasn't clear.
What was the mystifying part? I may be able to help if you want.
+NotAsian As you offer... My previous understanding was that virtual particles are those which exist only briefly for interactions such as EM repulsion/w boson in beta decay etc. Why are other examples such as the electron posotron pair in nuclei undetectable and why do they exist?
College math class throwback. Just nod and try to look smart, it'll be over soon.
lol
I'm a writer, I suck at math. This may have been in chinese and it wouldnt have made a difference to me.
Took physics in college, quit after second term D:
I'm quite good at math and this still went over my head.
+amol katkar Hahahah relatable xDD
"My electrons move funny because a ghost comes and shakes them...."
Virtual particles in a nutshell...
virtual particles are like an earthquake on-going everywhere in the universe.
it's kind of confusing that they are called "virtual particles" at all, because they aren't really particles, they just behave like them.
@@__jan isn't virtual kinda the opposite of real though?
@@shubham-sc3jn i didnt say calling them virtual is wrong, the confusing part is calling them "particles"
@@__jan And that's why they are called "VIRTUAL particles". You do understand that prefix and suffix together make up the meaning of the name?
For example, pseudo-science.
Like when you live in virtue, you're not really living.
Macroworld: Theory doesn't always match up because of friction
Nanoworld: Ok, so friction is out of the game but now you gotta deal with virtual particles
Thanks universe
There is hypothesis that everytime we come close to figuring out the universe it gets more complicated
@@tomasmickus6254 Did you comment this multiple times? You didn't even have a reason to comment it, it's a stupid hypothesis because there is no way to ever even attempt to disprove it.
Hi Saitama!
@johnnytheprick nah, even if there are other phenomena that distrupt the accuracy of our theories, they are still pretty accurate
Idk how I just realized its virtual not vertical
I aint no scientist but I have some time off work next week and I've decided to solve all these problems, so fingers crossed.
He burnt his brain xD
Are you alive ?
do u even know what quantum physics is??
@@sanchitkabra4839
If you think you know about it, you literally don't know about it.
-_ Idk Idc
Are u there
6:36 I love how absurd the calculation of 10^112 ergs is. That’s about 5*10^35 (500 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000) times the estimated mass-energy equivalent of the universe.
Just wondering, how much has the exponent changed in over two years?
@@snakevenom4954 None, and it won't change until we can figure out another theory that explains matter and energy and that is more precise than the QFT that we currently have. And the problem that we have is that we think that we need a quantum gravitationnal theory, and in order to test this kind of theory, we need to conduct experiments billions of billions times bigger than the LHC
wow, this entire universe in a cm^3
I don't know what erg is why is it a constant and how did they calculate all the energy
@@gekkkoincroe Try asking Google or Wikipedia?
When I first saw this video I was still in highschool and I thought this is a fascinating effect I never really learn more about. Now I'm studying physics and in three days I'll have my first exam on quantum mechanics.
Proud of you for following your intution
how are you doing now ?
how was your exam ? I know I'm a year late but I'm too interested in this field and want to pursue it
@@khepri2420 lol, I actually passed it with a good grade.
@@janandreslotsch7940 Are you gonna specialize in research? Of what field?
I bet it must be exciting.
If only I was younger I wish I could've been a researcher, like my father was.
I had completely forgotten what was the title of the video at the end of 3 mins.
ditto
omg, that vibration in a field graphic is by far one of the clearest and most mind blowing things I've seen in a long time...
thanks guys.
Virtual particles? Psh. We need to build a wall around each nucleus.
and make the virtual particles pay for it!
Make subatomic particles great again!
dark matter matters!
The problem is obviously with all the strange quarks and they shouldn't be allowed in our hadrons. They are all terrorists and aren't like us. They even are called strange!
damn immigrants big banging our protons
Wait... I think I know a solution:
Rather than there being separate fields for things like electrons and positrons, what if instead those were just bumps in opposite directions in the same field? Like an electron is a bump up, and a positron is a bump down? That would explain the excess energy from our calculations, and also explains why when they meet they annihilate. Like how when the crest of one wave meets the trough of another and they cancel out.
I think it's high time we dedicate an SI unit for energy instead of using ergs. That joule guy was pretty awesome, we could name it after him
well an erg is just 10⁻⁷ joules so the same thing basically
We should really develop a quantum unit of measurement that represents the minimum amount of energy anything can have and use that when referencing quantum energy levels.
I call it... quenergy.
@@chrismanuel9768 i love it
@@chrismanuel9768 There’s no minimum energy level for all systems.
@ There’s gotta be something, right? Like, it sounds crazy to say there’s a minimum amount of distance or time, but the Plank Length and Plank Time exist. Couldn’t there be some equivalent for energy?
I lost you at 10^-8 erg
An erg is equivalent to 10^-7 Joules, or one tenth of a millionth of a Joule.
+Tony Wells You must be fun at parties. Classic comment, but true.
BloozBeast I am awesome at parties after enough vodkas, don't worry.
Yeah, the several different units are annoying. I'd like to see how Ergs make the math easier.
tim turner
Well, yeah. I figured that much. It's the same with Beer's law that uses centimeters instead of meters in the formula. I just wanted to see the specific physics of how it's used. I never saw an Erg before.
One day they will find out its exactly 42 ergs.
We gotta go to the mice for answers
@@cdfzo read the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
@@rocketappliantist4969 thanks for the fish bro
@@rocketappliantist4969 Is it a good book ? I've only ever seen the film
BlaadeKing 1 never saw the movie, I read the book in high school and I really enjoyed reading it.
Now I know how my QA team feels when I give them the demo about the things I did in my current sprint.
5:46 I commend and applaud you for making this visualization, since i first understood fields, this was what i envisioned - thank you for making this graphical interpretation.
The universe is made of tiny colorful flavored balls. Combine them into new and interesting flavors! Amaze your friends and family!
Are talking about quarks?
How many different flavor combinations are there?
Sounds like a cereal commercial XD
Thought it sounded more like a skittle (the colourful sweets) advert (commercial)
and short bus size fire balls that flys like Packman
Being super pedantic, I'll mention that what Sean said near 4:05 is not quite correct (but nobody really cares).
1) While it's true that there's exponential decay from higher powers of alpha, there's factorial growth from the fact that there's a LOT of more complicated diagrams. Since factorial growth overpowers exponential decay eventually, this sum is infinite. In simpler sums, mathematicians can use Borel summation to map the sum to a finite number.
2) Each of the diagrams with a loop in it is actually infinite. There's a dodgy process called renormalization that deals with these infinities in a systematic way.
#2 is a fundamental part of QFT. Nobody ever talks about #1.
I care, so thanks ! :)
I also think that he failed to acknowledge that virtual particles aren't the entire explaination for the energy level shift. Special relativity and the spin-orbit interaction is also a fundamental part of the reason.
He didn't bring up special relativity and the spin-orbit interaction because those are both already present in the Dirac equation.
Strictly, renormalization isn't the process that deals with the infinities. In fact, renormalization is generally necessary even in cases where loop corrections are entirely finite. The necessity of renormalization basically amounts to the fact that the way interactions work in quantum field theory means that the parameters of the theory take on different values at different energy scales.
Dealing with the infinities requires performing a regularization, which must be done before renormalization. (This is the step where you set a cut-off scale, introduce a Pauli-Villars term or evaluate everything in 4-\epsilon dimensions instead of 4.)
Sssssh!! People will start freaking out when they find out we divide infinity by infinity. If you ignore the problem it goes away. :P
Tip: stop video to part that you don't understand. Google all words you don't understand. Play video again when you are ready. This video is way longer! Wikipedia helps alot.
step 1 take a course in modern physics.
Step two, take same course again. Modern physics is changing faster each year. If it's not your job to keep up with this stuff, it's really hard to get a firm grasp on much of what these people are discussing. Petrus' suggestion is a good way to get little bites of info at your own pace, (admittedly with some very likely distractions along the way,) and decide when you've had enough brain food to sate your appetite. Wikipedia and UA-cam are both good for learning shotgun style, absorbing small amounts of many subjects. Just try to avoid the free energy scam videos!
Step 3 : realise that Wikipedia is a haven for misinterpretation of data.
Cool
@@juan125873a lol
Great video! One minor critique I would have: I really feel like you should have brought up the Casimir effect in regards to virtual particles. I realize its a bit of a lengthy explanation to break down the experimental apparatus and whatnot, but I've always felt that it does the best job of helping get a real-world "feel" of virtual particles existing.
Man, its really hard to think of the universe as just overlays of fields. It feels and looks so physical and 3 dimensional.
So does a dream.
@@chromo1858 No, it really doesn't...
@@DBZHGWgamer During the dream, it does seem real. When you leave the dream, it is only then you realize it was in your mind. If it helps, use the analogy of a very realistic computer simulation instead.
Well who knows, this is our point of view from a human being. A few hundred years ago (like ~200) us humans believed all matter were blocks, since how could matter be so complete and so perfect from our point of view and yet be so imperfect and riddled with holes if they were what we all know to be true today, that they are (more or less) spherical atoms?
You never know what biases we hold, some we know of, some we may never know of, at least in our lifetimes
I wish I could actually understand what was being said in the video
i love his vlogs more.
vlogs?
Alex SH Search 2veritasium
spaceface105
found it, thx tho...
They will eventually get it right.
This hurts my everything.
unacceptable!
I know that feeling, I have my physics exam in a week, it's on special relativity and took me months to wrap my head around the stuff
Ridheesh
You should’ve traveled closer to the speed of light whenever you studied. Come on dude, real-world application is everything!
It's amazing that year by year, you post things about more deeper fundamental concepts. This just keeps me excited. Thank you very much. Keep up the great work!
*wait. what.*
consider sub
:|
what?
vat?
Erg
Dont you know? An Erg is a Dyn times a Centimeter.
When you popped up at the end and said, "Hey..." my brain immediately filled that space with, "Vsauce, Michael here!"
Fun to see this video. A few years ago I met Derek at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical physics and he told me that he was working on a video on virtual particles and we discussed it for some time. Didn't notice this video till now.
"Science changes the way we think" ~ a very common line
There is so much to learn about this universe
Thanks to you for letting my curiosity still alive ❤
Well, early comment sections are so boring.
Actually its a storm drain
Yep, I'm sorry for those who never took a physics class and even bother commenting on irrelevantly.
It takes time for me to find a good video and make a good comment.
wrg
Reading the comments three months after. Still boring. Maybe I'll try putting my computer into a microwave with the comments section open to make it EXCITING!
I just learnt all that orbital stuff at school last month. I feel smart.
Shame it doesn't apply anymore - it's all probability fields, not orbits.
Orbitals not orbits, it's different. An orbital is the probability field
Yeh, school tends to lie to us alot. I guess to make it simpler.
We just learnt the different energy level stuff. S,p,d,f.. orbitals... Ionisation energy.. I'm only 16 lol... I'm not quite the genius yet.
and if you want to be really strict with the terminilogy an orbital isn't a probability field, but a 1-particle-wavefunction ^^. it's the probability field or more precise the "sphere-areafunction" ( sry for literal and probably bad translation ) -1 dimension ( because otherwise 4-D ) that we get portraied in these graphics as an orbital.
I need more Sean Carroll. He's one of my favorite science orators by FAR.
Wait! What?! 10^112 erg is 10^105 joules, right? It's not even possible to describe just how much energy this is!
Where can I find more on this topic?
FREE ENERGY FROM VACUUM. Now I'll have to fix my BS sensor again....
Go to the nearest physics professor
@@somedude4122 It's not. To extract energy, an energy gradient is requierd, and regardless of how much there actually is, the zero point energy is the absolute lowest energy point. You can't excract it without breaking the laws of thermodynamics, and if you can do that you don't need to bother with the zero point energy, as you can just extract it from anything and everything.
@@Mernom OK... why are you telling me about that?
@@somedude4122 it is relevant to what you said . He told you that free vacuum energy is not possible . You however made it look like the commenter or scientists in the video implied that it's possible . It was a straw man from your part.
Legend says if you are early, Erg will reply.
Psyche, it's only me
i'm dissapointed, nobody registered "Erg" as an account just to reply :)
Ichigo...
Challenge accepted.
Looking down on these comments, I conclude the following:
"Erg."
Junge wieso bist du auch noch hier
@@jochenbach3541 Junge ficken sie sich
Was antwortest du auf 4 Jahre alte Kommentare
@@XZenon ja ich habs halt jetzt erst entdeckt du Kugelfisch
@@jochenbach3541 gejr Kris jaemdi loenhat
1 X 10^-7 joule fyi
One of the best Veritasium videos to date! More like these, from the front lines please.
"They are indispensable for calculation, obviously.. but you can never directly observe them."
Kind of like the complex number "i" which has lots of applications in engineering calculations, but it's not a real number.
It's not a real number, but it really is a number!
It's a real number. Just not termed as "Real" because we do not know it's value. More like a lateral number just because we do not possess the intelligence to comprehend it so we came up with a completely different dimension for measuring it.
Imaginary numbers are real
Imaginary numbers are just a mathematical concept that happens to coincide well with many physics equations. They just represent vectors orthogonal to real numbers. That's the only reason we use them.
@@bigsmall246 Just as natural numbers. They are just a mathematical concept that happens to coincide well with counting things.
I guess you could say they havent been DIRACtly observed
Jason Lee KY haven't*
Lmfao god tier
Well played ,thumbs up
I gauss you're right
@@laposgatti3394 gauss so!
Wow! After just 3 weeks of Physical Chemistry (quantum physics and later on its applications to chemistry), I understood a surprising amount of this!
urgh I hated phys chem in 1st year xD
What are you majoring in?
I also want to know what you're majoring in.
What is your majoring on?
Chemical engineering
This channel have done a very good job on explaining so many complicated scientific jargon into the simplest word it could be.
Derek,
I just found your Veritasium videos very recently here in 2019. I (48 yrs old ) was an engineering student myself and so much of your life story is relatable. I'm so inspired by both the chances you took to make your Veritasium channel and your success in doing so. I really enjoy your videos, your hard work is very appreciated!
PS did you use a friggin shadeball for your black hole in your black hole video? ROTFLMAO
QFT is so interesting, but I just can't wrap my head around these equations, at least currently...
mastapima agreed. I am not a physicist. In fact I struggle with algebra. But based the information I have read, fields seem to be just are. Which by itself isn't an easy thing to grasp especially if you're stuck in a hard philosophical sense of causality....but I digress. So what I tell people instead, there are many things that we don't understand all of the way down to their most minute quantities, but accepting their utility because they work well with what we have, is good enough for now.
I had a maths professor who told us that he had once asked his professor how to think about the wave-particle duality, because he couldn't make any intuitive sense of it. The professor had replied that you shouldn't try to think about it intuitively but rather think of it in terms of equations.
I was going to say that this shows how limited our understanding is, but it's probably more like the difference between the micro and the macro world. There are so many intricate details to the universe which don't have a very noticable effect on a larger scale. Shit's pretty bonkers.
this comment chain i find very interesting because i look at these equations in completely the opposite way, i find the equations irrelevant and the intuitive understanding much more important. the hardest part i have had to wrap my head around was the concept of higher dimensions other than our own and how they interact with us. if you want me to try and explain it in full reply and i would be happy to discuss it with anyone
Not yet.
Read Feynman.
Love the way the first 100 comments have nothing to do with the video
*all
Like yours :P
thats because early people comment before they watch the video, if they didnt, someone else would beat them to it
Like mine
And yours. (Not mine cuz I'm past the first 100 comments ;¬) )
I'm glad there are people like you around making it easier for those like me to expand my ideas of the world I live in. I appreciated it. Please keep doing it!
This explained so much. Thank you. After watching the video about the quantum experiments with the slits i was thinking about a concept like this. The discrepancys probably will be found when zooming out, and better understanding.I would not be surprised we forgot something like the amount of energy that is being diverted to connect all the black holes to each other on a sub time level.
"Quark," says the durck.
I'm surprised to see no mention of the casimir effect in this video - isn't that rather good evidence for the existence rod virtual particles? Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hawking radiation and the evaporation of black holes caused by virtual particles manifesting on the edge of their event horizons?
I believe you are correct my good human, but he did not bring it up. It is pretty heavy but interesting nonetheless
Hawking radiation is still theoretical. The Casimir effect is evidence for virtual particles (But there are other explanations.) but it doesn't let you measure the particles themselves. Like the energy levels it's indirect.
Yes, that is how the black holes lose mass.
He said In the video that the virtual particles are electron/positron pairs but this is plain wrong I wrote a really long comment about it
This has to relate somehow to Kerbal Space Program...
This is the reason I love this channel, I know I'm getting smarter and learning things that are important for the future, yet I can watch it for an hour straight, and still have to idea what's going on.
Thank you Dr Müller, for building and maintaining Veritasium. Its a brilliant concept, and your implementation has been genius. Bravo, and well dome, sir.
Opps, done not dome. Autocorrect is my friend. ;-)
You didn't mention the Casimir effect which provides evidence for virtual particles.
I was thinking the same.
Me 2
i wasnt
*me, an intellectual*: **knowingly nods head** schrodinger's cat.
yeah, but the casimir effect shows that there must be virtual particles and we all agree on that, but as he said you can't measure the individual virtual particle e.g. just like you do with the spherical charge distribution of an electron
Sean Carroll=instant like.
I'll never forget that debate where he shredded Lane Craig...
Very good video! I loved the direction it took and the topics discussed!
Man.. your videos always end with me want more. Always! I am like.. whaaat... we were just getting into things and its already over, even when it's a 20 minute video. I guess on the plus side, it means your content is super engaging and on the downside, I guess I am hoping you'd create deeper dive content as well that would go on for like two hours or something.
You think science is advanced? humankind has barely scratched the surface of science
Science is a method.
+Jakub Mik Exactly.
+Jakub Mik we do know that our universe has a certain density, and that ordinary matter just makes up a 5 % of it... So where are the other matter or energy coming from?
+Jeroen Bollen
I think they meant the Science community,
MicrosoftNestleTea We scratched the surface of the community?
Absolutely love this video in terms of style and content, much more like this please!
In addition, it would be nice to sometimes see an in-depth companion video!
It is always a treat to listen to Sean Carroll talk.
I'm excited to (maybe be able to) see in the future what the corrected/updated diagrams that explain this look like
2:28 What kind of microwave did they use?
Can I do the experiment too with my own microwave?
1. Get an electron that is not too depressed, so you have no problems to excite it to the next energy level.
2. Put it into your microwave.
3. ?????
4. Profit.
When he said microwave he didn't mean microwave as in a "machine that warms food" but as in "waves with a wavelength that is in the micrometer order of magnitude" :D
Smalde Ohh. Well, who would've guessed :p
Guess what wavelength is used by microwaves? :)
You can do this experiment by putting a neon tube in your microwave, it's this exact phenomenon that will occur.
But i don't know about safety though, it might explode so don't try
Keep up the mind boggling stuff! I like a video I have to watch several times before getting.
It's amazing how Professor Carroll can explain that like I explain algebra as a math teacher. He knows it well enough to teach it, incredible
My favourite scientific paradox, captured so nicely. Thankyou.
I came early
Better wipe my keyboard now
Profile pic goes for it
reported spam
i came so early
better comment on this comment
gachiGASM
The profile picture is what gave it away.
As much as I love physics, sometimes I think we are too deep to see the meaning of things. Like a picture make out of pixels if you look at one pixel to try to understand the meaning of the picture it will be impossible. Sometimes is better to step back to see the whole picture. I love Veritasium keep the great work.
No. We want to understand a pixel is just a byte stored somewhere, no what the picture represent. That's our everyday life
This is where deduction and induction breaks down I guess. Learning the bits to understand the whole has become too unwieldy.
It's always good to say you don't know. Love it. Great video. Great explanation of what we don't know. Thanks.
Thank you so much for uploading this video. It is helping me get through the pandemic!
Thank you for this information, I really really love to learn about physics, even though I am not that smart.
I did my MS in Physics. I was sad that my degree is of no use. Now I'm happy that I understood the video because I was taught all these in college! XD
I hope you find a use in the future.
how could a master in physics be of no use? I thought this type of hard science was in demand ._. pls explain?
The insight and understanding you have of the physical world has got to be worth something to you.
@@FranktheDachshund It makes your weed highs really intense.
@@1Plebeian 😅
I discovered this channel few weeks ago....Absolutely love it...I mean really....I am watching all the episodes one by one....💜💜
I really enjoyed this video because sometimes I get discouraged with my dream of becoming a mathematician physicist computer scientist because I feel like everything has already been discovered before I got the chance to, but these kind of things remind me that there is still plenty stuff that nobody has figured out yet.
which hyper-visor are these virtual particles running on?
A very small one ;)
They arise from uncertainty principle of time with energy: (ΔT) (ΔE) ≥ ℏ/2, Small amount of energy/mass can come into existence for a really really small amount of time.
VM Ware; look out for them also in Windows Server 2050.
3:44 I understood the part where he said "which is a small number." X(
Erg! Yes, this is quite right...Understanding all this much better now! Love them Feynman diagrams.
For the first time I understand the Lamb Shift. Awesome channel!
Ahhh Now I don't get it
at first
"oh I see,alright I got it"
2 minute later
"wait what...😦"
Your videos are absurdly good!
Prof. Stephen Bartlett taught me statistical mechanics. Top bloke.
So reality is just fields in space, and physical objects are just energetic disturbances in these fields?
That is what I understood; every particle is a wave/vibration in his field.
macroscopic stuff → particles → perturbation wave thingis on fields
so, yeah, stuff is actually thingies
now start rearranging the theory of relativity to put mass in front (M=eblahblahblah) .. and have some fun realizing either you know nothing. or the scientists don't.
heretic30176 M=E/(c^2)
I think I missed your point
heretic30176 Wouldn't it mean the same thing? Since E=M and M=E
6:25
Isn't this just the very same question that is answered by the theory of, and the very definition of, layered dimensions and paralleled universes occupying the same "subjective space"?
Especially if the virtual particles do always exist and are constant, only they faze/frequency shift in and out.
Meaning, just because we see and perceive empty space, doesn't mean that there isn't something in that space on a parallel plane.
And the equation might just balance out once the right number of layers of reality ( and the energy contained within each, and across them all) are accounted for.
If some planes are larger or smaller than others, and relative energy flows are more or less intense. All we need to do is figure out which planes we would need to visit by emulating the faze/frequency shifting particles, in order to travel through, and then shift back into, our own universe and have "travelled a huge distance" in next to no time with very little fuel consumption.
GET ON IT MATH WIZZ ;)
This is the first actually interesting youtube comment i've read in a while lol
Elliot McGrath aww thanks :)
Aproblem is that if that's the case we expect virutal particles to 'clump'; the interactions between matter on various planes (ESPECIALLY if it's 'phasing in and out') will cause some volumes of space (Specifically those near matter) to attract and thus have far more virtual particles than others. But as far as we can tell virtual particles are constant, any volume of space has the same 'virtual composition' as any other.
Phasin should also affect our matter, we should see 'real' particles vanishing for short periods, which would affect pretty much everything.
Amazing animations and explanation!!
I wasn't expecting this video to be like this when I thought to watch it. It was awesome
ever think virtual particles arent popping in and out of existense. maybe they are just the points of wave interferences from waves in a volume of space?
The heisenberg uncertainty principle has 2 versions: momentum/position and time/energy.
If you measure your momentum perfectly, your position uncertainty becomes large.
Similarly, virtual particles (E=mc^2) can pop into existence (consuming seemingly 0 energy) and hang around for a very short amount of time.
Maybe, and then you could think of them like ripples on the same surface area but on opposite sides which pop into existence and then the ripples cancel each other out.
As a chem major, I understood 99% of this. Great video!
I would love it if you'd be willing to describe that a bit? (It's not what I'd have expected to hear?)
Always interesting, thanks.
I honestly think these guys don't get enough attention , all their videos are awesome
This is amazing! I've been thinking about this lately but I never got past high school so everything is a bit sketchy but I thought the universe was made of fields the exact same way they explained it, I just didn't have a fancy name for it x) Glad to know I was on a good line of thought ^^
Hi! Is 2s level more energetic than the 2p level? I thought it was the oposite...
Yes, they made an error there: in hydrogen the 2s(1/2) should be lower in energy than the 2p(1/2)
@@Schmidt975 but wait... hydrogen doesn't have a 2s orbital, it's in the first period. It certainly doesn't have a p orbital either o_o
@@acutepotato6792 One could indeed think so. However, reality is slightly more complicated.
The periodic table indeed orders elements by the orbitals that would be occupied in the ground state of the corresponding atoms (that is: cooled down to absolute 0 Kelvin). However, most elements also possess many unoccupied orbitals that you can excite the electrons into, when you heat them up. In the example of Hydrogen, you have a singly occupied 1s orbital, but unoccpied 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p ... orbitals in the ground state.
At a finite temperature (for example room temperature) you'll even occasionally find electrons occpying these orbitals (though at such low temperatures rather rarely). A transition from a high excited state to a lower one (or the ground state) releases energy (light), while excitation into excited states requires energy. As such: the excited states are responsible for the spectra of the elements. Atomic hydrogen, for example, has very beautitful spectral lines from transitions into the 2s and 2p orbitals from higher orbitals, called the Balmer series.
@@Schmidt975 that makes alot of sense. I didn't know that, thanks for the explanation :)
Interesting that quantum mechanics and counting cards have something in common. Feynman diagrams show that more and more complex diagrams lead to diminishing returns in terms of prediction. It’s the same for more and more accurate card counting methods- the most complex systems only for e you a light edge over the simplest red seven count. Good stuff.
I don’t understand a word you guys are talking about but I still watch all ur videos.
When you don't go to uni because you're sick and can't think. But you accidentally watch a video about your last physics topic
Hasn't evidence for virtual particles already been shown through demonstrations of the Casimir effect?
Explain please.. I want to know
Yes there is evidence, but it's indirect.
@@itszain6317 its to plates being pushed together because virtual particles hit it from the outside, but on the inside there i not enough space so there are no virtual particles to push back.
@@fritzzz1372 can you link a research/study showcasing this experiment?
keep posting videos like this and as always keep inspiring
This video is amazing. Really exciting observation
Are the excitations in the fields (electron fields etc), these "particles", somehow connected to the wave functions, described by Schroedinger equation?Is that what the wave function actually describes, excitations in quantum fields? Or are these two phenomena completely different?
no they are completely different.i can explain further if you want.
+Romero mukkolath i'm not him but i'd like a further explanation
excellent question, but I have no idea.. it seems probable. another thing comes to my mind: de Broglie wavelength of matter and string theory, where every particle is just a vibrating string with specific frequency.
(How) are all these connected?
Lorpark see Schrödinger's wave equations actually describes the orbitals(basically a orbitals are those area which have the highest probability of finding a electron in the nucleus) the ORBITS bohr described are actually wrong because it doesn't satisfy Heisenberg's uncertainty principle(which states that you can't predict the velocity and the position of a electron altogether)
Schrödinger's wave equation basically describes wave motion of electrons.
Contrary to what Romero says, they are strongly connected, indeed. Think of the schrödinger equation as a much more simplified version of the dynamics of the electron field for a very special case of an excitation.
Schrödingers equation doesn't allow electrons to be created or destroyed, nor do they interact with other particle fields. It's what you get when you take a special kind of excitation in the electron field (called a fock state) and observe how it "behaves" when there's no significant interaction otherwise. You can simplify a lot of things and will be able to recover the schrödinger equation.
Actually it's even more complex than that. The electron you would describe with schrödingers equation is not even a solitary excitation of the electron field, but rather a complicated composition of excitations of the electron field, the higgs field and the electron neutrino field. They interact with each other and form an "effective object" we can observe as an massive electron.
I came here first but my comment went out and in to existence again
This topic is quite amazing. It's great that science has reached up to this close to understand our life and universe but i think we'll never find the answer to this puzzle. Anyway great video!
One of the best video article abt science ... keep it up ...