All Fundamental Forces and Particles Visually Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- Get your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/arvinash - It's an exclusive offer for our viewers! Start your free trial today. MagellanTV is a new kind of streaming service run by filmmakers with 3,000+ documentaries! Check out our personal recommendation and MagellanTV’s exclusive playlists: www.magellantv.com/genres/sci...
References:
Scientist who formulated this: chrisquigg.com/
Model graphics credit: Olena Shmahalo/Quanta Magazine
All Particle physics Feynman diagrams: • Particle Physics Expla...
Math of Std model: • The STANDARD MODEL: A ...
Chapters:
0:00 What's the Standard Model?
1:56 What inspired me
3:02 To build an atom
3:56 Spin & charged weak force
5:20 Color charge & strong force
8:12 Leptons
9:35 Particle generations
11:17 Bosons & 3 fundamental forces
13:28 Higgs boson
15:25 It's incomplete
Summary:
Everything you can see is made of up of the same fundamental particles. The best theory of fundamental particles and forces is the Standard model of particle physics.
It’s really a collection of quantum field theories describing the strong, weak, electromagnetic force, & more. This video shows a different way to visualize the standard model.
Physicist, Chris Quigg, conceptualized the visualization. To build an atom, we need quarks. Neutrons and protons are made of either 2 up and 1 down quarks, or 2 down and 1 up quarks respectively.
The up quark has a charge of +2/3. The down quark has a charge of -1/3. So the total charge of protons is +1 & the total charge of neutrons is zero. We have two classes of matter particles, leptons and quarks. Matter particles have a property of spin - clockwise or counterclockwise.
Depending on the spin in relation to its direction of motion, it is classified as right or left-handed. Quarks come in both types, left & right-handed. Left handed up and down quarks can transform into each other via an interaction of the weak force. This is called a charged weak force interaction and is mediated by a W+ boson or a W- boson. For unknown reasons, this interaction does NOT happen with right handed quarks. This means that right-handed quarks cannot change into other quarks and remain the same particle always.
The quarks also have a color charge, red, blue, and green. This charge allows quarks to interact via the strong force, which is mediated by a boson - the gluon. This interaction allows 3 quarks of different colors to be bound together to make a proton or neutron in the nucleus of atoms.
Quarks by themselves can never be observed, since only colorless particles can be observed. A colorless particle can be formed only by either combining quarks of 3 different colors, or by combining quarks & anti-quarks.
These color rules come from the strong force. We force is shown as a triangle between the different colors. Note that the strong force does not discriminate between left and right handedness.
This strong force is mediated by particle called the gluons - 8 different ones with different combinations of color. Gluons act as a mechanism to transfer colors from one quark to another.
The second class of matter particles are leptons. There are two types - electrons with a charge of -1, and neutrinos with 0 charge. the charged weak force on works with left handed electrons and neutrinos.
Both left-handed and right-handed electrons exist, but only left handed neutrinos exist. Leptons do not have any color charge,
There are 15 particles so far. But for unknown reasons the universe contains 3 generations of particles. Each generation contains the same number of particles. So there are a total of 45. The only difference between them is that each generation is heavier than the other.
Regarding non-matter particles, the bosons, the strong force is mediated by gluons which only interacts with colored particles. Electric charge is mediated by photons, which interacts will all matter particles. The weak force interacts with only left-handed matter particles.
A 3rd boson is involved in weak interactions - Z boson, with 0 electrical charge. The Z only transfers momentum, spin and energy between particles. This is called a "weak neutral current." The neutral weak and electromagnetic force can interact with both left- and right-handed particles.
Finally, the Higgs boson gives mass to all massive particles. It connects to all of them, except neutrino, so their apparent mass is a mystery. The Higgs doesn’t care about right and left-handedness. Glouns and photons do not interact with Higgs, so have 0 mass.
The final count is 58 - 45 matter particles, 8 gluons, 3 weak bosons, 1 photon and 1 Higgs. This number rises to 103 if antimatter particles are included
#particlephysics
#quantumphysics
Note that the standard model only tells us what the visible universe is made of - dark matter, dark energy, neutrino masses, quantum gravity & matter-antimatter asymmetry are unanswered. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W2D1 | Summer | ถ้าไม่พร้อมลุย ได้ไปคุยกับรากมะม่วง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XlkKtVvBxac/mqdefault.jpg)
The only thing that amazes me more about the complexity of quantum physics is how we are able to know so much about things that are so unimaginably small in size.
you'll have to thank the experimentalist for that. (e.g. my avatar: its the back-end of a microscope used to image quarks in protons).
@@DrDeuteron you can't photograph quarks
@@JcoleMc au contraire. e(p, e')X won a Nobel Prize (1990) for doing it.
@@DrDeuteron This is misleading. You cannot photograph quarks in the conventional sense. The Nobel prize there was awarded for experiments regarding - trying to understand the deeper structure of the neucleon. E.g. trying to understand the quark structure of protons and neutrons by firing high energy electrons at them and looking at how they scatter. For low energy, it looks like protons and neutrons are point like. For high energy, their structure looks like what you'd expect if they were composed of quarks. You're not photographing anything here, by definition.
@@matasmackevicius5594 you shine light on quarks, and then make an image from the light. "light" --> photo. "image" --> graph.
Thanks Arvin‼
I still cannot believe why we can watch videos of this quality for free.🤩
To spread the wealth of knowledge and reverse the dumbing down and stupidity of our nation. Trump created a huge mess of dummies who deny scientific evidence.
Well, you are paying by watching advertisement on youtube, unless you paying for subscription
@@davidanthony6408 So, it all began with Trump. Videos like this are posted not only to educate, but also to make money. You watch for free, because someone is footing the bill and those who do, want you to buy their products. Videos like this also spark interest in more in depth videos, which available by subscription. Dummy.
I must be missing something. I was always told the charge of an election was the smallest charge possible. Now we have one-third and two-thirds charges. How did that happen?
@@bobblacka918 Quarks, first posited in the 1960s, have quantized charge, but the charge is quantized into multiples of 1/3 e. However, quarks cannot be seen as isolated particles; they exist only in groupings, and stable groupings of quarks (such as a proton, which consists of three quarks) all have charges that are integer multiples of e. For this reason, either 1 e or 1/3 e can be justifiably considered to be "the quantum of charge", depending on the context. This charge commensurability, "charge quantization", has partially motivated Grand unified Theories.
Your videos have becoming more and more profounds and also incredibly understandable
Science wouldn’t be science if everything was complete, there’s always more to discover and learn. That’s what makes science exciting, is discovering something we’ve predicted or couldn’t imagine in a long time, and having that moment of relief; great video!
I personally don't think so. The universe can't be governed by an infinite set of rules. It has to be finite. And if it is finite, one day we will discover them all.
@@feynstein1004 Particle physicist have made no advancements in the last hundred years, they have done nothing but smash photons against each other and chart the electron debris.
Neither is true. There could be an infinite amount of things to learn, or at least much larger than we can ever hope to unravel. However, there isn't always more to learn, there are some fields of science, particularly in mathematics, that are dead because there is nothing more to be said about them.
@@cmilkau, why’s mathematics dead in your opinion? Isn’t math infinite or something?
@@erik-ic3tp typo. i meant IN mathematics
This was excellent BUT, you can't do this without explaining that "color" is just a metaphor. Color is a characteristic of quarks that happens to be similar to the way three characteristics of light can combine to make white. Once you understand that, QCD works well enough -- though I still think a musical metaphor might have been better.
lol
Good point. What kind of musical metaphor would work for 3-way parity though?
I agree. Music metaphors: Opera, Rock 'n Roll, Reggae...just suggesting, it is too late now. Cheers
Maybe... Anyone studying subatomic particles probably knows valid wavelengths for visible light and the size of atoms which implies metaphor. Additive and subtractive blending of primary colors used in the metaphor is probably less well known due to the abandonment of arts programs.
It seems a tad odd to get picky with colour when we have up/down/charm/strangeness/bottom/top. let alone Spin and for why negative charge isn't called 'retreat'. :-)
Arvin, this is so digestible and entertaining at the same time. Thank you for helping make this information accessible. You are truly in a league of your own.
Just awesome!
The best explanation of all the fundamental particles I ever heard or saw. I must say, your best video too. Thank you Arvin, you are a gem.
Keep enlightening us.
i just wanna say, You're doing a phenomenal work, and thank you for providing us with one of the best lectures ever on physics for free and readily accessible...keep up the great work👍
Yeah, best I've seen too
You've outdone yourself Arvin! Ever since I saw that revised diagram I've wanted a full breakdown of it and you definitely provided!
There were still a couple of gaps but this might be the most complete video outlining the SM I've seen thus far, a pleasure to watch!
This is heavy. I know jack about physics yet I can't stop watching these. They are amazing. Thank you Arvin.
That means unknowingly you have a knack for Physics. I urge you to study Physics formally. It's a subject that brings joy to some of us.
Well l envy you. It's all beyond me
Reminds me of the Trinity interaction with Duality, I see it everywhere, even in the design of the embryo, made from 3 cells, and the cell that creates the skin is the same cell that created the nerves, and just before your eye completes, the same cell slips in and becomes the crystal that directs the light to the macula lutea (Golden Spot) where you find the cones that split the Red, Green and Blue light. Are we Light Beings living in a matrix
I'm happy that you didn't use 'cyan,' 'magenta,' 'yellow,' or 'white' when discussing color charges! 👍
In the previous century, popular science articles used to carry the color analogy much further. They seamlessly mixed terminology from optics into QCD, adding and subtracting QCD color charges and giving them color names from the optical color wheel 😵. Not only did it confuse a whole generation of science rookies, it gave _me_ - who knew the physics of photography and color optics - the impression that I knew a whole lot more QCD than I actually did! 😂
I think the biggest thing to discuss there is that the colours in quantum chromodynamics don't refer to actual colours - they're just a way to label the 3 'types' of quarks as it relates to whatever the fundamental property that colour charge is actually describing. The colour is just a label.
I find CMY as an easily accessible metaphor for the anti colour primaries. Look on the bright side you don't have to deal with ICC Profiles! :-)
Color charge of quarks has nothing to do with actual color. We just use it as a label, because that is something that we are already familiar with that comes in triplets, and adds up to a neutral color called white. It is no different than if there was a third word to go with the concept of positive and negative, such that a balanced mix of the three color charges would add up to zero.
Is it really that hard to remember that QCD colors have nothing to do with optics? I guess I'm not in the field of optics, so I get spared lol It just means 3 different "strong force charges" or "color charges" combine to a neutral strong force/color cheyge. That's how symmetry groups are determined. SU1 because EM only relies on electric charge, SU2 because the weak force uses isospin and weak hypercharge, and SU3 for the three color charges
Hope that helps a little!
@@jakublizon6375 Arvin should have mentioned this-- "the weak force uses isospin and weak hypercharge."
The best coverage of those particles I have viewed. It's so complicated now. Physicists who figured this out must have relied on lots of mathematics, since little can be observed through experiments.
Sure in the full formulation of this theory there is a lot of mathematics that this video sweeps under the rug. Understandably so because it’s not stuff that would be quickly covered in this kind of video.
But, the theory agrees well with experiment and has had lots of predictions made and verified to great accuracy. So it’s not true that little can be observed through experiments.
Man this the best breakdown of particle physics I've ever experienced. Thanks, Arvin!
wow.... by far the best and most exhaustive description of the Standard Model I've ever watched. Thank You Alvin!
A really great one that I will watch again and again until I get it.
EXCELLENT distillation! Very clear and concise. One of the best you've done
Thank you so much Arvin Ash. You are a gift to many physics enthusiasts around the world. You are the teacher we all need. My school teacher says that memorization is the best way to study and learning is all about marks and grades. I strongly disagreed with her, and your videos help emphasize the need for intuitive, comprehensive and enthusiastic teaching.
I am with you. If your teacher actually said that, like you, I couldn't disagree more. I, for one, have a terrible memory.
It's the most beautiful visual explanation of the standard model I've ever seen. Thank you Arvin!
I just have to say what a blessing it is to have a brilliant person such as yourself, who not only understands on a profound level what he's presenting, but also has the ability to explain it in an elegant intuitive fashion so as laymen (such as myself) can understand the subject much better !!!
Thank you so much for your time, enthusiasm and expertise. You are credit to your profession and I bet from your demeanor, a hell of a nice guy!!! Thanks man!!!☮️☮️☮️!!!
That was truly amazing. Thank you for that brief but mind blowing overview.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Easily the most clear and concise explanation of subatomic particles and other confusing physics topics ever. Thank you!
This was awesome! I've been looking for exactly this, a summary of the latest without rehashing the history.
Most coherent, and clearly explained (+most visually accessible) video on particle physics/standard model, I have seen, ever.
Thank you, Arvin. You are the best physics teacher I've ever seen! I always enjoy your videos.
Amazing Explanation and still a lot to be Explained in near Future.
Thank you Sir 🙏
That definitely isn't the video for a total layman. But, it's incredibly thorough and well explained with words and pictures together. Thanks.
I'm a layman, not a physicist. But even I understood what he was presenting. Throw in math, and I'm out, LOL!!
Excellent video. Thanks for starting from the basics and taking me deeper with nice visuals!
You are the best in explaining things! You are an amazing teacher! Thank you Mr Ash!
Great video! Wonderful illustrations and you've made it easy to understand the big picture. Thank you Arvin.
Thanks Arvin, I know you try to keep your videos a certain length, but wondering if you could sometimes add a few minutes on how we have come to know certain things. I have a general understanding of spectroscopy, which has helped me greatly in understanding how we know the composition of stars and planets we can't visit. I'd like to know how we have come to understand other concepts like quarks.
Thanks Arvin Ash. I thought I knew a little about the standard model. Awesome work. Very grateful to you. Keep em coming.
This video has helped me visualize the complex mathmatics behind the theories. Thanks!
This video is much appreciated, mostly because l just started my nuclear and particle physics course this semester :)
Great explanation Arvin! Things were so much simpler when there were just atoms.
Really good one today Arvin, thanks for the great content.
Are you kidding me? How is it that I’ve gone my entire life and never known this content - not because I haven’t heard about it before, but because it was never so clearly explained like this? THANK YOU good sir for making this material so accessible to we non-physicist experts!
Welcome aboard!
Excellent !
A word that is so often over used today, like the American use of "Awesome" - In this case though it is well deserved & accurate.
Every school kid should be made to watch this video.
Many thanks.....all the way from London.
This is the best explanation and documentary about particle physics, thanks a lot Arvin.
As always, explained very well and understandably, very nice visualization and as far as I can see it without any errors.
Excellent video. The visual presentation greatly helps in conveying the concepts clearly. Thanks
The best and most complete explanation I particle physics I've ever seen. Thanks Arvin!
LOL and that is sad because its all wrong.
@@buddysnackit1758 no snark, but how? An example or better source? Wanna know.
@@jktolford8272 See below.
Another great clip, thank you Arvin
Wow! Fantastic! This is 1000 times better at explaining this topic than all others I have encountered in 40 years of steady science consumption. Bravo!
Yet again another great video. Thanks for taking the time to make them.
The statement "each quark needs to be a different color" is the same language we use in atoms "Each electron needs to be in a different spin state in a sub-shell". Both are useful, but wrong (but not too wrong to stop).
Just like the spins, the color wavefunction needs to flip sign on interchange of any two fermions. That means the quarks in a proton have entangled colors:
[(RGB) + (GBR) + (BRG) - (BGR) - (RBG) - (GRB)]/sqrt(6)
where the colors label quarks (1,2,3) respectively. You can't do this 1, 2, or 4 quarks...hence none of those states exists in nature.
Tetraquark: Hold my beer!
Why dont quarks + anti quarks annihilate
@@xtratub pump the brakes. Tetraquark is an exotic meson, so it's q-q-qbar-qbar.
For regular meson, the color is:
[(R, anti-R) + (G, anti-G) + (B, anti-B)]/sqrt(3).. which is unchanged by (complex) rotations in color space...so if you can write down something antisymmetric for N quarks, or unchanged by rotations for N quarks and M anti quarks (and antisymmetric in quark pairs, and in anti-quark pairs): you have predicted an exotic hadron. Good luck finding it.
I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but I like it anyway🤷♂️
Beautifully done! Thanks for making that easier to understand. Hope this leads to a video on Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
I really liked this episode.
The universe is trying to tell us something if it cares if a particle is left or right handed and the weak force W partcile can convert left to right but not the other way around is .
Neutrino sonly having one handidness is another clue the universe is shouting at us and we don't know why.
Arvin, you are amazing. Thank you for your insight and ability to present complex information to the layman.
Wow Arvin, this is mind blowing!!!
Never learned about this in college.
The Universe is more complex than I ever imaged.
Thank you so very much for breaking it down to a level that's easy to understand !!!
GREAT JOB !!! 🤗🤗🤗
I think that was the best video you have done. I am and engineer and know a fair bit but this video taught me a lot and filled in a few blanks especially the parts on handedness. Thank you!!
Absolutely excellent - as usual. Thank you Arvin.
I cherish this content so much that I listen to it first, watch it second, then return once more after I think it’s become intuition.
Arvin.. all your videos are amazing and truly a treat to watch!! We are blessed that there people like you who make such wonderful stuff for free
Thank you so much 😀
I would always be interested in going through all the actual experiments each physicist did to figure out and develop the standard model
yes. i suspect it's not easy to do or else I'd have seen it already
The particle theory seems very very complicated which makes one wonder..
I initially thought I would make a video of that sort... But it turned out to become a really long complicated and dry video script... I think it'll be a long time till a genius to come along and creates an immersive video explaining that.
Videos like these only reinforce the fact that, I am truly, unimaginably curious to find out how everything really works. That would be the realization of EVERYTHING!
I understood this, Arvin is such a good teacher, and that model he lend is the best.
Hands down the best explanation and break down of the standard model I've seen (and I've watched a lot on this)
Try scienceclic as well here on TH-cam. Guy has some great stuff on general relativity and quantum field theory.
Everything in the universe seems to be created in pairs or in binary format (I.e. matter/antimatter, up quark/ down quark, left handed/right handed, males/females, binary stars, binary fission, etc). Apparently this is a universal law. The holy Quran indicates of this law of nature:
“And We have created all things in pairs so that you may give heed (to the wonderful creation of God)” chapter 51 verse 49
Apparently the law of parity testifies to the oneness of the creator and draws the line between the creator and the creations. This is captured beautifully in the holy Quran that gives the ultimate description of God and the true meaning of Monotheism. Chapter Al Ikhlas:
1.“ Say, “He is God, the One.
2. God, the Absolute.
3. He begets not, nor was He begotten.
4. And there is none comparable to Him.”
Everything in the universe has its identical or match whether it’s an electron, a quark, a man, a star, etc. All pairs begets and are begotten (even atomic particles when smashed or created inside a particles collider). It’s only God (the creator) that distinguishes himself from the behavior or the nature of his creation. He has No incarnation. No personification. And there is nothing like him.
@@jasemalhammadi4228 Let's just ignore the bit where he says the universe contains three generations of particles. But cherry-picking is the standard model for trying to fit god into the universe.
@@garethhanby you are missing the point. There are generations in everything. In fact our sun is a third generation star. Generations have nothing to do with the reality that everything in nature seems to have its binary opposite. The binary phenomena or the symmetry of matter is extraordinary when you see it existing from celestial bodies to living organisms to quantum particles. In quantum world you can’t but appreciate the precise symmetry in all the particles properties (charge, mass, spin direction, etc). Wake up people.
@@jasemalhammadi4228 You realise you are talking about dualism, this goes back to the religions of ancient Egypt and the Eastern religions. You may as well equate it to the Yin and Yang of ancient Chinese philosophy, Abrahamic religions are a relative newcomer to this. All it shows is that Man likes to work this way and invents his religions accordingly. There is nothing remotely special about the Quran in this.
Great video my friend :) .
Just an idea for future videos. I will like to see something on how we reached the knowledge that is summarized in the standard model, and which experimets support the evidence of each piece of knowledge that it is included in the standard model.
Great work. Thank for all your videos.
Love this! especially how you include handedness.
Where have you been all my life?
Bravo! This one was extremely good. Thank you for helping us learn.
I have studied physics a far bit and not only follow this, I really appreciate its simplicity, comprehensiveness and clarity. My friend, who thinks physics is being out of breath after climbing the stairs, just stared into space and said, 'Huh!' He didn't feel quite so silly when I explained he had just taken in about 18 months of a physics course, within a coffee/smoke break. My friend doesn't like stairs.
The best visualization of the standard model ever! Thank you, Arvin, as always! 🙏
You rock Arvin .
Keep the videos coming .
Absolutely splendid discussion. Well done!
I love watching Arvin Ash, i feel like a particle physicist 😁
At 11:15 when you state that Leptons aren't observed to change flavors, I have to ask - what about Neutrino Oscillation? I was under the impression that Electron/Muon/Tau Neutrinos cycled between the three varieties according to the current model, which explained the relative equal numbers of each detected from various sources where, if oscillation did not occur, we might only expect to see one flavor.
Well that is a good question. And I probably should have mentioned it. According to the standard model, these oscillations don't exist, just like according to the standard model, neutrinos should be massless. These 2 things are linked. But the fact that neutrinos do oscillate means that they have a non zero mass . This is contrary to what the Standard model says. So this tells us that the model is incomplete. There are mechanisms that are yet to be discovered that need to explain the neutrino behaviors. And this is an active area of research.
@@ArvinAsh Fascinating! In the various coverage I'd seen, I wasn't aware that the existing Standard Model didn't allow for this as an option at all (as opposed to merely not predicting it).
I'd also ask about the decay paths of the Muon and Tau into the Electron via the W- weak interaction (Muon into Mu-Neutrino and a paired Electron and Anti-Elec-Neutrino by the W- mechanism); though that seems more like a direct Weak flavor change from Muon to Mu-Neutrino and then the W- equivalent of energetic 'pair production', it seems relevant to the discussion of how particles can interact into other particles.
The transition/decay of bosons into collections of fermions (photons doing traditional Pair Production; Gluons snapping into quark-antiquark pairs to preserve the colorless-observation requirement; whatever the heck the Weak Force is doing...) seems like an important part of the picture.
@@HeavyMetalMouse Rather than saying it doesn't allow it at all, it is that the simplest form of the larger theory behind the standard model, Quantum Chromodynamics + electroweak quantum field theories, which don't allow for this. In effect a more complex version which doesn't zero out terms can be made which is effectively the standard model with slight variations whether you call it the standard model or not is arguably semantic.
Right now from what I have read the strongest contender to explain the neutrino flavor oscillation behavior is the seesaw mechanism which proposes that left handed neutrinos gain mass due to their right handed counterparts coupling strongly with the Higgs field becoming very massive. The problem with testing this is that according to current theories there would be no way to ever theoretically test this since neutrinos according to the standard model can only ever interact with the weak nuclear force and according to observations gravity but gravity is so weak that at the particle level it becomes effectively undetectable. Naturally these right handed or "sterile" neutrinos are also a natural candidate for dark matter with the caveat that they are predicted to be perfectly unobservable short of creating one in a particle accelerator and noticing it via the apparently missing energy and momentum. Thus that leaves the only way to test this theory being to directly measure the individual neutrino masses which as mentioned above is effectively impossible due to gravity being so absurdly weak at the particle scale.
Very good line of discussion, wanted to ask the very same qestion and the answers were interesting and new to me.
@@Dragrath1 Gravity may be weak but the lifespan of the neutrinos isn't. It should be possible to measure in a temporal form neutrino transitions all the way from The Sun down and straight through the planet in such a way as to determine an implied mass.
Great video and explanation as always.
Thanks a lot Arvin Ash 👏
I truly appreciate how U break complex concepts into bite sized nuggets
Bravo
Arvin, you are so clever! Humankind has come a long way since Democritus’ postulated that matter is made of small particles. And isn’t it amazing how intricate and complicated the universe is. And it seems, we have only scratched the surface. Love your videos Arvin.
As always, your videos never disappoint. Looking forward to the next one.
This is great stuff. And you explain it great. Have to see it a view times to let it sink in.
I like also how the particles are symbolized as m&m’s
Excellent graphical breakdown of the quanta!
There are enough interesting subdivisions and types of complex interactions that the standard model deserves its own TV series.
Tbh this is only the top of the ice berg. There are also virtual particles (though those are similar to some of these), hypothetical particles (like axions or tachions), quasi particles (like phonons, positive holes or anions), composites (like postulated pentaquarks, glueballs, strangelets) and unknow ones like dark matter candidates (there could be overlap between these caategories ofc). As you go deeper in the rabbit hole it seems more like a 7 season epic series :D
@@CraftyF0X Precisely!! Haha I wish there was a way of crowdfunding this
Excellent video. It is exciting to see watch physicists are currently working on. Thank you awesome work!
I always forget how much I love this channel!!!
Appreciate your hard work in making these videos.
Just awesome. Actually learned more than a few things today, such as , all the neutrinos that we have ever seen are in fact left-handed. Symmetrically, all of the antineutrinos that scientists have ever seen have been right-handed. Tyvm. Could you do an episode on Polarity and its importance in physics since the times of hermetic alchemy?
YOU DONT KNOW HOW MATH WORKS !! THE EARTH IS SUPERPOSITIONED WITHIN SPINTRIFICAL FORCE WHICH DOESN'T ALLOWS FOR QUANTUM DEBRIS TO CONCEDE REALITY IN SYSTEMATIC COALITIONAL DEBATE CYCLES !! THE DIAPHRAGM COAGULATES AT A PREFERRED RATE. HOW CAN THE EARTH BE A SPHERE IF THE SUBSTRUCTURE UNDERPINNING EMULATES DEGRADING IMPRESSIONS WHEN THE CURVATURE DON'T AMALGAMATE?
@@flatearth9140 This bot appereantly generates word salads.
@@CraftyF0X THEY ARE VERY SCIENTIFIC STUDIES !! DO YOUR HOMEWORK !!
Hi Arvin, would really like to see you make a video outlining exactly what observations the standard model is based on and how it came to be.
Perhaps someone may come up with a different interpretation of the same observations if such a video were made and put out to the broad community.
Cheers.
This is decades of different experiments and accumulating knowledge... Hard to fit into a short video.
I have been interested in subatomic particals sp for years and years. I'm a lay person but this subject has kept my interest a long time. I'm 71. Thank you for all you teach us!
The way you explain is fantastic. Really really nice. Thanks
Excellent high level explanation of the subject matter. Thank you
Excellent Video, yet again... thank-you for this attempt to simplify enough for us to understand the very fundamental particles, Can't imagine how long it would take students of physics to reach this understanding through normal education process!
about 5 years. You need classical mechanics (Hamiltonians, Lagrangians), then classical electro dynamics (E & B fields, waves, gauge symmetry), Quantum mechanics, Special Relativity. Combine the last two to get QFT: quantum field theory (almost everyone who breezed the other classes finds this topic challenging...though there are exceptions (not me)). With QFT you can take QED, quantum electrodynamics...a real theory with real predictions: learn how to do calculations.
I think you need a nuclear physics class, to get isospin under the belt. It's the 1st introduction to Lie group symmetries in physics. It can also introduce symmetry breaking and Goldstone Bosons.
From there you can study Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), which introduces Yang-Mills theories.
Then, you learn about the Weak Interaction: it ruins _everything_ : flavor symmetry, chiral symmetry, parity symmetry (P), charge conjugation symmetry (C), time-symmetry (T) via CP-violation. It mixes generations and makes life in the universe (and solar fusion, and supernovae) possible.
Then electro-weak unification, the Weinberg-Salam model, and the Higgs mechanism.
Ok, make that seven (7) years. And: you MUST do the homework problems! That's the hard part. It takes effort. And like learning a musical instrument; you'll sweat and suffer, and some 14 y/o kid will show up and smoke you with crazy talent.
The good news is: you can skip general relativity (hard) and thermodynamics (hard)...but you won't. You will suffer.
@@DrDeuteron I appreciate your comments. I was wondering while watching this video if there’s any way to actually learn these things other than rote memorization. Because although I listened attentively, and although Arvin has a very engaging way of expressing himself, I retained essentially nothing. I’m glad I watched it, if only to gain an appreciation for the complexities of particle physics, I (sadly) could repeat back only a few of the most basic concepts.
I’m a very concrete thinker, which makes me a good geologist, but very poor at abstract thinking, which makes things like thermodynamics and particle physics essentially unattainable. At least your description of the underlying subject matter helps me to better appreciate that there’s actually a foundation underlying the particle classifications Arvin described. I’ll never understand it, but I guess I don’t need to.
How can the same brain, that evolved on the African Savanna have given us both particle physics and the galactic stupidity of present day politics, which is likely (IMO) soon to lead to our extinction. It is perhaps the most astounding aspect of intra-species variability to ever have evolved.
As always, thank you so fucking much!!!
We live in such a wonderful cosmos 💛 Human kind displays so much intelligence and these videos are a reminder, as well as a great tool to appreciate all that we have come to know so far not to mention observe 😻
@ArvinAsh Thanks for this visualization and highlighting the key point of handedness which is not often highlighted. Question: Since we can neither observe gluons, nor individual quarks then what is the experimental evidence that these exist? Please make reference to specific research paper as that would be very helpful towards my further reading.
This presentation (and many others) remind me of an event. Some 60+ years ago while camping at a lake I met a kid a bit older than me. Somehow we got into a discussion on particles. I still recall someone saying that there is far more to find than just electrons, protons, and neutrons... And I thought, of course, why should it be all so simple.
Such a complex recipe from nature!
Thanks so much for this detailed breakdown!! A couple questions: 1) is there a field for each and every particle, including maybe even anti-particles? or do some particles share the same field? 2) can II and III generation particles combine to create atoms?
There is one field for each particle and its antiparticle. In principle, you could create atoms with higher generations, and bound states of 3 higher generation quarks have been formed, but they last less than a billionth of a second. No atoms have been created as far as I know.
@@ArvinAsh but if you harnessed the energy potential in the moment of change, the most effective harnassing technique would be to create a dynamo which could release energy over time rather than immediately being reclaimed by physics...?
@@ArvinAsh Do we have any idea why they deconstruct back into the background?
Such a great video and easy explanation . Great work 🙂
This channel is a gem for me 💖. Thank you for existing:)
Not gonna lie, I clicked on this video because “all fundamental forces” (title) made me think you would explain gravity in the SM somehow 😂 but nonetheless a very intriguing well-made video and way to model this stuff
gravity isn't a force!
@@admaneb And normal force isn't force.
@@admaneb yes its not a force according to general relativity but it come in fundamental force
@@EpicGlitchyJuice not fundamental as it is emerging from how mass effects time
@@admaneb ok
An amazing video - never seen details before. Truly invaluable in both form and content !!!
What could be amazing is to show just how all this was confirmed in experiments
For example - quarks can’t ne observed - how all these types were validated ?!
The right handed quarks has no W/weak charges because it's the other side of the same equalizer and since left has 1 charge, right is 0 charge, 0 in this case does not mean nothing, 0 in this case means reversed. Anything lower than the weakest charge is neutralized hence right has no charge. Electrical charges are like equalizers or volumes of sounds ; 0, 1, 2, 3 and so on , the greater the volume the stronger the charge, 0 is like Neutrinos, it has mass because 0 is not nothing in the electrical field, 0 is the beginning/first step/square one, the first step only has one step therefore one cannot create charges only when there's a second step there will be charges. But it's not nothing, it still has mass.
For example in order to grow a plant you must first have a seed. The first seed is that 0 force here. 😊 Hope you like my analogy.
Thank you for sharing this video!it's a great video and well understood
So when you say there are 58 types of elementary particles-excluding the 45 anti-particles, which share the same field as their corresponding particles-does that mean there are 58 distinct fields in QFT?
For example, 8 different gluon fields, 6 different up-quark fields, 2 different electron fields and so on?
Perhaps fewer, if the left-handed and right-handed particles share the same field?
Perhaps even fewer, if all the differently-colored up-quarks share the same field?
I'm having a hard time with the semantics-when do we say that two elementary particles are of two different types, and when do we say they're of the same type, but differ in certain (extrinsic) properties?
No, not 58 fields. All gluons for example would share the same field.
Liked and bookmarked; what a great video! I had no idea neutrinos were weird in so many ways. So, 103 particles. If we add wimps, machos, tachions, gravitons and monopoles, we get the sacred number 108 😎
Do u fart?
Very nice elementary intro to the classical SM. There are several reductions of the number "elementary" particles you mention: 1) antiparticles are just particles in a loop, moving back in Lab time; 2) The 3 generations are just different finite geometry representations of the basic baryons (Platonic symmetries, as finite subgroups of SU2); 3) the RBG colors are just labels for a 3D-quark frame of the fundamental rep. of SU(2); electrons have a 4th color: T; together with quarks form a 3+1 D frame (quaternionic; or Hopf bundle); their other geometry mu, tau, can be derived from basic one; 4) Gravity is a correction to EM within the quark force (nuclear force), quark spin dependent; 5) Weak force is not really a force, and transitions can be modeled via representation theory (finite geometries); gluons correspond to a basis of SU2 x SU2* (meson bonds between nucleons), or "vibration modes" of a baryon.
Very useful and clear, thank you arvin
Does the Higgs field rob momentum from particles or does it simply slow particles down, which results in particles having “higher mass” aka more inertial resistance?
It doesn't actually slow their speed down. This is just an analogy, for simplicity. Some particles simply interact more with the Higgs field, but there is no direct slowing of speed or momentum due to this.
I think its how the parties interact. If you interact it more you gain more snow. So photons don't interact it. Have a nice day.
Karina D / Why the photons don't interact with the higgs field? Why not?
If I tell you that you die just because you eat food do you believe me automatically with no questions?
Since when the science has become a religion?
@@mikel4879 that's not a faith-based conclusion. It's based on experiment: photon's mass is observed to be less than 10^(-18) eV, consistent with 0.
The Higgs mechanism takes the W0 and B bosons, and naturally mixes them into a massive Z0, and a massless photon via spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB).
The principles of SSB have been observed in other systems, such as condensed matter. See "Goldstone Bosons".
What is inertial resistance? Gravity?
The strangest thing is that these particles are really waves in a field. We certainly have much to learn. We are still in the infancy of knowledge. Imagine what we'd have learn't in one thousand years or even one hundred thousand years if the human species still exists.
I like to think of it like the particles are the tips of the ice burg, the rest of the wave is huge and the photon for example just has a little bit hanging over the threshold to become visible at a point where the wave itself is much larger. So light has energy as a wave and for some reason that light becomes highly focused at the tip, so we call it a particle when pointing at the visible tip of light. In reality the wave could be infinity large so its power distribution is spread out and we cannot locate or see it as distinct from anything else.
Very well translated to the layman. Thank you.
Best explanation of how this works.
As always awesome awesome awesome.