I retired a few years ago from a career in experimental particle and nuclear physics... and now I'm watching these videos and getting insights that had eluded me all those years. Thanks!
Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
@@SpotterVideo The idea that particles are just bends/oscillations in one or more fabrics of spacetime seems to be the prevailing idea, Matt even says as much at 7:33 . With gravity itself being a bend in spacetime, this would by definition make gravity an extension of the bending in the oscillating fields, (unless each of the "fields" are somehow independent of spacetime). P.S. Matt has talked about the possibilities of neutrinos being dark matter before. Matt's talked about neutrinos and dark matter before, also that has nothing to do with the rest of your "question". The idea that particles are just bends/oscillations in one or more fabrics of spacetime seems to be the prevailing idea, Matt even says as much at 7:33 . With gravity itself being a bend in spacetime, this would by definition make gravity an extension of the bending in the oscillating fields, unless each of the "fields" are somehow independent of spacetime. That being said you are not going to win the Nobel Prize in physics without at least some math people haven't seen before, and some evidence to back it up. If visualizations and interpretations of reality where all that was needed to win, the prize would just go to whoever had the most weed.
@@castonyoung7514 My degree is in Biology. However, I have an interest in Particle Physics. I have never expected to win a Nobel Prize in Physics. This concept is intended as a starting point for someone else who is mathematically gifted.
I'm so excited to see the channel starting to slowly dip into the world of Quantum Chromodynamics. It's always seemed fascinating to me that there is a whole other level of particles and interactions going on inside the atomic nucleus, but trying to read about it on my own has always been daunting.
@@katiebarber407 Well, quantum theories themselves say that reality at that scale is indetermined. Maybe we're just measuring the wrong way, but probably not, based on what I've studied.
Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Smallest points with 6 directions could make a structure. In that case, the entire universe grows as a box, and makes a flat universe. There is a theory that can prove it.
I was so blown away by looking at that linear regression technique to 0 pixel spacing. Literally haven't felt this amazed in a few years. So simple yet so beautiful.
Sorry - I don't think that is linear regression. They aren't trying to see if there is a relationship between degree of pixel spacing and mass prediction - there is a relationship in the data points by definition. What I think the are doing is simply using the data points to allow them extrapolate to "infinity". Defining zero as infinity makes it a bit easier and having control over the units of the x axis is also helpful in this endeavour.
The same method is horribly imprecise when attempting to calculate nuclear magnetic moments. Also, chiral EFT diverges from experiment down near the low nuclear energies of normal matter. This is why you hardly ever hear about low energy nuclear physics.
I am not anything close to a scientist, but I enjoy hearing things like this... It is so amazing to see how much human have observed the universe. It is all very complex but my heart wants to hear more. It makes me feel complete.
@@woodypigeon it is quite possible we will never understand quantum mechanics since theres evidence the interactions are influenced in the 5th dimension or even higher
@@woodypigeon its not mysterious or fictional at all hidden dimensions that only exists in the quantum level is just as valid as any other theory on quantum mechanics
All which can be easily seen when you take psychedelics. Something about sensory-overload bring out the inferences between waves and particles so you see all as energy patterns and formations.
I recently found this channel. It's absolutely brilliant. My background is in astrophysics and you definitely explain some of these concepts to the public far better than a lot of lecturers I had in the past.
I dropped out of college because it was far more efficient to find instructors & learning materials online which best suited my learning style - far easier & faster to absorb information. So much high quality & free educational resources, for autodidacts, here on the web.
Those optimizations really seem like things that someone in the demoscene would've done for fun. I remember some hilarious hacks to get fluids working in realtime, or real time raytracing more than a decade ago. Quantization, caching, precomputation, and randomized sampling are pretty standard approaches to simplifying expensive problems.
Its more than likely, that some of the physicists working on said simulations have some affinity to the demoszene and cracking community from back then. The wizardry that is involved in this high performance c/c++ code seems unreal to me.
@@Turnoutburndown Gameboy, probably not, but one of the early "supercomputers" built specifically for the purpose of lattice QCD simulations was made by wiring thousands of PlayStations together.
Kudos to the whole PBS Space Time team. It's information like this that keeps me coming back for more. I'm raising my 9 and 12 year old kids on your videos and despite most episodes being advanced for kids this age, it's sparked some great conversations with them about Quantum Mechanics and the nature of our reality.
Your kids are going to think that they know more than they really do. Please teach them properly, without stooping down to this scientific popularism, that is more focused on intriguing people with complexity, rather than explainimg things to them with simplicity.
@@blinded6502 They are 9 and 12. I’d argue that it’s much more important to foster curiosity instead of actual understanding of quantum physics, which pbs spacetime does very well.
Don't allow yourself to believe you are learning something, simply because you are consuming internet content. The speed at which you can access information when using the internet can make it really easy to waste time doing pseudo-productive information gathering that you will forget about next week. It is very hard to discipline your attention enough to avoid the control of algorithmic recommendations that are constantly trying to "peek your interest", especially for children who are still learning what is important to pay attention to, and how to control their attention. its best to limit the time you spend consuming internet content. Remember, the internet only wants your attention and money. its not your friend.
Out of all of the topics Matt has taught on here... this has to be one of the most mind blowing .. 🤯 it's unbelievable how any human minds have ever found ways to simulate these tricks as he called them. Lattice QCD... Unreal. It's amazing he's explained this in an understandable way for those of us who have no background in physics at all.
@@hyperduality2838 th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
That half life 3 comment got me cackling out loud in my steel factory job. Thank you for all your fine work, detailed laymen explanations and humorous add-ons.
I’ve been watching your content for over a year now. My background is in pure mathematics and you are seriously convincing me to start studying physics .
I started watching PBS Spacetime in 2016 (to my best knowledge) with the dream of studying Physics one day. Now, I have been in University for 2 years, and this is the first time I see a new video released on a topic I already learned about and it feels weird... but in a good way ^^ I hope Spacetime never ends
Bro had a dream and pursued it. I respect you and wish you the best of luck in university. I myself have been interested in chemistry and physics since my childhood and find looking at convoluted concepts like this very video described highly fascinating, yet I was never actually able to understand them on a deeper level. Can't even get myself to read a book, and it has frustrated me for as long as I can think. That's why I respect and look up to people like you who actually have the mental endurance to get up every day, motivated to learn. I wish I could, too. nngh why am I writing this much about myself what am I even doing snymore its way too late im sorry lolll
@@moelr_ Thank you for your kind words! It definitely can be hard getting up in the morning with a day full of work ahead, but you shouldn't feel down or unhappy about yourself because you might not always live up to some expectations you have for yourself. The last 2 years were very difficult for me as I realized for the first time I was at my very limit when it comes to... brain power. I just couldn't keep up with a lot of other people in Uni and to this day it stresses me out a lot. With every semester it's getting better though, talking with other people having similar issues, and always realizing you don't need to be the fastest with understanding stuff or get the best grades in every course. I know what you mean about reading books. I used to like reading, and now I can't even read books in my freetime which I know I would enjoy a lot, much less books I would be required to read for Uni (I'm just lucky our Professors don't really require us to read long texts or books). But I'm trying to battle it, I recently bought a book I will enjoy a lot and I also rediscovered a series of books I read (at least) 10 years ago and I am very much looking forward to experiencing again. I'm just reading a couple pages every now and then, baby steps now might just turn into fulfillment later, it's a chance I'm willing to take :)
What's awesome is that QED and QCD seem like perfect matches for quantum computing. Calculating all paths simultaneously and responding with a probability distribution. If you want to compute quantum dirt, make your computer out of quantum dirt.
I’m an undergrad cure doing research on the phase diagram of QCD. This is really helpful for understanding the scientific papers I was given. Thanks much :)
When talking about discrete elements of space -especially a regular structure of 3 or more dimensions-, I believe you should use the term "voxel" (a portmanteau of "volume" and "element"), rather than "pixel" ("picture" + "element"). It was once an obscure concept in computer graphics, but the popularization of voxel-based games like Minecraft has made this term rather common among young people, so you should not have any problem taking advantage of that.
th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
With all the smaller updates and pictures we've been getting I think they're working on it currently, but have to edit it when something new comes out, it might be contextually difficult to stick them together as they come out weeks apart
This is what I (tried to) work on one summer as a high school student at SUNY Stony Brook! It was far beyond my meager understanding, but I had a lot of fun programming quaternion arithmetic in C 🙂
Quaternions are tight! And for the kids out there that have never had to fiddle with programming ones own 3D-engine - they are at the core of all things "3D on your screen".
Doing a video with a Half-Life 3 joke was the last hurrah needed for this channel to reach geek-out perfection, and I’m happy to report we have reached that threshold. Bravo. 👏
@@alienturtle1946Approximations completely dependent on foundational assumptions. The history of science shows that those foundational assumptions started off as wild speculative guesses.
@@stevenverrall4527 Eh. I mean you're right that you can question anything back to some foundational assumption/axiom. But you need those axioms to have any kind of working knowledge. Without them you can barely assert anything, a la Descartes. And the axioms that most of math and science are built on are relatively straightforward, as opposed to wild guesses. But some people do play around with alternate sets of axioms, and I'd agree it can lead to some interesting things, even if their applications are niche or not yet discovered.
@@alienturtle1946 Not only must scientists rely on fundamental axioms, but they need to keep imagining and devising new ways to test them. In addition, every scientific theory has a realm of applicability. It is important to discover and probe the edges of each of these realms.
For "explaining" asymptotic freedom, it's not really necessary to be here all day. One could just say that the strong coupling constant becomes smaller at higher energies (as measured in a center-of-momentum frame of the colliding particles), and for energies like those at the LHC, it reaches something closer to 0.1 than 1. So, at high energies, the same phenomenon as for the electromagnetic force applies, diagrams with more vertices become less important and it's possible to cut off the calculation at a finite number of diagrams for any given desired precision. But for low energies, where the strong coupling constant is close to 1 (or even larger), more complicated diagrams are just as important as less complicated ones, so interactions cannot be computed by adding up any finite number of diagrams.
Would you guys consider making a video about things outside of “space time” like geometric theories like the amplituhedron and ideas of guys like Nima Arkani-Hamed? You get pretty close to it in this video This stuff is cutting edge and super interesting to me as an attempt to bridge the gap between GR and QM by reimagining the way we view the universe. Specifically relating to this video, the amplituhedron concepts allows theorists to completely side step Feynman diagrams and virtual particles entirely and still get the right answers for scattering amplitudes of particle collisions
I’ve never heard of any of this before, but I’m definitely gonna check Nima out. Popped up on my recommended a couple times but I never knew what his ‘deal’ was all about. Thank you for sharing that!
Just remembered we used to have a whole PBS channel dedicated to pure maths. Unfortunately got the axe. Would be nice to see Space Time throw us some slightly off-topic bones here and there since this is really all we got besides Eons now.
@@JamesonMusic808 Nima is awesome. He has some really cool talks on TH-cam from around 4 years ago. Him and his colleagues are working on some crazy stuff trying to reinvent the way we view and calculate particle collisions while getting the same answers. His whole idea is that “space time is doomed” and we’ll never reconcile GR and QM without stepping outside of the rules of space time. A lot of it is crazy math that’s over my head, but the concept of the universe being more fundamental geometry from which spacetime itself emerges is super interesting to me
@@Jm-wt1fs th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
Monte Carlo always seems like magic. I mean, they always say "learn the theory first" but that method is more like "just give it a try" (or few tries). And it works!
Suppose a big black box you can grab items from. To be certain about its contents, you'd need to inspect every single item. If you don't have time for that, you can just pick 10 or so at random (to avoid bias and hence the casino name) and make an educated guess.
As a former physics student, I can't help but to be repeatedly blown away by the quality, precision, and relevance of the content on this channel. I would postulate that in many respect, those 2 are somewhat equivalent: - You could invest a full semester on a 3 credit undergrade (or event graduate) class on the content of any one or a few of those videos, so like 100 hours or something, and be able somewhat grasp the topics discussed here. - You could watch a few related videos here while paying attention, making a mind map/taking notes and perhaps referring to outside content to clarify the bits & pieces that are glossed over a bit quickly/assumed to be understood. That's maybe 5-10 hours total. Conclusion: PSB Spacetime feels about 10x more efficient at understanding those conceps than my post-secondary education. I was born a few years too early apparently. * Of course, that's not entirely fair, no equations are solved here for the most part. But in terms of UNDERSTANDING the principles... I'd argue that many students can solve equation to pass an exam, but do not necessarlly understand the underlying idea.s
Well yes - understanding phenomena and their relation is a tiny part of studying physics, sometimes even left out for individual research or foreknowledge at the expense of being able to numerically grasp these relations and phenomena. If you're interested in learning about the workings of reality (and only that), studying physics has the chance to be a waste of your time as only phenomenology matters to answer these questions for you.
@@midnattsol6207 Part of my comment indeed (and somewhat disappointed wrt to some of my initial motivations in going into physics). The other side of it also being that it's actually pretty hard to get to a distilled, concise and precise perspective on what those phenomenon actually mean just by studying them. Spacetime does this in a way that feels inaccessible about most topics, most of the time, for some random individiual
@@logiconabstractions6596 th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
I watched a video about free will a while back that had me seeing the perspective of free will being an affect of having hind sight. Then I thought to myself: Because the past only really exists as information we hold (as memory), sentiments like “if only I’d done that” reaches for change in something we didn’t think about in the moment. There are things we definitely choose to do, but then the nuance of psychology creeps into view, “free will” isn’t something I worry about but it’s always a blast getting existential.
Great video. Also thoroughly enjoyed the prospect of a PhD astrophysicist saying the word "Booba" because another PhD holder with that name asked a good question.
If we can do this, could we simulate hydrogen / helium atoms "normally" and how they function when they fuse in stars as a potential means of learning how to create / finesse terrestrial viable fusion?
I don't think how fusion occurs in stars can be emulated by us effectively. From what I understand the temperature in a star is far too low to cause fusion the way we create it on Earth. It occurs in stars via quantum tunnelling at an extremely infrequent rate, but because a star is so dense and has so many particles it still occurs frequently enough for it to shine.
@@halfnattyboomer354 are you saying that stars basically do operate by cold fusion already, and the only question regarding cold fusion is whether it can be replicated in terrestrial conditions that don't require the insane density at the heart of a star? Or rather, I suppose, whether we could reproduce such density on Earth with less energy input (to create the pressure needed to constrain the volume of the reaction chamber) than we'd get out of the reaction? Could exploiting naturally high-pressure terrestrial environments like the deep sea help in any way, or is that kind of pressure negligible compared to the stellar conditions we'd be looking to replicate?
I absolutely love this channel and have been watching and learning for a few years now, but after all this time, I have to wonder... Will Matt ever come back to earth? I mean, space is amazing but man.
Love that we've finally got a decent vid on QCD! Another way to think about the Shrodinger's Glove from the comment replies: You put two gloves in the box, but instead of opening a box and seeing left or right handed, you measure to see whether the glove is left/right handed, or up/down handed, or front/back handed, and whichever you measure, the other will be the opposite if measured along the same axis.
I love your videos, but I often find myself getting lost midway through... However, I was absolutely gripped throughout this whole episode, and everything was explained exceptionally well!
It makes me re-watch over and over and as I go I pause and Google, read about and absorb. Then watch the video yet again and stuff starts clicking in my brain and I can follow like 80% of the video, the last 20% I still don't get is the maths. I'm not sure I ever will, but I'm incredibly grateful the maths is included.
It's actually night here and I'm watching this amazing video! Special thanks for giving glimpse of every important video required to understand a certain topic everytime! I'm not a very old subscriber thus, this really means a lot to me! I've been watching old videos consistently tho! Excited for more upcoming videos!
Matt: "Let's make sure we understand *exactly* what we are trying to do here." Matt's next line: "We want the probability that some wiggly quantum field wiggles between one state and another." Matt is god.
The best episodes of PBS Spacetime are those episodes that give me an unexpected insight. It does not happen often. This episode gave me an insight re the fine structure constant and what was really meant when it is described as a coupling constant of the electron with the em field. I had never considered what that meant in a Feinman diagram.
Isn’t the decay of particles usually caused by weak force interactions? How do you add the weak force into the lattice QCD calculations? is that even possible?
Right, particle decay is a weak interaction and can be simulated in lattice qcd. It’s complicated to explain but you can describe weak interactions using weak “currents”. So it depends on what you are interested in studying, for example if you want to study the energy spectrum (think tower of energy states ) that doesn’t involve any weak interactions. However, you will need to utilize weak currents for something like neutron beta decay because one of the down quarks will decay to an up quark. As for the leptons, their interactions can be added perturbatively into the calculations so you don’t need a full lattice calculation to describe its contribution.
Weak interactions should have a rather small effect in any hadron containing only light quarks. Adding weak interaction to QCD simulations would immediately increase already high computational requirements for negligible gains.
@@zackh1239 th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
I believe that the words "quantum" and "easy" have like linguistic charges. The closer they get in a sentence, the more difficult it is to make sense of the sentence.
Ive recently started thinking of fields and their particles as functioning somewhat like conways game of life. Stable oscilations are like particles, and unstable ones are like virtual particles. Theyre both made of fluctuations in the same pixel grid following the same rules, and the stable oscilations can generate unstable ones, which can influence other stable ones. These interactions can then lead to larger stable structures with new properties. Obviously the rules are very different so i dont mean its an accurate representation or anything, but its a concrete, visible, definable example of at least similar concepts, which to me forms a much better base for a mental image than saying "an electron spontaneously emits a virtual photon which is absorbed by another electron."
I like this perspective on qft. It helps wrap your mind around how an entire complex universe can unfold out of a few fields following relatively simple rules. All form arises based on which oscillations/patterns can sustainably exist and interact with each other to create greater complexity.
@@GeoffryGifari I've done some basic research into Conway's Game of Life and cellular automata, watched some videos and messed around with some myself. The Primordial Particle System is especially fascinating because of how closely it seems to mirror real particle interactions/basic life forms. Cellular automata often model natural systems, from physics to chemistry and even biology. It seems that they demonstrate a universal principle of emergent complexity which is mirrored across all levels of existence.
This is going to be quite a crazy episode I bet EDIT : it was although I would've liked to have dug deeper into simulations, how they work and what we've accomplished so far in that domain.
The high-quality graphics you employ in your videos is probably one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Its potential is unlimited, it has the power to visually explain things I wouldn't understand otherwise.
I am a Frontend engineering in IT. These videos are not related with my field but i love to watch this kind of videos before sleep. Thanks for the video. 🙂
Awesome to have virtual particles clarified. I heard they obeyed no conservation law and always had me greatly confused. It would be very nice if you further delved into particles, because It seems everything can be regarded as a particle, which is a bit confusing. I'm thinking of phonons and excitons, for example. Or of gravitons, which is at the same time "not a force" and mediated through particles.
You heard wrong. Virtual particles do obey conservation laws. They always conserve energy and momentum. And via pair production they also conserve charge, spin, etc.
Actually there are no virtual particles, space is likely discreet, following rules we don't understand yet. ""Virtual particles"" are what have been made up as a placeholder for our best guess at what's going on. It's like how we have "fluid dynamics", but really it's a bunch of atoms bumping into each other and we just can't calculate it...
@@ryanbloom850 No, you can follow a lattice approach as well and still see Hawking radiation, which is nice since that means it's not an artifact of one mathematical approach.
@@garethdean6382 Yeah there are even other approaches which can arrive at hawking radiation and similar properties, at the very least it isn't hard to show based on the results of the "No big crunch theorem" derived via proof by self contradiction in "Inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology", cited as Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022, that if we limit ourselves to the set of solutions of the Einstein field equations in a nontrivial flat or open universe that don't run into the issues with logical self contradiction identified above then information is always conserved, the arrow of time becomes fixed relative to whether the universe was initially expanding or contracting with the laws of thermodynamics automatically arising as universal constraints on allowable total variation within the metric curvature of the universe. And as information naturally appears via the principals of propagating the initial conditions of the universe radially outwards in space over slices of time we can apply an integration of all possible(or impossible) paths and in this case the individual time slices should represent a cosmological event horizon which will have a definite entropy making it homologous to Hawking radiation mathematically aside from proportionality constants. A black hole event horizon in this limit doesn't really work in the same way in this metamathematical limiting case for general validity of solutions to the Einstein field equations since they aren't cosmologically sized like the limiting case looked at, but it should provide some insights there as well. For one thing by showing that off diagonal terms of the metric tensor can never match(i.e. the off diagonal terms must always be nonzero for any and all valid solutions to the Einstein field equations in any nontrivial flat or open universe) does potentially implicate that gravity is inherently symmetry breaking and thus in the quantum limit must be composed of purely asymmetric wavefunctions. As such wavefunctions in quantum mechanics can never share the same state i.e. all combinations are equally unique states also known as the Pauli exclusion principal. Though in this case the math might be best described in terms of wormholes in a complex space but I digress point is hawking radiation can be derived via other means too at least in the case of cosmological event horizons.
Very good video, I love this computational physics stuff! I always wondered why we never did computations with fields as the fundamental elements instead of particles -- turns out it's just because it's wayyyyyy harder.
I'm looking forward to the upcoming QCD episode(s)! This one was fascinating. It's astounding how clever dedicated mathematicians and physicists can be. Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. ✝️ :)
If every proton is indistinguishable, how can any of their interiors be an ever shifting bubbling mess of quarks and gluons....they're all identical at all times?
good question, i dont know but i would guess that the time scales of the shifting bubbling mess is so small that the differences they may cause in the properties of protons like their mass is so so tiny that it we may as well think of them as being the exact same. again this is just my guess
@@alvarorodriguez1592 well, they're not fundamental particles, but that doesn't mean they aren't indistinguishable (other than spin....just like electrons). If I were wrong, there would be no nuclear shell model ruled by the Pauli-exlusion-pinciple.
This hinges on what we mean by 'identical'. For example, the electrons in helium atoms are 'identical' even if orbiting a He-4 or He-3 nucleus. They are not strictly identical but identical ENOUGH for things like Pauli exclusion to prevent helium atoms just phasing through one another. Protons are identical in mass, charge, spin and other properties AT THE SCALE OF NUCLEI. But that doesn't mean their interiors must be identical. And on smaller scales we very much see different outcomes from repeatedly slamming two 'identical' particles together. Indeed the Pauli exclusion principle exists because it's impossible for two fermions to be exactly identical, in everything including their position in spacetime. Some difference must be maintained.
That video "lucidified" (is that such a word?) QCD and lattices for me. Greatly. Thanks once again, Matt, for making the seemingly intangible tangible.
Phenomenal explanation of a complex topic. Space Time's years of scientific communication are showing. I'm very glad to be on this trip to explain the roots of our reality, as best we know.
A lot of this should probably be covered in an introductory quantum physics course. Not the math, just discussion of the concepts. It would go a long way toward dispelling some of the myths to pop up around quantum mechanics.
@@Harkmagic QM courses, even intro courses, are not meant for "mass consumption". If the students in such a course want to consume popular science presentations of more advanced topics, they can do so, but such presentations don't belong in the classroom, because there is already too much to cover that time can't be wasted on the non-essentials.
@@michaelsommers2356 I've been through those QM courses. The stuff here is nearly essential concepts any student should know before getting to deep into a QM education simply to avoid misunderstandings that can arise from the limitations of a early QM education. You can move it around for the convince purposes, for example my university has a Modern Physics course that is pretty much a general overview of the developments of the early 20th century and serves as a pre-req to all higher physics courses. Sticking this discussion in the QM section might be a good fit. Misunderstandings and even mysticism abound in the study of anything quantum and nobody will ever get me to budge from the position that topics that serve to clear up misunderstandings and drive away the mysticism should be an essential aspect early QM education.
*My issue with entanglement is simply; How are we saying that once we entangle a pair, neither pair has since been entangled or disrupted in some way?* If a random particle could generate in or close to the some space as one of the entangled pairs, is it not possible this particle could either entangle or disrupt our "original" entanglement? If I'm being stupid, fine, but if I'm not it would be nice to have this addressed.
Yes, that's part of why entanglement experiments and quantum computers are kept so cold. The less heat in the system, the less of a decoherence problem you have. I can't cite specifically, but this has been addressed in prior episodes.
This is an issue, and a detectable one. For example, if entangled pairs are 'broken' early, they'll be in the same environment. So, if you picked some fancy spin axis to measure, you'll get the wrong results since their spins were measured soon after they were created. This allows us to test setups for how well they preserve entanglement.
@@garethdean6382 That's kind of my question, you haven't answered it.. For example we entangle a pair, then .05 milliseconds or 2 million years pass, before we take a measurement ......HOW do we know that the 'other' has or has not had the bond broken? What's the method or whatever for determining if this or the OTHER has been interfered with in a fashion that breaks the bond? (so to speak)
@@ldeadpirate9432 I won't pretend I'm an expert on this, but I can tell you how I justify this in my ameteur mind. I believe the answer to your question "HOW do we know that the . . . " is "we don't." The reason why entanglement is believed in is not because it can be shown to work in individual trials. Instead, we can perform experiments (to be repeated countless times) on particle pairs believed to be not entangled and then perform those same experiments (again, to be repeated countless times) on particle pairs believed to be entangled. It happens that results are, on average (and only on average since, as you point out, we can never be certain that our entangled particles ALWAYS remain entangled), very different for the pairs believed to be entangled. I'll remind you once more this is merely my amateur interpretation. I believe this answers your question as it shows how we can understand entanglement *without possessing tools to guarantee any single trial involving entangled particles is 100% uninterrupted by external disturbances.*
@@ldeadpirate9432 Quite simply speaking you can't, only comparing the results of the two experiments measuring an entangled pair afterwards can actually answer this which is one of the reasons quantum entanglement can't convey information FTL. Basically you can never know who broke the entanglement only that the entangled state was broken. If neither measurement was the one to break the entanglement then you run into the other problem with such a test as entangled states can easily be disentangled long before any measurements can be performed.
The most profound bit of this video is easy to miss: "If you just draw a straight trendline through your simulation results, you can find out your neutron mass in the case of zero spacing: a continuous spacetime." We're very much living in reality, the universe is not a simulation.
This definitely does not disprove the Simulation Hypothesis, if that's what you were suggesting. The appearance of a continuous spacetime could very well be the result of some deeper underlying calculation we haven't found yet. All this fuzziness we perceive could be due to rounding errors or geometric anomalies from the source calculations that are impossible for us to fully reverse-engineer from this side. The simulation itself could even be tampering with our machines or feeding us data that gives the appearance of a continuous spacetime. Or the fabric of the simulation could be actually built out of true continuous fields using some kind of technology or math we can't comprehend, or that might even be impossible from within the simulation. The Simulation Hypothesis is literally impossible to disprove, which is precisely the problem with it.
@@DoctorT144 Not really. Simulation Hypotheses seem to downplay the role of reflexive self-consciousness. I am my own consciousness therefore I can't - by definition - be a simulation of myself. Functionally, the mechanics of reality are irrelevant to a consciousness which transcends it by being able to reflect on it. It makes no difference whether it's a simulation as long as it works. Philosophically, it's an interesting concept but not much else.
I grok what you are saying...you are suggesting that a simulated universe would be digital and "pixelated" at its most fundamental level, so mass values consistent with a continuous, analog fabric of spacetime suggest that we must live in a "real" universe. But what if there is nothing beyond math and information? Fields might ultimately only be mathematical constructs manipulated by operations running on an extra-universal computer. Numerical values can can be divided and multiplied infinitely. And anything with a discrete presence, such as particles and their associated properties, might only be informational bits manipulated by the ultimate game engine.
@@ubergroov Yea ok, and maybe the universe was magically spoken into being by an almighty God who exists transcendent of space and time in heaven. I just don't see the point of these appeals to simulation. In any case, even if the universe were simulated, my consciousness definitely is not because I can't be a simulation of myself, unless I were not myself, which is illogical.
In 1974 I was working on an IBM/360-50 with 512k of core storage, as RAM was called back then. ("Core" as in "central". Physically, it consisted of magnetic donuts strung on wires; the donuts came to be known as "cores".)
Lattice QCD absolutely blows my mind. The idea of simulating a complex system at several abstraction levels, then interpolating along the common errors to calculate the real infinitesimal value, is insane to me. Never even crossed my mind. Where else could we use this approach? Just wow.
You managed to get me interested in Lattice QCD, I hope to learn more in the future. Anyway, doesn't the fact that the correct particle mass is found only for a strictly continuous space strongly suggest that there's no ultimate "quantization" of space-time and, thus, that ramming against General Relativity with the argument that it is "classical" (seamless, continuous) is probably a wrong approach?
2 ปีที่แล้ว +2
Not really, the pixelation could be too small to be noticed with current experiment results
When plottiong a trend line on lattice QCD, how was it dtermined that when approaching zero spacing the trend line does not curve down to to a much smaller value - similar to the way that extreme gravity bends Space Time?
But how do you know It keeps being straight even at points you have not checked? In the case of the neutron, measuring its mass is "easy", so it validates the computational approach.
@@alvarorodriguez1592 well, possibly you could come up with an argument based on the math of the simulations, but, even if not, then you just have the philosophical problem of induction, of why to expect future observations of anything to match patterns in previous observations.
His example was about the neutron mass, which is something that has been measured by other methods. So all they would have to do is compare both results and see if they match
I really must try and understand your videos properly. You have a great way of explaining this stuff but by the time I get the first bit, I am left behind by the next 🤣🤣👍
Most of the cosmological videos I get relatively well but yeah these ones get me quite a lot though I'm very fascinated. I'm sure my biggest problem is I've never been very good with mathematics and that is a basically the core factor here.
@@flowerfullgirl_ yeah, maybe. But that maybe is still so far away. We are cosmic babies. Let’s just hope the great filter is behind us and not ahead! 😆
Is it me or does it seem like the deeper we go in these things the less they make sense. Perhaps we need to evolve further in our thinking and understanding before we can get to this next level. If that's the case then there are more exciting times ahead.
The only way to achieve such an evolution is to make it happen consciously. I don't expect the mechanics of survival and natural selection to do it for us. Luckily, the best way to make that happen is science :)
I confess I don’t understand all of this in spite of an engineering degree and four years at Princeton University where Feynman taught, but nevertheless I found this video NEXT LEVEL FASCINATING! MORE of this PLEASE.
I asked this question in your feedback form a while back! Not sure how much those forms direct your content, but it’s great to see you making stuff in the direction my mind goes
Your explanation of the spin axis and quantum entanglement at the 18:20 mark is excellent. That's the first time it finally "clicked" for me in regards to understanding it. Thanks for continuing to make such great content!
th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
I retired a few years ago from a career in experimental particle and nuclear physics... and now I'm watching these videos and getting insights that had eluded me all those years. Thanks!
Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface
A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
@@SpotterVideo
There was a band called the Tubes...
Is this the new string theory, except 3 or 4D?
Lots of questions, seems like you have them too.
@@SpotterVideo
The idea that particles are just bends/oscillations in one or more fabrics of spacetime seems to be the prevailing idea, Matt even says as much at 7:33 . With gravity itself being a bend in spacetime, this would by definition make gravity an extension of the bending in the oscillating fields, (unless each of the "fields" are somehow independent of spacetime).
P.S. Matt has talked about the possibilities of neutrinos being dark matter before.
Matt's talked about neutrinos and dark matter before, also that has nothing to do with the rest of your "question".
The idea that particles are just bends/oscillations in one or more fabrics of spacetime seems to be the prevailing idea, Matt even says as much at 7:33 . With gravity itself being a bend in spacetime, this would by definition make gravity an extension of the bending in the oscillating fields, unless each of the "fields" are somehow independent of spacetime.
That being said you are not going to win the Nobel Prize in physics without at least some math people haven't seen before, and some evidence to back it up. If visualizations and interpretations of reality where all that was needed to win, the prize would just go to whoever had the most weed.
I am trying to study and get career in it.
@@castonyoung7514 My degree is in Biology. However, I have an interest in Particle Physics. I have never expected to win a Nobel Prize in Physics. This concept is intended as a starting point for someone else who is mathematically gifted.
The fact that this quality of information is available to anybody for free is the biggest miracle of the universe.
We live in a golden age of information.
Some people say we are the universe trying to understand itself.
The Internet is like a primitive form of collective consciousness. Exciting times!
Humanity is advancing at a rapid rate, love it
I would say life would be it, but yeah
I'm so excited to see the channel starting to slowly dip into the world of Quantum Chromodynamics. It's always seemed fascinating to me that there is a whole other level of particles and interactions going on inside the atomic nucleus, but trying to read about it on my own has always been daunting.
@@katiebarber407 Well, quantum theories themselves say that reality at that scale is indetermined. Maybe we're just measuring the wrong way, but probably not, based on what I've studied.
Quarks by Herald Fritsch is a great book for an introduction to QCD
😄a general audience will be more favorable
Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface
A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Smallest points with 6 directions could make a structure. In that case, the entire universe grows as a box, and makes a flat universe. There is a theory that can prove it.
I was so blown away by looking at that linear regression technique to 0 pixel spacing. Literally haven't felt this amazed in a few years. So simple yet so beautiful.
Should be done to Planck Length. Remember the UV disaster.
Sorry - I don't think that is linear regression. They aren't trying to see if there is a relationship between degree of pixel spacing and mass prediction - there is a relationship in the data points by definition. What I think the are doing is simply using the data points to allow them extrapolate to "infinity". Defining zero as infinity makes it a bit easier and having control over the units of the x axis is also helpful in this endeavour.
O shut up deso
There are several other examples. One is the extrapolation of gas volume to 0 to estimate the 0 kelvin.
The same method is horribly imprecise when attempting to calculate nuclear magnetic moments. Also, chiral EFT diverges from experiment down near the low nuclear energies of normal matter.
This is why you hardly ever hear about low energy nuclear physics.
I am not anything close to a scientist, but I enjoy hearing things like this...
It is so amazing to see how much human have observed the universe.
It is all very complex but my heart wants to hear more.
It makes me feel complete.
Human fee-fees are powerful.
@@woodypigeon it is quite possible we will never understand quantum mechanics since theres evidence the interactions are influenced in the 5th dimension or even higher
@@woodypigeon its not mysterious or fictional at all hidden dimensions that only exists in the quantum level is just as valid as any other theory on quantum mechanics
All which can be easily seen when you take psychedelics. Something about sensory-overload bring out the inferences between waves and particles so you see all as energy patterns and formations.
As non-scientist i confirm this
I recently found this channel. It's absolutely brilliant. My background is in astrophysics and you definitely explain some of these concepts to the public far better than a lot of lecturers I had in the past.
I dropped out of college because it was far more efficient to find instructors & learning materials online which best suited my learning style - far easier & faster to absorb information. So much high quality & free educational resources, for autodidacts, here on the web.
You have so many videos to watch, I discovered the channel in 2020 and watch it since then. It wastly expanded my knowlegde about... spacetime.
You're in for a real treat!!
Best humbling channel ever 😂😂😂
That is how it should be done in the first place. i feel you.
Those optimizations really seem like things that someone in the demoscene would've done for fun. I remember some hilarious hacks to get fluids working in realtime, or real time raytracing more than a decade ago. Quantization, caching, precomputation, and randomized sampling are pretty standard approaches to simplifying expensive problems.
But can in run on a gameboy?
Its more than likely, that some of the physicists working on said simulations have some affinity to the demoszene and cracking community from back then. The wizardry that is involved in this high performance c/c++ code seems unreal to me.
@@Turnoutburndown 13:40 way less than that :P
@@Turnoutburndown Gameboy, probably not, but one of the early "supercomputers" built specifically for the purpose of lattice QCD simulations was made by wiring thousands of PlayStations together.
You'd be surprised how much of an overlap there is between people who do Physics and demoscene types
Kudos to the whole PBS Space Time team. It's information like this that keeps me coming back for more. I'm raising my 9 and 12 year old kids on your videos and despite most episodes being advanced for kids this age, it's sparked some great conversations with them about Quantum Mechanics and the nature of our reality.
What you could travel as fare back in time as time is moving forward
Your kids are going to be geniuses
Your kids are going to think that they know more than they really do.
Please teach them properly, without stooping down to this scientific popularism, that is more focused on intriguing people with complexity, rather than explainimg things to them with simplicity.
@@blinded6502 They are 9 and 12. I’d argue that it’s much more important to foster curiosity instead of actual understanding of quantum physics, which pbs spacetime does very well.
Don't allow yourself to believe you are learning something, simply because you are consuming internet content.
The speed at which you can access information when using the internet can make it really easy to waste time doing pseudo-productive information gathering that you will forget about next week.
It is very hard to discipline your attention enough to avoid the control of algorithmic recommendations that are constantly trying to "peek your interest", especially for children who are still learning what is important to pay attention to, and how to control their attention.
its best to limit the time you spend consuming internet content.
Remember, the internet only wants your attention and money. its not your friend.
I can't think of anything more comforting to the undefinable chaos of the universe than PBS Space Time.
I'm pretty confident this was delivered in English, but that's the extent of my confidence. Thanks for this.
The extent of my confidence is that this is a video
And then he pulls out the "if I explained that we would be here all day" line. How much deeper does this rabbit hole go?
Out of all of the topics Matt has taught on here... this has to be one of the most mind blowing .. 🤯 it's unbelievable how any human minds have ever found ways to simulate these tricks as he called them. Lattice QCD... Unreal. It's amazing he's explained this in an understandable way for those of us who have no background in physics at all.
@@hyperduality2838 th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
Human has done many "impossible things"
That is a great explanation for being a Physicist "think of how the universe works, describe the theory with math, test the model with reality."
lol that's theoretical physicists, there's two more! experimental and computational!
And the emotional
basically the opposite of religion
And when it dosnt work..blag it for the funding.🤣🤣
@@mastershooter64 Experimental physics is the only trustworthy science. All others from medicine to climate are extremely dodgy indeed.
"If I tried to explain that too, we would be here all day"
That sounds great to me, no problem, please go on
love hand waving. it's a nice red flag. hahah
The graph at 13:10 was really interesting! The linear relationship between pixel size and mass is surprising.
Kind of like the limit in calculus.
That half life 3 comment got me cackling out loud in my steel factory job. Thank you for all your fine work, detailed laymen explanations and humorous add-ons.
I’ve been watching your content for over a year now. My background is in pure mathematics and you are seriously convincing me to start studying physics .
Love the particle physics episodes
yesssss me too
@@hyperduality2838 ooooooooookkkkaaaaayyyyy
I started watching PBS Spacetime in 2016 (to my best knowledge) with the dream of studying Physics one day. Now, I have been in University for 2 years, and this is the first time I see a new video released on a topic I already learned about and it feels weird... but in a good way ^^
I hope Spacetime never ends
I should clarify though, we did not yet learn about QFT, so I did not know the entire substance of the video :p
Bro had a dream and pursued it. I respect you and wish you the best of luck in university. I myself have been interested in chemistry and physics since my childhood and find looking at convoluted concepts like this very video described highly fascinating, yet I was never actually able to understand them on a deeper level.
Can't even get myself to read a book, and it has frustrated me for as long as I can think.
That's why I respect and look up to people like you who actually have the mental endurance to get up every day, motivated to learn. I wish I could, too.
nngh why am I writing this much about myself what am I even doing snymore its way too late im sorry lolll
@@moelr_ Thank you for your kind words!
It definitely can be hard getting up in the morning with a day full of work ahead, but you shouldn't feel down or unhappy about yourself because you might not always live up to some expectations you have for yourself. The last 2 years were very difficult for me as I realized for the first time I was at my very limit when it comes to... brain power. I just couldn't keep up with a lot of other people in Uni and to this day it stresses me out a lot. With every semester it's getting better though, talking with other people having similar issues, and always realizing you don't need to be the fastest with understanding stuff or get the best grades in every course. I know what you mean about reading books. I used to like reading, and now I can't even read books in my freetime which I know I would enjoy a lot, much less books I would be required to read for Uni (I'm just lucky our Professors don't really require us to read long texts or books). But I'm trying to battle it, I recently bought a book I will enjoy a lot and I also rediscovered a series of books I read (at least) 10 years ago and I am very much looking forward to experiencing again. I'm just reading a couple pages every now and then, baby steps now might just turn into fulfillment later, it's a chance I'm willing to take :)
@@Mystixor so before this video you learned that lattice qcd existed, but not how it's done?
Best wishes!
What's awesome is that QED and QCD seem like perfect matches for quantum computing. Calculating all paths simultaneously and responding with a probability distribution. If you want to compute quantum dirt, make your computer out of quantum dirt.
I’m an undergrad cure doing research on the phase diagram of QCD. This is really helpful for understanding the scientific papers I was given. Thanks much :)
When talking about discrete elements of space -especially a regular structure of 3 or more dimensions-, I believe you should use the term "voxel" (a portmanteau of "volume" and "element"), rather than "pixel" ("picture" + "element"). It was once an obscure concept in computer graphics, but the popularization of voxel-based games like Minecraft has made this term rather common among young people, so you should not have any problem taking advantage of that.
In medical imaging they use the term voxel as well.
I see your voxel and I raise you eight pixels
I believe the concept of what Matt said was using pixels to achieve the voxel? At least that's how i pixeled it even though i'm an old voxel.
Since the model described in the video is 4 dimensional, wouldn't it be a hypervoxel?
th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
When are we getting an episode on JWST?
With all the smaller updates and pictures we've been getting
I think they're working on it currently, but have to edit it when something new comes out, it might be contextually difficult to stick them together as they come out weeks apart
Unless something related to physics is discovered by JWST... I really don't see it happening. Because of the focus of the channel.
FACTSSSSS
@@recitationtohear this guy 🤦♂️
By that time it's mirror will look like sandpaper from micrometiorites. Isn't it logical that these are also hanging out in the Lagrange points?
This is what I (tried to) work on one summer as a high school student at SUNY Stony Brook! It was far beyond my meager understanding, but I had a lot of fun programming quaternion arithmetic in C 🙂
wow that's awesome!
I hope you continued in this field of education, you could be famous one day!
Quaternions are tight!
And for the kids out there that have never had to fiddle with programming ones own 3D-engine - they are at the core of all things "3D on your screen".
Don’t let those C++ and Java weirdos throw you off. C is the one true language.
@@rfichokeofdestiny The only true language out there is mathematics. C is only a decent language for a finite set of problems.
Doing a video with a Half-Life 3 joke was the last hurrah needed for this channel to reach geek-out perfection, and I’m happy to report we have reached that threshold. Bravo. 👏
Thank you for coming back, gives me comfort to watch these videos again
As someone who uses MCMC in Bayesian computational modelling for the human brain, it's very cool to see it pop up in this video.
dangling modifier
I feel like everything in quantum physics is built on, "This is how it works, except its not how it works."
Got nothing to do with what it's built on; it's just how PBS has to simplify things to help the audience understand them
That's all of science, really. All models are mere approximations.
@@alienturtle1946Approximations completely dependent on foundational assumptions. The history of science shows that those foundational assumptions started off as wild speculative guesses.
@@stevenverrall4527 Eh. I mean you're right that you can question anything back to some foundational assumption/axiom. But you need those axioms to have any kind of working knowledge. Without them you can barely assert anything, a la Descartes. And the axioms that most of math and science are built on are relatively straightforward, as opposed to wild guesses. But some people do play around with alternate sets of axioms, and I'd agree it can lead to some interesting things, even if their applications are niche or not yet discovered.
@@alienturtle1946 Not only must scientists rely on fundamental axioms, but they need to keep imagining and devising new ways to test them.
In addition, every scientific theory has a realm of applicability. It is important to discover and probe the edges of each of these realms.
I haven't touched anywhere near this subject in years, but you do a fantastic job making modern ideas accessible to us all. Love it!
I don't understand a thing this guy is saying, but I'm subscribed and I like watching every video his channel has lol
For "explaining" asymptotic freedom, it's not really necessary to be here all day. One could just say that the strong coupling constant becomes smaller at higher energies (as measured in a center-of-momentum frame of the colliding particles), and for energies like those at the LHC, it reaches something closer to 0.1 than 1. So, at high energies, the same phenomenon as for the electromagnetic force applies, diagrams with more vertices become less important and it's possible to cut off the calculation at a finite number of diagrams for any given desired precision. But for low energies, where the strong coupling constant is close to 1 (or even larger), more complicated diagrams are just as important as less complicated ones, so interactions cannot be computed by adding up any finite number of diagrams.
Would you guys consider making a video about things outside of “space time” like geometric theories like the amplituhedron and ideas of guys like Nima Arkani-Hamed? You get pretty close to it in this video
This stuff is cutting edge and super interesting to me as an attempt to bridge the gap between GR and QM by reimagining the way we view the universe. Specifically relating to this video, the amplituhedron concepts allows theorists to completely side step Feynman diagrams and virtual particles entirely and still get the right answers for scattering amplitudes of particle collisions
I’ve never heard of any of this before, but I’m definitely gonna check Nima out. Popped up on my recommended a couple times but I never knew what his ‘deal’ was all about. Thank you for sharing that!
Just remembered we used to have a whole PBS channel dedicated to pure maths. Unfortunately got the axe. Would be nice to see Space Time throw us some slightly off-topic bones here and there since this is really all we got besides Eons now.
@@JamesonMusic808 Nima is awesome. He has some really cool talks on TH-cam from around 4 years ago. Him and his colleagues are working on some crazy stuff trying to reinvent the way we view and calculate particle collisions while getting the same answers.
His whole idea is that “space time is doomed” and we’ll never reconcile GR and QM without stepping outside of the rules of space time. A lot of it is crazy math that’s over my head, but the concept of the universe being more fundamental geometry from which spacetime itself emerges is super interesting to me
@@Jm-wt1fs th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
Monte Carlo always seems like magic. I mean, they always say "learn the theory first" but that method is more like "just give it a try" (or few tries). And it works!
Suppose a big black box you can grab items from. To be certain about its contents, you'd need to inspect every single item. If you don't have time for that, you can just pick 10 or so at random (to avoid bias and hence the casino name) and make an educated guess.
As a former physics student, I can't help but to be repeatedly blown away by the quality, precision, and relevance of the content on this channel.
I would postulate that in many respect, those 2 are somewhat equivalent:
- You could invest a full semester on a 3 credit undergrade (or event graduate) class on the content of any one or a few of those videos, so like 100 hours or something, and be able somewhat grasp the topics discussed here.
- You could watch a few related videos here while paying attention, making a mind map/taking notes and perhaps referring to outside content to clarify the bits & pieces that are glossed over a bit quickly/assumed to be understood. That's maybe 5-10 hours total.
Conclusion: PSB Spacetime feels about 10x more efficient at understanding those conceps than my post-secondary education. I was born a few years too early apparently.
* Of course, that's not entirely fair, no equations are solved here for the most part. But in terms of UNDERSTANDING the principles... I'd argue that many students can solve equation to pass an exam, but do not necessarlly understand the underlying idea.s
Well yes - understanding phenomena and their relation is a tiny part of studying physics, sometimes even left out for individual research or foreknowledge at the expense of being able to numerically grasp these relations and phenomena. If you're interested in learning about the workings of reality (and only that), studying physics has the chance to be a waste of your time as only phenomenology matters to answer these questions for you.
@@midnattsol6207 Part of my comment indeed (and somewhat disappointed wrt to some of my initial motivations in going into physics).
The other side of it also being that it's actually pretty hard to get to a distilled, concise and precise perspective on what those phenomenon actually mean just by studying them. Spacetime does this in a way that feels inaccessible about most topics, most of the time, for some random individiual
I didn't really begin to understand the fundamentals of Physics until at least a decade of teaching it at the college level.
@@logiconabstractions6596 th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
"If I tried to explain that too, we would be here all day" don't you dare threaten me with a good time Matt!
I watched a video about free will a while back that had me seeing the perspective of free will being an affect of having hind sight.
Then I thought to myself:
Because the past only really exists as information we hold (as memory), sentiments like “if only I’d done that” reaches for change in something we didn’t think about in the moment. There are things we definitely choose to do, but then the nuance of psychology creeps into view, “free will” isn’t something I worry about but it’s always a blast getting existential.
Absolutely masterful response to the half-life comment, bravo sir
You guys did a great job with topic selection. It's above my redundancy threshold and I'm perpetually entertained. Stay creative!!!
I've always wanted a video on this topic! Super interesting
Gold. That ending was pure gold.
Great video. Also thoroughly enjoyed the prospect of a PhD astrophysicist saying the word "Booba" because another PhD holder with that name asked a good question.
stays in a proton.
Chortle
haha that's a good one
If we can do this, could we simulate hydrogen / helium atoms "normally" and how they function when they fuse in stars as a potential means of learning how to create / finesse terrestrial viable fusion?
….are you saying we should make an artificial star? Because I wholeheartedly agree
We actually have no issues creating fusion, where fall short is not having it happen so fast.
@@MrWildbill in the current state of fusion energy we are unable to produce more energy than the energy required to generate it
I don't think how fusion occurs in stars can be emulated by us effectively. From what I understand the temperature in a star is far too low to cause fusion the way we create it on Earth. It occurs in stars via quantum tunnelling at an extremely infrequent rate, but because a star is so dense and has so many particles it still occurs frequently enough for it to shine.
@@halfnattyboomer354 are you saying that stars basically do operate by cold fusion already, and the only question regarding cold fusion is whether it can be replicated in terrestrial conditions that don't require the insane density at the heart of a star? Or rather, I suppose, whether we could reproduce such density on Earth with less energy input (to create the pressure needed to constrain the volume of the reaction chamber) than we'd get out of the reaction? Could exploiting naturally high-pressure terrestrial environments like the deep sea help in any way, or is that kind of pressure negligible compared to the stellar conditions we'd be looking to replicate?
I absolutely love this channel and have been watching and learning for a few years now, but after all this time, I have to wonder... Will Matt ever come back to earth? I mean, space is amazing but man.
Love that we've finally got a decent vid on QCD!
Another way to think about the Shrodinger's Glove from the comment replies: You put two gloves in the box, but instead of opening a box and seeing left or right handed, you measure to see whether the glove is left/right handed, or up/down handed, or front/back handed, and whichever you measure, the other will be the opposite if measured along the same axis.
WoW I was asking for this video a ~year ago and here we go... thank you 🥰
I love your videos, but I often find myself getting lost midway through...
However, I was absolutely gripped throughout this whole episode, and everything was explained exceptionally well!
Same, been watching for years, I’ve noticed I manage to average about the 9 minute mark then get completely lost haha
It makes me re-watch over and over and as I go I pause and Google, read about and absorb. Then watch the video yet again and stuff starts clicking in my brain and I can follow like 80% of the video, the last 20% I still don't get is the maths. I'm not sure I ever will, but I'm incredibly grateful the maths is included.
@@clearlisted No thanks, I don't fancy watching a narcissistic loon tell me all the other physics is wrong and only he is the person you can trust.
@@hyperduality2838 Have you seen the film "The Number 23"?
I just nod and pretend to be understanding everything
As a layman, my mind went 🤯 for the way you changed the calculation from particles to the fields themselves! It’s just genius.
Thanks for the upload.
I'm still trying to figure out what's inside Tontons.
So cool that you go in harder and harder topic! I can't wait to learn more!
I am far from someone who can understand it properly (becuase I am a 9th grader) but things like this make me excited for the future.
Gosh, I love this channel. Thank you for the amazing content! The dig at Half-life 3 at the end was over-the-top amazing 😂
It's actually night here and I'm watching this amazing video! Special thanks for giving glimpse of every important video required to understand a certain topic everytime! I'm not a very old subscriber thus, this really means a lot to me! I've been watching old videos consistently tho! Excited for more upcoming videos!
Matt: "Let's make sure we understand *exactly* what we are trying to do here."
Matt's next line: "We want the probability that some wiggly quantum field wiggles between one state and another."
Matt is god.
The best episodes of PBS Spacetime are those episodes that give me an unexpected insight. It does not happen often. This episode gave me an insight re the fine structure constant and what was really meant when it is described as a coupling constant of the electron with the em field. I had never considered what that meant in a Feinman diagram.
Dude got this figured out in '74. That's nuts
Isn’t the decay of particles usually caused by weak force interactions? How do you add the weak force into the lattice QCD calculations? is that even possible?
Right, particle decay is a weak interaction and can be simulated in lattice qcd. It’s complicated to explain but you can describe weak interactions using weak “currents”. So it depends on what you are interested in studying, for example if you want to study the energy spectrum (think tower of energy states ) that doesn’t involve any weak interactions. However, you will need to utilize weak currents for something like neutron beta decay because one of the down quarks will decay to an up quark. As for the leptons, their interactions can be added perturbatively into the calculations so you don’t need a full lattice calculation to describe its contribution.
it s weak so we assume it doesn t exist lol
Proton's don't decay, although neutrons do decay at a mysteriously slow rate.
Weak interactions should have a rather small effect in any hadron containing only light quarks. Adding weak interaction to QCD simulations would immediately increase already high computational requirements for negligible gains.
@@zackh1239 th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
You lost me at "If we..." but I'll keep trying to understand....
I watched this entire video pretending to understand. But atleast I learnt a few new things
I believe that the words "quantum" and "easy" have like linguistic charges. The closer they get in a sentence, the more difficult it is to make sense of the sentence.
I am interested and amazed by these videos even though they are way over my head.
Ive recently started thinking of fields and their particles as functioning somewhat like conways game of life. Stable oscilations are like particles, and unstable ones are like virtual particles. Theyre both made of fluctuations in the same pixel grid following the same rules, and the stable oscilations can generate unstable ones, which can influence other stable ones. These interactions can then lead to larger stable structures with new properties. Obviously the rules are very different so i dont mean its an accurate representation or anything, but its a concrete, visible, definable example of at least similar concepts, which to me forms a much better base for a mental image than saying "an electron spontaneously emits a virtual photon which is absorbed by another electron."
You'd like the Wolfram Physics Project
I like this perspective on qft. It helps wrap your mind around how an entire complex universe can unfold out of a few fields following relatively simple rules. All form arises based on which oscillations/patterns can sustainably exist and interact with each other to create greater complexity.
@@highimpactsexualviolence5512 you've read about this before?
@@GeoffryGifari I've done some basic research into Conway's Game of Life and cellular automata, watched some videos and messed around with some myself. The Primordial Particle System is especially fascinating because of how closely it seems to mirror real particle interactions/basic life forms. Cellular automata often model natural systems, from physics to chemistry and even biology. It seems that they demonstrate a universal principle of emergent complexity which is mirrored across all levels of existence.
interesting, but it is so classical that it implicitly introduces a gazillion quantum fallacies.
This is going to be quite a crazy episode I bet EDIT : it was although I would've liked to have dug deeper into simulations, how they work and what we've accomplished so far in that domain.
Don't electron meet the definition of free will
It would be cool to have a collaboration with Computerphile to explain the simulation side
@@osmosisjones4912 how so?
"That's not a proton, that's just three quarks in a trenchcoat."
The high-quality graphics you employ in your videos is probably one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Its potential is unlimited, it has the power to visually explain things I wouldn't understand otherwise.
I am a Frontend engineering in IT. These videos are not related with my field but i love to watch this kind of videos before sleep. Thanks for the video. 🙂
Love the way this man breaks complex things down. I would’ve love to have him as my Physics instructors
Awesome to have virtual particles clarified. I heard they obeyed no conservation law and always had me greatly confused.
It would be very nice if you further delved into particles, because It seems everything can be regarded as a particle, which is a bit confusing. I'm thinking of phonons and excitons, for example. Or of gravitons, which is at the same time "not a force" and mediated through particles.
You heard wrong. Virtual particles do obey conservation laws. They always conserve energy and momentum. And via pair production they also conserve charge, spin, etc.
Actually there are no virtual particles, space is likely discreet, following rules we don't understand yet. ""Virtual particles"" are what have been made up as a placeholder for our best guess at what's going on.
It's like how we have "fluid dynamics", but really it's a bunch of atoms bumping into each other and we just can't calculate it...
Pretty sure virtual particles are the justification for why Hawkins radiation causes black holes to eventually “evaporate” mass
@@ryanbloom850 No, you can follow a lattice approach as well and still see Hawking radiation, which is nice since that means it's not an artifact of one mathematical approach.
@@garethdean6382 Yeah there are even other approaches which can arrive at hawking radiation and similar properties, at the very least it isn't hard to show based on the results of the "No big crunch theorem" derived via proof by self contradiction in "Inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology", cited as Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022, that if we limit ourselves to the set of solutions of the Einstein field equations in a nontrivial flat or open universe that don't run into the issues with logical self contradiction identified above then information is always conserved, the arrow of time becomes fixed relative to whether the universe was initially expanding or contracting with the laws of thermodynamics automatically arising as universal constraints on allowable total variation within the metric curvature of the universe.
And as information naturally appears via the principals of propagating the initial conditions of the universe radially outwards in space over slices of time we can apply an integration of all possible(or impossible) paths and in this case the individual time slices should represent a cosmological event horizon which will have a definite entropy making it homologous to Hawking radiation mathematically aside from proportionality constants.
A black hole event horizon in this limit doesn't really work in the same way in this metamathematical limiting case for general validity of solutions to the Einstein field equations since they aren't cosmologically sized like the limiting case looked at, but it should provide some insights there as well.
For one thing by showing that off diagonal terms of the metric tensor can never match(i.e. the off diagonal terms must always be nonzero for any and all valid solutions to the Einstein field equations in any nontrivial flat or open universe) does potentially implicate that gravity is inherently symmetry breaking and thus in the quantum limit must be composed of purely asymmetric wavefunctions. As such wavefunctions in quantum mechanics can never share the same state i.e. all combinations are equally unique states also known as the Pauli exclusion principal. Though in this case the math might be best described in terms of wormholes in a complex space but I digress point is hawking radiation can be derived via other means too at least in the case of cosmological event horizons.
I am so happy this channel is starting to cover some QCD! It is one of the mist interesting areas of physics to me :)
Simply BEAUTIFUL !
The hl3 q&a is my favourite in the whole series and actually made me lol
Very good video, I love this computational physics stuff! I always wondered why we never did computations with fields as the fundamental elements instead of particles -- turns out it's just because it's wayyyyyy harder.
I'm looking forward to the upcoming QCD episode(s)! This one was fascinating. It's astounding how clever dedicated mathematicians and physicists can be.
Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. ✝️ :)
If every proton is indistinguishable, how can any of their interiors be an ever shifting bubbling mess of quarks and gluons....they're all identical at all times?
good question, i dont know but i would guess that the time scales of the shifting bubbling mess is so small that the differences they may cause in the properties of protons like their mass is so so tiny that it we may as well think of them as being the exact same. again this is just my guess
since these are quantum properties, i would imagine they are statistically identical, but instantly different.
I think you are confusing them with electrons, or other fundamental particles.
@@alvarorodriguez1592 well, they're not fundamental particles, but that doesn't mean they aren't indistinguishable (other than spin....just like electrons). If I were wrong, there would be no nuclear shell model ruled by the Pauli-exlusion-pinciple.
This hinges on what we mean by 'identical'. For example, the electrons in helium atoms are 'identical' even if orbiting a He-4 or He-3 nucleus. They are not strictly identical but identical ENOUGH for things like Pauli exclusion to prevent helium atoms just phasing through one another.
Protons are identical in mass, charge, spin and other properties AT THE SCALE OF NUCLEI. But that doesn't mean their interiors must be identical. And on smaller scales we very much see different outcomes from repeatedly slamming two 'identical' particles together.
Indeed the Pauli exclusion principle exists because it's impossible for two fermions to be exactly identical, in everything including their position in spacetime. Some difference must be maintained.
That video "lucidified" (is that such a word?) QCD and lattices for me. Greatly. Thanks once again, Matt, for making the seemingly intangible tangible.
Elucidated
Phenomenal explanation of a complex topic. Space Time's years of scientific communication are showing. I'm very glad to be on this trip to explain the roots of our reality, as best we know.
A lot of this should probably be covered in an introductory quantum physics course. Not the math, just discussion of the concepts. It would go a long way toward dispelling some of the myths to pop up around quantum mechanics.
QED and QCD are way beyond intro QM.
@@michaelsommers2356 QED and QCD are way beyond an intro QM course, but not a youtube video ment for mass consumption.
@@Harkmagic QM courses, even intro courses, are not meant for "mass consumption". If the students in such a course want to consume popular science presentations of more advanced topics, they can do so, but such presentations don't belong in the classroom, because there is already too much to cover that time can't be wasted on the non-essentials.
@@michaelsommers2356 I've been through those QM courses. The stuff here is nearly essential concepts any student should know before getting to deep into a QM education simply to avoid misunderstandings that can arise from the limitations of a early QM education. You can move it around for the convince purposes, for example my university has a Modern Physics course that is pretty much a general overview of the developments of the early 20th century and serves as a pre-req to all higher physics courses. Sticking this discussion in the QM section might be a good fit.
Misunderstandings and even mysticism abound in the study of anything quantum and nobody will ever get me to budge from the position that topics that serve to clear up misunderstandings and drive away the mysticism should be an essential aspect early QM education.
@@Harkmagic I didn't get any mysticism in any of my modern physics or quantum mechanics courses.
*My issue with entanglement is simply; How are we saying that once we entangle a pair, neither pair has since been entangled or disrupted in some way?*
If a random particle could generate in or close to the some space as one of the entangled pairs, is it not possible this particle could either entangle or disrupt our "original" entanglement? If I'm being stupid, fine, but if I'm not it would be nice to have this addressed.
Yes, that's part of why entanglement experiments and quantum computers are kept so cold. The less heat in the system, the less of a decoherence problem you have. I can't cite specifically, but this has been addressed in prior episodes.
This is an issue, and a detectable one. For example, if entangled pairs are 'broken' early, they'll be in the same environment. So, if you picked some fancy spin axis to measure, you'll get the wrong results since their spins were measured soon after they were created. This allows us to test setups for how well they preserve entanglement.
@@garethdean6382 That's kind of my question, you haven't answered it.. For example we entangle a pair, then .05 milliseconds or 2 million years pass, before we take a measurement ......HOW do we know that the 'other' has or has not had the bond broken?
What's the method or whatever for determining if this or the OTHER has been interfered with in a fashion that breaks the bond? (so to speak)
@@ldeadpirate9432 I won't pretend I'm an expert on this, but I can tell you how I justify this in my ameteur mind. I believe the answer to your question "HOW do we know that the . . . " is "we don't." The reason why entanglement is believed in is not because it can be shown to work in individual trials. Instead, we can perform experiments (to be repeated countless times) on particle pairs believed to be not entangled and then perform those same experiments (again, to be repeated countless times) on particle pairs believed to be entangled. It happens that results are, on average (and only on average since, as you point out, we can never be certain that our entangled particles ALWAYS remain entangled), very different for the pairs believed to be entangled.
I'll remind you once more this is merely my amateur interpretation. I believe this answers your question as it shows how we can understand entanglement *without possessing tools to guarantee any single trial involving entangled particles is 100% uninterrupted by external disturbances.*
@@ldeadpirate9432 Quite simply speaking you can't, only comparing the results of the two experiments measuring an entangled pair afterwards can actually answer this which is one of the reasons quantum entanglement can't convey information FTL. Basically you can never know who broke the entanglement only that the entangled state was broken. If neither measurement was the one to break the entanglement then you run into the other problem with such a test as entangled states can easily be disentangled long before any measurements can be performed.
The most profound bit of this video is easy to miss: "If you just draw a straight trendline through your simulation results, you can find out your neutron mass in the case of zero spacing: a continuous spacetime." We're very much living in reality, the universe is not a simulation.
They could have just simulated two different universes with different spacings, then ran a third simulation using the 'straight trendline'.
This definitely does not disprove the Simulation Hypothesis, if that's what you were suggesting. The appearance of a continuous spacetime could very well be the result of some deeper underlying calculation we haven't found yet. All this fuzziness we perceive could be due to rounding errors or geometric anomalies from the source calculations that are impossible for us to fully reverse-engineer from this side. The simulation itself could even be tampering with our machines or feeding us data that gives the appearance of a continuous spacetime. Or the fabric of the simulation could be actually built out of true continuous fields using some kind of technology or math we can't comprehend, or that might even be impossible from within the simulation. The Simulation Hypothesis is literally impossible to disprove, which is precisely the problem with it.
@@DoctorT144 Not really. Simulation Hypotheses seem to downplay the role of reflexive self-consciousness. I am my own consciousness therefore I can't - by definition - be a simulation of myself. Functionally, the mechanics of reality are irrelevant to a consciousness which transcends it by being able to reflect on it. It makes no difference whether it's a simulation as long as it works. Philosophically, it's an interesting concept but not much else.
I grok what you are saying...you are suggesting that a simulated universe would be digital and "pixelated" at its most fundamental level, so mass values consistent with a continuous, analog fabric of spacetime suggest that we must live in a "real" universe. But what if there is nothing beyond math and information? Fields might ultimately only be mathematical constructs manipulated by operations running on an extra-universal computer. Numerical values can can be divided and multiplied infinitely. And anything with a discrete presence, such as particles and their associated properties, might only be informational bits manipulated by the ultimate game engine.
@@ubergroov Yea ok, and maybe the universe was magically spoken into being by an almighty God who exists transcendent of space and time in heaven. I just don't see the point of these appeals to simulation. In any case, even if the universe were simulated, my consciousness definitely is not because I can't be a simulation of myself, unless I were not myself, which is illogical.
In 1974 I was working on an IBM/360-50 with 512k of core storage, as RAM was called back then. ("Core" as in "central". Physically, it consisted of magnetic donuts strung on wires; the donuts came to be known as "cores".)
Lattice QCD absolutely blows my mind. The idea of simulating a complex system at several abstraction levels, then interpolating along the common errors to calculate the real infinitesimal value, is insane to me. Never even crossed my mind. Where else could we use this approach? Just wow.
I think it's pretty common. We're just lucky it doesn't diverge.
You managed to get me interested in Lattice QCD, I hope to learn more in the future.
Anyway, doesn't the fact that the correct particle mass is found only for a strictly continuous space strongly suggest that there's no ultimate "quantization" of space-time and, thus, that ramming against General Relativity with the argument that it is "classical" (seamless, continuous) is probably a wrong approach?
Not really, the pixelation could be too small to be noticed with current experiment results
Something something Planck length
@@JRush374 100! It's 10^20 times smaller than a proton, while a proton is 10^20 x smaller than 100 km. It's just small af.
When plottiong a trend line on lattice QCD, how was it dtermined that when approaching zero spacing the trend line does not curve down to to a much smaller value - similar to the way that extreme gravity bends Space Time?
I think he was saying that it forms a *straight* line.
But how do you know It keeps being straight even at points you have not checked?
In the case of the neutron, measuring its mass is "easy", so it validates the computational approach.
@@alvarorodriguez1592 well, possibly you could come up with an argument based on the math of the simulations, but, even if not, then you just have the philosophical problem of induction, of why to expect future observations of anything to match patterns in previous observations.
His example was about the neutron mass, which is something that has been measured by other methods. So all they would have to do is compare both results and see if they match
It would be nice if it was so easy. Maybe in this case it is, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I really must try and understand your videos properly. You have a great way of explaining this stuff but by the time I get the first bit, I am left behind by the next 🤣🤣👍
Most of the cosmological videos I get relatively well but yeah these ones get me quite a lot though I'm very fascinated.
I'm sure my biggest problem is I've never been very good with mathematics and that is a basically the core factor here.
15:29
There's something special about seeing a user named "i, booba" with that profile picture who has a PhD in Chemical Physics. :)
What happens inside a proton stays inside a proton.
Is that 1/137 probability related to the Fine Structure Constant?
*watches the next 10 seconds*
Oh.
Interesting explanation, your clarity of thought is good. Can you go on to describe heavy quarks in the proton.
really love listening to matt talk about cuacks
This explained to me subatomic particles better than any chart ever could!
Awesome how every time we figure out how to perceive things bigger, farther, closer, or smaller; we find something 🤔
I mean, we are babies in terms of technological scales. Even in the far future, we will continue to find new things
@@Jack_Redview maybe we reach knowledge stagnation, literally not being able to understand depper just because there is no way for us
The fact of this leads me to believe that this process may continue infinitely
Yes. We might live in a fractal. who knows?
@@flowerfullgirl_ yeah, maybe. But that maybe is still so far away. We are cosmic babies. Let’s just hope the great filter is behind us and not ahead! 😆
Is it me or does it seem like the deeper we go in these things the less they make sense. Perhaps we need to evolve further in our thinking and understanding before we can get to this next level.
If that's the case then there are more exciting times ahead.
No. That's been the experience of physicists for the past 150 years.
The only way to achieve such an evolution is to make it happen consciously. I don't expect the mechanics of survival and natural selection to do it for us. Luckily, the best way to make that happen is science :)
The not making sense part tends to be solved through studying. No need for implanting Instagram in your brain for that. Glue and a chair will do.
Nah, they don't make less sense, it's just that our tools are less well equipped (including our brains).
I’d like you to grow a mighty beard. It’ll help me learn
I love the fact that there is a program that goes somewhat in-depth in physics. It is a rare find in my experience.
Cool! Never knew about Latice QCD until this video
I enjoy these videos. They help keep me grounded and stop me thinking that I'm even remotely intelligent
this makes as much sense to me as explaining how ddr5 timings work..., i love it XD
I confess I don’t understand all of this in spite of an engineering degree and four years at Princeton University where Feynman taught, but nevertheless I found this video NEXT LEVEL FASCINATING! MORE of this PLEASE.
I asked this question in your feedback form a while back!
Not sure how much those forms direct your content, but it’s great to see you making stuff in the direction my mind goes
I would love all these videos organized into a playlist ordered by increasing complicity so new ppl can get started
I'm so excited about what this channel is diving into.
Your explanation of the spin axis and quantum entanglement at the 18:20 mark is excellent. That's the first time it finally "clicked" for me in regards to understanding it. Thanks for continuing to make such great content!
th-cam.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/w-d-xo.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)