The craziest thing about fine structure constant is that Pauli (who was absolutely posessed by this number), when he was sick and dying, was taken (without neither him, nor doctors realizing it) to the hospital's room no. 137.
@@KeithKessler I think the episode is described in the book "137: Jung, Pauli and the Pursuit of a Scientific Obsession" by Arthur Miller. But it is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article ("Wolfgang Pauli") at the end of "Early years..."
@@LaplacianFourier Are there ever true coincidences? The word Kabbalah, the ancient Jewish school of mysticism that is supposed to answer ALL questions about the Universe, has a Gematria (numerical value) of... 137. 😶🤷♂️
Criminally underrated? He has more than half a million subscribers. I have seen youtube channels that produced great content and had like 500 subscribers.
What’s criminal is how theorists turn a blind eye to thermodynamics and entropy. Every theorists admits, to continue on with theory’s, they have to ignore it.
@@djuk6573 How delightfully ironic it is when that comment comes from someone whose only video on their channel is a link to a very old climate change denier “documentary”. 😂
“If you can’t explain something to a first-year student, then you haven’t really understood.” - Richard Feynman Now that's what you are doing !!! The way you explain each of your video makes any average person understand it !!! You are a good teacher and content creator !!!
Ithink Feynman understood perfectly well that all that atomectron mumbo jumbo was pure religion cum imagination-it's the old invisible aeroplanes scam, 54 32 1 1 ..... I must merely wait for my Voila!
and what exactly do you get from these" explanations? Ah yes: "teachers says" that every time a bell rings an angel gets its wings, because...? Because " teacher says" so it must be so. ace " explanation" that.
The graphics and especially the meticulous accuracy in key details is astonishing. I can’t imagine the amount of time and effort invested in these masterpieces.
For those interested, there is a very well done, and also not well known movie that involves the FSC, available on TH-cam Movies. It's entitled "UFO", starring Alex Sharp, David Strathairn, and Gillian Anderson. Now before you roll your eyes and giggle, the film takes a very plausible look at the possibility of the FSC being employed as a measure for intelligence, and the basis of a universally common mathmatical tool for communication. It's a good watch and it's well written and produced.
I watch a number of physics and astrophysics channels, and I have to say, you really do what you claim. Your explanation of concepts is always a perfect balance between full proper explanation and a little random fun... and your videos have that same vibe, like you clearly know what you're talking about, but I don't feel like there's a test coming up, which is the vibe of some other popular physics channels. This is really good stuff, glad I found you.
Thanks! That's exactly what I'm trying to do - explain the understandable details, but also indulge myself and the audience in the mysticism of science, while trying to point out how it is usually not so mystical.
Of all my years of watching physics lectures and books, this is the first i heard of this. Alvin keep up the good work on illuminating these missing subjects. Thanks
That goes to show that the resources you are used to are not teaching you anything. I keep saying it. If you CANNOT DO THE MATH, you CANNOT UNDERSTAND even the basic concepts of physics.
God invented Mathematics, man merely discovered that which God ALREADY invented, so @0:14 why was Pauli going to seek answers from the devil when both he AND the devil are just created beings? Shouldn't Pauli be seeking wisdom from God instead, Who is All Wise? Salaam.
You didn't mention Arthur Eddington who came up with a theory why the denominator of the fine structure constant must be 136. When better experiments showed it to be 137, he came up with another theory. This earned him the nickname of Arthur Adding-one. Recently, Sir Michael Atiyah revived Eddington's work from its well-deserved oblivion, embellished by yet another theory to explain the decimal places. I tried to read Sir Michael's paper: it's very well written, but I'm afraid it doesn't make much sense. He was nearly 90 and would die a few months later.
Thanks for the explanation. I applaud the fact that you I said “I don’t know.” One of the problems in physics today is that not enough scientists say that phrase. I think it opens the path for others to look in that direction.
That’s not how science works. In physics, scientists don’t just say they know and block others paths from researching it. The scientific method is followed. Papers are published and peer reviewed. The results are duplicated and verified.
this is an amazing video. I have watched 5 times and will look for the QED video next. I cant believe such high quality, insightful videos are found here
Whenever I want to fully comprehend a scientific concept, this is one of my go-to resources. Certain people have a natural ability to breakdown a complex subject into easy to comprehend segments allowing the most people to understand. Sciclicenglish, veritasium, fermilab, are done of the others.
Fine tuned for life is subjective. Since we are alive we exist in a universe where life is possible. We knew that before we had science. And having science there's no reason to believe that earth is the only place life is possible. So if the fine structure constant is required to create the conditions for life it's not a coincidence, it's a constraint. But it doesn't prove the universe is unique, or planned, or anything metaphysical.
Awesome explanation as usual. I have theory that in order for Arvin to produce such CONSTANTLY BRILLIANT videos he requires his brain to be at a constant temperature and that's why he wears that great looking hat! Always learning from you Arvin.
I like watching videos like this as they remind me that basically I know pretty much nothing but at the same time show me that I'm not alone in that. This one has sent my limited grey matter spiralling off in all sorts of directions wondering about what other constants are out there and what sort of things are they used in. I think I'm going to have some fun with this whole concept 😊
How do you define "know"? *Can*you define or set out what you seek to convey when you use the word" know"? What would be a clear example of " know" or knowing? Is there any material difference between" know" or " knowing" and believe/believing or assume/ assuming or infer/inferring and wherein lies that difference? For example do you "know"that the thing on the end of your left leg is your left foot, and if so *How* do you know that *If*you do?
There is zero likelihood that anyone on Earth will fall into a black hole (no matter how much physicists obsess about them). But there does seem to be a 100% that we are all sliding, ever so gently, back to God. Does anyone else notice that?
The universe is not fine tuned for life. The universe is quite harsh to life. Despite all our efforts, we haven’t yet found any other examples of life. It sure is easy to find stars and black holes, though. If anything, that’s what the universe is “fine tuned” to make - hydrogen and stars, maybe black holes. The “fine tuning” argument is the currently-fashionable cover position from which theists lob their arguments from ignorance. Remember “irreducible complexity” from about 15 years ago? Same thing.
Well I didn't know it varied with temperature. Also, my cat Bullet intently watched this whole video as I watched it. I don't think he understood your words, but your animations were varied and dynamic enough to keep him interested the whole time.
Thanks for calling attention to the inconstancy of alpha. This raises an interesting question: *Which of the factors of the fine structure "constant" is **_not_** constant?* Given the eq. for alpha (1:54), it appears that there are four basic possibilities plus their combinations. If we rule out e, the elementary charge, then there are just three basic possibilities and their combinations. This question could be upsetting, for folks are fond of saying that c, ε_0, and 2πħ are physical constants. So we could abandon our faith in the Big Bang, and it is a faith. But even this heterodoxy won't justify calling α a constant just yet. If the value of α is directly proportional to temperature, it may vary under some common conditions observed in the cosmos. For instance, it's believed that the temperature of the core of a newly formed neutron star is as high as 10^12 K. Now, the reason that you gave at 14:48 for calling alpha a constant is bs. It's merely a self-serving excuse used by the high priests and gatekeepers of The Science to talk out of both sides of their mouths. The true reason for their doubletalk will be found in their character and mentality, which differs not very much from the stereotypes of marketing flunkies, PR hacks, lawyers, democratic politicians, and Abrahamic theologians. Since it won't hurt anyone employed in The Science to break the habit of calling α what it's probably not, we could write fine structure "constant", as I have above. This doesn't help us when speaking, however, so a better name would be fine structure product or fine structure factor. If we want to comprehend things correctly and to conduct affairs successfully, we need to name things correctly, adding neither claims nor judgements which aren't justified by the attributes of named things. Habit and convenience, of course, have little to do with the correct name of a thing. If it turns out, for some reason, that α really is constant, it would still be true that it's a product as shown at 1:54 and a factor, as in the eq. for e^2.
alpha is the passage of time and energy exchange ratio. there is currently no theory of time on the quantum, and that is a big oversight because time is not a constant, it's one of the variables that explain how we are able to transcode the quantum into our perceived reality. Think of how quickly mosquitos fly and die. And how slow tortoises move and how old they live. How light seems to be instantaneous yet still physically need to travel. Or how slowly gravity pulls us from afar yet seems to manifest instantly at a certain distance. How the scale of reactions impacts the speed at which changes occur.
Thanks Arvin!! I ALWAYS get super excited when you tease another new video....& Christmas comes early when you put up on TH-cam!!! Thanks so much, Sir!! After thinking about it, I ask "What is the total pie" If Alpha is just 1 out of 137 slices of this "pie" ....Then what IS the pie?? What is the 137 ?? Is the 137 the "super force" that was briefly before it split into the 4 fundamental forces in nature??? I think if we can know what the 137 represents, then we can maybe put The Alpha Constant into some sort of useful context.
I'm not a student - in fact, I am an old man. Some of this is a little hard to follow, but maybe I just missed a few things. I know that electrons are negatively charged, but you showed them as spinning, with magnetic poles of their own. Do you know if this spin is constant? At one point, I thought you were getting close to saying this, but I never really felt it. As the electrons absorb and emit energy, you are saying they ascend and desend in the orbital path. Would that effect the spin? Maybe that was assumed in the equation, and it was just too fast for me, but rattling around in my brain are pictures of electrons that might even reverse their spin, or change their angle of spin as they approach each other, kind of like the earth's polar shift that is going on, if you can see where I am going with this. Appreciate any input - thanks
Great presentation as always Arvin. The graphics and the narration is superb. If entropy in the universe is increasing, then the universe is cooling down, do we know the rate of cooling ? What equation is employed to calculate this ? Are all the events that are happening in the macro state in the universe probabilistic or deterministic ? Any method to ascertain this ? You say alpha is changing over time, do we know the rate of change ? At what stage of alpha will the Big Crunch happen ?
Apart from imaginary, what is "the universe"? Since you have no idea what "the universe" is or might be, how could you possibly discover whether or not it is what you call "cooling down"? Can that which is imaginary "cool down"?
Hi Arvin, can you please do a video on how magically einstien cameup or derived formula E=MC2 and why variables in most of the formulas are squared ? And how scientists comes up with constants like planks constant or speed of light it self?
It is not that every variables or most variables are squared. For this we need to understand maths especially calculus, trigonometry, algebra. If you are comfortable, you can start with reading simple special relativity concepts like time dilation, length contraction, equivalence principle. Lots of good books exist on modern physics, from which you can take reference. Deriving E=mc² could be hard comparatively to other concepts like time dilation or length contraction , as it's calculus heavy, so you might need to be very comfortable with calculus. Now it can be considered as coincidence or something with no inherent explanation as to why many variables are squared. In 2d coordinate geometry, its very evident due to the formula we write for distances. Regards.
Most squared variables come either from integration of a linear relation (mv --> mv²/2), or just from spreading some constant value over a surface area (most inverse square laws, like a force of gravity or EM force).
Thank you. But all good things come to an end. I probably will not be making these videos too much longer. I'm spent. But people like you who appreciate these videos keep me going.
alpha is, to a very good approximation, 1/137.036. beta = rest mass of proton / rest mass of electron = 1836.153. Alpha is the coupling constant for the electromagnetic interaction. There are also coupling constants for the weak and strong nuclear interactions. Computing a coupling constant for gravitation, alphaG, is possible only if one makes arbitrary assumptions about what fundamental particles to consider. AlphaG is known only to about 1 part in 10,000, which is much less precise than our knowledge of alpha and beta. The minimum electric charge we can observe is that of a proton or electgron. In other words, electromagnetism is quantised. Hence it is natural to ground the study of electromagnetism in the repulsive force between two electron or protons, or the attractive force between an electron and a proton. There is no comparable quantisation of gravitational attraction. Both alpha and beta are dimensionless, meaning that their values do not depend on one's choice of measurement units. If we want to advertise to the Milky Way our existence as a superintelligent species, broadcast repeatedly 137036 x 1836153 in binary. The values of alpha and beta ground all of electromagnetism. Chemical bonds are electromagnetic. Biology is grounded in biochemistry and hence in chemical bonding.
Awesome, video yet again. I've seen that number pop up in some fun circle geometry stuff I've played around with. Not surprised tho as PI seems to relate to it as per those equations you showed.
I very much doubt you've seen this exact value show up in circle geometry. If you are sure then I'd love to see proof:) As far as I know there's no known connection to any purely geometric ratios.
This is another great presentation. Gosh, our knowledge of the Universe has changed so much since my High Scool days in 1966. Expanding Universe is Expanding Minds. Thanks Arvin.
@@ArvinAsh I'm sorry to say this Number 137 if you rotate number 3 to face up like "UJ" it will be 1UJ7 with smoother edge in "UJ" The reason because 3 in old Latin scripture and other languages like arabic was written like "UJ" or W with smoother edges When it flipped horizontally or just write it from right, the 1UJ7 or 1W7 will be similar to word الله which is an arabic word, powerful one that means Allah "True God, or True Name of God" Just such antonishing even if should be in form 1/137 It wil be 1 1 __ = __ 137 1UJ7 Then flip horizontally or mirror or write it from right it will similar to complete arabic word with the pronouncation ﷲ Allah, "The True God" or "The True Name of God" And more than 1400 years old Quran had mentioned, "We will show to them our signs in every edges of universes and within themself so they know clearly that this messages was right.." QS. Fushshilat(41):53
Arvin, I think the real magic number is actually "13", which represents the number of spheres of the same size that can occupy any given volume perfectly with all of them touching the center sphere packed as tightly as possible - this is illustrated in the ancient drawings of the "Flower of Life".
I think that sphere packing depends on the number of dimensions you are working in. There are videos that are based on abstract algebra on hyper complex numbers. In these you it seems that divisional algebras (plus, minus, multiply, and divide) work only in 1, 2, 4, and 8 dimensions. Look up Divisional Algebras and the Standard Model.
Excellent video, as always. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video. Many thanks for the links to the articles, including Arnold Sommerfeld's original article.
At 8:08-8:25, those are superb graphics for explaining fine structure!! After reading about the fine structure in so many books, finally I 'get it' (completely) thanks to that graphic. A quibble regarding the alpha formula. The real formula is this... α = e^2/2hεc Note that it contains h, not h-bar, and is π-free. The real version (given immediately above) is seen rarely, but it does occur in at least the following two reputable places: McQuarrie, Quantum Chemistry, back cover, and Unzicker, Einstein's Lost Key, pp. 45 and 51. The commonly seen version, shown in this video at 2:00, is nonsensical since the explicit π and the hidden π (in h-bar's denominator) cancel one another. That's one reason to avoid the common version: π chases its own tail to say, in effect, "now multiply by 1." The other reason is that it reinforces the earthling superstition of π, regarded as mystical rather than as a useful tool for calculating circular things. (ETs will never bother trying to communicate with earthlings so long as we wallow in the dual superstition of π and the Golden Ratio.)
You mentioned alpha's relationship to the speed of the electron being 1/137 of c. Does this indicate that alpha determines the electron's speed or is it merely a coincidence that the electron's speed divided by c is a value that is close to that of alpha? Do other particles with mass have a similar speed or is it just the electron?
@@ArvinAshThank you for the response. Since electrons have mass and light does not, does that indicate a relationship between alpha and the Higg's field, in terms of the Higg's strength or some other aspect of Higgs?
@@BloobleBonker Muon is much heavier, it should orbit at a different speed. (of course this whole talk of electron's and muon's speed in an atom isn't very meaningful in quantum mechanics, at least this shouldn't be taken too literally)
@@Lukionest Alpha is all about coupling constant between the photon field and electrically charged particles. It's not related to Higgs in any way. With Higgs field there is a similar coupling constant, it gives us particles' mass.
I love the fearless reasonable consideration of an intelligent creator on this channel. You are the only scientist making videos of this type on TH-cam willing and brave enough to discuss it as a point of thought. Keep up the great videos
Another great video. One day we may have a great answer as to why the constants are the way they are, and these inquisitions and summaries help get us there :) Question: I'd love to know why we don't think the center of a black hole is just a quark gluon plasma, where quarks can't overlap and some can or something, how do we now it is a point singularity? Question2: Why would someone think there is a black hole emptying out into a white hole, when the mass of the black hole is not being drained? I would think we'd have to see black holes very quickly evaporate if there was an empty'ing out in its white hole counterpart.
The truth is that science only answers how, not why. The pursuit of science is in reality part of a religious paradigm, one whose pursuit of physical effects can never reveal _why._ How and why are very different things.
@@PETERJOHN101 Sorry, science answers a lot of whys. I think you're messing the subjects here, coming to a science channel to try to discuss religion. If you have a religion (or not), and which one, is totally a different subject.
God invented Mathematics, man merely discovered that which God ALREADY invented, so @0:14 why was Pauli going to seek answers from the devil when both he AND the devil are just created beings? Shouldn't Pauli be seeking wisdom from God instead, Who is All Wise? Salaam.
In the book “ASCENSO, Civilization of the Humus” published on Amazon, a theory is proposed that unifies relativistic and quantum physics, supported by a mathematical and analytical calculation of the fine-structure constant (1/137) for the 3rd dimension and the other dimensions that make up the Universe. It includes parallel and mirror universes. It proposes a mathematical theory of how the multiverse should be structured and the action of dark matter and energy within it
does that mean, that the fine structure constant can have different values depending on the temperature/energy of the locality (like the core of stars; at collision points etc)? And "if" so, how does it affect the particles/fusion reactions? Or would it be irrelevant when only plasma is involved? Arvin and Matt are the only two ppl that always leave me with more questions after gettimg an answer - LOVE it!
The different values only apply at the temperatures which were present at close to the big bang. The core of stars is much cooler than that. At these temperatures, the constant does not vary enough to make a big difference.
He said it only went from 1/137 to 1/127 when the temperature got up to a quadrillion degrees. At even a billion degrees, and that's about as hot as any star can be, it would be a million times closer to 1/137 than 1/127 is, in other words still very close to 1/137.
@@medexamtoolscom sure, close to "normal", but since it´s so inportant that it has exactly the value it has - who knows what even the slightest difference would have on fundamentally weird things like quantum objects^^
i watched your video on fields and that was the day it became clear to me what fields actually are. but after watching your video, i found myself in a new problem. before that i believed that the universe is discrete and after knowing about fields i now think that universe is continouse, please help me sort this out in some future video. thank you. you are the best in my list.
Universe can be discontinuous or continuous depending on the true nature of space time (see Loop Quantum Gravity for example). But it has nothing to do with the other quantum fields because they all are embedded in our (supposedly continuous) spacetime.
Wave functions are continuous. Interactions are discrete. The continuous wave function tells you the probability that a certain discrete event will happen. Often times, in the macro world, there are so many interactions that we can practically think of things as continuous, like radio waves. They're still just a bunch of photons, but they involve billions of times more photons than visible light. We just can't practically isolate a single radio photon. So it makes sense to use a continuous field model when designing antennas. All models are approximations. You use the one that answers the question you need to ask. Newton's laws will get you to Mars, even though they are not the complete reality.
The value isn't 137. They thought it was 1/136 for a while, and the numerologists thought that was special too. Read Feynmann's QED if you want to learn more about this. That said, I didn't know it wasn't a contant at all. Very cool.
I think a possible answer to the question of why it is such a random number might be closely related to the many-worlds theory. If life and the universe did not exist because the value of the fine structure constant was not 1/137, then no life would be around to ask why such a value. Many questions about why the constants of the universe are so precise and unpredictable might actually be answered by the many-worlds theory. We could simply be one of or the only universe hospitable to life. Forgive my english I'm a french 15-year-old :p
Your English is perfect! I had no idea until you said you were French. But yeah, many questions can be answered by the anthropic principle and many worlds. "Why is x?" --> "Well somewhere there is not x, but there's nobody around to ask why." :P
@@ArvinAsh, you have one of the best channels explaining physics out there! I am a teacher too (biology), and I am just stunned by how well you can explain complex topics - bravo!!
Well: I don’t know about that. It’s not so long ago the 137 used to go all the way up to Archway. Now it stops at Hyde Park Corner. The 390 goes to Archway, but if your standing at the Hilton bus stop northbound in Park Lane it’s extremely frustrating :- you get about 4 137s go past before you get even a sniff of a 390. Not like the old days at all
Great video! So if the value is changing for this constant, would it be possible it will change again in say a million years and we just happen to calculate the value in these conditions of the universe today. ? I m not against the fine tuning theory but i highly doubt its validation.
Thanks for another great video Wish you happy new year 🎊🎁 Is there possibility that other universe exist with diff value of Alpha and other constants with generate whole different physics law and property ? According to my knowledge of they existed we cannot communicate with them is there any way to create them in lab or contact them
It could be, but as you said, we could not communicate with these other universes. So it doesen't really matter. You can kinda make up your own universe with its own laws of physics in your head. But your mind is limited with the boudaries of our universe, so have fun.
God invented Mathematics, man merely discovered that which God ALREADY invented, so @0:14 why was Pauli going to seek answers from the devil when both he AND the devil are just created beings? Shouldn't Pauli be seeking wisdom from God instead, Who is All Wise? Salaam.
@@ivornworrell This does not explain anything. Humans always put god into the place where we can't explain a phenomena, but we always push forward and find ways to explain even the complexed things. First it was God who created humans, now we know better, first it was God that makes the sun hot and glow, now we know better. We put god as an explanation to why the moon orbits the earth, now we know better. Putting god as a solution to a problem makes yourself ignorant to the problem itself. Do not underestimate research done by humans. Sure, god could have done the big bang. What gives, because it is a time where we can't find any answers yet. Maybe in a few hundred years we have a solution to that problem and the existince of god shifted again as history and science pushes forward. God is just a placeholder for things we don't understand yet.
Nature is not " fine tuned for life ". Life is fine tuned to nature. I find it disturbing when people in self indulgent folly and blind arrogance make such claims as this, especially when their ironic claims in which the opposite can be debated with ease. Almost as if such claims are being plagiarized or hijacked.
It just shows that our current theories are incomplete. Nothing more. That the electron is viewed as a probability is the first clue that something isn’t correct, and that nature does things nearly instantly that requires infinite calculations to approximate. We really need something more than mathematics to describe the abstract nature of the methods.
While it is interesting that things like α and π, are ratios, there are a lot of constants, like c. Couldn't we reverse engineer starting from any of these values, (like i.e we say c = 1), to find the actual mathematical model, that the universe was created? If I had created it, the values would be proportionate of one another, or atleast somehow connected
Yes, easy to follow. Very clear. It occured to be to check out those numbers numerologically. I found that 137 reduces to 11 . If you can find a good numberologist with a track record ask him if 137 when it reduces to 11 has it become a master number. Also the 137 with .035 ect. reduces to 9
It was me. I set that constant. Honestly, it was a mistake. It was supposed to be higher so the stars would burn out quickly. I had no idea it would lead to all this.
This is an awesome video but just one thing - under renormalization, alpha flows to zero logarithmically in the infrared due to its beta function being proportional to alpha^2. It's only approximately 1/137 at the intermediate energy scales of current experiments but if you could go to lower energies, you would see it going very, very slowly to zero as the electromagnetic force gets more and more screened from vacuum fluctuations.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I've watched quite a few videos on this subject and Arvin has by far done the best job in explaining it. Well done Arvin, first class channel
The craziest thing about fine structure constant is that Pauli (who was absolutely posessed by this number), when he was sick and dying, was taken (without neither him, nor doctors realizing it) to the hospital's room no. 137.
That's amusing. Do you have a source for that?
Coincidence is frequently mistaken for miracles
@@KeithKessler I think the episode is described in the book "137: Jung, Pauli and the Pursuit of a Scientific Obsession" by Arthur Miller. But it is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article ("Wolfgang Pauli") at the end of "Early years..."
@@-1-alex-1- Thanx
@@LaplacianFourier
Are there ever true coincidences?
The word Kabbalah, the ancient Jewish school of mysticism that is supposed to answer ALL questions about the Universe, has a Gematria (numerical value) of...
137.
😶🤷♂️
This is one of the criminally underrated channel on TH-cam. You're an amazing educator, sir.❤️
Criminally underrated? He has more than half a million subscribers. I have seen youtube channels that produced great content and had like 500 subscribers.
What’s criminal is how theorists turn a blind eye to thermodynamics and entropy. Every theorists admits, to continue on with theory’s, they have to ignore it.
Rubbish, he's overrated if anything, he had a ridiculously weak grasp of the subject and is awful at trying to explain.
Dunning kruger in person.
@@djuk6573 How delightfully ironic it is when that comment comes from someone whose only video on their channel is a link to a very old climate change denier “documentary”. 😂
@@WreckedRectum tell me one thing that's wrong in that documentary.
Fantastically easy to follow. This man is an absolute legend.
I’m using him to learn about quantum mechanics because he’s somehow able to pack just enough info and still make sense.
i absolutely agree.
“If you can’t explain something to a first-year student, then you haven’t really understood.” - Richard Feynman
Now that's what you are doing !!! The way you explain each of your video makes any average person understand it !!! You are a good teacher and content creator !!!
I thought it was”if you can’t explain it to a kid” 😂😂 but I get the just
Dark matter /energy paradox SOLVED
m.th-cam.com/video/ZQNWVQc5sNI/w-d-xo.html
What experience have you of "the average person"?
The average person can only possibly be imaginary can it not?
Ithink Feynman understood perfectly well that all that atomectron mumbo jumbo was pure religion cum imagination-it's the old invisible aeroplanes scam, 54 32 1 1 ..... I must merely wait for my Voila!
and what exactly do you get from these" explanations?
Ah yes: "teachers says" that every time a bell rings an angel gets its wings, because...?
Because " teacher says" so it must be so.
ace " explanation" that.
The graphics and especially the meticulous accuracy in key details is astonishing. I can’t imagine the amount of time and effort invested in these masterpieces.
For those interested, there is a very well done, and also not well known movie that involves the FSC, available on TH-cam Movies. It's entitled "UFO", starring Alex Sharp, David Strathairn, and Gillian Anderson. Now before you roll your eyes and giggle, the film takes a very plausible look at the possibility of the FSC being employed as a measure for intelligence, and the basis of a universally common mathmatical tool for communication. It's a good watch and it's well written and produced.
I watch a number of physics and astrophysics channels, and I have to say, you really do what you claim. Your explanation of concepts is always a perfect balance between full proper explanation and a little random fun... and your videos have that same vibe, like you clearly know what you're talking about, but I don't feel like there's a test coming up, which is the vibe of some other popular physics channels. This is really good stuff, glad I found you.
Thanks! That's exactly what I'm trying to do - explain the understandable details, but also indulge myself and the audience in the mysticism of science, while trying to point out how it is usually not so mystical.
Of all my years of watching physics lectures and books, this is the first i heard of this. Alvin keep up the good work on illuminating these missing subjects. Thanks
Yes :) His name is Arvin btw - not Alvin.
Same, this was big.
@@Starcraft2Sonic I think it autocorrected to Alvin from Arvin
That goes to show that the resources you are used to are not teaching you anything. I keep saying it. If you CANNOT DO THE MATH, you CANNOT UNDERSTAND even the basic concepts of physics.
God invented Mathematics, man merely discovered that which God ALREADY invented, so @0:14 why was Pauli going to seek answers from the devil when both he AND the devil are just created beings? Shouldn't Pauli be seeking wisdom from God instead, Who is All Wise? Salaam.
You didn't mention Arthur Eddington who came up with a theory why the denominator of the fine structure constant must be 136. When better experiments showed it to be 137, he came up with another theory. This earned him the nickname of Arthur Adding-one. Recently, Sir Michael Atiyah revived Eddington's work from its well-deserved oblivion, embellished by yet another theory to explain the decimal places. I tried to read Sir Michael's paper: it's very well written, but I'm afraid it doesn't make much sense. He was nearly 90 and would die a few months later.
Yes, it's an amusing story. I didn't think it was relevant to the main understanding of the constant.
I've been waiting for a more comprehensive coverage of this topic -- and you delivered as usual.
For real, i want this channel to be more popular! It is incredible how you explain everything about physics!!!
Thank you very much!!
Thanks for the explanation. I applaud the fact that you I said “I don’t know.” One of the problems in physics today is that not enough scientists say that phrase. I think it opens the path for others to look in that direction.
True, Scientists, those of integrity, ALWAYS say I don't know.
Research scientists say "I don't know" every day. That's where great ideas come from.
I am none of those and i know that i dont know.
That’s not how science works. In physics, scientists don’t just say they know and block others paths from researching it. The scientific method is followed. Papers are published and peer reviewed. The results are duplicated and verified.
Smart people aren't afraid to say they dont know.
I had never heard or read about the fine structure constant. Many thanks for the illuminating talk. Learnt something new today.
My new favorite physics TH-cam channel. No one else is talking about any of these obscure yet super interesting topics. Thank you sir!
I'm 63 and I just found out about the fine structure constant, so naturally I came here to learn more!
Ps you look cute in that hat! ❤
The highlight of my Sunday! Thanks for being good at what you do, Arvin Ash team! 👍🏼
You must be a Chiefs fan...
Learnt something new for today. Now I will never forget 1/137 as magical number.
this is an amazing video. I have watched 5 times and will look for the QED video next. I cant believe such high quality, insightful videos are found here
Best physics discussions online! Thank you for putting these videos out.
Never to miss Arvin's explanation. Always a lot to learn! Keep going Arvin - you're helping the humanity! Besti wishes!
Whenever I want to fully comprehend a scientific concept, this is one of my go-to resources. Certain people have a natural ability to breakdown a complex subject into easy to comprehend segments allowing the most people to understand. Sciclicenglish, veritasium, fermilab, are done of the others.
Fine tuned for life is subjective. Since we are alive we exist in a universe where life is possible. We knew that before we had science. And having science there's no reason to believe that earth is the only place life is possible. So if the fine structure constant is required to create the conditions for life it's not a coincidence, it's a constraint. But it doesn't prove the universe is unique, or planned, or anything metaphysical.
Awesome explanation as usual.
I have theory that in order for Arvin to produce such CONSTANTLY BRILLIANT videos he requires his brain to be at a constant temperature and that's why he wears that great looking hat!
Always learning from you Arvin.
No one comes close to you as a physics educator, that's for sure! And how you illustrate your subject is stunning.
I like watching videos like this as they remind me that basically I know pretty much nothing but at the same time show me that I'm not alone in that. This one has sent my limited grey matter spiralling off in all sorts of directions wondering about what other constants are out there and what sort of things are they used in. I think I'm going to have some fun with this whole concept 😊
How do you define "know"?
*Can*you define or set out what you seek to convey when you use the word" know"?
What would be a clear example of " know" or knowing?
Is there any material difference between" know" or " knowing" and believe/believing or assume/ assuming or infer/inferring and wherein lies that difference?
For example do you "know"that the thing on the end of your left leg is your left foot, and if so *How* do you know that *If*you do?
If potential knowledge is infinite, then simple math proves that at any given moment, no matter how much we know, we really know nothing.
There is zero likelihood that anyone on Earth will fall into a black hole (no matter how much physicists obsess about them). But there does seem to be a 100% that we are all sliding, ever so gently, back to God. Does anyone else notice that?
as usual , a great video, Arvin....clear, concise explanation, thank you
The universe is not fine tuned for life. The universe is quite harsh to life. Despite all our efforts, we haven’t yet found any other examples of life. It sure is easy to find stars and black holes, though. If anything, that’s what the universe is “fine tuned” to make - hydrogen and stars, maybe black holes. The “fine tuning” argument is the currently-fashionable cover position from which theists lob their arguments from ignorance. Remember “irreducible complexity” from about 15 years ago? Same thing.
Well I didn't know it varied with temperature. Also, my cat Bullet intently watched this whole video as I watched it. I don't think he understood your words, but your animations were varied and dynamic enough to keep him interested the whole time.
Still one of the best! Another great video! The Feynman aspect of his fascination of 1/137 has intrigued me a while now.
Incredibly put together and explained
Thanks for calling attention to the inconstancy of alpha. This raises an interesting question: *Which of the factors of the fine structure "constant" is **_not_** constant?* Given the eq. for alpha (1:54), it appears that there are four basic possibilities plus their combinations. If we rule out e, the elementary charge, then there are just three basic possibilities and their combinations.
This question could be upsetting, for folks are fond of saying that c, ε_0, and 2πħ are physical constants. So we could abandon our faith in the Big Bang, and it is a faith. But even this heterodoxy won't justify calling α a constant just yet. If the value of α is directly proportional to temperature, it may vary under some common conditions observed in the cosmos. For instance, it's believed that the temperature of the core of a newly formed neutron star is as high as 10^12 K.
Now, the reason that you gave at 14:48 for calling alpha a constant is bs. It's merely a self-serving excuse used by the high priests and gatekeepers of The Science to talk out of both sides of their mouths. The true reason for their doubletalk will be found in their character and mentality, which differs not very much from the stereotypes of marketing flunkies, PR hacks, lawyers, democratic politicians, and Abrahamic theologians.
Since it won't hurt anyone employed in The Science to break the habit of calling α what it's probably not, we could write fine structure "constant", as I have above. This doesn't help us when speaking, however, so a better name would be fine structure product or fine structure factor. If we want to comprehend things correctly and to conduct affairs successfully, we need to name things correctly, adding neither claims nor judgements which aren't justified by the attributes of named things. Habit and convenience, of course, have little to do with the correct name of a thing. If it turns out, for some reason, that α really is constant, it would still be true that it's a product as shown at 1:54 and a factor, as in the eq. for e^2.
Love all your videos ! I would love to hear more about Casimir effect and one on basis of quantum computers
Love your delivery style
Thank you
alpha is the passage of time and energy exchange ratio. there is currently no theory of time on the quantum, and that is a big oversight because time is not a constant, it's one of the variables that explain how we are able to transcode the quantum into our perceived reality. Think of how quickly mosquitos fly and die. And how slow tortoises move and how old they live. How light seems to be instantaneous yet still physically need to travel. Or how slowly gravity pulls us from afar yet seems to manifest instantly at a certain distance. How the scale of reactions impacts the speed at which changes occur.
This man should get an award for being the best teacher
Excellent video production and information. Presentation is outstanding. Thank you!
Thanks Arvin!!
I ALWAYS get super excited when you tease another new video....& Christmas comes early when you put up on TH-cam!!!
Thanks so much, Sir!!
After thinking about it, I ask "What is the total pie"
If Alpha is just 1 out of 137 slices of this "pie" ....Then what IS the pie??
What is the 137 ??
Is the 137 the "super force" that was briefly before it split into the 4 fundamental forces in nature???
I think if we can know what the 137 represents, then we can maybe put The Alpha Constant into some sort of useful context.
Thanks so much! Glad you enjoy them.
I'm not a student - in fact, I am an old man. Some of this is a little hard to follow, but maybe I just missed a few things. I know that electrons are negatively charged, but you showed them as spinning, with magnetic poles of their own. Do you know if this spin is constant? At one point, I thought you were getting close to saying this, but I never really felt it. As the electrons absorb and emit energy, you are saying they ascend and desend in the orbital path. Would that effect the spin? Maybe that was assumed in the equation, and it was just too fast for me, but rattling around in my brain are pictures of electrons that might even reverse their spin, or change their angle of spin as they approach each other, kind of like the earth's polar shift that is going on, if you can see where I am going with this. Appreciate any input - thanks
Great presentation as always Arvin. The graphics and the narration is superb.
If entropy in the universe is increasing, then the universe is cooling down, do we know the rate of cooling ? What equation is employed to calculate this ?
Are all the events that are happening in the macro state in the universe probabilistic or deterministic ? Any method to ascertain this ?
You say alpha is changing over time, do we know the rate of change ? At what stage of alpha will the Big Crunch happen ?
Apart from imaginary, what is "the universe"?
Since you have no idea what "the universe" is or might be, how could you possibly discover whether or not it is what you call "cooling down"?
Can that which is imaginary "cool down"?
Very good video Arvin
Thanks for mentioning Arnold Sommerfeld, an obvious hole in my education!
If I remember correctly the very young Werner Heisenberg was a student of Sommerfeld or at least had some contact with him.
Arvin your brilliant ad in reference to sommerfeld was smooth.
Your videos are always so interesting!
That was so easy to understand the way you explained it, Arvin.
When the coder was scripting their simulation engine, they chose 137 'cause it gave smooth results with the GPU when simulating our universe.
127 is so much nicer though (it's 1111111 in binary)
that's why it changed to 127 at the big bang, it was too hot and the coder did some undervolting to reduce temperature
Maybe the stepper motors had fractal gearing?
@dananorth895 motors with internal planetary gearing is cool!
That ad segue was Brilliant
Imagine what Arnold Sommerfeld could have accomplished with Brilliant 😂
Pay lots of money to learn some information that is easily available free everywhere?
Why do they include Pi in the definition? Doesn't it cancel with the one in the reduced Plank constant? It would more clear, have clarity etc?
Hi Arvin, can you please do a video on how magically einstien cameup or derived formula E=MC2 and why variables in most of the formulas are squared ? And how scientists comes up with constants like planks constant or speed of light it self?
I was thinking about this.😯
It is not that every variables or most variables are squared. For this we need to understand maths especially calculus, trigonometry, algebra. If you are comfortable, you can start with reading simple special relativity concepts like time dilation, length contraction, equivalence principle.
Lots of good books exist on modern physics, from which you can take reference.
Deriving E=mc² could be hard comparatively to other concepts like time dilation or length contraction , as it's calculus heavy, so you might need to be very comfortable with calculus. Now it can be considered as coincidence or something with no inherent explanation as to why many variables are squared. In 2d coordinate geometry, its very evident due to the formula we write for distances.
Regards.
Most squared variables come either from integration of a linear relation (mv --> mv²/2), or just from spreading some constant value over a surface area (most inverse square laws, like a force of gravity or EM force).
3:33 - "...maybe even easier to understand!" 🤣🤣🤣
This and "the golden ratio" are the signatures of god
Thank you. I popped over from Answers with Joe and have found another cool channel to peruse.
Please don't stop making videos on this TH-cam channel. Nice 👍👍
Thank you. But all good things come to an end. I probably will not be making these videos too much longer. I'm spent. But people like you who appreciate these videos keep me going.
@@ArvinAsh wow you're a great person. I can totally understand what you're trying to say, so it's ok. Just wanted to say big fan. Love from India 🇮🇳
alpha is, to a very good approximation, 1/137.036.
beta = rest mass of proton / rest mass of electron = 1836.153.
Alpha is the coupling constant for the electromagnetic interaction. There are also coupling constants for the weak and strong nuclear interactions. Computing a coupling constant for gravitation, alphaG, is possible only if one makes arbitrary assumptions about what fundamental particles to consider. AlphaG is known only to about 1 part in 10,000, which is much less precise than our knowledge of alpha and beta.
The minimum electric charge we can observe is that of a proton or electgron. In other words, electromagnetism is quantised. Hence it is natural to ground the study of electromagnetism in the repulsive force between two electron or protons, or the attractive force between an electron and a proton. There is no comparable quantisation of gravitational attraction.
Both alpha and beta are dimensionless, meaning that their values do not depend on one's choice of measurement units.
If we want to advertise to the Milky Way our existence as a superintelligent species, broadcast repeatedly 137036 x 1836153 in binary.
The values of alpha and beta ground all of electromagnetism. Chemical bonds are electromagnetic. Biology is grounded in biochemistry and hence in chemical bonding.
Awesome, video yet again.
I've seen that number pop up in some fun circle geometry stuff I've played around with.
Not surprised tho as PI seems to relate to it as per those equations you showed.
I very much doubt you've seen this exact value show up in circle geometry. If you are sure then I'd love to see proof:) As far as I know there's no known connection to any purely geometric ratios.
@@DKFX1 yeah, would love someone to look over it.
Please share your email and I'll reach out.
@@engizmo tried sending my mail, but YT auto-deleted. :/
@@DKFX1 😢
Cómo siempre Arvin, felicitaciones por tu simpleza y calidad, que tengas un buen domingo y gracias por el aporte. Saludos
Igualmente, water brother.
Obrigado meu amigo
This is another great presentation. Gosh, our knowledge of the Universe has changed so much since my High Scool days in 1966. Expanding Universe is Expanding Minds. Thanks Arvin.
Glad you enjoyed it!
"I have no idea who put that there or why it has that value, but the universe crashes when you delete it so DONT TOUCH!"
- The Devs
That was a great show!
@@ArvinAsh I'm sorry to say this
Number 137 if you rotate number 3 to face up like "UJ" it will be
1UJ7 with smoother edge in "UJ"
The reason because 3 in old Latin scripture and other languages like arabic was written like "UJ" or W with smoother edges
When it flipped horizontally or just write it from right, the 1UJ7 or 1W7 will be similar to word
الله
which is an arabic word, powerful one that means Allah "True God, or True Name of God"
Just such antonishing even if should be in form 1/137
It wil be
1 1
__ = __
137 1UJ7
Then flip horizontally or mirror or write it from right it will similar to complete arabic word with the pronouncation
ﷲ
Allah, "The True God" or "The True Name of God"
And more than 1400 years old Quran had mentioned,
"We will show to them our signs in every edges of universes and within themself so they know clearly that this messages was right.." QS. Fushshilat(41):53
@@DrBryan-dc8qiGenesis, the Bible, the Quran, Greek myth, Hinduism et Al are framed on mono myths.
One might as well worship Zeus or Krishna.
Arvin, I think the real magic number is actually "13", which represents the number of spheres of the same size that can occupy any given volume perfectly with all of them touching the center sphere packed as tightly as possible - this is illustrated in the ancient drawings of the "Flower of Life".
I think that sphere packing depends on the number of dimensions you are working in.
There are videos that are based on abstract algebra on hyper complex numbers. In these you it seems that divisional algebras (plus, minus, multiply, and divide) work only in 1, 2, 4, and 8 dimensions. Look up Divisional Algebras and the Standard Model.
@@henrytjernlund I'm talking about the three spatial dimensions that make up our perceived reality at any given point in time.
There is always something new to learn from this channel ❤️
Excellent video, as always. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video. Many thanks for the links to the articles, including Arnold Sommerfeld's original article.
At 8:08-8:25, those are superb graphics for explaining fine structure!!
After reading about the fine structure in so many books, finally I 'get it' (completely) thanks to that graphic.
A quibble regarding the alpha formula. The real formula is this...
α = e^2/2hεc
Note that it contains h, not h-bar, and is π-free. The real version (given immediately above) is seen rarely, but it does occur in at least the following two reputable places: McQuarrie, Quantum Chemistry, back cover, and Unzicker, Einstein's Lost Key, pp. 45 and 51.
The commonly seen version, shown in this video at 2:00, is nonsensical since the explicit π and the hidden π (in h-bar's denominator) cancel one another. That's one reason to avoid the common version: π chases its own tail to say, in effect, "now multiply by 1." The other reason is that it reinforces the earthling superstition of π, regarded as mystical rather than as a useful tool for calculating circular things. (ETs will never bother trying to communicate with earthlings so long as we wallow in the dual superstition of π and the Golden Ratio.)
You mentioned alpha's relationship to the speed of the electron being 1/137 of c. Does this indicate that alpha determines the electron's speed or is it merely a coincidence that the electron's speed divided by c is a value that is close to that of alpha? Do other particles with mass have a similar speed or is it just the electron?
Ratio of electron speed and speed of light is a way to think of the meaning of alpha. It is not a coincidence, it is how it was derived.
Would it also apply to a muon orbiting a proton?
@@ArvinAshThank you for the response. Since electrons have mass and light does not, does that indicate a relationship between alpha and the Higg's field, in terms of the Higg's strength or some other aspect of Higgs?
@@BloobleBonker Muon is much heavier, it should orbit at a different speed. (of course this whole talk of electron's and muon's speed in an atom isn't very meaningful in quantum mechanics, at least this shouldn't be taken too literally)
@@Lukionest Alpha is all about coupling constant between the photon field and electrically charged particles. It's not related to Higgs in any way. With Higgs field there is a similar coupling constant, it gives us particles' mass.
Wonderful video!! Hard to image it being done better!!
Hi Arvin! Please make a video about theories that say what can be on scales smaller than the Planck length
You support Russia OE ukrain?
@@shadowoffire4307 I live in Russia
Terrific style plus depth of knowledge gives us the unique Arvin Ashe! Just wow and thanks Arvin! We’ll done son!
Awesome, thank you!
I love the fearless reasonable consideration of an intelligent creator on this channel. You are the only scientist making videos of this type on TH-cam willing and brave enough to discuss it as a point of thought. Keep up the great videos
2:53 Funny, when I first heard about “close to 1/137”, the first thing that popped into my head was “I wonder what it’s like in a different base”.
89 base 16
Another great video. One day we may have a great answer as to why the constants are the way they are, and these inquisitions and summaries help get us there :)
Question: I'd love to know why we don't think the center of a black hole is just a quark gluon plasma, where quarks can't overlap and some can or something, how do we now it is a point singularity?
Question2: Why would someone think there is a black hole emptying out into a white hole, when the mass of the black hole is not being drained? I would think we'd have to see black holes very quickly evaporate if there was an empty'ing out in its white hole counterpart.
In science, usually with great answers, we got more great questions. This is why science is so fascinating!
The truth is that science only answers how, not why. The pursuit of science is in reality part of a religious paradigm, one whose pursuit of physical effects can never reveal _why._ How and why are very different things.
@@PETERJOHN101 Sorry, science answers a lot of whys. I think you're messing the subjects here, coming to a science channel to try to discuss religion. If you have a religion (or not), and which one, is totally a different subject.
God invented Mathematics, man merely discovered that which God ALREADY invented, so @0:14 why was Pauli going to seek answers from the devil when both he AND the devil are just created beings? Shouldn't Pauli be seeking wisdom from God instead, Who is All Wise? Salaam.
@@ivornworrell Don't read too deep into Paul's quote. He was being sarcastic
In the book “ASCENSO, Civilization of the Humus” published on Amazon, a theory is proposed that unifies relativistic and quantum physics, supported by a mathematical and analytical calculation of the fine-structure constant (1/137) for the 3rd dimension and the other dimensions that make up the Universe. It includes parallel and mirror universes. It proposes a mathematical theory of how the multiverse should be structured and the action of dark matter and energy within it
does that mean, that the fine structure constant can have different values depending on the temperature/energy of the locality (like the core of stars; at collision points etc)? And "if" so, how does it affect the particles/fusion reactions? Or would it be irrelevant when only plasma is involved?
Arvin and Matt are the only two ppl that always leave me with more questions after gettimg an answer - LOVE it!
The different values only apply at the temperatures which were present at close to the big bang. The core of stars is much cooler than that. At these temperatures, the constant does not vary enough to make a big difference.
He said it only went from 1/137 to 1/127 when the temperature got up to a quadrillion degrees. At even a billion degrees, and that's about as hot as any star can be, it would be a million times closer to 1/137 than 1/127 is, in other words still very close to 1/137.
@@medexamtoolscom sure, close to "normal", but since it´s so inportant that it has exactly the value it has - who knows what even the slightest difference would have on fundamentally weird things like quantum objects^^
Great job 👏🏻, please make videos on Anthropic principle to understand better on this topic thanks
Glad to see so many people liking this wonderful subject. Thanks to Arvin Sir.
I don't think I've ever been this freakishly curious about one of Arvin's explanations before the intro even started
Wow. Amazing. Isn't the universe and everything that has ever existed just one big piece of art?
This is by far one of the best videos I've seen that attempts to teach the fine structure constant.
i watched your video on fields and that was the day it became clear to me what fields actually are. but after watching your video, i found myself in a new problem. before that i believed that the universe is discrete and after knowing about fields i now think that universe is continouse, please help me sort this out in some future video. thank you. you are the best in my list.
The universe is pretty big and cardinalities are also. Y'know, N, Q, R, R2...
Universe can be discontinuous or continuous depending on the true nature of space time (see Loop Quantum Gravity for example). But it has nothing to do with the other quantum fields because they all are embedded in our (supposedly continuous) spacetime.
Wave functions are continuous. Interactions are discrete. The continuous wave function tells you the probability that a certain discrete event will happen. Often times, in the macro world, there are so many interactions that we can practically think of things as continuous, like radio waves. They're still just a bunch of photons, but they involve billions of times more photons than visible light. We just can't practically isolate a single radio photon. So it makes sense to use a continuous field model when designing antennas. All models are approximations. You use the one that answers the question you need to ask. Newton's laws will get you to Mars, even though they are not the complete reality.
I've not learn so much in one shot for a long time, thx!
Marvellous stuff and way beyond my IQ level but I still find your channel exhilarating.
The value isn't 137. They thought it was 1/136 for a while, and the numerologists thought that was special too. Read Feynmann's QED if you want to learn more about this. That said, I didn't know it wasn't a contant at all. Very cool.
Hi Arvin, can you do a video on the Penrose theory of conformal cyclic cosmology.
Seconded
Wonderful explanation of a mind-boggling number, thank you Sir.
I think a possible answer to the question of why it is such a random number might be closely related to the many-worlds theory. If life and the universe did not exist because the value of the fine structure constant was not 1/137, then no life would be around to ask why such a value. Many questions about why the constants of the universe are so precise and unpredictable might actually be answered by the many-worlds theory. We could simply be one of or the only universe hospitable to life. Forgive my english I'm a french 15-year-old :p
Your English is perfect! I had no idea until you said you were French. But yeah, many questions can be answered by the anthropic principle and many worlds. "Why is x?" --> "Well somewhere there is not x, but there's nobody around to ask why." :P
Because it would be horrible if the universe was deliberately created, that someone comes up with a many world theory?
"I don't know", is a great answer in science. It means there is more work to do.
Amazing video (as always) and amazing channel!
However, "life" = "life as we know it". Different alpha might just mean different life :)
Well said!
@@ArvinAsh, you have one of the best channels explaining physics out there! I am a teacher too (biology), and I am just stunned by how well you can explain complex topics - bravo!!
Well: I don’t know about that. It’s not so long ago the 137 used to go all the way up to Archway. Now it stops at Hyde Park Corner. The 390 goes to Archway, but if your standing at the Hilton bus stop northbound in Park Lane it’s extremely frustrating :- you get about 4 137s go past before you get even a sniff of a 390. Not like the old days at all
Great video! So if the value is changing for this constant, would it be possible it will change again in say a million years and we just happen to calculate the value in these conditions of the universe today. ? I m not against the fine tuning theory but i highly doubt its validation.
Unlikely. We are not likely to approach the temperatures near the big bang in the current trajectory of the universe.
All numbers are “concepts” what you are saying is one concept that made the universe! I wish you are right
Thanks for another great video
Wish you happy new year 🎊🎁
Is there possibility that other universe exist with diff value of Alpha and other constants with generate whole different physics law and property ?
According to my knowledge of they existed we cannot communicate with them is there any way to create them in lab or contact them
It could be, but as you said, we could not communicate with these other universes. So it doesen't really matter. You can kinda make up your own universe with its own laws of physics in your head. But your mind is limited with the boudaries of our universe, so have fun.
God invented Mathematics, man merely discovered that which God ALREADY invented, so @0:14 why was Pauli going to seek answers from the devil when both he AND the devil are just created beings? Shouldn't Pauli be seeking wisdom from God instead, Who is All Wise? Salaam.
@@ivornworrell This does not explain anything. Humans always put god into the place where we can't explain a phenomena, but we always push forward and find ways to explain even the complexed things. First it was God who created humans, now we know better, first it was God that makes the sun hot and glow, now we know better. We put god as an explanation to why the moon orbits the earth, now we know better. Putting god as a solution to a problem makes yourself ignorant to the problem itself. Do not underestimate research done by humans. Sure, god could have done the big bang. What gives, because it is a time where we can't find any answers yet. Maybe in a few hundred years we have a solution to that problem and the existince of god shifted again as history and science pushes forward. God is just a placeholder for things we don't understand yet.
Beautiful video 🙌🏿 Thank you Arvin 🙏🏿
Nature is not " fine tuned for life ". Life is fine tuned to nature. I find it disturbing when people in self indulgent folly and blind arrogance make such claims as this, especially when their ironic claims in which the opposite can be debated with ease. Almost as if such claims are being plagiarized or hijacked.
You clearly do not understand fine tuning but you will state your strong opinion about it. Are you projecting blind arrogance?
It just shows that our current theories are incomplete. Nothing more. That the electron is viewed as a probability is the first clue that something isn’t correct, and that nature does things nearly instantly that requires infinite calculations to approximate. We really need something more than mathematics to describe the abstract nature of the methods.
While it is interesting that things like α and π, are ratios, there are a lot of constants, like c. Couldn't we reverse engineer starting from any of these values, (like i.e we say c = 1), to find the actual mathematical model, that the universe was created?
If I had created it, the values would be proportionate of one another, or atleast somehow connected
This has already been done. Look up "Planck units."
Yes, easy to follow.
Very clear. It occured to be to check out those numbers numerologically.
I found that 137 reduces
to 11 . If you can find a good numberologist with a track record ask him if 137
when it reduces to 11 has it become a master number.
Also the 137 with .035 ect.
reduces to 9
Doesnt 11 reduce to 2?
Thats true, its also true that 11 is a master number
Top tier content, thanks Arvin.
the explanatory power of this dude is clocking in a high score. this is some real teaching talent. i know, because im slow.
Love your stuff Arvin, thanks again :)
Glad you like them!
It was me. I set that constant. Honestly, it was a mistake. It was supposed to be higher so the stars would burn out quickly. I had no idea it would lead to all this.
This is an awesome video but just one thing - under renormalization, alpha flows to zero logarithmically in the infrared due to its beta function being proportional to alpha^2. It's only approximately 1/137 at the intermediate energy scales of current experiments but if you could go to lower energies, you would see it going very, very slowly to zero as the electromagnetic force gets more and more screened from vacuum fluctuations.
Explicação clara, didática e muito bem ilustrada. Genial, muito favorável à compreensão. Vídeo indispensável...