The Weak and Strong Nuclear Forces (9 of 15)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.พ. 2008
- Episode 9 of In Search of Giants: Dr Brian Cox takes us on a journey through the history of particle physics. In this episode we learn how the string and weak nuclear forces were discovered.
This film is part of a series originally broadcast on Teachers' TV (www.teachers.tv/video/23645).
The series was made with the support of The Science and Technology Facilities Council (www.scitech.ac.uk).
www.lhc.ac.uk - Official UK LHC website for public and schools.
www.particledetectives.net - School resources on the LHC, how science works and particle physics.
Films produced and directed by Alom Shaha (www.labreporter.com).
Join the conversation:
Twitter: / stfc_matters
Facebook: / scitechfaccouncil
LinkedIn: / stfc - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[4K] TREASURE(트레저) “KING KONG” Band LIVE Concert 킹콩은 라이브를 찢어🦍 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p8bLLOxPDD8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 65 | คู่เอก "จ้าวเสือใหญ่ vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDpOh5eEJKw/mqdefault.jpg)
You're correct in saying that a black hole is the force that is holding the protons together. A very very small black hole, of course. Since a black hole has a massive gravitational pull of the sort that can trap light it can also keep positively charged particles together.
The misconception is that black holes are thought to solely exist as super dense and super massive dead stars. This can lead to the obvious confusion in how such an object can fit inside the nucleus of an atom.
The force is strong with this one
Interestingly, from the relation |F|= m1.m2.c^3/h and masses (m1,m2) equal to 1/3 of the proton we get the force |F|=(5.56x10^-28)^2*(3x10^8)^3/(6.626x10^-34)=12598.7 N. This value is already comparable to a nuclear force of 10000 N [otherwise c=299,792,458 m/s is only valid in a vacuum, in a material environment its velocity can be (and is) smaller]. Assuming that the three points on have the same mass m[kg] and are uniformly distributed on the circle, the cosine component of the force is |F|=(m).(m+m).c^3/h.cos60°, i.e. still |F|=m.m.c^3/h. It is also interesting that the constant c^3/h appears in the neutrino oscillations and also in the entropy of black holes.
@TheMaskTV
The standard model is thus:
Molecule->atom->proton->U & D Quarks
Molecule->atom->Neutron->U & D Quarks
Molecule->atom->electon
The electrons and quarks are leptons and are classed as elementary particles as they cannot be broken down any further, and there is no evidence to suggest that they should. String theory may be the answer, but all particles are limited to the Plank scale anyway, at least in our 3 spacial dimensions.
Lol Professor Cox workin out in the gym, breakin a mental sweat
Brian, I can't help but to describe radionics where the atom as a ten dimensional structure of mass and light. A structure where the interactions between mass and light is fastest at 500 M m/s in the strong force and slowest in the electromagnetic force at 300 M m/ s meaning the light streams vary in shape and velocity amongst the forces and the velocity differences are between c1 and c2. The charged particles go about there business while they push and pull and the fastest interaction of the strong force is the gravitational attraction. The anti-matter particles love to participate because not only is there signal entanglement, for life we have two of everything for sensors; two directional polarizations wound up in three forces of ten dimensional atoms.
So after doing some adding of fractions, I was able to show with math why a Neutron has no charge & why a Proton has a positive charge of 1.
An Up Quark = 2/3
A Down Quark = -1/3
A Proton has 2 Up Quarks & 1 Down Quark.
(2/3)+(2/3)+(-1/3)=1
A Neutron has 1 Up Quark & 2 Down Quarks.
(2/3)+(-1/3)+(-1/3)=0
***Its interesting to note that the neutral charge goes to the more massive, Neutron.
& the positive charge goes to the less massive Proton.
******I am not sure, but perhaps the difference in mass between the Neutron & the Proton equals the mass of the Electron??
But electrons aren't made of quarks because they are carriers of Electromagnetic influence rather than Weak Nuclear influence.......so how does the Electron actually get its negative charge, without being made of Quarks???
That was absolutely priceless. Thank you for that.
Gravity is determined by mass and density (I refer to density for space time curvature). Currently accepted theories only consider the four fundamental forces, that is, the strong, weak, gravity and electrostatic. This has been researched fairly thoroughly.
The grand unified theories suggested at the beginning of time and space, the four forces I've just referred to, were unified. It's been suggested they've since deviated from each other. Read Michio Kaku's 'Parallel Worlds' for more info
@bigmangiff E=mc^2, mass is energy, energy is mass. The binding energy per nucleon change in a nuclear reaction, known as the mass defect, is what causes such great releases of energy in an atomic bomb.
@WhitePeppah Also, the EM spectrum is essentially the frequency range of the Electrostatic force. It isn't related to the gravitational force.
not a gamma ray. Photons. Photons are given the greek letter "gamma", but Gamma rays as we know them are any photon within a certain frequency range.
Think of how a fluorescent light works - using mercury to create UV rays, Phosphor coating to convert the UV into visible light which exits the bulb.
UV and visible light are all photons - all electromagnetic waves are photons of a certain frequency, but we think of them as both particle and wave depending on the use - wave-particle duality
Thank you, This is a Very high level of information made simple for the non scientifically trained or educated people. Thank you very much for your well presented, well researched, hard work.
@nurbsenvi Considering the vastness of the universe I think that is a pretty outstanding feat!
Is there any theory wich states that every atom is a black hole -ish vortex and that the proton and neutron are held together by the strong force actually being similar to a vortex force negatively charged. Also the electron dowsnt go in the center because the vortex is negatively charged but stiull the protons in the middle atract it enough to orbit it?
@jinxedmodder I wonder what the geography is of the pronunciation "bee-ta". Rutherford used this pronunciation too. English? British? Welsh, too? Irish, we know. Rutherford was a New Zealander of Scots parents.
@ iamaloserandisuck In a Hydrogen atom the strong force is only responsible for keeping the quakrs together inside of the proton, it's the electromagnetic force that keeps the electrons in orbit about the proton. As there is only one proton, there is no repulsion.
0.46 The Strong Force is definitely gonna be that guys wrestling name.
A positron (antielectron) and a neutrino is made when a pronto turns into a neutron.
A neutrino has a nonzero mass and has no charge.
The positron conserves the charge of the proton.
The strong force being the strongest and carried by coloured gluons whilst the weak being the second weakest coupled to W+, W- and Z0 bosons
What about hydrogen? Since it has only one proton it wouldn't explode if it weren't for the strong force right?
So if a Neutron is made of 2 Down Quarks & 1 Up Quark.....& a Proton is made of 2 Up Quarks & 1 Down Quark..........then is it possible to use the Weak Nuclear Force to change a Proton into a Neutron?
Yes, that happens as well.
The strong force is actually a very very small black hole. A black hole as we know has enormous gravitational pull. This kind of force is adequate in keeping the positively charged protons together. Black holes don't solely exist as super massive dead stars. This kind of picture of the atom is simpler and more elegant. No need to invent a new kind of force and manipulate the equations to make it work. BTW, we live inside a black hole. Which is why outer space is black. Simply put, anyway.
Charge is made of virtual photons (bosons) which transmit the force of electromagnetism.
@nurbsenvi
lucky us younglings the "learning"scale is not linear
0:39 It's called time... and because time is connected to an initial (true) inertial frame of reference equal to one IFR wait state where time is conserved because E=T, and time is created by Mass oscillation powered by it's own inherent Quantum gravity that's oscillation phase of force is opposite to Universal gravity, the *4 equal oscillation phases* of the atom which includes the 4th "missing" graviton phase misnamed the "hole" shown opposite the electron (showing space is the force carrier of gravity and Universal gravity is caused by the oscillation subtrahend of the EM wave exactly as we observe it happen as points of observation increase exponentially) required for Mass to have a 4th oscillation phase to oscillate in space relative to time, the 4 phases are locked firmly in place. To say you can move one proton phase to another by "repulsion" is to say you can change time and the space connected to it to change the past which is fixed. The graviton phase of oscillation gives time a 2nd reverse phase arrow which due to weak force asymmetry and time dilation maintaining energy a constant exposed by the fine structure constant ( e{a}/t=E ) these positions are subject to the illusion they do change location just as the Sun rotates around the Earth or so it seems until you look closer. Time is the strong force and it needs the other three phases of force that hold E to create it. The 4 forces are Mass oscillation phase related so time holds the protons in place. The force of time is powerful and creates all 4 forces. The 3 particle generations etc. come about because there are three frames of observation within an oscillation cycle: bottom. top, and the average middle view in-between where we observe wave forms from.
what happened to his show... wonders of the universe...
Best I could describe in 500 characters. I just read it myself. Not too clear. Sorry about that.
You check out Nassim Haramein's take on the strong force though. It's very interesting. Search "Nassim Haramein 17/45". It's a long presentation cut into 45 parts. But just watch part 17 and a bit of 18 to see his theory on the strong force.
A proton cannot decay into a neutron, but it can "capture" an electron, when it then turns into a neutron and a neutrino. Neutrons do decay though, into a proton, electron, and antineutrino.
Are you referring to the schwarzchild proton?
@Geodynamo1939 I believe all British descendent nations (except America) pronounce it that way.
Could it not be possible that protons and neutrons don't sit side by side but are concentric ? No need for strong force.
Week force - compton effect, photons that hit nucleus knocking beta particles out ?
2:22
@nurbsenvi Where do you get 2000 years? As far as I know humans have been around far longer than that!
Weak force and spin are probably one of the most difficult things to explain to someone who doesn't understand physics.
Where is he now?
@nurbsenvi no, more like it took the universe 13.7 billion years to understand 5-6% of itself if we are the first
@nurbsenvi but most of that was understood from about newton's time. so about 400 yrs
There is no reason to suggest this. Quantum mechanics predicted most of the particles we now know, which is why particle accelerators were built to find them. It's one of the main reasons that the LHC was built to search for the Higgs Boson that is predicted by the theory. The same theory does not predict that any other particle should exist beyond the Quark/electron/neutrino etc Given how much is known, I am inclined to believe that there is nothing smaller.
@ TheMaskTV, what exaclty do you mean? The atom has already been split!!!
so that's what the strong force is, thanks
Brian Cox
The quarks inside might not be inclined to stick around.
a simple answer is
we dont know ..
we dont really know what fundamental particles are made of ...we think their strings ...wich are the same thing that space itself is made of ...or in string theory their called "branes" ...and branes can come in any dimension from 0 to 11 ....and all branes and strings emit gravitons...
now what are all of theese made from ...fluctuations of energy ..whats that made of? we dont know ...its made from ...nothing:D
@WhitePeppah Because gravity is horrifically weak. If you know the equation F=GM1M2/r^2, you'd see that the force between two such small particles is so minute when compared to the electrostatic force. Therefore, gravity cannot overcome the electrostatic force at a sub atomic level, and hence, is not related to the strong nuclear force. At this point in time... Let's not get into grand unified theories..
2000 years = ridiculously brief period of time
5-6% of observble universe = an unconceivably large portion of our world
a neutron weighs the same as a proton.
and protons dont decay into neutrons - its impossible
the theory of proton decay predicts that it would form a neutral pion (the majority of the mass) and a positron (the charge). Even this is only a theory for now though.
A proton won't decay because it is the most stable particle of all. Neutrons decay easily when they are released as Beta decay from a heavy nuclii
So it took us nearly 2000 years to understand 5~6% of the observable world...
no prob u r much smarter than me i applaud u for getting that
We do not fall off Earth because of gravity and since we have mass gravity is coupled to mass so everything that has mass is attracted to other massive objects including people to planets that being Earth in our case. Other scientific theories and discoveries will come in time with a rational logical conclusion that does not appeal to any intelligence will come in time.
CC transcribe audio Wins here Try it You will not stop laughing
@sidewaysfcs0718 Yes you are correct, I dont even remeber writing that but maybe I was drunk, thanks again.
@MrDgaf12345 we havent existed for even 0.1% of that time
WHY IT STRUCK
@nurbsenvi more way more
The box of nuclear cannot be sqeezed becauese it will create
Mass×÷@,^2four 1too
"What did you do at the gym today, love?"
quarks arent leptons
only electrons are leptons ..
quarks are simply fermions or ordinary matter ...
the 6 quarks + 6 leptons (electron, muon, tau, and 3 neutrinos) + 4 boson groups , photons, W Z and gluons.
thats the standard model
@sidewaysfcs0718
Sounds about right up untill the part about, it's made from nothing.
I don't even think we know that. Do we?
And who is the we anyway? lol
@amixer24 you are* not your. Yeah that proves your point again.
If you don't think that you can be able to see such a virus. Then it must be where you haven't looked. Even so, if you still can't see it, then why not place a beacon(a substance that will bond to the glycoprotein molecules)on the glycoproteins of the virus. I wish I knew someone with some C++ skills that I can trust to work on a project with concerning this issue so we can engineer something that will do exactly what I am talking about. Viruses are like nagging stickers that need to be plucked.
0:18
Why does he say beeta instead of beta?
I wasn't trying to make a religious point. I am just trying to interpret what he is saying.
So, in simple terms, you talk to the atom rather than breaking it! Why bring on the heat. Just have a cool conversation. It's the 21st.er century, is it not?
pretty much ....
what?
the outer is the source not theinner just trust me. factor that in for everything and it all makes sense. think about it. think the universe like a hologram a human would look out and be blinded by the outer wall and the sun would help light things around us my girl is deaf and if i stand in front of the sun shhe cant see my lips so think the original light source as the darkness of space we need stars to see around us like a hologram we are blinded by the spotlight that created us
Because that is how the Greeks say it.
Americans say nearly every English word wrong as well as the Greek alphabet.
@nurbsenvi yeah but don't forget we've been 200 years free from slavery of religion that lasted more than a millenium
press 6 repatedly and reply to me what it looks like
bee-ta radiation.
:)
black holes aren't forces
We aren't greeks, add more greek letters if you think it allows better pronunciation.
Science hasn't, I think that is what he means.
that chick on the right is back...
No, the person was making a Christian religious point by using the date of the myth of Christ (2,000 years ago). Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world. This has been undertaken by humans before 2,000 years ago. The fact that I get neg views for stating this fact is disturbing.
"Science involves all the how answers. Faith deals with all the why answers and would point to God writing the laws of physics."
Assuming there is a why question!
And actually science does answer why questions. Why does the sun rise in the sky in the morning? Why don't we fall off the Earth? Before we knew these whys people would say its because of God or Gods.
Give it time and we will know the whys you refer to.
hehehe nerd wars
Are you some religious fundamentalist? Modern Humans have been on earth for 200,000 years!
For a mention of God I think that it would be at the scales of the planck time and space and involving parallel universes or multiple dimensions. Coloured gluons are what 'sticks'
protons and neutrons together 2 up quarks and a down quark make a proton. Neutrons on the other hand are made of 2 down quarks and an up quark.
Science involves all the how answers. Faith deals with all the why answers and would point to God writing the laws of physics.