@SpaceTime4D We did not say that the mass of the gauge boson was the ONLY factor that influenced the range of a force. It is certainly true that a gauge boson with mass cannot have an infinite range. But as you point out, a massless gauge boson is not a guarantee that the force will have an infinite range.
This is very easy to understand, it is probably the most simple video on the standard model you will ever see. Soon it will have to make new room for a new boson and at that point I hope he makes a new video.
ok, who's disliking this? Even if they don't like the animation or the voice of the narrator it's an informative video on relevant science, no reason to hate on it!
@BeyCuber We regularly MAKE antimatter particles in the laboratory. And antimatter particles can be created in natural reactions as well. These particles last only long enough to encounter normal matter and they are gone. If the experimenters can contain these particles with various forces, then antimatter experiments can be done using them.
Any choice of "primary colors" is arbitrary. Red-Green-Blue is a choice that allows a useful range of colors to be generated by mixing. Cyan-Magenta-Yellow are often chosen for printing and the Autochrome photographic uses Orange-Green-violet.
It's amazing to look around yourself and in yourself and see that all the matter and energy and forces of the universe are all the same on a fundamental level.
Also, I believe the current postulate on why there is more than one elementary particle is because there was more than one field in play during the initial conditions. The electromagnetic field acts/reacts through the particles that it creates due to excitation, the electrons, and through their interactive forces (electricity and magnetism). Quarks aren't yet known to be elementary particles, but are assumed to be the elementary building blocks of protons and neutrons.
The colour of a quark merely refers to 1 of 3 states the quark can be in. Similar to the three primary colours, all three together cancel out to a "white" state. Quarks change colour by exchanging gluons, the gauge boson of strong nuclear force, but they always even out. For example if Green quark exchanges a gluon with the Red quark, the Green quark becomes red and the Red becomes green. This is illustrated by the lightning strike between the quarks in the video that changes the colours.
That was Awesome! 5/5! It makes more and more sense the more I learn it, even in mathematical equations! It's amazing how all matter and forces can exist from just a possible singularity. But, I believe there are an infinite amount of parallel universes within our own, some very similar and some entirely different... I wonder what we will know tomorrow? Or in 10 years? Absolutely fascinating! Keep them coming! Great Job!
Assuming that the universe is "open" -- that it will keep expanding forever -- there are still several possible ultimate fates for the universe. In 2003 some scientists at Dartmouth published a hypothesis called "The Big Rip". This hypothesis has the expansion of space accelerating and ripping apart all matter down to the sub-atomic-level.
Quark flavours: Up, down, Strange, Charmed, Top and Bottom affect the charge of the particle. A proton has 2 up quarks and a down quark resulting in a +1 charge, a neutron has one up and two bottom quarks, resulting in a 0 charge. Think of an up quark having a +2/3 charge and a bottom having a -1/3 charge. Proton would be 2/3+2/3-1/3 charge= 3/3 charge or 1. The weak nuclear force allows happens when a w boson comes close and changes the charge of the quark from up to bottom or vice versa.
@SpaceTime4D (cont.) Because the gluons carry the color charge themselves, they generate secondary virtual gluons themselves; and these generate more gluons and so on. This is what limits the range of the color force. The video is accurate in what it says.
@gromtkn The time interval 10**-43 is known as the Planck time. (Google Planck units for a long explanation.) The Planck time is the time it takes for light to travel one Planck distance. At smaller distances and shorter times, quantum gravitational effects are thought to affect both space and time severely. So until we have a successful quantum-gravity theory, we have no idea what happens to space-time at shorter distances and shorter times.
OK, that's it. Do believe that it could conceiveably be possible for the LHC to create a universe? [Universe within a universe] Would one replace the other? Would it infinately permeate the universe in which it created - coexist? as a paralell universe?
@steeveyneon Since the known exchange bosons have different properties, it is only at extremely high energies and temperatures that they behave the same and act like a combined super-force. As the universe expanded and cooled, the different properties of the exchange bosons make the forces easily distinguishable.
If the basics of thermodaynamics are that no system is completely isolated in temepratire and that gaining temperature of one system must mean loss of heat or work done by the other system, what is the system that interracts with the Universe(the ultimate system) and exchanges energy in the process of cooling heating expansion and so on on this macroscopic scale?
Finally, I really like the last line of your comment. It is the only reason I took the time to try and give a speculative explanation, and let you know that I have a fair idea of what I am talking about so that I could tell you just how close to accurate you may be about how pre-space-time "space" and space-time itself seem 2b acting as a stretcher of the energy (matter/ mass/ info, whatever you want to call it) which has allowed for all of existence to take place&have a precept of linear time.
If you're looking for an intro book, I've heard good things about "An Introduction to the Standard Model of Particle Physics" by Cottingham and Greenwood. It was published at the start of 2007, so shouldn't be too outdated yet!
@cassiopeiaproject is it ruled out that half the universe was antimatter and it separated far enough in space after inflation, to not interact enough for us to detect it?
is there a video that goes deeper into detail about the uncountable tiny particles ( iguess so called Virtual Particles are meant) that fill the space around the Electron for example? In the Video it is claimed that the energy needed by that particle can be created out of nothing. That made some alarm bells go off. Out of nothing or undetectable? has this to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
This concept is going to be difficult to prove, but the mathematics works. There are several competing models for the origin of our portion of the universe and as we map the sky and the expansion of space more-and-more accurately, different models are falling by the wayside. It is easier to eliminate a model than to prove one. This model is still in the running, and matches the known data very well.
@BlueDemeter One theory is that membranes in higher dimensions are essentially slapping each other causing big bangs within, maybe even multiple big bangs at a time. Another theory is that the big bang happened as a quantum fluctuation.
The Planck Time is is the time it would take a photon to travel a distance equal to the Planck Length. So it is the smallest measure of time that we can talk about meaningfully.
It's indescribable because you have to try and grasp the concept of the enormity of the big bang packed into a space smaller than a single atom, how else could you describe it?
Energy and time are conjugate variables; so for brief periods of time, energy can (must) spontaneously change from nothing to something. And sometimes that something is enough to create fundamental particles from "nothing"... not for very long, though, unless we are creating universes.
Eventually the Standard Model must be officially expanded to include gravity and relativity, but right now all we have are ideas and predictions. But the standard model is always the starting point for these ideas; so certainly they are related and intertwined. And anything that affects one will necessarily affect the other.
If "ephemeral particles" stream out of charged particles and then snap back in almost instantly, and if this virtual pixie dust mediates the forces, then just how does the electromagnetic force have unlimited range?
We decided that use of terms like "blow up" and "explosion" were the best terms to use for the big bang. Somehow "The Big Space Creation" doesn't convey the suddenness or rapidity of the event. In the case of the Big Bang, the momentous expansion of the explosion was the expansion of our universe -- our space-time.
We don't yet know what dark matter and dark energy are. So they are not covered by the standard model. But dark matter has certainly been here from early on, since it is a crucial component of the formation of structure in the universe. (It is always possible that future modifications to the theory of gravitation will do away with the need for dark matter altogether.)
The idea that there should be a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified Theory is the driving concept that ties the standard model to gravity and general relativity.
if the range of the force is affected by the mass of the gauge boson, gluons which are massless should have infinite range shouldn't they ? but then why is the strong nuclear force limited to a given range? thanks for the video
there is speculation as to what caused the big bang, but the one I like is that two universes had a collision in a higher dimension. It is like how being on the earth it seems like it would be infinite if you just kept going around the earth, but looking at the earth from afar can be seen it is bounded, it is speculated that universes are the same way in a higher dimension and that there are many universes.
Theoretically, the LHC could spark the creation of a universe. If so, the new universe would not affect or interact with our own. It would coexist as a parallel universe.
The other day I've learned how many atoms are in a grain of salt: about 1.2 *10 ^ 18, or: 1,200,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. That fact alone multiplied my admiration for particle physicists by at least a billion :-)
if it's called local gauge symetry and gravity isn't included. is that because gravity has infinite range? also i thought that all 3 neutrinos had the same rest mass(energy varries on frequency/momentum) and that they were all 3 stable?
It requires more imagination and credulity than math. It is a direct outcome of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which states that the product of the uncertainty (or variation) of conjugate variables of a system cannot be zero and must be at least as large as a certain physical constant (Planck's constant).
Ergo, you must know my next question....what ties them together - time? Gravity? "other?" As I recall from "Bleep" - it's about "potentiality" and could this have any relationto 'spooky motion at a distance?
@Mostwantedo These are VIRTUAL particles. They have all possible wavelengths, and they disappear before they violate the uncertainty principle restrictions. Two positive particles DO exchange virtual photons -- this results in the repulsive force that they "feel".
Other hypotheses like "Brane Theory" postulate that our universe is one of many membranes that can possibility collide and produce big bangs and baby universes. However, we have seen no hypothesis that has the accelerated expansion of space causing phenomena such as you describe (yet).
@nafativedec Well, that's one way to look at it. It's field, which is basically an "area" with defined values for each point within that area. But in quantum mechanics, particles mediate the forces. The simplest way to put it is that these particles DO exist, and also DON'T. If you're dealing with classical mechanics, then you can imagine a field as just an area upon which a force acts, somehow. But in quantum electrodynamics you do have to picture virtual photons being exchanged.
@sidewaysfcs0718 I prefer the view that all particles are actually fields. Invisible entities such as virtual photons, gluons, gravitons, etc. would therefore not be necessary. The field-particles simply interact directly with each other.
The Planck Temperature is about 1.4 X 10^32 K. At temperatures greater than the Planck Temperature, our current theories fail; so consideration of temperatures greater than this cannot be discussed in the framework of any physical theory. Because particle mass rises with energy (and temperature). A particle at the Planck Temperature is massive enough to become its own black hole and our concept of space-time breaks down.
IF quarks are the MOST elementary particle in protons and neutrons than the question will be "What is interacting with the (mathematically proposed) higgs field?" Whatever is interacting with the higgs field enough to excite it into giving mass to these quarks will then be called the "cause" of the quarks, like electrons forces are "caused" by the electromagnetic field excitation and given mass by higgs field excitation. The strong force is considered 2b in the transfer of gluons between quarks.
Dark energy is even more mysterious. It appears to be a field that permeates all of space, giving the vacuum a non-zero energy density. If so it has certainly been around since the period of inflation of the universe.
@Canadarocksish for sake of discussion evolution is usually defined as the gradual adaptation of biology, the big bang is the commonly accepted theory for how the universe began. hope that helps to understand what i meant in my second sentence.
@steeveyneon Trying to visualize an actual particle-particle interaction at the quantum level is always going to inadequately depict what happens. As shown in our "QED" video, the actual interaction as seen on a macro scale is an average of an infinite number of probability amplitudes. Some of these amplitudes have negative signs on them when attractive forces are involved. Don't push the visualization of a single exchange too far in trying to understand an attractive force.
@gromtkn thats like asking why there isn't anyting lower than absolute zero, why is -273 C absolute zero? why not -274C ? because we invented the idea of time or temperature in a mathematical sense and therefore quantized it. so there is a point where it can't get any smaller.
In the evolution of the universe, when did mass first exist? Why were more then one elementary particle created, and how was a particle such as the electron created so fundamentally different then quarks? during these first instances of the universe, what and where was space-time? from that moment one did space increasingly expand larger? Is space the potential for the original energy to un-dense itself?
@KeanuR2500 not completely accurate, space-time didn't exist yet, but it was cobbled together with everything else that "exists" in a singularity. Similar to how the video describes the separation of the forces. (actually, if I understand it correctly, space-time is a function dependent on gravity, so gravity would have to exist before space-time, that's why gravity must separate before the end of the first Planck time unit.
Gravity is a real problem. Without a quantum gravity model, we don't even have a starting point from which to SPECULATE about times earlier than the Planck Time. The Planck Length is the scale at which our ideas about gravity and space time break down. Trying to measure a length smaller than this would require a probe with enough energy to create a black hole larger than the Planck Length that we are trying to measure.
he entropy of our early universe is an ongoing discussion. If chaotic inflation is correct and our universe began with the exponential expansion of a scalar field, then the low entropy state of our early universe is perhaps explained. (See our "Universe" video.) Even so, life is probably a very rare phenomenon in all the universes of the multiverse, and we echo your sentiment.
Since the video explains the up and down quark as matter and says that up and down quarks formed protons and neutrons at 10 to the minus 6 seconds, it is confusing or doesn't really follow to say that a particle of matter is created from nothing. It sounds like the particle becomes matter when one of the properties of its quark, up or down, changes its state..
It is most likely that we are imagined and sustained by sentient light. However, the wave-function of quantum mechanics which contains sinusoidal patterns (indexes and archetypes) of collapsed light is still part of creation. Considering the events of the separation of gravity and then the strong force, there is still time before the expansion.
Gaah! I love physics! It expands beyond what we can imagine! :D I'm joining a physics-class after the summer, so I'm not really that into the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but do you really mean NOTHING, or unknown?
@@lowercaseav Lol, fun to be reminded of where on the Internet I was 13 years ago. Yeah, that must have been high school physics I referred to. Physics classes didn't exist for the first year. Have a great day, stranger!
Current inflation models suggest that the big bang could have started when a quantum fluctuation brought a Planck Mass into existence for a Planck Time. If that mass were in the form of the right kind of scalar field, then inflation would create a universe.
@Idol2011no because it's hard to explain university-level physics in a youtube video. Look up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (in relation to energy and time) if you wanna know more
However it is possible mathematically to also use the strong force (which still has a way to go to before it's mathematical contradictions are worked out, because the force dissipates quicker than mathematically predicted) as a possible field interacting with the higgs field to give rise to quarks, but that is a bit speculative. Also, a type of "space" had to exist pre "big bang", but until the big bang "space-time" as we know it likely did not exist. Instead it likely evolved do to the forces.
@SpaceTime4D We did not say that the mass of the gauge boson was the ONLY factor that influenced the range of a force. It is certainly true that a gauge boson with mass cannot have an infinite range. But as you point out, a massless gauge boson is not a guarantee that the force will have an infinite range.
My favourite episode of this amazing channel
This is very easy to understand, it is probably the most simple video on the standard model you will ever see. Soon it will have to make new room for a new boson and at that point I hope he makes a new video.
ok, who's disliking this? Even if they don't like the animation or the voice of the narrator it's an informative video on relevant science, no reason to hate on it!
I like these Cassiopeia videos. I wish they would make more.
@dynastyflygon The Higgs is the only particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model that has not yet been observed.
@BeyCuber We regularly MAKE antimatter particles in the laboratory. And antimatter particles can be created in natural reactions as well. These particles last only long enough to encounter normal matter and they are gone. If the experimenters can contain these particles with various forces, then antimatter experiments can be done using them.
Any choice of "primary colors" is arbitrary. Red-Green-Blue is a choice that allows a useful range of colors to be generated by mixing. Cyan-Magenta-Yellow are often chosen for printing and the Autochrome photographic uses Orange-Green-violet.
It's amazing to look around yourself and in yourself and see that all the matter and energy and forces of the universe are all the same on a fundamental level.
Also, I believe the current postulate on why there is more than one elementary particle is because there was more than one field in play during the initial conditions. The electromagnetic field acts/reacts through the particles that it creates due to excitation, the electrons, and through their interactive forces (electricity and magnetism). Quarks aren't yet known to be elementary particles, but are assumed to be the elementary building blocks of protons and neutrons.
The colour of a quark merely refers to 1 of 3 states the quark can be in. Similar to the three primary colours, all three together cancel out to a "white" state. Quarks change colour by exchanging gluons, the gauge boson of strong nuclear force, but they always even out. For example if Green quark exchanges a gluon with the Red quark, the Green quark becomes red and the Red becomes green. This is illustrated by the lightning strike between the quarks in the video that changes the colours.
That was Awesome! 5/5! It makes more and more sense the more I learn it, even in mathematical equations! It's amazing how all matter and forces can exist from just a possible singularity. But, I believe there are an infinite amount of parallel universes within our own, some very similar and some entirely different... I wonder what we will know tomorrow? Or in 10 years? Absolutely fascinating! Keep them coming! Great Job!
13 years later. Today is my first time, I agree with you, it's awesome still.
i believe maybe secondary particles can snap from the first particles? and 3rd set snaps from 2 nd and so on?
Assuming that the universe is "open" -- that it will keep expanding forever -- there are still several possible ultimate fates for the universe. In 2003 some scientists at Dartmouth published a hypothesis called "The Big Rip". This hypothesis has the expansion of space accelerating and ripping apart all matter down to the sub-atomic-level.
Quark flavours: Up, down, Strange, Charmed, Top and Bottom affect the charge of the particle. A proton has 2 up quarks and a down quark resulting in a +1 charge, a neutron has one up and two bottom quarks, resulting in a 0 charge. Think of an up quark having a +2/3 charge and a bottom having a -1/3 charge. Proton would be 2/3+2/3-1/3 charge= 3/3 charge or 1. The weak nuclear force allows happens when a w boson comes close and changes the charge of the quark from up to bottom or vice versa.
quick question, do we know what the anti variants of the red, green and blue colour charges look like?
@SpaceTime4D (cont.) Because the gluons carry the color charge themselves, they generate secondary virtual gluons themselves; and these generate more gluons and so on. This is what limits the range of the color force. The video is accurate in what it says.
how would that superforce behave? and why did the forces separate?
@gromtkn The time interval 10**-43 is known as the Planck time. (Google Planck units for a long explanation.) The Planck time is the time it takes for light to travel one Planck distance. At smaller distances and shorter times, quantum gravitational effects are thought to affect both space and time severely. So until we have a successful quantum-gravity theory, we have no idea what happens to space-time at shorter distances and shorter times.
OK, that's it. Do believe that it could conceiveably be possible for the LHC to create a universe? [Universe within a universe] Would one replace the other? Would it infinately permeate the universe in which it created - coexist? as a paralell universe?
@steeveyneon Since the known exchange bosons have different properties, it is only at extremely high energies and temperatures that they behave the same and act like a combined super-force. As the universe expanded and cooled, the different properties of the exchange bosons make the forces easily distinguishable.
If the basics of thermodaynamics are that no system is completely isolated in temepratire and that gaining temperature of one system must mean loss of heat or work done by the other system, what is the system that interracts with the Universe(the ultimate system) and exchanges energy in the process of cooling heating expansion and so on on this macroscopic scale?
Finally, I really like the last line of your comment. It is the only reason I took the time to try and give a speculative explanation, and let you know that I have a fair idea of what I am talking about so that I could tell you just how close to accurate you may be about how pre-space-time "space" and space-time itself seem 2b acting as a stretcher of the energy (matter/ mass/ info, whatever you want to call it) which has allowed for all of existence to take place&have a precept of linear time.
If you're looking for an intro book, I've heard good things about "An Introduction to the Standard Model of Particle Physics" by Cottingham and Greenwood. It was published at the start of 2007, so shouldn't be too outdated yet!
Is there an interaction with the standard model and the concept of multi-verse?
Green as a primary color, like in printers?
@cassiopeiaproject
is it ruled out that half the universe was antimatter and it separated far enough in space after inflation, to not interact enough for us to detect it?
is there a video that goes deeper into detail about the uncountable tiny particles ( iguess so called Virtual Particles are meant) that fill the space around the Electron for example? In the Video it is claimed that the energy needed by that particle can be created out of nothing. That made some alarm bells go off.
Out of nothing or undetectable? has this to do with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
Yes, we designed and created those clips and provided them for the Universe video.
This concept is going to be difficult to prove, but the mathematics works. There are several competing models for the origin of our portion of the universe and as we map the sky and the expansion of space more-and-more accurately, different models are falling by the wayside. It is easier to eliminate a model than to prove one. This model is still in the running, and matches the known data very well.
@BlueDemeter One theory is that membranes in higher dimensions are essentially slapping each other causing big bangs within, maybe even multiple big bangs at a time. Another theory is that the big bang happened as a quantum fluctuation.
The Planck Time is is the time it would take a photon to travel a distance equal to the Planck Length. So it is the smallest measure of time that we can talk about meaningfully.
@nafativedec Magnetism is part of the electromagnetic force, and the photon is the boson.
It's indescribable because you have to try and grasp the concept of the enormity of the big bang packed into a space smaller than a single atom, how else could you describe it?
Energy and time are conjugate variables; so for brief periods of time, energy can (must) spontaneously change from nothing to something. And sometimes that something is enough to create fundamental particles from "nothing"... not for very long, though, unless we are creating universes.
How were the forces seperated? D:
Darth Tesla Bucket of cold water,
How does gravity operate at such great distances if the force is being mediated by particles with such brief existences?
@4:38 were those so called virtual particles that you were talking about
Eventually the Standard Model must be officially expanded to include gravity and relativity, but right now all we have are ideas and predictions. But the standard model is always the starting point for these ideas; so certainly they are related and intertwined. And anything that affects one will necessarily affect the other.
If "ephemeral particles" stream out of charged particles and then snap back in almost instantly, and if this virtual pixie dust mediates the forces, then just how does the electromagnetic force have unlimited range?
Although the things they theorize may not be completely true, it still contributes to the knowledge of everything we currently know today.
We decided that use of terms like "blow up" and "explosion" were the best terms to use for the big bang. Somehow "The Big Space Creation" doesn't convey the suddenness or rapidity of the event. In the case of the Big Bang, the momentous expansion of the explosion was the expansion of our universe -- our space-time.
@cassiopeiaproject
1:55 What do you mean, "all anti-matter has disappeared?"
why does the strong nuclear force has a given range is the gluons ( gauge bosons of the strong nuclear force ) have no rest mass.
thanks for the video
7:59 Just a heads up were still looking for the graviton.
We don't yet know what dark matter and dark energy are. So they are not covered by the standard model. But dark matter has certainly been here from early on, since it is a crucial component of the formation of structure in the universe. (It is always possible that future modifications to the theory of gravitation will do away with the need for dark matter altogether.)
@gwendance can you explain why?
The idea that there should be a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified Theory is the driving concept that ties the standard model to gravity and general relativity.
if the range of the force is affected by the mass of the gauge boson, gluons which are massless should have infinite range shouldn't they ? but then why is the strong nuclear force limited to a given range?
thanks for the video
Shouldn't green-antigreen sum to black?
there is speculation as to what caused the big bang, but the one I like is that two universes had a collision in a higher dimension. It is like how being on the earth it seems like it would be infinite if you just kept going around the earth, but looking at the earth from afar can be seen it is bounded, it is speculated that universes are the same way in a higher dimension and that there are many universes.
Theoretically, the LHC could spark the creation of a universe. If so, the new universe would not affect or interact with our own. It would coexist as a parallel universe.
The other day I've learned how many atoms are in a grain of salt: about 1.2 *10 ^ 18, or: 1,200,000,000,000,000,000 atoms.
That fact alone multiplied my admiration for particle physicists by at least a billion :-)
if it's called local gauge symetry and gravity isn't included. is that because gravity has infinite range?
also i thought that all 3 neutrinos had the same rest mass(energy varries on frequency/momentum) and that they were all 3 stable?
Wait, so gravity and the strong force just kinda stopped working all of a sudden?
It requires more imagination and credulity than math. It is a direct outcome of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which states that the product of the uncertainty (or variation) of conjugate variables of a system cannot be zero and must be at least as large as a certain physical constant (Planck's constant).
Ergo, you must know my next question....what ties them together - time? Gravity? "other?" As I recall from "Bleep" - it's about "potentiality" and could this have any relationto 'spooky motion at a distance?
@Mostwantedo These are VIRTUAL particles. They have all possible wavelengths, and they disappear before they violate the uncertainty principle restrictions. Two positive particles DO exchange virtual photons -- this results in the repulsive force that they "feel".
at 1:05, how big could it have gotten...more than or less than a light year?
@reinux I typically refer to as evolution as the evolving of the universe and animals. I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence either.
How was time created?
Yes in three space dimensions an inverse-square law describes the strength of the force.
If you would remove the dull, and inane machina dialog, you have what are easily the best educational videos on the subject matter I've ever seen!
What does "air is matter, even though you can't see it, unless you're in Los Angeles" mean?
Other hypotheses like "Brane Theory" postulate that our universe is one of many membranes that can possibility collide and produce big bangs and baby universes. However, we have seen no hypothesis that has the accelerated expansion of space causing phenomena such as you describe (yet).
@nafativedec Well, that's one way to look at it. It's field, which is basically an "area" with defined values for each point within that area. But in quantum mechanics, particles mediate the forces.
The simplest way to put it is that these particles DO exist, and also DON'T. If you're dealing with classical mechanics, then you can imagine a field as just an area upon which a force acts, somehow. But in quantum electrodynamics you do have to picture virtual photons being exchanged.
so electrons and protons emit photons??? how does that happen??
@sidewaysfcs0718
I prefer the view that all particles are actually fields. Invisible entities such as virtual photons, gluons, gravitons, etc. would therefore not be necessary. The field-particles simply interact directly with each other.
The Planck Temperature is about 1.4 X 10^32 K. At temperatures greater than the Planck Temperature, our current theories fail; so consideration of temperatures greater than this cannot be discussed in the framework of any physical theory. Because particle mass rises with energy (and temperature). A particle at the Planck Temperature is massive enough to become its own black hole and our concept of space-time breaks down.
The last time I checked the three primary colors are YELLOW, red and blue. Green is a secondary color. Makes me wonder what else they got wrong.
The "Diana" character is doing wonderful things for stereotypes of women. Awesome vid ;-)
IF quarks are the MOST elementary particle in protons and neutrons than the question will be "What is interacting with the (mathematically proposed) higgs field?" Whatever is interacting with the higgs field enough to excite it into giving mass to these quarks will then be called the "cause" of the quarks, like electrons forces are "caused" by the electromagnetic field excitation and given mass by higgs field excitation. The strong force is considered 2b in the transfer of gluons between quarks.
Dark energy is even more mysterious. It appears to be a field that permeates all of space, giving the vacuum a non-zero energy density. If so it has certainly been around since the period of inflation of the universe.
@Canadarocksish for sake of discussion evolution is usually defined as the gradual adaptation of biology, the big bang is the commonly accepted theory for how the universe began.
hope that helps to understand what i meant in my second sentence.
@steeveyneon Trying to visualize an actual particle-particle interaction at the quantum level is always going to inadequately depict what happens. As shown in our "QED" video, the actual interaction as seen on a macro scale is an average of an infinite number of probability amplitudes. Some of these amplitudes have negative signs on them when attractive forces are involved. Don't push the visualization of a single exchange too far in trying to understand an attractive force.
@gromtkn thats like asking why there isn't anyting lower than absolute zero, why is -273 C absolute zero? why not -274C ? because we invented the idea of time or temperature in a mathematical sense and therefore quantized it. so there is a point where it can't get any smaller.
In the evolution of the universe, when did mass first exist? Why were more then one elementary particle created, and how was a particle such as the electron created so fundamentally different then quarks? during these first instances of the universe, what and where was space-time? from that moment one did space increasingly expand larger? Is space the potential for the original energy to un-dense itself?
@KeanuR2500
not completely accurate, space-time didn't exist yet, but it was cobbled together with everything else that "exists" in a singularity. Similar to how the video describes the separation of the forces. (actually, if I understand it correctly, space-time is a function dependent on gravity, so gravity would have to exist before space-time, that's why gravity must separate before the end of the first Planck time unit.
Is that suppose to be Mr. Clean lecturing on physics?
ohbsnap!
Gravity is a real problem. Without a quantum gravity model, we don't even have a starting point from which to SPECULATE about times earlier than the Planck Time.
The Planck Length is the scale at which our ideas about gravity and space time break down. Trying to measure a length smaller than this would require a probe with enough energy to create a black hole larger than the Planck Length that we are trying to measure.
he entropy of our early universe is an ongoing discussion. If chaotic inflation is correct and our universe began with the exponential expansion of a scalar field, then the low entropy state of our early universe is perhaps explained. (See our "Universe" video.) Even so, life is probably a very rare phenomenon in all the universes of the multiverse, and we echo your sentiment.
Since the video explains the up and down quark as matter and says that up and down quarks formed protons and neutrons at 10 to the minus 6 seconds, it is confusing or doesn't really follow to say that a particle of matter is created from nothing. It sounds like the particle becomes matter when one of the properties of its quark, up or down, changes its state..
i feel that eventually all knowledge we acquire will point us back to a divine creator
It is most likely that we are imagined and sustained by sentient light. However, the wave-function of quantum mechanics which contains sinusoidal patterns (indexes and archetypes) of collapsed light is still part of creation. Considering the events of the separation of gravity and then the strong force, there is still time before the expansion.
Gaah! I love physics! It expands beyond what we can imagine! :D
I'm joining a physics-class after the summer, so I'm not really that into the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but do you really mean NOTHING, or unknown?
Could dark energy be the quantum fluctuations of virtual particles?
Wow, thanks!
I really like your videos! It prepares me for when I'm officially taking physics classes after the summer! :D
Did you finish?
@@lowercaseav Lol, fun to be reminded of where on the Internet I was 13 years ago. Yeah, that must have been high school physics I referred to. Physics classes didn't exist for the first year. Have a great day, stranger!
which software u used to do that?
Current inflation models suggest that the big bang could have started when a quantum fluctuation brought a Planck Mass into existence for a Planck Time. If that mass were in the form of the right kind of scalar field, then inflation would create a universe.
@nafativedec Magnetism is only one part of the force electromagnetism. Electromagnetism's gauge boson is the photon.
Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, on very short time scales, conservation of energy is regularly violated in the quantum world.
Now I can clearly see the Force that moves the universe!
@Idol2011no because it's hard to explain university-level physics in a youtube video. Look up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (in relation to energy and time) if you wanna know more
However it is possible mathematically to also use the strong force (which still has a way to go to before it's mathematical contradictions are worked out, because the force dissipates quicker than mathematically predicted) as a possible field interacting with the higgs field to give rise to quarks, but that is a bit speculative. Also, a type of "space" had to exist pre "big bang", but until the big bang "space-time" as we know it likely did not exist. Instead it likely evolved do to the forces.
@Peon547 See our "Universe" video.
Check out our Universe video.
I'll reply to your comment with a PM, I don't want to deal with character limits.
@Baldwynmayhem I can't wait to see what they might discover.
I finally understand why the strong and weak forces have non-infinite ranges. :)
Good film!