The World According to Physics with Jim Al Khalili
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2022
- Jim Al-Khalili is an Iraqi-born theoretical physicist at the University of Surrey, where he holds a Distinguished Chair in physics as well as a university chair in the public engagement in science. He is also a prominent author and broadcaster. He has written 14 books on popular science and the history of science, between them translated into twenty-six languages. The book on which this lecture was based, The World According to Physics, was shortlisted for the Royal Society Book Prize. He is a regular presenter of TV science documentaries, such as the Bafta nominated Chemistry: a volatile history, and he hosts the long-running weekly BBC Radio 4 program, The Life Scientific. He tweets at @jimalkhalili. Despite his profile as a public scientist, Jim has continued to teach undergraduate physics students in an unbroken run of 29 years. He is a past president of the British Science Association and a recipient of the Royal Society’s Michael Faraday medal and the Wilkins-Bernal-Medawar Medal, the Institute of Physics Kelvin Medal and the Stephen Hawking Medal for Science Communication. He is a Patron and Vice-President of Humanists UK. He received an OBE in 2007 for ‘services to science’.
How much of an understanding do we currently have about the physical world and where does theoretical physics research stand in the third decade of the twenty-first century? Are we finally approaching the end of physics when the rich tapestry of the universe will be revealed to us and we will finally understand the true nature of reality? If we are honest then we must admit that while what we do know is dazzlingly impressive there is still much we have yet to grasp, all the way down to the fundamental nature of space and time to the meaning quantum mechanics, let alone mysteries of dark matter and dark energy. This episode starring world-famous physicist Jim Al-Khalili will shine a light onto the most profound insights revealed by modern physics, to reveal what this crucially important science tells us about the universe and the nature of reality itself. Al-Khalili begins by introducing the fundamental concepts of space, time, energy, and matter, and then describes the three pillars of modern physics-quantum theory, relativity, and thermodynamics-showing how all three must come together if we are ever to have a full understanding of reality. Using wonderful examples and thought-provoking analogies, Al-Khalili illuminates the physics of the extreme cosmic and quantum scales, the speculative frontiers of the field, and the physics that underpins our everyday experiences and technologies, bringing the reader up to speed with the biggest ideas in physics in just a few sittings. Physics is revealed as an intrepid human quest for ever more foundational principles that accurately explain the natural world we see around us, an undertaking guided by core values such as honesty and doubt. The knowledge discovered by physics both empowers and humbles us, and still, physics continues to delve valiantly into the unknown.
For more cool science visit:
• Website: www.scienceandcocktails.org
• Facebook: / scienceandcocktailscph
• UA-cam: / sciencecocktails
• Instagram: / scienceandcocktailsglobal - Наука та технологія
Been a fan of Jim’s since his first BBC episode. When Jim’s latest book was released, I asked him to sign it. I live in Canada, it was a quick email to him, just hours later, due to Covid, Jim sent me a personalized digital signing of his book. Brought me to tears. I’m hoping his return to research bodes well for him, and he furthers our research into quantum biological systems, and maybe make a discovery that earns him the prize he would rightfully deserve. Thank you Jim, I appreciate you for giving me the perspective I now have of the world (universe) I live in.
I reached the end of this presentation with increased knowledge of my ignorance.
Oh no, your known unknowns increased!
@@billbaggins1688 I didn't know that.
Waddaya know?
@@salty-_-steve_82 n ot a lot it seems.
Then you have truly learned the lesson of this video... Socrates said, "All that I know is that I know nothing; and I barely know that."
Jim makes things interesting enough to listen and watch. I would take a physics class with him as a teacher
@@GOGO2482 get professional help.
I thank you all for allowing me to live amongst you without ever noticing or infringing, as I have not on you. Special thanks to the groups, individuals that make talks like this possible and are happy to relay the message to those that are less fortunate. I love you all and couldn't be more proud of humanity
They complained that theoretical Physics has been in a sort of crisis for the past decades, we have no important breakouts in this field. I am personally sure that professor Jim Al Khalili is the most qualified person to enlighten us with extraordinary new insights into the next generation of theoretical Physics.
I listened to him do a talk for SITPO (skeptics in the pub online).I didn’t know i could learn so much in a 45 minute talk
Food for thought ..gives this old person..ME..close to my mortality .. and never happy...
I was a wicked science and astronomy and astrophysics nerd or geek pretty much since elementary school. I went so far as to get my BA in astrophysics. I didn't do it to utilize it as a career I did it for the knowledge. And I love absolutely love watching very well-thought-out very well-executed presentations like this that are accurate and put in very simple terms so pretty much anybody can get a damn good comprehension of what is being discussed.
Jim al-khalili has got a gift when it comes to explaining everything science-related pretty much to anybody that's willing to listen.
It's much different than most of these supposed physics and astronomy and science channels that just spout nonsense that might be true or maybe it isn't. And that's the fucking problem we have these days because everybody's got a UA-cam account and everybody wants to take something and be heard and appreciated for I don't know eagle reasons I guess regardless of the truth. And it was once thought that having no access to the vast virtually limitless amount of information out there was the problem. Well... Smart technology with the advancement generally speaking with the devices and internet speeds have clearly proven that is not the case.
For those of you that are just digging your heels in two topics like this I highly recommend watching absolutely everything that Jim al-khalili is apart of. I'm pretty certain you will understand it and the information as it is being developed and presented is accurate as far as we know. Things do change though. I mean right up until the point where we had actual images of two different black holes you know well.. let me take a step back... Right up until we got the first image of a black hole technically even though we could see cause-and-effect proving that they existed we never actually saw one...
And now we have two images. One that is a damn nearly unfathomable disc until way from us and we have an image of our very own Sagittarius A*.
I tip my hat and I'm very very grateful and appreciative to everybody that has had any part in our advancement of understanding science in general. Because most people they just want to hear something and then regurgitate it.
I guess that's fine so long as you're presenting it accurately. But without all of the individuals that have dedicated their lives to this stuff just imagine how unadvanced we would be right now.
You have picked a damn fine presentation. Stay safe out there.
Great explainer and lecturer. Love all his shows.
Not his best, he wasn't very fluid, lots of umming and ahhing made it hard going. Better when he's on TV and can be rehearsed and edited.
God bless this man for his contributions to documentaries and his normal work in physics. Everything he does is gold
Gods are fictional.
Thank you Dr,Jim Al Khalili. I always follow your lectures and although i am a film maker but i really enjoy your talks and the way you teach physics .I have an idea about time and i am looking for a way to communicate with you, although i know it is impossible to have some of your time. How ever it is always an honor to listen to you.
Hi there. it seems that @stevesmart666 found a way to make contact. Try asking him for help.
Love listening to this ..
بروفيسور جيم افتخر بك كانسان اولا ثم كوني انتمي لبلدك الأم العراق . انت فخرنا وإرثنا العلمي والتوعوي الذي فقدناه مع شديد الاسف . لكم كنت ساسعد لو انك بيننا في وطنك تلقي على الشعب العراقي شيئا من علمك الزاخر وعقلك المستنير . امنيتي ان التقيك يوما فإن لقاء العلماء الافذاذ امثالك بصمة في الحياة تكفي ان تملأها نورا . انت فخر ومكسب للبشرية جمعاء . تقبل حبي واحترامي اخاك علي من العراق
Excellent presentation!
I am a retired Physics teacher. The one thing I taught my students was that those who study and understand physics go through the world in an entirely different way from those that do not, regardless of the rarefied world of the physics researchers, just every day perambulations. Seeing existence as energy exchanges and “seeing” them in your head.
I agree. I came to a realization a few years ago that you might find interesting. For some reason people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
We have all heard the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light" this phenomenon is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical line. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated.
General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this. Nobody believed in singularities when he was alive for this reason.
Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated, in other words that mass is all around us because as the graph shows we are still connected to it.
The greatest mystery in science is the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter). It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation is the governing phenomenon in galactic centers, there can be no other realistic explanation for this fact.
A simple way to confirm this would be to calculate the star rotation rates of a large number of galaxies. This would show that all the high mass galaxies would have star rotation rates that defy the known laws of physics and all the low mass galaxies would have predictable star rotation rates.
@@shawns0762Yet, contrary to Einstein, black holes exist.
@@lengould9262 It's not a matter of opinion, they don't exist. To date, 5 very low mass galaxies have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter, exactly as the mathematics of Relativity would predict. Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur.
You believe in something that is based on a mathematical misconception, was popularized by television and movies in the 1960's and has never been seen.
Thanks Jim
Bravo Jim Al Khalili for your clarity and explanation.
Very interesting - thank you!!
Thank U so much 👍👍👍♥️♥️♥️
Thanks for the video and your work.
Thanks for watching!
Great insights. Thank you Prof. Al-Kahili.
I believe we need to define a better and finer method in the logic of reasoning and the role of mathematics in physics. The Space is much more than what we actually know...
Best science presentar Professor Jim Alkhalili
Thanks for the video.
There are really many many unanswered questions in fundamental physics.
Thank you for watching
...... Thank you, you have helped me a great deal.. ......... I loved the " lady Bird " books.
Very beautiful sir
Jim awsome as usual
Great stuff.
Physics runs the world from electricity to cable TV work and more RF scanners. Thank God for another blessed opportunity.
Great Job!
yes he is really good
I dont know where this concept slots in, but probably 2 decades ago i was watching a programme on tv here in Britain called
Tomorrows World which explored science,physics & everything inbetween.
Anyway they showed this simple but amazing test.
This was to show, in certain mediums, things which at first seem impossible are possible
They showed a glass of water then they added a drop of dark dye, which, as guessed blossomed out into the water & no matter what you did, you could not reverse the effect so that the dye went back to a very small droplet
Then they did exactly the same by dropping the same amount in a container of gel or vaseline
Then with a cocktail stick run through the dye in a forward motion so long streak appeared.
Next they dragged back the stick & the dye miraculously followed the stick back to its origional spot, no backward streak appearing!
I know they tried this out in the water, but as the dye instantly dissolved it couldnt reverse via the stick to the single drop again.
Now its a long time ago since i watched this demo, and im not a scientist but it has a relevance because of the medium of the substance used ( ie the viscosity)
From the " thinness" of the water to the " thickness" of the gel or vaseline.
I dont know the theory of this in scientific words but it struck me as quite amazing
To see the drop into the gel, the stick stretching out the drop of dye into a long line, then reversing the direction of the stick, the dye also retracted back into the single drop!
I dont know what this is, but as i said it was over 20 years ago & im not sure what relevance it has
Anyway, just happened to think of the above while watching this
Great video as always from Jim
Thank you
🇬🇧👧
Main presenter was Raymond Baxter if memory serves! 😀
I remember Higgs were very emotional when he visited CERN. I was wondering why you didn’t mention D. Energy. But it must be surprises that weren’t expected
nice to hear mention of ladybird books
something i can get my head round! lol 🙂
thankyou for sharing this...
great video
Thanks for watching!
He is very engaging. Like to talk to him personally.
I'm happy to see the historical graph that shows the smaller theories combined into larger theories. A larger theory that combines the standard model and gravity. Does physics need a new concept, or a combination of current concepts? So Jim thinks time and the arrow of time is "emergent". And we wait for the LHC to find something or nothing.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
can you change the spin of entanglement particle and compare it with other one if its changed too
"Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana" -Groucho Marx
Once again you have delivered, all be it in an unusually hesitant way., it must be the cocktails? I have read most of your books and like a good teacher, you are not dogmatic and leave questions to be pondered over. The big question I would like to explore is space-time the energy field from which all (particles ) Quanta emerge
Used to own a book: THE JOY OF KNOWLEDGE
Feynman diagrams can be rotated, and are always right anyway. Try it. It's interesting and helps you understand matter/energy conversion. It's QFT, which included special relativity. Hence, the conversation.
While enjoying the lecture there are ads. Understood.
But… there were ads for vid games. What a contradiction.
In my humble opinion, I think when the scientific ideas are explained at this level, i.e. at the popular level, it turns more into philosophy. And equally, when philosophical ideas are explained in matemathical terms it turns into science.
this video should be called, "the World according to pseudo Science". Because much of modern Physics is nonsense, a planned scam by the same folks who brought you convid and the weather is killing us all.
I would love your Dark Energy or Multiverse drawings done as a 11x14 poster. Are they available or would they ever be?
Don’t just change it. Transform it too
I can listen to Prof lectures more than once w/o getting bored , what otherwise I do with most things. Now @33:33: ice can melt But not otherway around unless applied external mechnism. My timid mind telling ice is melting becos of atmospheric temp in surrounding just like cold compress air making Water turn into ice (sorta of external mechnism in both situations), Is not It?
It must be nice for Jim to be back actually being a physicist again. Let someone else take the batton of science communication for a while!
This was a great video! Jim Al-Khalili is my hero.
I am very excited as I just rationalized the solution to the Vacuum Catastrophe in at least my own scrambled mind.
As is known, CIG Theory reinterprets Einstein's Field Equation in terms of the "=" sign, as opposed to a proportionality only.
Matter is curved spacetime and space is unfolded matter.
And, as regards the worst prediction in the history of Physics, perhaps some mathematician could learn CIG Theory and calculate that the value obtained via the Standard Model Quantum mechanical version as represented by the 10 to the 93rd g/cm3 Zero Point Ground State Matter that has not yet fully reached its spatial dimension. How much faster would that matter have to travel to reach the full spatiality of the vacuum density of 10 to the minus 29 g/cm3 ? Then, this difference in the rates of motion of the entities will renormalize the values.
In the graph at 3:17, and the accompanying comments, it is stated that Zero Point Energy or Vacuum Energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum system can have, and 3:41 states that the ground state (1/137) is the lowest Energy. But the lowest energy (rate of motion) is the most massive per CIG Theory. Therefore, the 10 to the 93rd g/cm3 exists as the unit area is so much more massive as it has not turned to space. The space exists as 10 to the minus 29 g/cm3 - so much more diluted density. The Ground State is actually the greatest density mass since it is the slowest. CIG Theory explains the Vacuum catastrophe in this manner.
The times above are taken from:
ua-cam.com/video/0UBoo4KICCY/v-deo.html&ab_channel=SeethePattern
The Science community should be comparing not Zero Point Energy to the Vacuum, but those higher Energy levels that are moving faster and therefore turning to a less dense spatial environment.
For those interested and in the context of the Table on Wiki of Quantum Interpretations
( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics ) , here are my thoughts on CIG Theory as regards its interpretation:
Deterministic: YES>
Ontic Wave Function: YES>
Unique History: YES>
Hidden Variables: YES *1>
Collapsing Wave Function: YES>
Observer Role: No * 2>
Local Dynamics: YES>
Counterfactual Definiteness: YES *3>
Extant Universal Wave Function: YES *4>
*1 Found>
*2 Any Introduction that changes the rate of motion of the particle will> collapse the wave function.>
*3 If all known parameters are defined in advance (i.e. there is no> spontaneous collapse as in GRW)>
*4 Everything is everything else - as such a Universal Wave Function Exists> (Many Worlds exist only over infinite time, not in the same Universe)>
.
To entice you to study up on CIG Theory, the following is what the Theory purports to accomplish:
1) Solves/resolves the confusion surrounding the Double Slit experiment and place it's solution on a firm ground with reality
2) Offers up that new found reality
3) Redefine matter; Redefine Space
4) Combine the fundamentals
5) Bring back a cohesive concept of Conservation of Energy as regards Dark Energy and the accelerating Universe
6) Offer up a new science of pressure
7) Explain Dark Matter
8) Explain Dark Energy
9) Offer a solution to the Horizon Problem
10) Offer a solution to the Core-Cusp problem
11) Offer a solution to the Mott Problem
12) Offer a solution to Quantum Tunneling
13) Offer a coherent explanation of Red Shift anomalies
14) Provides for a Theory of Quantum Gravity -
15) Provides for the distinction between the Classical World and the Quantum World
16) Redefines the Correspondence Principle
17) Offers up a quantification of an atomic mass unit and it's potential spatial quantity
18) Maintains consistency with the idea of Quantum Decoherence
19) Maintains consistency with the idea of Superposition
20) Explains why the Universe is Accelerating
21) Explains 'Why" E=mc2
22) Explains "why" large things are large and small things are small
23) Offers up a solution to the Neutrino mass problem
24) Provides a solution to the Measurement problem
25) Expands on the concept of Virtual Particles
26) Provides a new and dynamic view of the Night sky
27) May explain Sonoluminescence
28) Contains & maintains "Black Holes" within the theory
29) May provide insight on entanglement
30) Contemplates all permutations of all fundamentals in one "Conceptual Equation"
31) Redefines Einstein's Field Equation in terms of the "=" sign, as opposed to a proportionality only
32) Maintains consistency with relativistic theory
33) Is based on sound logic
34) More
🤔🧐
Near the end implies a beginning. There is no end. The human mind is the universe. Physics is a tool to understand dimensional perception and physical effects. Examination of a few grains of sand on an infinite beach.
I have been trying to study the equations of physics. I have a question that I cannot find anyone can clear up for me. Question is as follows.
In the equations there is often the variables momentum and kinetic energy. Both variables have velocity mv and .5mv^2. v is distance per unit time. But time is relative. Time slows down near m. Time slows down as v increases. How can the equations of physics make sense if time is relative to mass and time is relative to velocity?
What matter is controling and balancing The temperature of all entire galaxies and what energy is cotroling the expansion of space time?
Does entanglement involves particles only in pairs or are there entanglements involving 3 or more particles? Do exist wormholes involving 3 or more blackholes? Maybe 2 entangled particles are one and the same...
does the spin changes each time you measere it
I have a theory that the Planck length times the Planck era equals a Planck unit & the effect of Mach's principle on each of these constitutes a Holographic system.
Okay 👍.
Yes I know
Dr Khalili is quite amazing but the title is a little backwards.
Perhaps "Physics According to The-World" (aka empiricism whether than vice versa ;).
Not sure the omelet analogy is great as one could argue that an omelet is actually new Order (neg-entropy) created out of parts. Which, in this case, takes input of energy/work and intelligence.
@TheRoyalInstitute I've always conceptualized/hypothesized that this phenomenon demonstrates that conscious/active observation is the catalyst force that coalesces reality out of probability. Like opening the box containing Schrödinger’s cat. To my understanding, reality and matter behave much like a video game, in that the physical state is left “unrendered” unless it is occupied by an active observer. As an example to try and explain my concept; If a tree falls in the woods and no one/nothing is around to observe it, it’s not physically there. But reality processes the information that the tree fell over.
A way to further test this theory, in my mind, would be to introduce both controls over observers, as well as adding a second plate with one/two slits.
By adding a second plate, we would discover data like: if it is possible for a particle to go through both of the first slits as an unrendered waveform, but then coalesce into one particle before passing through the second plate, or vice versa. Also, how does positioning of the observation equipment/observers change the outcome. Does observing one plate only, act in a field, and cause the collapse of the waveform in a radius. Can that radius be measured?
Also, observing human participants can be polled in advance of the test, and their expectations recorded. Does the expectation of the observer have any effect?
Could you, for instance, tell Control Group X that a specific pattern of banding WILL appear? Or, alternatively, that an entirely different result, like say, the particle doesn’t show up on the X-Ray film at all, could occur? This could be used to decode whether or not “expectation of observer” has a quantifiable effect on the results. And, if so, how much does expectation effect the results, and if adding observers with similar or conflicting expectations would have any effect.
But in layman's terms, to me, this means that when matter/reality isn't being used(observed), it becomes "unrendered" (like a video game), but this is a very very vague way of explaining this complex quantum conundrum.
This ended up commented on the wrong video, cursed autoplay!
I can't believe how much EP = EPR has progressed. Lenny's still got it. He solved the black hole information paradox. Well, on paper at least.
Do have an explanation to offer for the phenomena you mentioned?
@Science Revolution What's all BS? Do you even understand any of this? Doesn't seem like it. What on earth are you talking about? First, that's not how tid7es work. You think you can actually see the "bulges"? The moon creates a squeezing effect at the poles which is what really creates these "bulges". You see the effect, the tides.
Dude, are you scientifically illiterate or something?
@@flyfree78644 Anyone can look up the black hold information paradox. Stop being lazy and learn.
@Science Revolution Of course he can....do you even know who Leonard Susskind is?
@@jakublizon6375 my reply was meant for science revolution, but I thank you for the punch in the face.😳🖖
Juan Maldacena is Argentinian not American (USA)
In this universe, physics is defined by force with Space and Time being separate frames. In Einstein’s fantasy universe, physics is defined by acceleration, with Spacetime being one frame.
Time is the measurement of acceleration.
There is acceleration of the mass in space (spatial coordinates).
Acceleration of the mass itself (change in attributes).
And Acceleration of Information.
Mass can be atoms. Or it can be energy/information.
A massless frame (energy/information) acts upon another massless frame when one electromagnetic field is stronger (force) than another.
Electromagnetic waves don't have mass in the classical sense, but they do have force - frequency/wavelength and acceleration.
Electromagnetic waves carry information that is captured and stored - a body of knowledge.
Time travel is limited to the body of knowledge (mass) within the Space frame.
Acceleration within one's lifespan is determined by the amount of applied force that accelerates the biological processes.
Einstein was wrong to combine space and time and use acceleration to define the physics.
I wanted to enjoy as much time I have in Sher... where's the enjoyment? What to do!??
Do a special on the flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon on 9-11.
We need to distinguish between matter/energy level (where humans live ) and subatomic level where everything happening .The classic physics in matter/energy level cannot be applied on subatomic level, our observation is a reflection to what is happening on subatomic level including time ,for example, what we experience it as heat is actually atoms vibrating on subatomic level, and what we see it shinning is actually photons created and ejected from an object undergoing transformation on subatomic level.
The whole universe works on subatomic level, The universe does not see sun ,earth , planets , trees and buildings. It sees concentration of particles that form these objects, and with particles it deals, any term in physics associated with matter/energy is meaningless or does not exist on quantum level including (mass,force,time,energy,...etc) so in this case any physical laws that include these terms does not apply on quantum level. We need to find the aspects that play role and the physical laws that govern them on inertia scale ,and they are thousands if not millions, the mathematical equations are few kilometers long,you call uber to correct something at the other side of it. We can understand quantum physic better if we use the term (behavior of particles of the universe) , there are nothing such as particles, there are only particles of the universe and the universe forces particles to behave on a certain way in certain conditions and one of these behaviors is gravity, gravity is behavior of particles, dark matter is behavior of particles , Why Oxygen is a gas and iron is solid metal is behavior of particles , Why photons penetrate glass and reflected on other media is behaviors of particles ,any chemical process or reaction is behavior of particles. Why some elements mix with each other and some not is behaviours of particles, Movement in space is behavior of particles, the electrical charge (- and +) are behavior of particles (so they are not properties of particles),double slit experiment is behavior of particles, the Gyroscope is behavior of particles, the speed of light is behavior of particles, and ALL fundamental forces humans know are actually behavior of particles ,particles change their behavior accordingly with the circumstances surrounding them
The existence of black holes is still to be investigated ,but for the moment let's assume there is black hole in the center of each galaxy, the galactical behavior is totally different than the behavior of mass on smaller scale like planets orbiting stars and solar systems which controlled by what we know as gravity ,on galactical scale it is totally different (no matter if they are close or far from the center of the galaxy) , where the stars far from the center of the galaxy orbit faster than the stars close to the center of the galaxy ,The only explanation for this is that the behavior of particles is a function of distance (or space)
let's take 2 magnets north and south and put them close to each other ,their particles will change behavior and pull each other and if we move them away from each other their particles behavior start to change, and the attraction force starts to weaken so space in fact change the behaviors of particles, the same applies for matter that circle the galaxy ,the space is much greater of matter in galaxies than space between the mass on solar systems ,that is why particles on galactical level behave differently. This was explained by scientists by the effect of dark matter
So for all what mentioned above the origin of the universe was not the big bang but when particles started to get their properties and behaviors and atoms started to bond together and take shape to form matter and its companion energy ,the universe was different to what we see now ,The properties and behaviours of particle are ever changing ,and continue to do so for ever. Entropy is a good example for this.
The issue with big bang theory is that it turned many aspects of the universe to constants, and we know very well that nothing in the universe is constant everything is changing all the time (including properties and behaviors of particles ) and everything is moving in space, and nothing is stand still. We have expansion of the universe and we have a big bang ,we just need to fill the gap between them and we have a theory of creation.
The behaviors of particles in your body is interacting with,the particles surrounding them ,the particles of the planet you are on, the particles of the solar system your planet in, the particles of galaxy your solar system part of, and particles of all galaxies in the universe, particles have multy behaviors at the same time. So if we remove all galaxies in the universe ,and only remain you and the most distance galaxy then the particles of your body will behave according with this galaxy.
The change in properties and behaviors of particles over de course of time was not equal or at the same rate everywhere in the universe, some regions didn't develop matter yet or developed to different properties
We can say that vacuum is existence, or part of existence ,and what applies on everything exists in the universe applies also on vacuum, but humans observe vacuum from their perspective in matter/energy level , if we want to know and identify vacuum from perspective of quantum level then it will be something totally different ,if we say vacuum is absence of particles (and I mean everything we call particle, even fundamental particles) then still vacuum is influenced by the same aspects of the universe that influent all particles and give particles their properties and behaviors, so vacuum in a way or another does carry the properties and behavior by the influence of the aspects of the universe and because vacuum fill the gap between particles (at least what we know till now) then vacuum play major role in "communication" between the aspects of the universe and particle. was the early universe only vacuum ,then particles started to emerge? Humans are limited to their senses and brain ability and accuracy of their equipment's so there are lot of aspects in the universe human cannot interact with for example multi dimensions so it will take some time to know what vacuum consist of and its behaviors and properties
So any thing happening around us could be and must be explained on behavior of particles on subatomic level,the big masses matter on any size are eventually composite of particles..and the behaviour of their particles gives the big masses their behaviors and actions in space
It is certain that all particles have no mass,mass only starts to build when atoms start to bond and make matter ,so anything more that 2 atoms have mass..mass is something associated with matter/energy level ,it is nonsens that some think that the mass of big bodies is the summation of the masses of its particles ,
Where are the boundaries?,when we are going to apply the quantum physics rules and when we are going to apply classical physics,explanning this is very long task ,but there is one principle here is that the formation of atoms from Hydrogen till atoms of heavy element all subject to quantum level and mainly ruled by behaviours of particles any thing comes after is subject for matter/energy level still we need to take into account that the bonds between atoms of the same elment,or the bonds between atoms of different elements are directly concidered as behaviours of particles,if we understand this it will lead us to know how all elements and anything matter or energy formed and have its own charastaristices and properties and their transformation froma stat to another and from sort element to another by fusion ,decay ,radiation or what ever process .
Are life and biological realm a product or a consequence of behaviour of particles on subatomic level ,the answer is yes,The ingredients in humans body or any living body even small tiny single cell creatures are all made from the same elements that every thing in the universe is made off,the difference is that they have life,or what we call it life.
So what kind and what percentage of each element available on a planet that have the right environment to support life would create what kind of biological world..? yes you got right ,the possibilities are infinite.
We see this very clear on differences between plants ,animals,humans and the biological world as a whole on each continent on earth it self,The biological developments started on many places on earth at the same time separately and still happening till now days ,so nothing fell from the skies that caused to kick start life on earth, and it is an example how behaviours of particles follow a certain path when it goes higher in complexity level.So it was not a spark.
For Einstein spacetime did not relate to the physical world. It was a mathematical construct to "describe" what happens, not what is happening or how it works at a fundamental level.
E equals MC squared?
He don't know nuffin!
It's E = M x C x 2.
He probably don't even know the moon's made of cheese!
Thanks, Prof'.
You do make science even more interesting than it already is.
I reckon this fella really, really, really loves physics.
And those are the folks you wanna hear it from.
Is the Hicks boson created of discovered? Jim says created...why?
Not many people born in Iraq are named Jim
'The Universal Discussion'
~♾~
'What Is The Universe?
Does The Universe Exist?
How Is The Universe Defined?
+
Does The Universe Have An End?
Did The Universe Have A Beginning?
What Do We Know About The Universe?
+
Why Are We Here?
How Do We Define Infinity?
What Is The Meaning Of All This?'
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
'A Ceed To Grow'
~♾~
'Long Days And Solemn Nights;
Brief And Brisk Beneathe The Lights;
Though Tumult Trie And Thought Amiss;
Though Care Atune The Truth Dismay;
Aflight The Time The Dark Dismiss;
Arise The Sun In Call Of Day.
Akin The Flame; In Spirit Breathe Of Soul,
Rebirth; Beneathe Soil The Earth,
Return In Kind; The Mind, As Sword And Sheathe To Find The Winter Wind & Vane;
As Planet, Rock: A Pebble, Grain;
To Live, Alive: Respite, The Rain.
*
Against The Flow; Incurrent Glo;
The Way Of Life.'
*
(Love, Light, & Life)
-VT
“Went on a bit” he says 😬
To be lectured at is why I never got beyond my love for the sciences and did not pursue them. In my career, presented with actuality, understanding came naturally. Late. Could've happened in school. Did have a chem prof perform a thermite reaction in class. Everything I use is treated as a reagent. Some damned clean peanut butter in my house.
Quantum Physics does not explain Classical Physics (and of course, CF does not explain QF). As all physical theories,
QF and CF are just approximations that have their limits of applicability, but we do not know (and cannot fully know),
the limits of the classical and of the quantum, we don't even know exactly under which circumstances a phenomenon well explained by QF generates a phenomenon well explained by CF (what happens in a measurement).
Ideally, what we should look for is a theory that have QF and CF as limit cases, that theory would explain the phenomena (that we still do not understand) of how the quantum phenomena generate the classical world. For now,
what we have is a very crude description of how some quantum phenomena causes some classical consequences (that is the measurement "rules" of QM), it is in this crude description where incertitude, probability, non-locality, duality, uncontrollable influence of the measurement apparatus etc. etc. appear (while a system is quantum, its evolution
is deterministic, local and very well behaved), it is just in that QF-CF interface that non-locality (and other anti-intuitive
characteristics) appear. That model of reality that has QF and CF as limit cases, has to be strongly non-local, because
that is an experimental fact that cannot be explained by the quantum nor the classical model, but it is consequence
this jigsaw puzzle will never be solved. start Physics anew.
Stuff Rumsfeld.....what about Confucius?
Jim’s only mistakes here (probably not his fault) are the page and font colour combo. Bright white is not good. Hurts the eyes.
The stage is great. His movies have a amazing colour and tone. It’s all very soothing to the eyes and ears. But the whiteboard with blue and black. is harsh.
So if black holes are entangled it means that number of them in space is even? 🤔 entanglement idea still tortures me
No energy, charge, photons, waves, spin, fields, potential, quantum,quarks, space- time, information, etc. The Standard Theory/Model was replaced in 2002. The Expansion Theory ended all this Stone Age approach to physics. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
I would argue that we are extremely close to the end.The end of human civilization.How much money do people who can scientifically communicate need.The laws of thermodynamics and the laws of nature and the laws that govern complex systems, ensures our demise.And it's people like Jim's responsibility to communicate this reality.With much privilege comes much responsibility.But, I always knew we would sleep walk our way into apocalypse.Maybe he doesn't understand, doubtful, but possible.He should."It's no measure of health, to be well adjusted, to a profoundly sick society."All of our exalted technological progress, civilization for that matter, is comparible to an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal-ALBERT EINSTEIN
You stole my idea which is there is worm hole everywhere. Because there is entangled particle everywhere. And this would also explain twin telepathic phenomena since the particle in there body might be entangled.
Do you agree? - if there is something, then, somewhere, there must also be nothing
time doesn't flow. things flow. what we call space is only a distance from one point to another. , what we call time is also only a distance from one event to another.. distance doesn't flow. make an experiment. walk from far towards the tree. you will see that the distance is changing. is space changing? the same can be applied with time.
What Is Energy?
What Is A Black Hole?
What Is A Gravitational Anomaly?
What Is Information?
What Forms Of Information Exist?
What Types Of Information Are Humans Capable Of Percieving And Comprehending?
What Is Life?
What Is Perception?
What Is Consciousness?
What is creativity?
What is meaning?
What is love?
@@salty-_-steve_82
The Universe
(5/31/21)
__________
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_techniques
__________
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_thinking
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_thinking
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_thinking
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_thinking
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_thinking
__________
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdisciplinarity
__________
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-system
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligibility_(philosophy)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
__________
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventor%27s_paradox
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse#Universe_of_discourse
__________
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholistic_reference
@@salty-_-steve_82
I Wrote This About Love On (5/8/21):
'True Love, In It's Highest Sense And Meaning, Is Not So Easily And Succinctly Defined By Human Languages; It Is A Complex Action Which Presents In Various Ways Beyond The Scope Of What Could Be Considered Naturally Humanistic Materialism Or Spontaneous Evolutionary Biological Chemistry, Though At Times Presenting Itself In A Natural Fashion Or Sporting Itself In Flesh. It Does However Have Definitive Qualities, Which Present In Relative Measure And Mixture To One Another, Being More Of A Dynamic Scale Or A Qualitative Spectrum Of Composites Than A General Definitional Summation Of Specific Action.
If I Were To Attempt An Adequate Definition, Even With A Thousand Words Or A Thousand Books, It Would Surely Fall Short Of It's Actual Expression In Reality And Of It's Principle Essence.
C.S. Lewis Provides A Reasonable Exposition Of The Subject In His Book 'The Four Loves', Which I Have Had The Opportunity To Read Portions Of.
In Great Brevity And With Significant Overgeneralization, Love, In It's Highest Order And Definition, Is Not Based Upon Mere Reciprocity Or Befriended Commonalities, Nor Upon Mere Physical Affections Or Passionate Desires, But Rather, In Many Instances, Openly Defies Those Natural Tendencies, Choosing Instead To Willingly Suffer On Behalf Of Another, To Their Credit And Best Interests Even At One's Own Expense And Loss.'
@@salty-_-steve_82
Where Did The First Work Originate From? Naturally Speaking, What Orderly Force Is Capable Of Acting From Outside Of Nature? If This Natural Construct, Which By All Apparent Matterial Reason Should Not Even Exist, Has Always Existed, Then Why Is It Not By Now In A State Of Complete Disarray Or At A Perpetual Rest?
Hmm
I like this guy, seen several of his videos. His explanations of OBSERVABLE SCIENCE are great. Unlike, when at ~34 minute mark he starts talking about entropy- how ALL things move from a state of order to disorder- in regards to this so-called, accepted-as-fact, THEORY of "evolution", just like entropy, we have NEVER seen an organism morph into another organism that contains MORE genetic information, which is what has to happen for evolution to be true.
In fact, it is always the other way around. Life DOES NOT evolve into more complexity; Genetic information actually runs the OPPOSITE direction, and breaks down. DNA/genes LOSE information, they do not gain it. It's one of the reasons for birth defects, for example. And probably the reason why we now have increasing rates of autism, nut allergies, and unexplained illnesses, for example. The genetic code of life itself is moving in the direction of entropy.
These scientists want it both ways. I don't know why it's so easy for someone to read a book, put together with chapters, put together with paragraphs, put together with words, which are put together with letters..., and have no doubt that someone WROTE that book. Same thing could be said of a computer, or a 747 jet.
But life? The IMMENSE COMPLEXITY of life, built from DNA upon just 4 chemical bases, similar to how letters give rise to books and language, yet the idea of a Creator God...? OH NO!! Cannot BE! We can simply explain that with "millions of years of evolution." What a joke.
Also, their dating methods that give these secular scientists the ability to even have millions of years, are also wrong. They can go grab a lava rock, that they just WATCHED COOL, and use these incorrect dating methods, and that rock will be dated to hundreds of thousands of years old.
And the "Big Bang" is yet another secular construct being taught now as fact. It is NOT fact. God created the universe and everything in it, and man doesn't want to accept Him, because then he would have to admit his sin nature, and come to grips with the penalty for our sin.
If we are all just evolved from star stuff, as Carl Sagan claims, then where does a sense of right and wrong come from?
No one is really talking about how since the beginning of the universe there has been a tendency for *complexity* to arise, and then be ever-increasing. From the astronomical to the biological, this to me is islands of 'anti-entropy'.
Have a wonderful day sorry I AM TIRED
What is space?
So few and far between are the occasions for forming notions whose specializations make up a continuous manifold, that the only simple notions whose specializations form a multiply extended manifold are the positions of perceived objects and colors.
~Riemann
The characteristic of an n-dimensional manifold is that each of the elements composing it (in our examples, single points, [...] colors, tones) may be specified by the giving of n quantities, the "coordinates," which are continuous functions within the manifold.
~Weyl
If you ask a physicist what is his idea of yellow light, he will tell you that it is transversal electromagnetic waves of wavelength in the neighborhood of 590 millimicrons. If you ask him: But where does yellow come in? he will say: In my picture not at all, but these kinds of vibrations, when they hit the retina of a healthy eye, give the person whose eye it is the sensation of yellow.
~Schrödinger
Oh gosh. Not the perpetual motion machine answer again. Strain at a gnat swallow a camel. I give. (I still like this guy alot nonetheless)
is this channell just ripping off jim videos or is it official place they publish
This talk was recorded in Science and Cocktails event in Copenhagen, Denmark. All the talks on this channel are filmed at our events and made public for the audience.
I think there is shorter name for "The physicists who would be happy if Higgs Boson was never found". Crackpots.
The great tower of Babylon in teaching!
cold open conclusions described as discoveries are not discoveries. observed does not
prove,&or if anything disproves, the most base theories. the big bang is still not a certainty
. observation adds more evidence for lack of same. expansion & accelerating only outside of galaxies disproves the big bang, purely by not being reversable to an initial point of origin
There is nothing that exists today that has not got an outside area to it, to say the primeval seed existed with no outside area is impossible and would be impossible to expand outwards , ie if the big bang occurred then where is the humonous amount of influx of energy required to push out the expansion giving the size of the cosmological constant today huh ?
The second I've seen the ASU logo, I knew that the whole thing is a useless money laundering operation at best.
Offence definitely was meant.
What does Appalachian State University have to do with anything?
Hello Professor Al-Khalili, Since I watched one of your ' Royal Institution @ lectures, I have been working on an hypothesis for a radical alternative to the standard model of the atom. I have tried to make this available to you , but without success. However, I do feel that it may be of some interest, so below I will post a very brief overview of my hypothesis, for your perusal.
I hypothesize that everything in the universe is composed of just two incredibly small particles that I have proposed.
One is a negatively charged monopole particle called a ' Harveytron ', which fills every available empty space between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom, and every available empty space throughout the universe, in a cloud called the ' Harveytron Cloud '.
These particles make up the ' Dark Matter ', and the negative force of repulsion that is produced by them trying to repel each other in every direction, is the ' Dark Energy '. This is the force that keeps all of the planets suspended, and stops them from being drawn to each other, and is what is causing the expansion of the universe ( if it is ).
The second, is a corresponding positively charged monopole particle, called a ' Dannytron ', which, in combination with the ' Harveytrons ', make up all of the nuclei and therefore all of the nuclear matter in the universe. They are what makes up the other force of gravitational attraction between the nuclear matter of the universe.
Starting with the atom, I believe that all of the particles making up the table of particles in the standard model, are man-made, and just pieces of nuclear detritus following collider collisions.
I believe that the nucleus is composed of successive layers of the two positive and negatively charged monopole ' Harveytrons ' and ' Dannytrons ', that I describe, like a gobstopper sweet.
The different elements being determined by the number of the positively charged ' Dannytrons ' contained in the nucleus. Beyond the last layer of positively charged particles there exists just the negatively charged ' Harveytrons ', which fill every available empty space between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom. This boundary is determined where the point of equilibrium is reached between the attractive force of the positively charged particles contained in the nucleus to the negatively charged particles in the ' Harveytron cloud ', and the repulsive force of the ' Harveytron cloud ' and the negative charge of the ' Harveytrons ' contained in the nucleus meets.
Beyond this boundary, there exists only the negatively charged ' Harveytron ' monopole particles throughout every available empty space in the universe, creating a negative force of repulsion throughout the universe, and is one of the two components of gravity.
I would contend that these monopoles, do not give up their charge, and the forces of each, extend through each particle, which in the case of the positive extends to the boundary of the atom and the negative extends to the centre of the nucleus.
Electron.
I contend that the electron is not an elementary solid particle, but a cluster of the negatively charged ' Harveytron ' particles that I propose. These clusters form due to the mass of the ' Harveytron Cloud ' trying to reach the nucleus, and as any force is applied to the atom, a pulse of energy is ejected from one atom to the next as happens with the photon.
The quantity of energy in these pulses is always the same and is a constant. The charge held by these clusters, is not equal to the positive charge of the nucleus, but just a proportion of it. the amount of charge equal but opposite that of the nucleus, is distributed throughout the ' Harveytrons ' contained in the area between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom.
Gravity.
It will be noticed that there exists a massive excess of the negatively charged ' Harveytron ' monopole particles. These, although incredibly small ( too small to detect with the equipment we have }. do have mass, and as such account for all of the missing mass of the universe, and is the proposed dark matter.
The force of repulsion they produce keeps all atomic nuclear matter such as the planets, suspended in space keeping them apart unless they get too close to each other, when they will merge. This is the proposed ' Dark Energy '. Because all nuclear matter is encased in these particles, it is forced against large mass of matter, as we are to the earth. This is the repulsive force of gravity, pushing matter together, It will be realized that this repulsive force is also pushing out from the large mass, as all of the negative particle are trying to repel each other in every direction. However, because the nuclear matter contains the compact mass containing all of the positively charged ' Dannytron ' monopole particles, in all of the nuclei. these create the attractive force of gravity, which is stronger that the repulsive force, and acts to try to attract nuclear matter to nuclear matter.
Our atmosphere defines where the two forces of gravity reach equilibrium, beyond which, there is the constant repulsive force of the ' Harveytron Cloud ' (dark energy ). This force is a constant, and the total force of gravity is determined by the number of nuclei contained in a given mass of matter. The larger the nuclear mass, the stronger the gravity.
The existence of the ' Harveytron Cloud ', provides a medium in which electromagnetic radiation, or any shock wave can travel through space.
It is obvious that this is just an overview and all points can be extrapolated a great deeal, but I hope it gives an insight and food for thought. I would be interested what your thought are. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
@Mike Fuller Hello Mike, thank you for your reply. What you say is correct with regard to classical physics, where laws have been established by careful measurement observation.
However, when it comes to sub-atomic physics, we are unable to see or measure the constituent parts of the atom, which is the fundamental of everything that exists in the universe. The whole of the standard model is only conjecture, and the mathematics associated with it, tend to be develloped to fit the model. The only way that sense can be made of the standard model is by creating equations based on ' Uncertainty Principal ', ' Probability Theory ', and ' Imaginary Numbers '. The famous ' Schridinger Wave Function ', is only another way of saying " We know the electron is somewhere in the atom, but really, we havent got a clue where it is ".
The following are jus a few of the absurdities of the standard model that led me to propose an hypothesis for a radical alternative to the standard model, based on logic, rather than mathematics.
a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is millions of times that of the electron?
b). If the electron does act as described in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum?
c). Following on from b). This momentum and changing of trajectory would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore, every atom and therefore all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not? This proves that the electron, as described in the standard model, cannot be moving, but must be at rest, unless exited by an external influence, therefore the standard model is wrong.
d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holding capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery?
e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn contain neutrinos and electrons, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite charge to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, and in ‘ Beta decay ‘ these quarks can change into their opposite quarks, with the ejection of a neutrino or an antineutrino, and an electron, then there exists three electrons contained within the proton, and three within the neutron. This would mean that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one positive, the presence of these electrons in the nucleus should make it negative.
F}. The accepted view, according to the standard mode, is that space is a vacuum. If this is the case, how is it possible for light and all electromagnetic radiation or gravitation waves to travel through space?
Since it is accepted that all electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are ' Waves ', there has to be a medium in which a wave can propagate and travel, therefore, space must contain a cloud of matter particles, such as I describe in my hypothesis, to facilitate this propagation.
If you think about it sensibly, all of the socalled particles that have apparently been discoverd, are all manmade. They are all a result of collider collisions, and can only be observed by the traces they leave. As they decay within a fraction of a second, they cannot be observed directly. You have to admitt, it is a bizzar way to see what something is made of, by smashing things together.
You dont have to be a genious to recognize that it is impossible for a single particle to form a cloud, and be everywhere at the sam moment in time. I would be interested in your thoughts. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
@Mike Fuller Hello Mike, thank you for this reply, and your previous repy. You make very valid points, wich would make most people conceed defeat. However, unfortunately I have always been a bit of an odd-bodd and only accept what I am told if I can rationalize it to myself. I havn't a clue what my IQ is but I wouln't think it is very high, I would say that the vast majority of the people in the science comunity are far more clever than I am.
However, I am an inventor with patents granted in both mechanical engineering and botany. You do not have to be a brilliant mathematician to see things logically. Reading between the lines, I feel you know far more about quantum physics than you give yourself credit for.
You say that you can't start from scratch on a new model, why? Just because clever people in the past have convinced other people that their ideas are right, dosn't mean they are. The other problem is that because students are told that the equations that these famous people construct are correct, they are just accepted as gospel.
The comment you make about things being proven to very high accuracy, that is true with regard to the speed of light and the like, but anything that is based on equations containing the wave function, or variables like probability theory, must be suspect.
With the point you make about E.P.R. and ' Bell ', this is pure philosophy and conjecture, and centred around the debate about entanglement. If you look it up the mathematics are mindboggling, but when you look through it, nothing has been proven because you can't measure particles travelling at the speed of light at a distance.
For all the billions of pounds spent and the thousands of physicists working on it, the standard model doese not work, mine could.
the standard model can't explain gravity, mine can. The standard model with its multitude of ever increasing number of particles, is too complicated to be a workable model, where mine is simple and logical.
I would welcome anyone proving what I propose unquestionably wrong. So far, nobody has answered those questions that I posed logically. I would be happy to try to prove any part of the standard model wrong.
I stand by my hypothesis, and feel that if this model had been put forward alongside the standard model years ago, it would have stood a good chance of be picked over the standard model. I would like to thank you again for your replies, kind regards,
Tony Marsh
Try 5-min video "Time = Quantum Fluctuations. Gravity = Time Dilation. Strong Force = Gravity." for kids.
@@alexandrekassiantchouk1632 Hallo Alexander, thank you for your interesting reply.
I have just wattched your video, and with the greatest respect, I could not dis agree with you more. We are so far apart with our ideas, it is probably best to agree to disagree, for many reasons, not least the following, and I stress this is just my perspectve.
Time. Time is just a parameter we use for our own convenience, within a reference frame of our choosing. We say that light travels at around two hundred and eighty six miles per second, where our second is aderivitive of the period of one revolution of our earth. Howevr, any period could be used as a benchmark for determining our perception of time.
the events that happen in everything in the universe, will happen no matter how we peceive them, therefore, ' Time ' has nothing to do with gravity.
Your cork in water analogy, is referenced in a two dimentional frame, where space is three dimentional. Your cork on water, being of molecular matter, can be viewed and observed, where sub-atomic matter and gravity can't.
The following are just a few of the anomolies of the standard model, that led me to propose an alternative. Take a look, and either using the standard model, or your model, try to answer the questions logically, withought mathematics. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is millions of times that of the electron?
b). If the electron does act as described in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum?
c). Following on from b). This momentum and changing of trajectory would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore, every atom and therefore all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not? This proves that the electron, as described in the standard model, cannot be moving, but must be at rest, unless exited by an external influence, therefore the standard model is wrong.
d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holding capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery?
e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn contain neutrinos and electrons, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite charge to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, and in ‘ Beta decay ‘ these quarks can change into their opposite quarks, with the ejection of a neutrino or an antineutrino, and an electron, then there exists three electrons contained within the proton, and three within the neutron. This would mean that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one positive, the presence of these electrons in the nucleus should make it negative.
F}. The accepted view, according to the standard mode, is that space is a vacuum. If this is the case, how is it possible for light and all electromagnetic radiation or gravitation waves to travel through space?
Since it is accepted that all electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are ' Waves ', there has to be a medium in which a wave can propagate and travel, therefore, space must contain a cloud of matter particles, such as I describe in my hypothesis, to facilitate this propagation.
Take "Time Matters eBook" Chapter 1 easy:
Misinterpretation of Hubble's observation (of distant stars looking red) led to Universe expansion and Bing Bang speculations. Actual reason for his observation is neither in light nor in space, but in time - slower time in past becomes redshift today:
Let's say, 10 billion years ago you started sending letters to yourself, one letter a day.
10 billion years have passed, and now, for some reason, our day is twice shorter/faster than it used to be, and letters start coming.
How many letters you'll be receiving a day? Answer: 1 letter every OTHER day.
Frequency of getting letters per day dropped twice.
And if 14 billion years ago time was twice slower than today, then of 100 light-waves sent a second, you'll be receiving 50 waves a second now. Frequency drop == redshift. Cosmology collapsed on twice slower time 14 billion years ago (wavelength change was incorrectly explained as space/wave expansion by Doppler effect).
War das wirklich notwendig?
how does entropy explain life. leave life long enough and it will turn everything into crabs, or a concrete jungle.
Jim, even if 100 yr to solve the problems, at least they solve it. Respectfully, you shouldn't put down the scientists who all worked on it, decades after decades relentlessly.