This helped me a lot. Most other standard model videos I have watch just present the theory as if Moses brought it down from the mountaintop. Thanks for taking the time to explain a bit about the experiments that back up the theory.
What a great channel glad I stumbled upon it. I have a dumb question relating to the Higgs Boson. My understanding is it was discovered by high energy collisions which "created it". It then decayed almost immediately, and it was the particles that it decayed into which were actually detected, and thus its existence was inferred. My question is, if the Higgs is so unstable, and requires very high energy to create it, then how exactly can it "be everywhere" adding a small amount of mass to other particles? I've heard it described as the Higgs field, but I'm getting the feeling that this field is not the same thing as the particle itself. If so, then what is the Higgs field, and how does it actually relate to the Higgs Boson? Again, this is probably me just being stupid, I'm just a curious layperson, but I feel like I'm missing something.
That Third Quark does WHAT!!! My other physics posts suggests problems with quark theory. Here's one to consider. The proton consists of three quarks, two up and one down. The neutron consists of three quarks, two down and one up. So both are equal in having 3 quarks Both are equal in having at least one up and one down quark. The difference is that third quark: The proton has it's third quark as an up quark The neutron has it's third quark as a down quark. So that means that the third quark is the difference between a proton and neutron. When that third quark is an up quark, that makes a proton. When that third quark is a down quark, that makes a neutron. So that third quark determines Whether it's a proton that is virtually immortal or Whether it's a neutron that decays in 15 minutes outside the nucleus! That is one magical quark!!! Can you explain what's going on? Can you explain this magic third quark and why it should make such a massive difference? Reply talks about mass dufference. My answer: That almost made sense... But, if true the big bang had to make much much more up quarks then down because most of the universe is hydrogen with one proton no neutron. But think about it if so many up quarks were created because of mostly protons and because less energy needed, why would there be enough down quarks made to make all those protons let alone double that number more to get any neutrons.
It is really an excellent video, what i understood from this is without boson nothing can withstand for attraction and no shape for atom and everything will fall without glueing b/w quarks. Pls correct me if wrong.
late reply but yeah, the reason atoms bind is the strong nuclear force, gluons/bosons(still not too clear on the distinction) pass between protons and neutrons. protons normally repel each other (as they are all positively charged) but the strong nuclear force lets neutrons keep them together, as strong nuclear force doesnt get weaker over distance like electromagnetism does. this is why large nuclei (too many protons) or atoms with too few neutrons are unstable.
What I thought I learned elsewhere is that gluons are mediated by the "strong" force which keeps the quarks held together. The "strong nuclear" force is something entirely different that helps to keep positively charged protons in the nucleus and prevents them from repelling each other. Two different forces. The "strong nuclear" force is what is responsible for the energy released during an atomic bomb explosion while the "strong" force is simply the force keeping quarks together in the hadrons.
I agree with you.Seems like the binding force (aka strong nuclear force) is a different force than the strong force holding nucleons together. Diffenert strength different force graphs diffenrent mediatiating particles.
the quark gluon force is called the strong force, the color force, or just QCD. The strong nuclear force reference to the strong force as applied to baryons and mesons, which are composites of quarks. At that level, QCD is not solvable, so a quark-gluon description doesn't help. The strong force becomes an effective theory of baryons bound by the exchange of force carrying mesons who quark structure need not be considered.
It's all made up. When you take away the eather from your theories you get consequently unicors and clowncars. All the greatest assumed the eather: Heavyside, Steinmetz, Maxwell.
@@98danielray he's right though. There's literally 0 proof of color charge. We know protons are composite, but we don't have evidence of fractional charge or color charge. In fact, we still have very poor understanding of the strong force. Spacetime, as of Einstein, is basically a relativistic ether: it has properties, and is effectively modeled as an elastic fluid/solid. GR is built on fluid mechanics, that's why we have a stress energy tensor. This fact is only tangentially related to the issues of the standard model, but makes you question how physics is modernly interpreted, with all the "ether does not exist" bs. Also, Gell-Mann was a rather, let's say, difficult physicists. The first to hypothesize the quark model was his student, George Zweig,as a "aces" model, in a rather long paper discussing every experimental evidence. Gell-Mann published later a very short paper (2 pages long) hypothesizing quarks, which was basically zweig's model under a different name and less detailed. Rather sus if you think about it. Zweig himself does not talk fondly of Gell-Mann in his recollections and thoughts of the quark model, which you can find online. Nevertheless, Murray gets all the credit these days.
@@FunkyDexter strong force is produced by interaction between electrical charge and spin of quarks and its angular moments inside proton or neutron. There's not color charge force
This did help, no doubt about that. But I'm still confused. I know the answer to my question "What is the evidence for quarks and quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics ?" is "Particle accelerators"; but how was things like spin, fractional charge and masses of particles discerned ? And even though the animation of the rays from particle accelerators was fantastic, I still don't know if those rays are trajectories of quarks or streams of quark/anti-quark pairs produces in the collisions. That seemed still unclear. Still this video was far and away more illuminating than other videos or texts that I have read. EDIT: I watched a video referred to in an answer to another comment below explaining spin, which was excellent again, thank you. But still how were these properties DISCOVERED ? I would really like to understand and share my understanding with others, but I really prefer the history and methods of obtaining the evidence for the fullest picture. Again, your videos really help and hopefully as I delve further into your archive the answers will be revealed !
see "g-2" of the electron. It's the most accurate and precise theoretical and experimental agreement in the history of the universe. Period. you got a better theory? No you don't, because what we have already agrees to 13 digits. 13. deal with it. QED is banging.
This is an excellent and clear explanation of the quark model and it's apparent experimental evidence. It does leave me a bit confused though (not the explanation, the actual accepted physics). When discussing the structure of a meson you put a green quark and an anti-green quark to together. Why do they not annihilate each other as matter and corresponding anti-matter normally do? The idea that you have to invent a new quantum property (color charge) to satisfy the Fermi exclusion principle is reminiscent of the creation of epicycles to explain planetary orbits prior to the understanding of Newton's gravity. Why do we not see this property in other particles? If it is the strong nuclear force that holds quarks together and prevents the independent detection of them, why is it this doesn't apply to the strong nuclear force between protons and neutrons? Is it possible to interpret the SLAC data differently? Did the SLAC experiment create neutrons? How did they account for energy loss due to neutrino creation? With all that activity going on inside a proton why is it so much more stable than a neutron? I am very much looking forward to your video on the Standard Model.
I appreciate you looking at the evidence. However, we're dealing with alleged particles which are very short lived, can't be concentrated or isolated for study and can only be generated by equipment that few people have access to. It's a recipe for flights of imagination to take hold. I don't doubt that there is some structure to the proton, but with all these silly names and concepts there is no truly new physical insight into the structure. The concept of spin is no further elucidated by this model, it's merely passed onto another particle along with several new mystery terms to supposedly explain that system. Less clarity, not more.
Haha I did pick up after that I used both pronunciations. When I say one in company I get corrected no matter which version. Seems there is dissent. So may be appropriate I use both 🤓
@@bernardwhipps7558 From Jame Joyce's stream of (semi?) consciouness novel Finnegan's Wake.. related to a mythical Irish pub.. quarks may be related to 'quarts' .. maybe of Guiness
For all those that are struggling Colour == Temperature FREQUENCY! (In TeraHertz of course) 1. You can build a proton with a +10ºC temperature gradient. 2. You can build a proton with two photons (i.e. two 100watt interfering lasers) 3. You can build a proton with 3 or more photons as long as the summed outputs equal +10ºC after the four second stability is achieved (That's +20ºC RAW!! stability is (20/5)^2 seconds). Photons and quarks are the same thing in this context, but quarks are joined at the hip with Quantum Field tensors.
From the halls of Yin Yang come insight: So suppose a quark was a bubble created by force waves. The nature of a bubble is to contain a resistance such that by deformation of the bubble film (the force trajectories), the resistance of the force would increase with the separating impetus. If so, this would imply the nuclear envelope to be a resonance from expression of the force "componentry". Furthermore, disruption of quark bubbles would tend to spawn more of them, like a foam. Now whysoforever would a force in intimacy have a trajectory, by which it could form a bubble? It would need at least 2 and possibly 3 components to steer it. This leads to 2 models of a "Force": 1) it is a quanta of influence by a componentry of 2 or 3 that only expresses in intimacy. Well, we could presume a Force to be some separate quanta ... of something... with 2 or 3 side lobes that steer interactively. The steering would be by frequency of oscillation or rotation, which can differ side to side, maybe by shadow casting of background gradients. But suppose we eliminate the complexity of a separate force particle; suppose we say that upon extreme intimate encounters, mass projects lobes that impedance match with each other upon imminent collision. The result becomes like a square dance of momentum, with the nuclear envelope defined by the resonance of finding a preponderance of lobes of the same polarity pointing outward from the surface of the aggregate nucleus to "hold off" the universal background field. or, 2) suppose a "line" of equipotential force was like a Chinese Dragon, with a lobe on each side to steer, and maybe one at the head or tail. What if this line of force was a component of a larger aggregate particle, but instead of actually being a line, it was a series of single fundamental, nonaggregate particles in a spin mode such that lobes could project out of each pole of its rotational axis. This might get rid of the need for a "Force" inside the nucleus, to instead insist that the common, default force of the universe was the universal background, which creates the default pressure against which all the steerable little "point force lobes" inside the nucleus actually operate. The new physics would be summarized by "well, shut my mouth".
The strength of deep inelastic scattering depends on the sum of parton charges squared, so you can compare ep and en scattering, which have (4+4+1)e/9 vs (1+1+4)e/9 to get the ratio of 9/6, then, brining in the neutrino data you can tie it down to the correct 3 fractional charges (since the weak interaction has different factors for vq-couplings.
This strikes me as being similar to Linear Arithmetic Multi-Timbral Sound Technology which divides sound into something like 137 partials, each sound consisting of 3 partials. Each partial on its own is virtual- it takes three to make an actual sound.
Only core particle mass is really significant in my 'model' where a Muon is a strongly bonded electron+positron (2 core particles) + non strongly bonded electron.. A Proton is 2 positrons strongly bonded to 1 electron (3 core particles).. a Tau is 2 positrons strongly bonded to 2 electrons (4 core particles) + non strongly bonded electron.. So: Tau Mass (more or less) = Proton Mass + (Proton Mass - Muon Mass), or it should in this model at least... 938+(938-105)=1771... Tau Mass is about 1776 MeV..
@@PhysicsHigh You would probably have better luck in /r/science or answering questions with your videos in /r/askphysics. As long as you post your videos in the comments people shouldn't have any problems. I wouldn't go making a post promoting myself directly though.
That was a great explanation. I subscribed right away. TY. A question that buzzes me is why is the neutron larger in size than the proton (as I've seen claimed somewhere) if they are affected by the same color forces with negligible differences?
Not sure if this is true or not, but protons and electrons merging in supernovas and other super hot objects in the universe create neutrons. Neutrons also decay into electrons and protons if they are by themsevles. Thats the only explaination I have but my question is if neutrons and protons are made of quarks and Electrons made of leptons than how do neutrons decay into electrons??
@@gasb6989 - That process also happens in regular stars like the Sun, it's called nuclear fusion. All the natural light you see emanates from that process. You may be right in that to create a neutron requires generally speaking more energy than a proton and that was the thing represented. I probably should have not thrown that question here but it was bugging me big deal at the time apparently. Electrons are leptons (along with quarks and neutrinos), they are not made of anything AFAWK, they are fundamental particles like quarks. Lepton just means that they are spin 1/2 particles and thus are ruled by the Pauli exclusion principle, they can't be the same as any other: they must have differences like spin up/down, different orbital, etc. Bosons (spin 1, or zero for the Higgs) can exist in the same configuration however. Neutrons decay into electrons by the weak nuclear force and is identical to saying that down quarks decay into up quarks. There's a very short lived gauge particle called the W boson that acts as gatekeeper (that's why beta decay is "slow" and "gradual", albeit random, and not instantaneous and generalized, allowing neutrons to exist for a while) or intermediary. As the down quark has charge - 1/3 and the up quark has charge of + 2/3, that extra - 1 must go somewhere and it goes to a W- boson, which quickly disintegrates (extremely massive and thus unstable) into an electron (charge: - 1) and a neutrino (charge: 0, important for other reasons). I'm pretty sure that there are some quality videos on this specific issue in the list titled "great physics" in my profile, sort of my bookmarks for the videos that I found most interesting on this wide topic and you also may, feel free to take a look. A few years ago I was totally not understanding all this but at a very sketchy level, now I have a much better grasp (and largely it is thanks to quality science channels in YT).
The neutron is only 0.7% heavier than the proton. This is because a down quark is only slightly heavier than an up quark, and neutrons have two down and one up vs. a proton having two up and one down. Why that is... no one knows. Clearly made that way on purpose because if it were any different then protons could not form (for reasons I forget, something about up quarks decaying into down I think) and we wouldn't be here talking about it. And don't @ me with the infinite universes hypothesis because that is the last refuge of ideological atheism, requiring far more faith in one's imagination than any religious zealot could ever produce within his or her self.
@@reshpeck - I was rather thinking on size as "in Km, not Kg" ("miles, not pounds" for US audience)... or whatever equivalent they have at those nano-sizes (Planck lengths?, pico-nano-trivio-meters?) I once saw the neutrons of a helium atom represented as much (not slightlty) bigger (larger, not heavier) than the protons. It may have to do with how the strong force operates or whatever but that was my question about? Otherwise I do understand that the quark down weights than double than the quark up (although all the quarks together weight less than 1% of either hadron). Thank you anyhow.
@@LuisAldamiz Well I'm no expert, by any means. I really don't know about the size differential. Obviously if a neutron is much larger than a proton but only 0.7% more massive then it is going to be less dense than a proton; I don't know how that factors in to the interplay between strong and weak nuclear forces or whatever. Much to learn and understand, and endlessly fascinating.
This post is questions about quarks. My first suggestion was that: 1. the singularity before the Big Bang was all photons, and 2. that the universe was made by pair conversion where photons make electron positron pairs. We know now that 1. Photons are outside of time and distance. 2. Photons create an electron positron pair in pair conversion. ( During extreme conditions photons can create proton, anti proton pairs; and neutron, anti neutron pairs). Readers will ask me, but what about convoluted quarks with their bizarre partial charges? Then I say, first answer the following quark questions QUARKS DO NOT MAKE SENSE - or the 3rd quark is REALLY weird. Proton = 2 up , 1 down quarks. Neutron = 2 down, 1 up quarks. So the difference between the two is the 3rd quark. Both the proton and neutron, have one up and one down quark. That leaves the difference between the proton and neutron as the 3rd quark. So difference between a proton and neutron is due to whether the 3rd quark is up as in a proton, or down as in a neutron. So, if that's true then: The third quark determines these things: If it has an up quark - proton, then the particle is immortal. If it has a down quark - neutron, then the particle decays in 10 minutes. EXPLAIN If it has an up quark - a proton, then the particle has less mass then the neutron. If it has a down quark - a neutron, then the particle has .1% more mass than the proton. So the down quark weighs .1% more than the up quark. EXPLAIN Quarks have no measurable physical extension, and seem to exist at points. Yet that single point does all this and more. EXPLAIN The proton has an up quark, and that magic third quark also determines half of the electromagnetic force in the universe. And it in no way is like the electron, the other half, except in being an opposite charge. EXPLAIN The electron is one full charge. That magic third quark is 2/3+ charge, yet it determines half the charge of the universe. EXPLAIN. The up and down quarks combined for a proton or neutron, account for 1% of the mass - the rest is binding energy. That means that that third quark is by itself less than 1% of mass, yet still determines half the charge of the universe? EXPLAIN When three quarks team up only a small part of the proton's mass comes from the masses of the quarks. Most is binding energy. So that third quark has virtually no mass but can do all these magic things. EXPLAIN. Quarks interact strongly and link in twos or threes to make particles such as pions, protons, and neutrons. Yet the other half of the charge world, electrons, does none of these things. EXPLAIN Physics is a science of pairs. For every particle there is an anti-particle. Virtual particles come in pairs. Spin, waves destructive and constructive interference, etc. Entanglement! In these cases the pairs are virtually identical and or mirror images of each other. So why would electromagnetic charge have electrons and protons so different from each other, and in no way seem built on exact opposites, or mirror image opposites. EXPLAIN! There is the proton spin crisis where the 3 quarks and their spin doesn't work. "Physicists expected that the quarks carry all the proton spin. However, not only was the total proton spin carried by quarks far smaller than 100%, these results were consistent with almost zero (4-24%) proton spin being carried by quarks." Wiki. EXPLAIN. PARTICLE / WAVE duality includes atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks and gluons. Now imagine a nucleus of deuterium that has no particles only waves: that includes a proton wave, neutron wave, 6 quark waves, plus gluon waves. EXPLAIN Two quark meson are bosons not fermions. EXPLAIN Mesons, with 2 quarks are 1.2 times the size of a proton or neutron. EXPLAIN. NEITHER electrons or protons can decay, so both should be elementary particles, but protons are not considered elementary. EXPLAIN How can such a small electron match the charge of a massive proton? Explain. There is the proton radius puzzle. Explain. Quarks exist in pairs; so why does the proton and neutron have 3 quarks? Neutrons are made up of quarks which do have charges. So physicists expect neutrons to interact with the electric field - but they don't! Explain. Anti neutron and anti proton have anti quarks. Explain For a quark to be both a wave (and a particle), then it too must have at least a wave and a trough. So three quarks must have 3 waves. Explain Fact Neutron has no electric charge. Neutron has magnetic movement (So charge inside neutron acts like a small magnet) Explain. Fact Electric charge is not uniformly distributed inside neutron Close to the center you find positive charge. While outer regions are negatively charged. Explain Neutrons are radioactive if they are free of atoms If extra neutrons are added to shell it becomes extremely radioactive. Explain Strong force needed to keep protons from flying apart, but strong force is also applied to the neutron that has no charge. Explain "The proton is intermittently full of these virtual particles and, in fact when we try to estimate how much they might contribute to the mass of the proton, we find that the quarks themselves provide very little of the total mass and that the fields created by these particles contribute most of the energy that goes into the proton's rest energy and hence it's rest mass. The same is true for the neutron...." A universe from Nothing Krauss. Quote in Probable Universe p 48. EXPLAIN 'No one has been able to do with a quark what Thomson and Millikan did with an electron, measuring it's charges, or mass, or even it's charge to mass ratio. For this reason, we cannot yet include quarks among the ranks of the observed particles. "From neutrinos to the top quark there are 14 orders of magnitude of mass that the standard model needs to explain. This is hard to do even with the HIgg's Boson which is the missing ingredient. - Joanna Baler Why don't the opposite charge quarks annihilate each other within the proton and neutron?
Quarks are just fractions of collided electron or proton weights. It is called the standard model when you are at electron proton neutron weights. You have not thought about what the experiments are, or the symmetries used to observe them.
yeah, you are way overthinking this. If you want to answer your questions, learn particle physics. the last one....pop sci makes ppl think antimatter is just a charge flip, it's not. Animatter flips all the appropriate quantum numbers. For that , you really need to understand why antimatter exists, and that is fairly advanced. It's just a requirement of special relativity. See "representation theory of the Lorentz group." Regarding nucleons, p and n are composite particles...they are not fundamental. As far as the strong force is concerned, they're the same particle with different isospin. But EM and the Weak force exists, so they are different. That matter only comes in qqq form is quite amazing, Since all matter needs to be colorless (and experimental fact), the minimal ways to make colorless combinations are qqq and q-qbar, which are exactly the baryons and mesons that we observe on nature. Leptons are totally ignorant of color...e, mu, tau and their neutrinos just don't care. ofc. the weak interaction works across the quark/lepton divide, and that fact answers a few of your questions.
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 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. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? 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? 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. 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 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. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. 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. .
why? gluons work. Color factors are experimentally measurable, 3g and 4g couplings are observed in jets. Does your theory explain those? Do you know what they are? If you don't, then don't bother proposing a theory.
@@DrDeuteron A ten Kilogram mass can be elevated above the floor by a rope or by a magnetic field. However, they are not the same thing. Please tell us your viewpoint of what produces the "Quantum" in Quantum Mechanics.
because the state needs to be antisymmetric under interchange of any two particles. The spin state is uuu, so it can't come from spin, nor any two spin combination of 3 particles (try it). Eg with two quarks: ud - du works. With color, you can get: rgb + gbr + brg - bgr - grb - rbg which you can verify flips sign under any interchange of 2 spots.
Total layman here but I can't help but wonder where would the new quarks come from when pulled apart? Doesn't that violate the conservation of matter and energy?
In simple terms, as the quarks are pulled apart, energy is stored in the so called spring as potential energy. Energy is being stored in the stretched gluon. When the spring finally breaks, that potential energy is instantly converted into mass via Einstein's E=mc^2, thereby creating a new quark pair. Energy is conserved because you have to put energy in to stretch the quarks apart. Nature for some mysterious reason requires enough energy in the spring to create new quarks before the spring breaks.
@@Beerbatter1962 and this quark pair then moves along as if it's a single particle ? If so, couldn't it be said that the anti-quarks were invented simply to explain the extra (doubled) mass ?
@@sFeral Not exactly, as a single particle. They move along as a new pair consisting of 2 Quarks bound by a Gluon. In all particle accelerator experiments performed to date, Quarks have never been detected alone. They ALWAYS only exist as pairs or more.
7:07 I agree, don't introduce false potentialities with the CMY metaphor as it can lead to much confusion. It's a clever shorthand but dangerously misleading if taken too far.
I disagree. He, and many others, state there is 2 kinds of electric charge and 3 kinds of color charge. This is misleading. There is one kind of electric charge, which we call "charge", and its anti charge is negative charge (or vice versa, that definition of sign is just a convention). There are six color charges: R, G, B, and their opposites: C, M, Y. Note that these definitions are just conventions, too. If I say: "thats R, G, B" and you come along and say, "No! That's G, B, R", or worse: "(R+G)/1.41, (G+B)/1.41, (B+R)/1.41,.,,, we're all right....physics is completely invariant under complex rotations in (R,G,B) space.
@@alphalunamare what a K and W? So what is the danger of CMY? And what are approximate colors? There is no "red" direction in color space, it's arbitrary...just like spin "up"...there's no "up", we just make up a direction and call it up.
@@alphalunamare well OP came out against CMY, so I wondering what the deal with that is. regarding actual colors--the total arbitrariness of gluon color states is not well known, but may be of importance, esp w/ all the questions here about "how do we measure color charge?". It's not something you can do according to the theory. Moreover, when ppl say "all observed particles are white", that a shorthand for all particles are "color singlet", which means physics does not depend on the choice of direction in color space (i.e, RGB can be swapped with GBR and so on--any unitary swap will do...and if you understand what that means, it alleviates the need for misguided classical-intuition questions). Now the 1,41 schtick did seem like a joke. I just can't find () in my iPad.
If you have a blonde, a brunette, and a redhead, are they three species? No, they are one species with some small observational attribute differences. It sounds the same for electrons. You get another hint of a signal. Does that make it another particle or does one particle have many states?
I quit physics in the early 70's over this. None of this constitutes evidence. We're no closer today than we were fifty years ago to understanding what goes on inside the Proton. In fact recent findings have shown that the quark model of the proton is not only wrong, but not understood at all. The experiments shown do not back up the theory, especially given recent modern research, which has absolutely no idea what protons are made up of, beyond a few vague tendencies whose particulars are as hard to nail down as nailing a fart to the wall. In science we're supposed to follow the evidence. What got us here today was not evidence, however, but generations of boot-strapping, or trying to fudge bad ideas with endless amendments. Other junk science that came of this was dark matter, dark energy, and the red shift, the latter of which is an indirect observation not backed up by direct observation. Modern physics is a house of cards that is long past due to come tumbling down.
Sorry to be critical, however... In an infinite universe, if we do not acknowledge the infinite nature thereof, we will continue to proclaim new elementary particles. "THIS is the one of which all is composed!" "NO this!" "Ah-ha! It is THIS particle indeed of which the universe is composed!" "Surely none can be simpler in our eyes than the most distant and most directly unobservable particles!" "We are large and these particles so small, certainly there can be none SMALLER STILL." OR we can, through following the possibility, see that the universe is in fact infinite and there is thus no such thing as an elementary particle and each has identical complexity, and thus since Earth is composed of atoms, then so too is a proton composed of relatively more subtle particles IN A SIMILAR MANNER, that behave in manners where there are tendencies and equilibriums and stable points within a sea of instability, thus producing trends. These trends, then, we can overlay with a quark model but it does not mean they exist. I would add, the vast majority of the particles in the standard model exist in the range of 10^-8 to 10^-22 seconds. The only stable ones are, surprise, protons, neutrons, electrons, (and neutrinos). We ignore the fact that the array of particles are so unstable because we want to develop a model to explain them all, and that they are not stable is not important. What is important, in the standard model, is that the particles each are stable for any amount of time whatsoever at THESE particular stability points, indicative that we know what we are talking about since we can then use them to show how quarks also explain them as well, which is beneficial because it presents an air that the science is "settled." But, without any resistance from alternative viewpoints, where ALL VIEWS of people involved in the decisions included the MINIMUM that quantum mechanics is true in some capacity, then we just keep on going down this road with no looking back. The scientific community pretends that the debate is done. Classical mechanics has no defenders in modern day because QM has just boxed out all views but its own. This is the equivalent of there being one single political party in a government. If we haven't figured out HOW the world should be governed, its reasonable for there to be multiple sides. Yet, we do feel we have figured out how the world IS governed and thus trashed previous models, and so even in spite of us not yet figuring things out we still find ourselves in a one-sided conversation.
Can't belive, Dancing tik tokers and instagram influencer gets more views than this 😢. That's just so sad, knowing about this reality. Hope in a parallel universe, People are actually focused.
14:55 the way you illustrated this doesn't make sense. The q inner parts are forced together hence they should be illustrated as if moving around some center point, with the border being determined by how far they can move away. Though, what's making them move ?... are they even moving... just like electrons in their orbitals, moving without moving, describing a shape in space
it's a classical animation. It is not a representation of realty. All protons are identical at all times, and they are stationary states...nothing about them changes, ever, as long as they are protons. This problem also occurs in atomic physics. one you draw a picture, it is fundamentally wrong, because pictures are classical, and true quantum description cannot be drawn, unless you know what the color (red + sqrt(-1)blue)/sqrt(2) means.
strangness was strange because it doesn't fit into the isospin (SU(2)) classification scheme, since fermions should come in doublets. Later it was found that s does come in doublets with c, and that was a charming result.
"Color" is an artistic name with no scientific meaning. If it has, spill it. Otherwise, observers found electrons with a range of behaviors in your fields to observe them.
color is used because humans see 3 primary colors, and each has an complementary color. This worked well with SU(3), which has a fundamental 3 dimensional representation with 3 charges, and a 3-bar irrep with 3 anti-charges. moreover, since nature only produces particles from the singlet expansions of 3 x 3bar (mesons) and 3 x 3 x3 (baryons) the analogy between "coloress" or "white" and the trivial transformation of the singlet irreps was quite a coincidence. So, instead of blabbing on about representation theory of Lie groups, you can just say, "all particles in nature are colorless".
What is the likelihood of determining the entrance position of a pachinko ball after analyzing the exit position. This is what that scattering experiment is doing. What is an electron? Isn't this a bit of a confidence game where you are taking advantage of people who have more money than brains?
no. There is a fundamental difference in classical randomness (pachinko) and quantum scattering....but many professional physicists get it wrong, so no H8.
Ok particle physicists... so what? Show me how you use this information or particle? Show me some useful technology from these theories or...I say again, so what.
@Jacyg.3073 Without going into long & complicated details. PARTICLE PHYSICS / CHEMISTRY 🧪 helped create: Nuclear Bombs 💣 Nuclear Electric⚡Power 💪 Solar☀️ Electricity 💡 Internet🖥️computing X rays 🩻 Electron Microscopes 🔬 Meds💉 💊 Fuels ⛽ Batteries 🔋🪫 and much more NOW and in the FUTURE
@jacyg.3073 Even if there's " N🚫 usefulness " to it, it's a lot of FUN to know the interworking of GOD's creation. Or as Albert Einstein would say : It's a lot of fun to READ GOD's MIND 🤔
@jacyg.3073 There's seems to be "not much usefulness" in attending Amusement parks🎢🎡🎠 Concerts🎸🎤🥁🎷🎹 Sport events🏈🎾🏀🏒⚾⚽ Yet we can't help ourselves but to fill 👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫such places because they are Soooooo ENJOYABLE !🥳🤩
Great Video! I always thought that quarks are only observable when combining with other quarks to form neutral charge. How can the electron „feel“ 3 different quarks (which are non-neutral for themselves)?
Oh man, talk about confirmation bias. Does it bother anyone else that three experiments showed the three properties needed to support the quark model? Richard Feynman, you dumped a huge puzzle in our laps, and then very inconveniently, died. No doubt, it spoiled many of Dick's plans, too. I'm still scratching my head over the Standard Model + QCD, 40+ years after first exposure, 🤔
I got conflicting answers to what the strong nuclear force is. You say that it is responsible for holding the three quarks together in a proton, and that it increases in strength over distance, but others say that it is responsible for holding the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom and diminishes rapidly in strength over distance, so which one is it ?
@@davidf5609 so are you saying that because two strange ups were detected, they conclucded there must be color charge? That seems like a stretch. Aren't there4 other more plausible explanations for two strange up?
@@jasonwiley798 Everything is made up to explain logically what is observed from experiment. Hence the higgs boson inferred from two photons around 125GeV.
Moses' 2 stone tablets, each with 5 commandements carved thereon, could represent 'normal distribution' (i.e. BALANCE . . . why not ONE tablet for all 10?). Quarks (since they come in 3's, and NOT as a BALANCED PAIR) can be seen in the configuration at Calvary (two 'down' quarks, and the man himself).
The evidence for quarks included protons having inside them pointlike objects all having spin 1/2 and fractional charges. Were the fractions +2/3 and -1/3 as assumed in the quark model of the proton?
why do you say that? The evidence for an SU(3) strong theory and a U(1) Em theory is massive. Seriously, why do you say that? Do you have a PhD in particle physics? Do you really understand what is going on? I will guess "no", but pls correct me if I am wrong. If I am am right, then why do you feel the need to comment? I mean it would be like me looking at bridge design and saying "it will collapse"--- I don't know jack about civil engineering, and my opinion is worthless.... what make you think yours on particle physics matters?
This helped me a lot. Most other standard model videos I have watch just present the theory as if Moses brought it down from the mountaintop. Thanks for taking the time to explain a bit about the experiments that back up the theory.
I know right? Quantum physicists and their holier than thou attitude. The irony has gone on long enough and unnoticed.
Still sounds like Moses to me. Too many necessary presuppositions, that in turn are the primary tools for an end result.
try the book "introduction to elementary particles" david j griffiths, first chapter has good introdution to history.
@@abul1 DIS is so not "foundations of physics"
This kind of stuff makes me feel so, so lucky to be alive right now
What a great channel glad I stumbled upon it. I have a dumb question relating to the Higgs Boson. My understanding is it was discovered by high energy collisions which "created it". It then decayed almost immediately, and it was the particles that it decayed into which were actually detected, and thus its existence was inferred. My question is, if the Higgs is so unstable, and requires very high energy to create it, then how exactly can it "be everywhere" adding a small amount of mass to other particles? I've heard it described as the Higgs field, but I'm getting the feeling that this field is not the same thing as the particle itself. If so, then what is the Higgs field, and how does it actually relate to the Higgs Boson? Again, this is probably me just being stupid, I'm just a curious layperson, but I feel like I'm missing something.
Excellent video Sir!
A video about spin will be great
Noted
By the way, you you seen this video I did. May be what you’re after.
MRI basics: part 1: Nuclear spin
th-cam.com/video/pcyfvwnHddA/w-d-xo.html
That Third Quark does WHAT!!!
My other physics posts suggests problems with quark theory. Here's one to consider.
The proton consists of three quarks, two up and one down.
The neutron consists of three quarks, two down and one up.
So both are equal in having 3 quarks
Both are equal in having at least one up and one down quark.
The difference is that third quark:
The proton has it's third quark as an up quark
The neutron has it's third quark as a down quark.
So that means that the third quark is the difference between a proton and neutron.
When that third quark is an up quark, that makes a proton.
When that third quark is a down quark, that makes a neutron.
So that third quark determines
Whether it's a proton that is virtually immortal or
Whether it's a neutron that decays in 15 minutes outside the nucleus!
That is one magical quark!!! Can you explain what's going on?
Can you explain this magic third quark and why it should make such a massive difference?
Reply talks about mass dufference.
My answer: That almost made sense... But, if true the big bang had to make much much more up quarks then down because most of the universe is hydrogen with one proton no neutron. But think about it if so many up quarks were created because of mostly protons and because less energy needed, why would there be enough down quarks made to make all those protons let alone double that number more to get any neutrons.
It is really an excellent video, what i understood from this is without boson nothing can withstand for attraction and no shape for atom and everything will fall without glueing b/w quarks. Pls correct me if wrong.
late reply but yeah, the reason atoms bind is the strong nuclear force, gluons/bosons(still not too clear on the distinction) pass between protons and neutrons. protons normally repel each other (as they are all positively charged) but the strong nuclear force lets neutrons keep them together, as strong nuclear force doesnt get weaker over distance like electromagnetism does. this is why large nuclei (too many protons) or atoms with too few neutrons are unstable.
What I thought I learned elsewhere is that gluons are mediated by the "strong" force which keeps the quarks held together. The "strong nuclear" force is something entirely different that helps to keep positively charged protons in the nucleus and prevents them from repelling each other. Two different forces. The "strong nuclear" force is what is responsible for the energy released during an atomic bomb explosion while the "strong" force is simply the force keeping quarks together in the hadrons.
I agree with you.Seems like the binding force (aka strong nuclear force) is a different force than the strong force holding nucleons together. Diffenert strength different force graphs diffenrent mediatiating particles.
the quark gluon force is called the strong force, the color force, or just QCD. The strong nuclear force reference to the strong force as applied to baryons and mesons, which are composites of quarks. At that level, QCD is not solvable, so a quark-gluon description doesn't help. The strong force becomes an effective theory of baryons bound by the exchange of force carrying mesons who quark structure need not be considered.
How do we know that color charge really exists ?
How many point like structures did the proton have, in the experiments ?
It's all made up. When you take away the eather from your theories you get consequently unicors and clowncars. All the greatest assumed the eather: Heavyside, Steinmetz, Maxwell.
@@MacLuckyPTP name checks out
@@98danielray he's right though. There's literally 0 proof of color charge. We know protons are composite, but we don't have evidence of fractional charge or color charge. In fact, we still have very poor understanding of the strong force.
Spacetime, as of Einstein, is basically a relativistic ether: it has properties, and is effectively modeled as an elastic fluid/solid. GR is built on fluid mechanics, that's why we have a stress energy tensor. This fact is only tangentially related to the issues of the standard model, but makes you question how physics is modernly interpreted, with all the "ether does not exist" bs.
Also, Gell-Mann was a rather, let's say, difficult physicists. The first to hypothesize the quark model was his student, George Zweig,as a "aces" model, in a rather long paper discussing every experimental evidence. Gell-Mann published later a very short paper (2 pages long) hypothesizing quarks, which was basically zweig's model under a different name and less detailed. Rather sus if you think about it. Zweig himself does not talk fondly of Gell-Mann in his recollections and thoughts of the quark model, which you can find online. Nevertheless, Murray gets all the credit these days.
@@FunkyDexter strong force is produced by interaction between electrical charge and spin of quarks and its angular moments inside proton or neutron. There's not color charge force
the data show that point like structures carry 1/3 of the proton momentum, which means there are 3 point like structures composing the proton.
This did help, no doubt about that. But I'm still confused. I know the answer to my question "What is the evidence for quarks and quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics ?" is "Particle accelerators"; but how was things like spin, fractional charge and masses of particles discerned ?
And even though the animation of the rays from particle accelerators was fantastic, I still don't know if those rays are trajectories of quarks or streams of quark/anti-quark pairs produces in the collisions. That seemed still unclear.
Still this video was far and away more illuminating than other videos or texts that I have read.
EDIT: I watched a video referred to in an answer to another comment below explaining spin, which was excellent again, thank you. But still how were these properties DISCOVERED ? I would really like to understand and share my understanding with others, but I really prefer the history and methods of obtaining the evidence for the fullest picture. Again, your videos really help and hopefully as I delve further into your archive the answers will be revealed !
see "g-2" of the electron. It's the most accurate and precise theoretical and experimental agreement in the history of the universe. Period. you got a better theory? No you don't, because what we have already agrees to 13 digits. 13. deal with it. QED is banging.
Hi, can you share the papers of the graphs you used. Great video by the way.
This is an excellent and clear explanation of the quark model and it's apparent experimental evidence. It does leave me a bit confused though (not the explanation, the actual accepted physics). When discussing the structure of a meson you put a green quark and an anti-green quark to together. Why do they not annihilate each other as matter and corresponding anti-matter normally do? The idea that you have to invent a new quantum property (color charge) to satisfy the Fermi exclusion principle is reminiscent of the creation of epicycles to explain planetary orbits prior to the understanding of Newton's gravity. Why do we not see this property in other particles? If it is the strong nuclear force that holds quarks together and prevents the independent detection of them, why is it this doesn't apply to the strong nuclear force between protons and neutrons? Is it possible to interpret the SLAC data differently? Did the SLAC experiment create neutrons? How did they account for energy loss due to neutrino creation? With all that activity going on inside a proton why is it so much more stable than a neutron? I am very much looking forward to your video on the Standard Model.
I appreciate you looking at the evidence.
However, we're dealing with alleged particles which are very short lived, can't be concentrated or isolated for study and can only be generated by equipment that few people have access to. It's a recipe for flights of imagination to take hold.
I don't doubt that there is some structure to the proton, but with all these silly names and concepts there is no truly new physical insight into the structure. The concept of spin is no further elucidated by this model, it's merely passed onto another particle along with several new mystery terms to supposedly explain that system. Less clarity, not more.
Kworks or kwarks?
Haha
I did pick up after that I used both pronunciations.
When I say one in company I get corrected no matter which version. Seems there is dissent. So may be appropriate I use both 🤓
Kwarks is good 😃
@@bernardwhipps7558 From Jame Joyce's stream of (semi?) consciouness novel Finnegan's Wake.. related to a mythical Irish pub.. quarks may be related to 'quarts' .. maybe of Guiness
now the elastic scattering curve at 13:00 isn't a "what if", it is measured data.
For all those that are struggling Colour == Temperature FREQUENCY! (In TeraHertz of course)
1. You can build a proton with a +10ºC temperature gradient.
2. You can build a proton with two photons (i.e. two 100watt interfering lasers)
3. You can build a proton with 3 or more photons as long as the summed outputs equal +10ºC after the four second stability is achieved (That's +20ºC RAW!! stability is (20/5)^2 seconds).
Photons and quarks are the same thing in this context, but quarks are joined at the hip with Quantum Field tensors.
Thank you!
From the halls of Yin Yang come insight: So suppose a quark was a bubble created by force waves. The nature of a bubble is to contain a resistance such that by deformation of the bubble film (the force trajectories), the resistance of the force would increase with the separating impetus. If so, this would imply the nuclear envelope to be a resonance from expression of the force "componentry". Furthermore, disruption of quark bubbles would tend to spawn more of them, like a foam. Now whysoforever would a force in intimacy have a trajectory, by which it could form a bubble? It would need at least 2 and possibly 3 components to steer it. This leads to 2 models of a "Force": 1) it is a quanta of influence by a componentry of 2 or 3 that only expresses in intimacy. Well, we could presume a Force to be some separate quanta ... of something... with 2 or 3 side lobes that steer interactively. The steering would be by frequency of oscillation or rotation, which can differ side to side, maybe by shadow casting of background gradients. But suppose we eliminate the complexity of a separate force particle; suppose we say that upon extreme intimate encounters, mass projects lobes that impedance match with each other upon imminent collision. The result becomes like a square dance of momentum, with the nuclear envelope defined by the resonance of finding a preponderance of lobes of the same polarity pointing outward from the surface of the aggregate nucleus to "hold off" the universal background field. or, 2) suppose a "line" of equipotential force was like a Chinese Dragon, with a lobe on each side to steer, and maybe one at the head or tail. What if this line of force was a component of a larger aggregate particle, but instead of actually being a line, it was a series of single fundamental, nonaggregate particles in a spin mode such that lobes could project out of each pole of its rotational axis. This might get rid of the need for a "Force" inside the nucleus, to instead insist that the common, default force of the universe was the universal background, which creates the default pressure against which all the steerable little "point force lobes" inside the nucleus actually operate. The new physics would be summarized by "well, shut my mouth".
Great content thanks ! That's a shame that this video has only 2092 views. Liked and subscribed.
Thank for your support.
This is actually really helpful
Meh. Quark color must exist because Paulis exclusion principle "must" apply to quarks? That's just a religious belief.
no it's not, and you're criticizing an extremely simplified explanation, and I doubt you understand the technical version of the outlined argument.
How do you measure fractional charge?
The strength of deep inelastic scattering depends on the sum of parton charges squared, so you can compare ep and en scattering, which have (4+4+1)e/9 vs (1+1+4)e/9 to get the ratio of 9/6, then, brining in the neutrino data you can tie it down to the correct 3 fractional charges (since the weak interaction has different factors for vq-couplings.
This strikes me as being similar to Linear Arithmetic Multi-Timbral Sound Technology which divides sound into something like 137 partials, each sound consisting of 3 partials. Each partial on its own is virtual- it takes three to make an actual sound.
Thank you, great explanation!
Thanks
Thank you. Yes now I want to know what is inside an electron .
nothing.
Your presentation is excellent
Thank you
Only core particle mass is really significant in my 'model' where a Muon is a strongly bonded electron+positron (2 core particles) + non strongly bonded electron.. A Proton is 2 positrons strongly bonded to 1 electron (3 core particles).. a Tau is 2 positrons strongly bonded to 2 electrons (4 core particles) + non strongly bonded electron.. So: Tau Mass (more or less) = Proton Mass + (Proton Mass - Muon Mass), or it should in this model at least... 938+(938-105)=1771... Tau Mass is about 1776 MeV..
Great stuff - sharing with my IB students!
Thanks.
This is a great video. Your view and sub count should be way higher.
Thanks. Please share.
@@PhysicsHigh I don't know if you already go there but you should share your videos on Reddit.
Thanks. Haven’t used that much? Which sub? Tried to post things on physics subreddits but many don’t like YT promos
@@PhysicsHigh You would probably have better luck in /r/science or answering questions with your videos in /r/askphysics. As long as you post your videos in the comments people shouldn't have any problems. I wouldn't go making a post promoting myself directly though.
That was a great explanation. I subscribed right away. TY.
A question that buzzes me is why is the neutron larger in size than the proton (as I've seen claimed somewhere) if they are affected by the same color forces with negligible differences?
Not sure if this is true or not, but protons and electrons merging in supernovas and other super hot objects in the universe create neutrons. Neutrons also decay into electrons and protons if they are by themsevles. Thats the only explaination I have but my question is if neutrons and protons are made of quarks and Electrons made of leptons than how do neutrons decay into electrons??
@@gasb6989 - That process also happens in regular stars like the Sun, it's called nuclear fusion. All the natural light you see emanates from that process.
You may be right in that to create a neutron requires generally speaking more energy than a proton and that was the thing represented. I probably should have not thrown that question here but it was bugging me big deal at the time apparently.
Electrons are leptons (along with quarks and neutrinos), they are not made of anything AFAWK, they are fundamental particles like quarks. Lepton just means that they are spin 1/2 particles and thus are ruled by the Pauli exclusion principle, they can't be the same as any other: they must have differences like spin up/down, different orbital, etc. Bosons (spin 1, or zero for the Higgs) can exist in the same configuration however.
Neutrons decay into electrons by the weak nuclear force and is identical to saying that down quarks decay into up quarks. There's a very short lived gauge particle called the W boson that acts as gatekeeper (that's why beta decay is "slow" and "gradual", albeit random, and not instantaneous and generalized, allowing neutrons to exist for a while) or intermediary.
As the down quark has charge - 1/3 and the up quark has charge of + 2/3, that extra - 1 must go somewhere and it goes to a W- boson, which quickly disintegrates (extremely massive and thus unstable) into an electron (charge: - 1) and a neutrino (charge: 0, important for other reasons).
I'm pretty sure that there are some quality videos on this specific issue in the list titled "great physics" in my profile, sort of my bookmarks for the videos that I found most interesting on this wide topic and you also may, feel free to take a look. A few years ago I was totally not understanding all this but at a very sketchy level, now I have a much better grasp (and largely it is thanks to quality science channels in YT).
The neutron is only 0.7% heavier than the proton. This is because a down quark is only slightly heavier than an up quark, and neutrons have two down and one up vs. a proton having two up and one down. Why that is... no one knows. Clearly made that way on purpose because if it were any different then protons could not form (for reasons I forget, something about up quarks decaying into down I think) and we wouldn't be here talking about it.
And don't @ me with the infinite universes hypothesis because that is the last refuge of ideological atheism, requiring far more faith in one's imagination than any religious zealot could ever produce within his or her self.
@@reshpeck - I was rather thinking on size as "in Km, not Kg" ("miles, not pounds" for US audience)... or whatever equivalent they have at those nano-sizes (Planck lengths?, pico-nano-trivio-meters?) I once saw the neutrons of a helium atom represented as much (not slightlty) bigger (larger, not heavier) than the protons. It may have to do with how the strong force operates or whatever but that was my question about?
Otherwise I do understand that the quark down weights than double than the quark up (although all the quarks together weight less than 1% of either hadron). Thank you anyhow.
@@LuisAldamiz Well I'm no expert, by any means. I really don't know about the size differential. Obviously if a neutron is much larger than a proton but only 0.7% more massive then it is going to be less dense than a proton; I don't know how that factors in to the interplay between strong and weak nuclear forces or whatever. Much to learn and understand, and endlessly fascinating.
This post is questions about quarks.
My first suggestion was that:
1. the singularity before the Big Bang was all photons, and
2. that the universe was made by pair conversion where photons make electron positron pairs.
We know now that
1. Photons are outside of time and distance.
2. Photons create an electron positron pair in pair conversion. ( During extreme conditions photons can create proton, anti proton pairs; and neutron, anti neutron pairs).
Readers will ask me, but what about convoluted quarks with their bizarre partial charges?
Then I say, first answer the following quark questions
QUARKS DO NOT MAKE SENSE - or the 3rd quark is REALLY weird.
Proton = 2 up , 1 down quarks.
Neutron = 2 down, 1 up quarks.
So the difference between the two is the 3rd quark.
Both the proton and neutron, have one up and one down quark.
That leaves the difference between the proton and neutron as the 3rd quark.
So difference between a proton and neutron is due to whether the 3rd quark is up as in a proton, or down as in a neutron.
So, if that's true then:
The third quark determines these things:
If it has an up quark - proton, then the particle is immortal.
If it has a down quark - neutron, then the particle decays in 10 minutes. EXPLAIN
If it has an up quark - a proton, then the particle has less mass then the neutron.
If it has a down quark - a neutron, then the particle has .1% more mass than the proton.
So the down quark weighs .1% more than the up quark. EXPLAIN
Quarks have no measurable physical extension, and seem to exist at points. Yet that single point does all this and more. EXPLAIN
The proton has an up quark, and that magic third quark also determines half of the electromagnetic force in the universe. And it in no way is like the electron, the other half, except in being an opposite charge. EXPLAIN
The electron is one full charge. That magic third quark is 2/3+ charge, yet it determines half the charge of the universe. EXPLAIN.
The up and down quarks combined for a proton or neutron, account for 1% of the mass - the rest is binding energy. That means that that third quark is by itself less than 1% of mass, yet still determines half the charge of the universe? EXPLAIN
When three quarks team up only a small part of the proton's mass comes from the masses of the quarks. Most is binding energy. So that third quark has virtually no mass but can do all these magic things. EXPLAIN.
Quarks interact strongly and link in twos or threes to make particles such as pions, protons, and neutrons. Yet the other half of the charge world, electrons, does none of these things. EXPLAIN
Physics is a science of pairs. For every particle there is an anti-particle. Virtual particles come in pairs. Spin, waves destructive and constructive interference, etc. Entanglement! In these cases the pairs are virtually identical and or mirror images of each other. So why would electromagnetic charge have electrons and protons so different from each other, and in no way seem built on exact opposites, or mirror image opposites. EXPLAIN!
There is the proton spin crisis where the 3 quarks and their spin doesn't work.
"Physicists expected that the quarks carry all the proton spin. However, not only was the total proton spin carried by quarks far smaller than 100%, these results were consistent with almost zero (4-24%) proton spin being carried by quarks." Wiki.
EXPLAIN.
PARTICLE / WAVE duality includes atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks and gluons. Now imagine a nucleus of deuterium that has no particles only waves: that includes a proton wave, neutron wave, 6 quark waves, plus gluon waves. EXPLAIN
Two quark meson are bosons not fermions. EXPLAIN
Mesons, with 2 quarks are 1.2 times the size of a proton or neutron. EXPLAIN.
NEITHER electrons or protons can decay, so both should be elementary particles, but protons are not considered elementary. EXPLAIN
How can such a small electron match the charge of a massive proton? Explain.
There is the proton radius puzzle. Explain.
Quarks exist in pairs; so why does the proton and neutron have 3 quarks?
Neutrons are made up of quarks which do have charges. So physicists expect neutrons to interact with the electric field - but they don't! Explain.
Anti neutron and anti proton have anti quarks. Explain
For a quark to be both a wave (and a particle), then it too must have at least a wave and a trough. So three quarks must have 3 waves. Explain
Fact Neutron has no electric charge. Neutron has magnetic movement
(So charge inside neutron acts like a small magnet) Explain.
Fact Electric charge is not uniformly distributed inside neutron
Close to the center you find positive charge.
While outer regions are negatively charged. Explain
Neutrons are radioactive if they are free of atoms
If extra neutrons are added to shell it becomes extremely radioactive. Explain
Strong force needed to keep protons from flying apart, but strong force is also applied to the neutron that has no charge. Explain
"The proton is intermittently full of these virtual particles and, in fact when we try to estimate how much they might contribute to the mass of the proton, we find that the quarks themselves provide very little of the total mass and that the fields created by these particles contribute most of the energy that goes into the proton's rest energy and hence it's rest mass. The same is true for the neutron...." A universe from Nothing Krauss.
Quote in Probable Universe p 48. EXPLAIN
'No one has been able to do with a quark what Thomson and Millikan did with an electron, measuring it's charges, or mass, or even it's charge to mass ratio. For this reason, we cannot yet include quarks among the ranks of the observed particles.
"From neutrinos to the top quark there are 14 orders of magnitude of mass that the standard model needs to explain. This is hard to do even with the HIgg's Boson which is the missing ingredient. - Joanna Baler
Why don't the opposite charge quarks annihilate each other within the proton and neutron?
Quarks are just fractions of collided electron or proton weights.
It is called the standard model when you are at electron proton neutron weights.
You have not thought about what the experiments are, or the symmetries used to observe them.
yeah, you are way overthinking this. If you want to answer your questions, learn particle physics. the last one....pop sci makes ppl think antimatter is just a charge flip, it's not. Animatter flips all the appropriate quantum numbers. For that , you really need to understand why antimatter exists, and that is fairly advanced. It's just a requirement of special relativity. See "representation theory of the Lorentz group."
Regarding nucleons, p and n are composite particles...they are not fundamental. As far as the strong force is concerned, they're the same particle with different isospin. But EM and the Weak force exists, so they are different.
That matter only comes in qqq form is quite amazing, Since all matter needs to be colorless (and experimental fact), the minimal ways to make colorless combinations are qqq and q-qbar, which are exactly the baryons and mesons that we observe on nature.
Leptons are totally ignorant of color...e, mu, tau and their neutrinos just don't care.
ofc. the weak interaction works across the quark/lepton divide, and that fact answers a few of your questions.
very clear, thank you
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 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. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics.
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
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? 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. 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 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.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. 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.
.
why? gluons work. Color factors are experimentally measurable, 3g and 4g couplings are observed in jets. Does your theory explain those? Do you know what they are? If you don't, then don't bother proposing a theory.
@@DrDeuteron
A ten Kilogram mass can be elevated above the floor by a rope or by a magnetic field. However, they are not the same thing.
Please tell us your viewpoint of what produces the "Quantum" in Quantum Mechanics.
Why do we need 3 color charges? We can have sss quark combinations with just 2 colors.
because the state needs to be antisymmetric under interchange of any two particles. The spin state is uuu, so it can't come from spin, nor any two spin combination of 3 particles (try it). Eg with two quarks: ud - du works. With color, you can get:
rgb + gbr + brg - bgr - grb - rbg
which you can verify flips sign under any interchange of 2 spots.
Total layman here but I can't help but wonder where would the new quarks come from when pulled apart? Doesn't that violate the conservation of matter and energy?
In simple terms, as the quarks are pulled apart, energy is stored in the so called spring as potential energy. Energy is being stored in the stretched gluon. When the spring finally breaks, that potential energy is instantly converted into mass via Einstein's E=mc^2, thereby creating a new quark pair. Energy is conserved because you have to put energy in to stretch the quarks apart. Nature for some mysterious reason requires enough energy in the spring to create new quarks before the spring breaks.
@@Beerbatter1962 question, did your parents have any kids that survived?
@@Beerbatter1962 and this quark pair then moves along as if it's a single particle ? If so, couldn't it be said that the anti-quarks were invented simply to explain the extra (doubled) mass ?
@@sFeral Not exactly, as a single particle. They move along as a new pair consisting of 2 Quarks bound by a Gluon. In all particle accelerator experiments performed to date, Quarks have never been detected alone. They ALWAYS only exist as pairs or more.
@@Beerbatter1962 but how is it determined that the detected particle (pion?) is actually consisting of two subparticles ? Seems like inference
Nice 👌
Thwre is another property -color. How does it fit into the standard model.
3:40 spin but not spin? (polarity?)
5:30 color but not color? (charge?)
Not very intuitive names
Not only is my Up Quark down, but it’s also blue.
I not sure how I'm going to cheer it up.
wow this is a great video... straight talking
7:07 I agree, don't introduce false potentialities with the CMY metaphor as it can lead to much confusion. It's a clever shorthand but dangerously misleading if taken too far.
I disagree. He, and many others, state there is 2 kinds of electric charge and 3 kinds of color charge. This is misleading. There is one kind of electric charge, which we call "charge", and its anti charge is negative charge (or vice versa, that definition of sign is just a convention).
There are six color charges: R, G, B, and their opposites: C, M, Y.
Note that these definitions are just conventions, too. If I say: "thats R, G, B" and you come along and say, "No! That's G, B, R", or worse: "(R+G)/1.41, (G+B)/1.41, (B+R)/1.41,.,,, we're all right....physics is completely invariant under complex rotations in (R,G,B) space.
@@DrDeuteron You do realise that 1.41 is an approximation to sqrt(2) don't You? So are Your colours approximate also? What about K and W? :-)
@@alphalunamare what a K and W? So what is the danger of CMY?
And what are approximate colors? There is no "red" direction in color space, it's arbitrary...just like spin "up"...there's no "up", we just make up a direction and call it up.
@@DrDeuteron I am being Humerous Duhh! Sorry You didn't get it 🙂
@@alphalunamare well OP came out against CMY, so I wondering what the deal with that is.
regarding actual colors--the total arbitrariness of gluon color states is not well known, but may be of importance, esp w/ all the questions here about "how do we measure color charge?". It's not something you can do according to the theory.
Moreover, when ppl say "all observed particles are white", that a shorthand for all particles are "color singlet", which means physics does not depend on the choice of direction in color space (i.e, RGB can be swapped with GBR and so on--any unitary swap will do...and if you understand what that means, it alleviates the need for misguided classical-intuition questions).
Now the 1,41 schtick did seem like a joke. I just can't find () in my iPad.
If you have a blonde, a brunette, and a redhead, are they three species? No, they are one species with some small observational attribute differences. It sounds the same for electrons. You get another hint of a signal. Does that make it another particle or does one particle have many states?
awesome
Helical Particle Waves can clean this mess!
I quit physics in the early 70's over this. None of this constitutes evidence. We're no closer today than we were fifty years ago to understanding what goes on inside the Proton. In fact recent findings have shown that the quark model of the proton is not only wrong, but not understood at all. The experiments shown do not back up the theory, especially given recent modern research, which has absolutely no idea what protons are made up of, beyond a few vague tendencies whose particulars are as hard to nail down as nailing a fart to the wall. In science we're supposed to follow the evidence. What got us here today was not evidence, however, but generations of boot-strapping, or trying to fudge bad ideas with endless amendments. Other junk science that came of this was dark matter, dark energy, and the red shift, the latter of which is an indirect observation not backed up by direct observation. Modern physics is a house of cards that is long past due to come tumbling down.
"and redshift". yeah, Im sure you were in physics before buddy
DM and DE have nothing to do with DIS. Why you trippin?
@@98danielray It's only "redshift" if you're using United Statsian garbage grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
@@DrDeuteron DM and DE are allegations without a shred of evidence to back them up.
What software do you use for your presentation?
Are use interactive whiteboard software
Sorry to be critical, however...
In an infinite universe, if we do not acknowledge the infinite nature thereof, we will continue to proclaim new elementary particles. "THIS is the one of which all is composed!" "NO this!" "Ah-ha! It is THIS particle indeed of which the universe is composed!" "Surely none can be simpler in our eyes than the most distant and most directly unobservable particles!" "We are large and these particles so small, certainly there can be none SMALLER STILL."
OR we can, through following the possibility, see that the universe is in fact infinite and there is thus no such thing as an elementary particle and each has identical complexity, and thus since Earth is composed of atoms, then so too is a proton composed of relatively more subtle particles IN A SIMILAR MANNER, that behave in manners where there are tendencies and equilibriums and stable points within a sea of instability, thus producing trends. These trends, then, we can overlay with a quark model but it does not mean they exist.
I would add, the vast majority of the particles in the standard model exist in the range of 10^-8 to 10^-22 seconds. The only stable ones are, surprise, protons, neutrons, electrons, (and neutrinos). We ignore the fact that the array of particles are so unstable because we want to develop a model to explain them all, and that they are not stable is not important. What is important, in the standard model, is that the particles each are stable for any amount of time whatsoever at THESE particular stability points, indicative that we know what we are talking about since we can then use them to show how quarks also explain them as well, which is beneficial because it presents an air that the science is "settled."
But, without any resistance from alternative viewpoints, where ALL VIEWS of people involved in the decisions included the MINIMUM that quantum mechanics is true in some capacity, then we just keep on going down this road with no looking back. The scientific community pretends that the debate is done. Classical mechanics has no defenders in modern day because QM has just boxed out all views but its own. This is the equivalent of there being one single political party in a government. If we haven't figured out HOW the world should be governed, its reasonable for there to be multiple sides. Yet, we do feel we have figured out how the world IS governed and thus trashed previous models, and so even in spite of us not yet figuring things out we still find ourselves in a one-sided conversation.
sorry, but no. e, u, d describe most of the universe. You may need the occasional nu, and higher generations in the weeds.
Can't belive, Dancing tik tokers and instagram influencer gets more views than this 😢. That's just so sad, knowing about this reality. Hope in a parallel universe, People are actually focused.
You overlooked the Quack, apparently no one listens to ducks
Yeh but what's the evidence ? This is not evidence, it's a story
measurements are evidence. Can you point to a bogus measurement?
14:55 the way you illustrated this doesn't make sense. The q inner parts are forced together hence they should be illustrated as if moving around some center point, with the border being determined by how far they can move away. Though, what's making them move ?... are they even moving... just like electrons in their orbitals, moving without moving, describing a shape in space
it's a classical animation. It is not a representation of realty. All protons are identical at all times, and they are stationary states...nothing about them changes, ever, as long as they are protons. This problem also occurs in atomic physics. one you draw a picture, it is fundamentally wrong, because pictures are classical, and true quantum description cannot be drawn, unless you know what the color (red + sqrt(-1)blue)/sqrt(2) means.
"Strangeness" is an artistic name with no scientific meaning. If it has, spill it.
strangness was strange because it doesn't fit into the isospin (SU(2)) classification scheme, since fermions should come in doublets. Later it was found that s does come in doublets with c, and that was a charming result.
"Color" is an artistic name with no scientific meaning. If it has, spill it. Otherwise, observers found electrons with a range of behaviors in your fields to observe them.
color is the perception of different reflective light waves due to cone cells in our eyes translating that light wave into a neural signal
@@evie2210 Color is also some kind of quark behavior, presumably.
color is used because humans see 3 primary colors, and each has an complementary color. This worked well with SU(3), which has a fundamental 3 dimensional representation with 3 charges, and a 3-bar irrep with 3 anti-charges.
moreover, since nature only produces particles from the singlet expansions of 3 x 3bar (mesons) and 3 x 3 x3 (baryons) the analogy between "coloress" or "white" and the trivial transformation of the singlet irreps was quite a coincidence. So, instead of blabbing on about representation theory of Lie groups, you can just say, "all particles in nature are colorless".
Nothing new that hasn't been presented in hundreds of other videos. I expected more in-depth explanations not regurgitation of the same stuff.
What is the likelihood of determining the entrance position of a pachinko ball after analyzing the exit position. This is what that scattering experiment is doing.
What is an electron?
Isn't this a bit of a confidence game where you are taking advantage of people who have more money than brains?
no. There is a fundamental difference in classical randomness (pachinko) and quantum scattering....but many professional physicists get it wrong, so no H8.
Unzeker disagrees with you,convince him first before convince someone else.
He is a crackpot, and is wrong. All the time.
What was God thinking
this is further prove that everything was intentionally created. it makes nonsense of a random evolutionally theory
@@georgembugua1522 you idiot these are particles not animals
"Up" and "Down" are artistic names with no scientific meaning. If they have, spill it.
up and down refer to the third component of iso-spin being +/- 1/2.
Ok particle physicists... so what?
Show me how you use this information or particle?
Show me some useful technology from these theories or...I say again, so what.
@Jacyg.3073 Without going into long & complicated details.
PARTICLE PHYSICS / CHEMISTRY 🧪 helped create:
Nuclear Bombs 💣
Nuclear Electric⚡Power 💪
Solar☀️ Electricity 💡
Internet🖥️computing
X rays 🩻
Electron Microscopes 🔬
Meds💉 💊
Fuels ⛽
Batteries 🔋🪫
and much more NOW and in the FUTURE
@jacyg.3073
Even if there's " N🚫 usefulness " to it,
it's a lot of FUN to know the interworking of GOD's creation.
Or as Albert Einstein would say : It's a lot of fun to READ GOD's MIND 🤔
@jacyg.3073
There's seems to be "not much usefulness" in attending
Amusement parks🎢🎡🎠
Concerts🎸🎤🥁🎷🎹
Sport events🏈🎾🏀🏒⚾⚽
Yet we can't help ourselves but to fill
👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫👫such places because they are Soooooo
ENJOYABLE !🥳🤩
i have seen a video which says all this is baloney, fake science
Young Timothy Jones Michelle Jones Mary
Looks like the color was a quantum number created to save the model. This way one can keep making up quantum numbers to save models.
no, the color factor comes naturally from Yang Mill theory, which does not gaf about the quark model.
So we have spin, but they don't really spin, but we have color, but it's not really a color. I guess making it more complicated, makes it more fun.
Great Video!
I always thought that quarks are only observable when combining with other quarks to form neutral charge. How can the electron „feel“ 3 different quarks (which are non-neutral for themselves)?
Oh man, talk about confirmation bias. Does it bother anyone else that three experiments showed the three properties needed to support the quark model?
Richard Feynman, you dumped a huge puzzle in our laps, and then very inconveniently, died. No doubt, it spoiled many of Dick's plans, too. I'm still scratching my head over the Standard Model + QCD, 40+ years after first exposure, 🤔
how is the charge and masses of quarks measured?
Absolute rubbish. You can’t renormalise infinity.
I got conflicting answers to what the strong nuclear force is. You say that it is responsible for holding the three quarks together in a proton, and that it increases in strength over distance, but others say that it is responsible for holding the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom and diminishes rapidly in strength over distance, so which one is it ?
yes.
How did they detect color charge?
Can't have two strange ups.
@@davidf5609 so are you saying that because two strange ups were detected, they conclucded there must be color charge? That seems like a stretch. Aren't there4 other more plausible explanations for two strange up?
And thaat is not exactly detecting color, but rather hypothesizing another property and making up color.
@@jasonwiley798 Everything is made up to explain logically what is observed from experiment. Hence the higgs boson inferred from two photons around 125GeV.
@@davidf5609 so they have not actually detect d color charge?
so neutron is also made of zoo like particles then just like proton?
As far as the strong force is concerned, they're basically the same particle in 2 different states.
Excellent presentation. Thank you for your work. Very clear explanation of our current understanding.
Thanks
Moses' 2 stone tablets, each with 5 commandements carved thereon, could represent 'normal distribution' (i.e. BALANCE . . . why not ONE tablet for all 10?). Quarks (since they come in 3's, and NOT as a BALANCED PAIR) can be seen in the configuration at Calvary (two 'down' quarks, and the man himself).
Good job but I don't buy it. If the theory don't work, add special rules until it does.
The evidence for quarks included protons having inside them pointlike objects all having spin 1/2 and fractional charges. Were the fractions +2/3 and -1/3 as assumed in the quark model of the proton?
he talks about that? electron DIS only measures the sum of charges squared of partons, but neutrino scattering fixes more.
So? What’s are the evidences? Some scholars gone nuts. Just a model.
why do you say that? The evidence for an SU(3) strong theory and a U(1) Em theory is massive.
Seriously, why do you say that? Do you have a PhD in particle physics? Do you really understand what is going on?
I will guess "no", but pls correct me if I am wrong.
If I am am right, then why do you feel the need to comment? I mean it would be like me looking at bridge design and saying "it will collapse"--- I don't know jack about civil engineering, and my opinion is worthless.... what make you think yours on particle physics matters?
You look like Murray Gell Mann, although you are probably a bit smarter
I don’t think so. On both counts.