If you found yourself lost in this video or if you want to brush up on some of the background information, here are some videos I made that will help: An overview of how All Fundamental Forces work: th-cam.com/video/xZqID1zSm0k/w-d-xo.html All Fundamental Particles and Forces Visualized: th-cam.com/video/TDYex6VSd7o/w-d-xo.html Maxwell's Equations: th-cam.com/video/FSEJ4YLXtt8/w-d-xo.html Quantum Electrodynamics (QED): th-cam.com/video/PutOOpAkjQ4/w-d-xo.html Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD): th-cam.com/video/KnbrRhkJCRk/w-d-xo.html
In a article on TH-cam giving proofs of existance of god one proof is symmetry. After watching Arvin Ash although not fully understood it can be said symmetry is in physics and so is god
@@sabbirpachorawala8797 its really how you choose to percieve it. To some its "awareness", to others "conciousness", "god" and yet to others its "symmetry." One way or another they all get there in the end but to focus on one and deny the others is only self limiting.
I have a question, ahora sí, I saw the entire vídeo. When it say SU3 theory, for the quantum chromodinamics, have 8 Gell-man matrixes of 3x3 of the SU3, it says that need 8 dimensions, ¿that dimensions are abstract and complex or 8 extra spacial dimensions? If I want to do a theory like kaluza klein and parametrize the shape of the universe, the SU3, ¿can be necesarialy a hyperspherical space surface of eight dimensions (8D sphere with a surface of 7 variables)? And this is a hypercylinder when the SU3 is a base and the heigh or hyper line is the 4D spacial dimensions. Grewtings from Chile🇨🇱🇨🇱👋👋
I have no knowledge of these complex maths. But I still like listening to your explanations. Sometimes I get some vague idea and sometimes clear. I learn something new. I wish I knew math well.
@@waldwassermann This is true of all of Physics - the least complex of all the scientific disciplines. (and the highest reliance on spherical cows and idealistic stochastic convenient nonsense.
@@PetraKann Yes. It almost feels that some in the field of science including but not limited to cosmology purposely circumnavigate the truth to safeguard their paycheck.
I cannot take this off of my WATCH LATER list after watching it, as I need to watch it again (...and again). Thanks for presenting some really deep stuff as simply as possible.
Excelent video, well explained. Can someone solve a question that I have? why does we ask the Lagrangian to fulfill for instance the U(1) symmetry a priori, without knowing that this Will give us the EM interaction? thanks
Your presentation is pithy and entertaining. The visuals really clarify the ideas.. I have read about Dirac and symmetry but haven’t had much comprehension. So thanks. Btw for those who haven’t read the biography The Strangest Man by Farmelo about Dirac: it’s a good read,
So humour me here Arvin. Please. So H bar is a symmetry you say. This nice visualisation you guys did here clicks with me because from watching random stuff with Sean Carroll, Susskind and Brian Greene. I heard the H bar before and it was like something over 2 pi. Maybe? Again, humour me. I really liked this post because I sort of get it now. It’s all about the polar coordinates. The spin. The circle. The way to just describe it. That mention that you can reduce the description to on lesser description just twigged with me. Bit like when I realised what exponent differential equations or calculus really was just about.
It may be true faces get progressively "prettier" or more attractive the more they approach symmetry, but if they hit perfect symmetry they're gonna be creepy instead of pretty. The face cannot avoid vertical lopsidedness, meaning if you draw a horizontal line between the pupils and edges of nose and mouth, they may line up horizontally, but now trace a vertical line through the middle of those horizontal lines and you'll see that vertical line is slightly crooked and it's supposed to be, otherwise the faces get creepy. Facial recognition software programmers can tell you that the crookedness of that vertical line is also an important identity-identifier in the recognition software.
0 and ♾ are all that really exists in this universe. Both are concepts, that’s why they are abstract, and don’t really interact tangibly with measurable entities, for instance numbers. Numbers are finite individually and infinite collectively. Even if we divide a number for an infinite number of times, we still need other numbers to divide a particular number infinitely. But on its own, a number is a finite entity. Again, a number can have infinite copies of itself in any condition anywhere in the universe. To illustrate, a number such as 1 is of same value on Earth, Mars or Andromeda. Thus, all that physically exists is finite on its own, but collectively is potentially infinite. For example, the Universe. As the numbers start interacting with each other, infinite permutations and combinations occur, through symmetry using fractal laws, a.k.a physics. There will never be one theory of everything, as systems would interact in infinite ways. To conclude, numbers can divide, multiply, et al with each other without there being any need of time and space. It’s just that some of these interactions have become self-aware and they sense it as physical world vs abstract. These interactions are steady state in nature.
This is a very good explanation, I really enjoyed the insight of going from discrete to continuous symmetries. To be nitpicky though I think there is a precision worth mentionning : the Lagrangian of a Dirac fermion *does* obey U(1) symmetry. Or at least it obeys it globally : the complex phase of the wavefunction has no physical meaning and can be shifted globally as one wishes. And the conservation of electric charge comes from this already. The problem is not that the Lagrangian does not satisfy U(1) symmetry, which it does, but it's that it does not satisfy it *locally* , in the sense that the symmetry doesn't hold if the complex angle by which we rotate the wavefunction is not the same everywhere in space. It is by ensuring that the Lagrangian is symmetric even locally that the electromagnetic force appears. Gauge symmetries are all about local symmetries.
Thanks for your comment. I always appreciate the nit picks because these will always exist in a 15 minute video about complex topics. The key is not to leave out the relevant details, which I try not to do. In this case, I did not feel this was relevant. While what you said is correct, it is a special case for U1 as SU2 and SU3 only works globally for the QED lagrangian equation. Global U1 just allows you to shift the wavefunction but it doesn't give you interaction of electric charge which results in a force. The main message I wanted to impart in this video is the link between symmetries and fundamental forces. Of course, it would have been quite easy to make this into a 45 minute video going into a lot more detail, but then I don't want to go back to being a college lecturer. Thanks for watching my friend, and your comment.
@@ArvinAsh I get what your goal was and I agree, I just wanted to point that out because I think some people might have been confused if they tried applying the transformation to the Lagrangian and witness that it is invariant. "Global U1 just allows you to shift the wavefunction but it doesn't have anything to do with electric charge" : I'm not sure why you say that the global U(1) charge is not related to electric charge, since it precisely counts positrons and electrons with opposite signs. Is your point that the coupling constant "e" only appears when gauging the Lagrangian ? Because I think the Noether current generated by the global U(1) symmetry is in fact electric charge. "it is a special case for U1 as SU2 and SU3 only works locally" : I might be mistaken, but if SU(2) and SU(3) symmetries work locally, they also work globally, since a global transformation is a special case of a local transformation.
@@ScienceClicEN Let me clarify. Yes U1 is related to electric charge, but it doesn't give you the force, which is what we care about. SU2 and SU3, if they work locally, will also work globally. But they work locally only when considering the Standard Model, not the QED Lagrangian equation. I fixed my comment to reflect this. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. Your animations, BTW, are quite good.
@@ArvinAsh Okay yes I think we agree, it is indeed the local U(1) symmetry which creates the interaction between charges, even though the charge in itself appears even with the global symmetry alone. Thank you! Sorry for the nitpicking, I found your video very pedagogical overall, just wanted to add these details for people who might be interested.
Thermal energy is unidirectional flow outward force of pressure known as weight. It cycles in quantum gravitational fields of forced flow. Magnetic fields are grander examples of quantum gravitational fields of forced cycling patterns of flow. The thermal force is cycling in quantum gravitational fields of forced flow in patterns of mass. It is all cobined forces in various degrees of frequencies interactions. It is a one way singularity frequency in momentum outside of entanglement, repelled by cold resistance of space. Space is full of these singularity frequencies and vibrates as a field of cold resistance. Thermal energy and cold resistance retain their values in and out of entanglement. Momentum of repulsion stays at a constant velocity in and out of entanglement. Quantum gravitational fields are force fields cycling, holding mass together in equalization of resistance. As mass vibrates through space, it vibrates proximity space. The momentum of Planets vibrating through space, vibrate space. Occupied space of mass transfers resistance through it as it passes point to point. Space is a stationary cold field full of thermal energy singularities spiraling throughput space. As mass in entanglement like a planet is repelled in forward momentum, it vibrates through it interacting with it, and vibrates proximity space. As the planets momentum continues the magnetic field is forced to cycle back into itself. Quantum gravitational fields work the same way in the vibrating field of space. Occupied space by mass is the weakest point of resistance which is occupied in equalization of entanglement. Thermal energy is the only force known in different degrees of contained gravitational fields. Electricity is weight. Outward force. Thermal energy released from gravitational fields of cycling patterns in disrupted flow. Thermal energy is outward force of pressure known as weight. The contained gravitational fields of forced flow cycling through mass in area and thermal energy defines its weight. Periodic table of elements proves hypothesis. Outward force is unidirectional flow and is the only force. It cycles in mass. All other forces are thermal energy releases from gravitational field of forced flow. Like opening a valve a little bit, or wide open. And everything in between. Thermal energy and cold resistance. Perpetual motion. Harmonics harmonization of flow. Thermal energy is all mass in resistance in momentum. Resistance in mass is repulsion of force. Force is thermal energy singularity momentum retaining its value in mass in forced gravitational fields of cycling patterns. Disrupted gravitational fields, releases thermal energy in degress of momentum, or all at once. Outward force is thermal energy momentum in resistance to cold. Thermal energy and cold space don't mix. Forced fields of flow hold mass in cycling patterns. Magnetic fields prove it. We vibrate in a vibrating universal field of vibrating quatum space. It's finite. Alpha and Omega. Everything in between. Thermal energy is outward force unidirectional flow. Entanglement cycles this flow in degrees up and down the scale of frequencies. It is counterclockwise vs clockwise. Thermal energy and cold resistance. Perpetual motion cycling. It is momentum coming and going. It is positive and negative. It is the universal flow of unidirectional flow. It only flows in repulsion of resistance to cold in one direction, but entanglement causes it into forced fields of cycling patterns. Mass disrupts these patterns by interactions or collisions. One universal flow of vibrating quantum field of cold resistance. Cold points don't mix with thermal energy. Resistance is thermal energy singularity spiraling in momentum around these cold points in the fabric that is space, spiraling is the frequency quantum vibrating. Vibrations weaken the field proximity. Other singularities spiraling nearby trajectories curve towards these weakened areas of space and harmonization begins entanglement the lead frequencies of momentum repelled back through space in proximity to entanglement and begin to cycle through creating mass in forced fields of cycling patterns. Cold points are stationary fabric of space. Momentum of thermodynamics spiraling throughput space, exchange points in momentum of forward vibrations, as mass passes out of occupied space, reinforcement of momentum is amplification of proximity space surrounding mass out of equalization. One universal quatum force is foward momentum of thermal energy singularity frequency. Outward force. Name a element that doesn't have weight. Name a material that doesn't have thermal energy present cycling. Space has cycling material in entanglement. Space is vibrating as dark energy. You can only detect thermal energy in entanglement with entanglement. Vibrations nullified by vibrations in collisions. Patterns disrupted. Theoretically gravity is vibrations transferring thermal energy to proximity space. The apple vibrates to the weakest point of resistance which is occupied areas of space also vibrating. Quantum fields cycling thermal energy resist other quantum fields cycling thermal energy. Resistance stripping away thermal energy cycling in quantum fields is decay if thermal energy cycling can't be replaced. The apple rots. The thermal energy frequencies can tell us it is decaying by sight, sound, smell, taste, and texture. Cold resistance removing thermal energy unable to recycle is decay. Velocity of momentum in space vibrating increasingly faster than our quatum cycling patterns can maintain would age us faster. The faster we vibrate the faster we decay if we can't replenish thermal energy cycling through us. Resistance of cold space would stripp us of thermal energy cycling at increased velocities. We would age rapidly. Equalization couldn't be maintained in resistance to cycling our patterns of fluidity of necessary thermal energy cycling in us for renewable energy. Even if we could speed up our cycling, we would still age faster. Every action has an equal reaction. Thermal energy is outward unidirectional forward momentum of force. It is all known force in different degrees of resistance releasing thermal energy cycling out of patterns of renewable energy into vibrations of momentum repelled by cold resistance throughout space as various frequencies of outward force.
Could the relatively newly discovered time symmetry inherent in "time crystals" help us understand the "force" of gravity? Time and gravity are so intrinsically tied together.
I think that's unlikely. Gravity isn't actually a force like the others, it's a natural consequence of spacetime and relativity. I doubt there's a graviton, or that time crystals will be useful for understanding it.
@@Tanath No one knows what causes gravity so you're wrong to say it's consequence of XYZ. Let's say you make the objection: "it's curved spacetime that causes gravity; near Earth spacetime is curved so objects fall towards earth" If this is true then the thing that caused the spacetime to curve is the thing that causes gravity. But physicists don't know why spacetime's curved around Earth. It could've been Merlin the Lord Buddha for all physicsts know. It could've been time crystals.
@@alwaysdisputin9930 you're still operating under the assumption that gravity is "caused" by something as if it's a force, when in reality it's an illusion. When I say it's a natural consequence of the curvature of spacetime, I mean that's sufficient to explain gravity in general. It's actually well understood by physicists. The thing that's not understood is how it works with quantum mechanics. See here for instance: th-cam.com/video/qyxx7hzmwj0/w-d-xo.html as well as th-cam.com/video/XRr1kaXKBsU/w-d-xo.html
@@Tanath Either 1) spacetime curved for no reason whatsoever or 2) it curved because something caused it to curve. There's no other possibility. Therefore I'm just relying on logic not "assumption". Physicsts don't know what 2) could possibly be & you're completely wrong to say they do - they often lie that they know but it's just complete bullshit & all your links are total BS & all your explanations of what causes gravity will also be total BS regardless of whether or not you dress it up as "natural consequence of XYZ" you're still asserting gravity is caused & you don't know what caused it.
@@alwaysdisputin9930 you seem to be getting worked up over what I'm confident is a miscommunication. I assumed you knew (that physicists know) gravity (curvature) is caused by mass. My links were not "BS", they're good sources and help clarify & support what I'm trying to say.
One might ask how it is that symmetry comes about in the first place. I would suggest that if everything comes from nothing, that breaking down nothing forces a symmetry. One easy way to see this is (-1) + (1) = 0 . The total to nothing is conserved and implies a symmetry.
So Arvin do you believe that reality stems from math or that math describes reality? Or as I like to say math is man's best attempt to describe what he only partially understands or what he is trying to comprehend. The day where we are all knowing and 100% understand everything there is to know is far, far off in the future imo. I seriously doubt that day will ever come for several reasons. For example the universe has already expanded to the point that light from the outer limits will never reach us. Is there an edge to the universe? Is the universe infinite? We don't know what we don't know and we never can study these things. We can never see back to what was before the big bang can we? If there are parallel universes it's unlikely we will ever reach them. If there are higher dimensions it's likely impossible that we could exist in them to study them.
You make it complicated... Lol None of the math is right. It's all approximations. Even Einstein knew his theory wasn't correct. That's why he was working on a "Theory of everything" when he died. Relativity and quantum mechanics don't play well together. Actually, they don't play together at all. So we know they're wrong. They're just VERY close in most cases. But LOT'S of things are broken. For example, according to the math, the neutrino absolutely can not exist.......🙀
If these 3 symmetries are so fundamental to the wave functions of matter particles, then why does the electromagnetic force only affect quarks and half of the leptons? Why does the strong force only affect quarks? Why should the weak force affect all of the fermions?
Do symmetries like rotation and reflection actually happen in nature, without human being doing it? Are conserved quantities in nature happening because symmetries have actual existence?
If particles are in superposition then spacetime curvature caused by them is also in superposition.particles in superposition interact gravitationally with collapsed particles in the same way particles in superposition interact electromagnetically with collapsed particles.gravitational effect of spacetime in superposition should be explained in the same way electromagnetic effect of particle in superposition happens and we know everything about electromagnetism.this must be correct theory of quantum gravity.
Just like how its done on the cathedral of Notredame where you line up the symbol for the philosophers stone with the round window it matches the circle in the symbols middle what is more that dot in its middle represents the one or gold. Then the doors archway on the left has angle too it just like in the pic with the guy takeing his compass to the philosophers stone symbol. The right side door has not this. Whats more on each side of the triangle an circle the other smaller ones on each side line up as well. One for the sun one for the moon.
Always enjoyable watching your shows. But this quantum mechanics is so weird. But I’m pretty sure I understand it better than when I started 15 years ago. So small steps is still a kind of progress!
Equilibrium is at the foundation of the universe, not rotation, reflection, and/or symmetry. Wonder and second guessing quantum mechas. are the tools of deceit, as equalizing is to equilibrium.
The U(1)×SU(2) group actually combine into a single group called the electroweak symmetry. This symmetry is broken by the higgs field, creating a completely different U(1) group for electromagnetism, sometimes denoted U_em(1) to differentiate it. The weak force remaims completely broken and doesn't actually have a symmetry group.
Amazing video, as always. Also, thank you for including some governing equations. Many authors/creators/producers avoid including any mathematical equations because they fear it would intimidate their audience. So, it is refreshing to see some maths equations not only being included, but also being clearly explained. Thank you for respecting our intelligence enough to include some maths. Excellent work. I'm looking forward to your next video
The equations here were, IMO, *not* clearly explained, even just to the degree that would be relevant to the point being made. (Like, I’m not saying that he should have said “this upper index mu here and this lower index mu here is an example of einstein summation notation, where we sum up the versions of it where mu ranges among the t,x,y,z coordinates. These gamma symbols are blah blah and obey these commutation relations, and this partial here is partial derivative along the axis labeled by mu” I’m saying that he acted like he had demonstrated how something would be not symmetric under some particular transformation, but had not demonstrated that. I don’t even mean that he didn’t prove it. I mean he didn’t seem to showcase it.)
Howdy Arwin! Here again from Perú. Just watched your video. I had to watch it three times to repeat the dopamine rush! Thank you so much for your wonderful CLARITY. There is so much BEAUTY in it! Thank you.
@@schmetterling4477 of course , same recognition as einstein gets, because her theorems form the foundations of modern physics and mathematical physics. And also, she revolutionized maths too, with her pioneering work in abstract algebra and topology.
@@schmetterling4477 and who are you to talk about nature kid 😂, you haven't produced any work in physics yet, so come back when you actually contribute something to physics or any subject for that matter.
@@devamjani8041 Who am I? I am a physics PhD who deigned the core component of one of the world's largest high energy physics detectors. What did you do, except for sex and drugs and Rock'n Roll? ;-)
Every process in the universe favors the formation of high symmetry objects. I believe the reason is to use the less possible energy and to use less information to increase the entropy. I have seen these patterns while working on my research project and by studying Claude Shannon's information theory.
This is a great video to get started on how Symmetry leads to the Standard Model. It provides a learning path, tells you what you have to go away and study more deeply elsewhere if you are going to get to the bottom of this subject. We learn that symmetries lead to conserved quantities, Noether's theorem, generators, Euler's number, then rotation in a complex plane, the symmetry groups U(1), SU(2), SU(3). Most other videos assume that you already know stuff. This is the very best "beginning "video that I've found. I feel orientated.
@@wecas9596 Maybe you are looking for information that isn't here. This is just an introduction. We learn the idea that every continuous symmetry leads to a conservation law, but this doesn't go into enough detail to explain why. For that you need something like the book "Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem" by Dwight E. Neuenschwander. I've got as far as page 6 in that book and I'm struggling a bit already. I'd like to understand why Time Translation Symmetry leads to Conservation of ENERGY and Spatial Translation Symmetry leads to conservation of Momentum and not vice versa. After all the formulae for these two conserved quantities are very similar both involving just mass and velocity.
I looks to me that symmetrical objects are more "stable" than irregular ones. A force acting on an irregular object tends to reduce those irregularities. Round pebbles in a stream are a good example.
It's not so much that they're stable, it's that round shapes have more entropy than irregular shaped pebbles. Why? Because there are far more ways for that pebble to become rounded. Irregular shapes have less entropy because they are essentially all unique. How many ways can you get this pebble to have this exact shape? Not as many. So they have low entropy.
6:42 Doesn't Dark Energy violate what is said at this point in the video? Space Translation Symetry that the laws of physics are same everywhere in the universe to paraphrase .... Yet as space expands it is expanding faster and faster. It isn't the same everywhere now is it?
15:23 Curiously, I've also come across the sequence 1, 3, 8 in Ramanujan's continued fractions related to the three symmetries of the Platonic solids. Note that the ONLY integers n > 1 such that 24/(n^2-1) is also an integer are 5, 3, 2, yielding the aforementioned 1, 3, 8. The integer n=5, of course, figures prominently in the Rogers-Ramanujan continued fraction and icosahedral symmetry. There are analogous continued fractions involving n=3 (for tetrahedral symmetry) and n=2 (for octahedral symmetry.) Hmm, I wonder if there is a connection?
Hi, is 24 chosen artificially or is there something there? Because I guess for any triplet you can generate another triplet by engineering a function such as 24/(n^2-1). Or you mean they are the same symmetry groups and that's the number of generators?
@@summerQuanta No, the integer 24 is not chosen artificially. It arises naturally in a lot of number theoretic contexts such as the Dedekind eta function which has the factor q^(1/24), or the 24-dimensional Leech lattice, etc, etc. For some reason, the Dedekind eta function can express those 3 Ramanujan-type continued fractions, and for some reason those 3 cfracs are connected to the 3 Platonic symmetry groups. Now it turns out the sequence 1, 3, 8 is the number of bosons of 3 fundamental forces. I don't know if it is just coincidence, but Felix Klein and Ramanujan, wherever they are now, would have known more.
Hey Arvin - mind if I make a quick observation and unsolicited suggestion? I'm a long-time viewer and I've noticed that your videos are much louder than other videos. I hope I'm not overstepping here, but might I suggest having your audio normalized with a peak of -3dB? I know there's no industry standard or anything, but I'm pretty sure that spoken word is typically normalized to a -3dB peak. Otherwise - excellent job :) Symmetry is utterly fascinating to me - great video!
I find humans desire order and seek order in order to satisfy their desire for order. Symmetry is elegant and shows the underlying universe contains order even though the outcome of this symmetry is pure chaos or disorder. I believe this represents the quest for the unknowable becoming the knowable. Math is the ultimate expression of order and balance and symmetry creates the ingredients to make a complete theory of everything.
Space itself is a thing. So how did this thing come about? You may say that space and time have been created after the Big Bang. The universe is expanding and creating new space. But where the universe is expanding, is it expanding in space or not. So what is the difference between outer space and inner space of the universe. The very noticeable answer is that there is no space outside the universe. Is that really so? So how is the universe expanding.
Why do I feel that I am in a 'matrix'? Is Reality too hard??? I want to stop thinking, Hahaha Hahaha. Love your work. Actually many people are in stressful situations and just need a fantasy story to get them through the day. Now I really digress. This is where the bad people, dictators, corrupt politicians, corrupt powerful step in.
Symmetries are definitely beautiful, but symmetric asymmetry is even more beautiful. And fortunately existence is asymmetric and symmetric. If the universe was completely symmetric, then all the matter and antimatter would have completely annihilated. Also, philosophically, symmetry doesn’t exist without asymmetry just like order&chaos, positive&negative, hot&cold, etc.
Agree, the vectors appear to point to the binary, pun intended, and the Hegelian spectrums or gradients between the positive and negative poles, or 0 and 1, light and dark, push & pull, inertia and momentum, order and disorder, the attraction and repulsion etc.
"They've just come to the scene of the crime, which is the universe...". Perhaps not your best analogy and word choice, Arvin. 😉 (A nit in an otherwise fascinating video.)
I don't know, maybe im just lucky but they video topics match my progression in learning about fundamental physics. I've been yearning to understand symmetry.
Look how much effort it takes to mathematically explain ONE PARTICLE or Three, moving around in space and time and accounting for any surrounding forces acting upon them. Its just mind boggling something as complex and diverse and intricate. So massive and also consisting of such vastly small aspects to itself is just mind bending and awe inspiring and fills me with intense drive to explore. I am so curious about all the forms of matter and densities, mineralization, geological, magnetic fields, etc etc etc. The natural world is awesome!
Thank you so much for this. I've struggled so much with these concepts and bought a lot of books from physicists probably much more well-known than you, but this is the clearest, most logical explanation I've come across and you explained everything so well. Amazing work!
Thank you for simplifying the most complex nature's laws to us and everyone. This is like translating other languages to a more comprehensible every day englisch language. I think this is the way we may or should teach the next generation all over the world in the schools at least theoretically. That is, instead of wasting a lot of energy and time on teaching other complex lengthy mathematical logical relationships used usually to prove principles, which i like petsonally but i aknowledge its complexity. Maybe we should start from the top to the bottom in teaching science by teaching such profound and clear meaning of nature's laws to everyone who is eager to learn and then giving the opportunity of specialization to those who like to learn how to prove them. This way everyone may understand the laws of nature. I agree that symmetry when exists and is not broken may facilitate the process of discovering and understanding the laws of nature. Personnally, beauty and symmetry helped me a lot to understand mathematics and statistics in my field of study and work. However, i agree with you and others that there is no obligation to the nature to be always symmetric or beatifull in all the connections and details in its laws. This is my humble opinion as a fan of physics and maths and as an outsider of the field. Please could you present in another field of science like statistical analyses in other less solid sciences (although these fields have also some solid evidence) like in social and health sciences. In these last fields the literature is usually highly based on a conventional but rather arbitrary threshold of significance like p-value of 0.05 (i.e., p-value and null hypothesis testing were first proposed in the early 20th century i think). These last statistical techniques might to be biased to some levels if not other methods of appreciating the overall evidence levels are taken into consideration, like considering the effect size and/ or the bayesian methods of comparing alternative tested hypotheses or other methods i might have missed to mention. There are indeed many sources of biases and heterogeneities of study designs in such fields (e.g., studies are varying from observational to randomized blinded controlled trials with varied variables definitions), with varied tools of measurements showing varied psychometric properties (e.g., having different levels of validity, fidelity and sensitivity to change) as well as the use of varied methods of statistical analyses (e.g., stepwise analyses and its potential biasing effect on p-value, or using statistical tevhnique without respecting the underlying postulates. etc.) or using statistical adjustment for co-variables which may all very easily bias the usually reported marginally significant p-value. The last is frequently used as a lone measure of significance level with or without confidence intervals; and this can also bias the reported evidence level on the tested hypotheses. I think that also in physics, there is some problems of non replicability of some new discoveries like in astrophysics and where you use a more strict criterion like having something equal or greater than 5 sigmas, i think. The problem in social science that if we want to decrease the threshold of significance to more than two standard deviation from the hypothetical mean, as using a threshold of statistical significance of 0.01or even 0.001, we should increase the sample size which is usually impossible for practical and economical issues; otherwise, we will lose the statistical power and testing would be meaningless. I think that the use of significance level of 5% may be a good practical and conventional way of deciding in these fields, even though the philosophical meaning of using null htpothesis might be questionable to some extent. Man can argue that thete is rarely a difference which is exactly equal 0, and this is may be reflected in the fact that the more we increase the sample size the more the statistical tests would be sensitive to discover more and more smaller differences or even any random fluctuation in the sample which usually lack practical or clinical meaning. What i like in physics, is that scientists suggest some new hypotheses and then they try to refute it, and which is also used in social and health sciences but the process might be sometimes less robust considering all what is mentioned above. In fact, in social or health science like psychology, some authors found some increased p-value frequency just below the threshold of significance (0.05), which may indicate biased results with publication bias for example, others reported up to 50 % percentage of studies failing to replicate previous results (example. in the psychology field). The more one can study the literature in human sciences-based research, the more one may opt for a post-postpositivistic way of thinking where the real world associations in these fields might not be completely or precisely reachable using the actual scientific methods and techiques, at least nowadays, and which might improve in the future gradually to some extent, i hope. I think therefore that having an opinion of you as an expert in another scientific field might help to shade light on such a problem and what might others have missed in tackling this problems of results replicabilities. Sorry for my lengthy comments that i just wanted to share as a fan of your presentations🙏 and as a lifelong learner with some background in research 😊. Thanks again, i always enjoy your presentations and videos and i think that a lot of people share the same opinion with me. Please keep with this amazing pace. All the best. H.B.
Fascinating and very informative. How does this symmetry conservation apply within an expanding universe? Does conservation still apply? Thank you and best wishes.
Why would you have the same symbol for euler's number and electric charge, doesn't that confuse mathematicians and physicists? perhaps we should replace the e for euler's number to the euro sign? We europeans imagine we're millionaires now, because the euro is worth 40 of our old currency, so an imaginary number with a symbol that causes us to imagine, would be a fitting replacement for the e, right? 🙂
I think this is a great video, but I’m just having a hard time seeing how rotation group symmetry is related to things like electrons etc. On top of that I think I have a hard time grasping that the Lagrangian and it’s components are adequate, sufficient, and interact-able descriptions of electron fields etc.
Yeah, he didn’t explain much about the connection. So, my understanding is: We start with a “global symmetry” that quantum mechanics basically has always, which is, “when you multiply the wavefunction everywhere by the same phase, it doesn’t really change the physics”. So, we already have a “global U(1) symmetry” But, if we want to “promote” this “global symmetry” to a “local symmetry”, which basically means in this case that we want to make it so that we can multiply the function everywhere by a phase factor which changes smoothly over spacetime, then, initially, it won’t be symmetric under this. But, in some ways, it is kinda sorta close to being symmetric under this(
I think stumbling block I have is that I haven’t really grasped what conservation really is, and I’m not fully certain it’s definitely real. I should point out that this is a comment about my own ignorance, and not about some conservationless physics
SS is different than the gauge symmetry I talk about in this video. I make another video on supersymmetry, called, "Have we discovered only half of physics" if you want to see it.
Is symmetry similar to entropy in that the universe seems to want to find an equilibrium of all its constituent parts? Could ' reverse engineering ' the math behind symmetry and entropy lead us to answers, ie..a true understanding of gravity?
Arvin thank you another mind challenging video, please may I ask you a couple of questions, firstly given that symmetry is a fundamental of our universe, did it sort itself out to conform in this way or did it form this way because all the correct elements were in place to allow it to happen. could the universe have been formed in any other way. apologies in advance if these are dumb questions
@@ArvinAsh thank you Arvin I'm never sure if I should be asking questions but its so gratifying to receive a reply please keep putting out the videos they are outstanding.
Occult teachings have stated symmetry is a basic law of the universe for thousands of years. Even symmetry between the physical and nonphysical worlds. Its kind of the ground zero of all esoteric wisdom.
Sorry but that's non sense, not science. The term "Physics" include ALL forms of Energy and matter, by definition, weather that are known to us or not. The product of any symmetric transformation applied to the physical world is also part of the physical world, by definition. If what you mean is that there are unknown physics just say "unknown physics", which is perfectly fine.
@@javiej You make valid points about specific definitions. I would just like to suggest that there is very little not known about physics its just known by the few and all energy and physics are governed by consciousness. This is a bit like screaming BBQ in the middle of a Vegan convention but I assure you It is not malicious. There is plenty more advanced understanding I'm seeking. BTW math and geometry reside in the nonphysical. We may be locking horns over definitions here. Thanks for your comment.
If Dark energy is a force, then it would stand to reason that there would some such equation describing it. But, currently, we don't know what it is. Dark matter is, in my opinion, likely a particle that we just haven't detected yet.
Could you do a video about this U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) stuff and how this is related to the QED and QFT with the actual math? Because all videos are either »it is too complicated, so we just skip it« or »it is so trivial, that with this well-known complicated equation nobody understand it is obvious«…neither is helpful.
@@ArvinAsh I saw them, but none of them answer my questions regarding the symmetry-stuff. The closes I found was this: th-cam.com/video/IFRyN3fQMO8/w-d-xo.html but this one of the »it is trivial and obvious, just use this well-known™ equations«, yet it is better than all of these videos, where this is just skipped, because nobody apparently likes math. Math does not have to be just plain equations. What you showed with this triangles is math too, even though some equations next to it might be good for those who are interested.
this video honestly blew my mind, i feel like i am a step closer to understanding where all of the terms and theories come from, i like actually showing the equations much more than straying away from them, because they’re scary to the general public
What a picture on group theory. I have always thought of this Field of maths to be mysterious and elusive, but with videos like this one, I feel like a maths genius already. Thanks for the good works
The number of abstraction layers required to understand modern physics feels impossible for me to understand. Starting from "what is the Lagrangian, and why?"
I personally don't think there is any real validity to E8 as the theory of everything. It is interesting math that seems to provide quite incomplete results.
I'd say yes. It's believed there is some gauge group that contains the ones mentioned in the video. SU(5) was popular but ruled out by experiment, SO(10) also,.... but if you're using Lie groups, why not pick the biggest most exception one? (which is E8).
I've got a postgraduate degree in maths and I feel sorry for anyone less mathematically educated trying to follow the math 🤣. Thanks for this so much Arvin Ash, I love the mathematical detail you go into, personally.
One might start with learning how to solve some simple differentiatial equations because the operators used in the shrodinger equation build on this more simple idea
@@ArvinAsh Can you do a video of why and how is gravity still not fitting in with the rest of the other fundamental forces? Why haven't scientist found the symmetry when it comes to gravity?
If you found yourself lost in this video or if you want to brush up on some of the background information, here are some videos I made that will help:
An overview of how All Fundamental Forces work: th-cam.com/video/xZqID1zSm0k/w-d-xo.html
All Fundamental Particles and Forces Visualized: th-cam.com/video/TDYex6VSd7o/w-d-xo.html
Maxwell's Equations: th-cam.com/video/FSEJ4YLXtt8/w-d-xo.html
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED): th-cam.com/video/PutOOpAkjQ4/w-d-xo.html
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD): th-cam.com/video/KnbrRhkJCRk/w-d-xo.html
In a article on TH-cam giving proofs of existance of god one proof is symmetry. After watching Arvin Ash although not fully understood it can be said symmetry is in physics and so is god
@@sabbirpachorawala8797 its really how you choose to percieve it. To some its "awareness", to others "conciousness", "god" and yet to others its "symmetry." One way or another they all get there in the end but to focus on one and deny the others is only self limiting.
I have a feeling you are one of the greatest bullshiters in the world right now.
I have a question, ahora sí, I saw the entire vídeo.
When it say SU3 theory, for the quantum chromodinamics, have 8 Gell-man matrixes of 3x3 of the SU3, it says that need 8 dimensions, ¿that dimensions are abstract and complex or 8 extra spacial dimensions?
If I want to do a theory like kaluza klein and parametrize the shape of the universe, the SU3, ¿can be necesarialy a hyperspherical space surface of eight dimensions (8D sphere with a surface of 7 variables)?
And this is a hypercylinder when the SU3 is a base and the heigh or hyper line is the 4D spacial dimensions.
Grewtings from Chile🇨🇱🇨🇱👋👋
1D-9D (easy mode):
1D, 2D, 3D are spatial
4D, 5D, 6D are temporal
7D, 8D, 9D are spectral
1D, 4D, 7D line/length/continuous
2D, 5D, 8D width/breadth/emission
3D, 6D, 9D height/depth/absorption
I have no knowledge of these complex maths. But I still like listening to your explanations. Sometimes I get some vague idea and sometimes clear. I learn something new. I wish I knew math well.
you will be what you want in the End
Thank you so much for the wonderful video as usual. 🤩
Next, please tell us about SU(5) symmetry, SO(10) symmetry, E6 symmetry,,, 🥺
Symmetry is a mathematical illusion based on neurotic idealism
It's simple really... it is just that it appears complex.
@@waldwassermann This is true of all of Physics - the least complex of all the scientific disciplines. (and the highest reliance on spherical cows and idealistic stochastic convenient nonsense.
@@PetraKann Yes. It almost feels that some in the field of science including but not limited to cosmology purposely circumnavigate the truth to safeguard their paycheck.
I cannot take this off of my WATCH LATER list after watching it, as I need to watch it again (...and again). Thanks for presenting some really deep stuff as simply as possible.
This video is incredibly well put together and beautiful. My thanks to dear Mr. Ash! Another masterpiece!
That was very informative, thanks to you and your team for creating and uploading this!
Excelent video, well explained. Can someone solve a question that I have? why does we ask the Lagrangian to fulfill for instance the U(1) symmetry a priori, without knowing that this Will give us the EM interaction? thanks
Your presentation is pithy and entertaining. The visuals really clarify the ideas.. I have read about Dirac and symmetry but haven’t had much comprehension. So thanks. Btw for those who haven’t read the biography The Strangest Man by Farmelo about Dirac: it’s a good read,
So humour me here Arvin. Please. So H bar is a symmetry you say. This nice visualisation you guys did here clicks with me because from watching random stuff with Sean Carroll, Susskind and Brian Greene. I heard the H bar before and it was like something over 2 pi. Maybe?
Again, humour me.
I really liked this post because I sort of get it now. It’s all about the polar coordinates. The spin. The circle. The way to just describe it. That mention that you can reduce the description to on lesser description just twigged with me. Bit like when I realised what exponent differential equations or calculus really was just about.
It may be true faces get progressively "prettier" or more attractive the more they approach symmetry, but if they hit perfect symmetry they're gonna be creepy instead of pretty.
The face cannot avoid vertical lopsidedness, meaning if you draw a horizontal line between the pupils and edges of nose and mouth, they may line up horizontally, but now trace a vertical line through the middle of those horizontal lines and you'll see that vertical line is slightly crooked and it's supposed to be, otherwise the faces get creepy.
Facial recognition software programmers can tell you that the crookedness of that vertical line is also an important identity-identifier in the recognition software.
0 and ♾ are all that really exists in this universe. Both are concepts, that’s why they are abstract, and don’t really interact tangibly with measurable entities, for instance numbers.
Numbers are finite individually and infinite collectively. Even if we divide a number for an infinite number of times, we still need other numbers to divide a particular number infinitely. But on its own, a number is a finite entity.
Again, a number can have infinite copies of itself in any condition anywhere in the universe. To illustrate, a number such as 1 is of same value on Earth, Mars or Andromeda.
Thus, all that physically exists is finite on its own, but collectively is potentially infinite. For example, the Universe.
As the numbers start interacting with each other, infinite permutations and combinations occur, through symmetry using fractal laws, a.k.a physics. There will never be one theory of everything, as systems would interact in infinite ways.
To conclude, numbers can divide, multiply, et al with each other without there being any need of time and space. It’s just that some of these interactions have become self-aware and they sense it as physical world vs abstract. These interactions are steady state in nature.
This is a very good explanation, I really enjoyed the insight of going from discrete to continuous symmetries. To be nitpicky though I think there is a precision worth mentionning : the Lagrangian of a Dirac fermion *does* obey U(1) symmetry. Or at least it obeys it globally : the complex phase of the wavefunction has no physical meaning and can be shifted globally as one wishes. And the conservation of electric charge comes from this already. The problem is not that the Lagrangian does not satisfy U(1) symmetry, which it does, but it's that it does not satisfy it *locally* , in the sense that the symmetry doesn't hold if the complex angle by which we rotate the wavefunction is not the same everywhere in space. It is by ensuring that the Lagrangian is symmetric even locally that the electromagnetic force appears. Gauge symmetries are all about local symmetries.
Thanks for your comment. I always appreciate the nit picks because these will always exist in a 15 minute video about complex topics. The key is not to leave out the relevant details, which I try not to do. In this case, I did not feel this was relevant. While what you said is correct, it is a special case for U1 as SU2 and SU3 only works globally for the QED lagrangian equation. Global U1 just allows you to shift the wavefunction but it doesn't give you interaction of electric charge which results in a force. The main message I wanted to impart in this video is the link between symmetries and fundamental forces. Of course, it would have been quite easy to make this into a 45 minute video going into a lot more detail, but then I don't want to go back to being a college lecturer. Thanks for watching my friend, and your comment.
@@ArvinAsh I get what your goal was and I agree, I just wanted to point that out because I think some people might have been confused if they tried applying the transformation to the Lagrangian and witness that it is invariant.
"Global U1 just allows you to shift the wavefunction but it doesn't have anything to do with electric charge" : I'm not sure why you say that the global U(1) charge is not related to electric charge, since it precisely counts positrons and electrons with opposite signs. Is your point that the coupling constant "e" only appears when gauging the Lagrangian ? Because I think the Noether current generated by the global U(1) symmetry is in fact electric charge.
"it is a special case for U1 as SU2 and SU3 only works locally" : I might be mistaken, but if SU(2) and SU(3) symmetries work locally, they also work globally, since a global transformation is a special case of a local transformation.
@@ScienceClicEN Let me clarify. Yes U1 is related to electric charge, but it doesn't give you the force, which is what we care about. SU2 and SU3, if they work locally, will also work globally. But they work locally only when considering the Standard Model, not the QED Lagrangian equation. I fixed my comment to reflect this. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. Your animations, BTW, are quite good.
@@ArvinAsh Okay yes I think we agree, it is indeed the local U(1) symmetry which creates the interaction between charges, even though the charge in itself appears even with the global symmetry alone. Thank you! Sorry for the nitpicking, I found your video very pedagogical overall, just wanted to add these details for people who might be interested.
Best video on physics that I have ever seen! Keep them coming. Add more math details, history, and suggested books for further study. Thanks!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
The complex unit circle is a fundamental force of mathematics. Great vid
Great video, I have one remark, isn't r^2 = x^2 + y^2 also one equation describing a circle?
👍 after watching your videos, which r really simple n sensible 👍, I go through your answers to queries, which is equally 🌹 BEST 🌹PART 🌹. Thanks Sir.
Thank you so much sir, it will be a great help .
Thermal energy is unidirectional flow outward force of pressure known as weight. It cycles in quantum gravitational fields of forced flow. Magnetic fields are grander examples of quantum gravitational fields of forced cycling patterns of flow. The thermal force is cycling in quantum gravitational fields of forced flow in patterns of mass. It is all cobined forces in various degrees of frequencies interactions. It is a one way singularity frequency in momentum outside of entanglement, repelled by cold resistance of space. Space is full of these singularity frequencies and vibrates as a field of cold resistance. Thermal energy and cold resistance retain their values in and out of entanglement. Momentum of repulsion stays at a constant velocity in and out of entanglement. Quantum gravitational fields are force fields cycling, holding mass together in equalization of resistance. As mass vibrates through space, it vibrates proximity space. The momentum of Planets vibrating through space, vibrate space. Occupied space of mass transfers resistance through it as it passes point to point. Space is a stationary cold field full of thermal energy singularities spiraling throughput space. As mass in entanglement like a planet is repelled in forward momentum, it vibrates through it interacting with it, and vibrates proximity space. As the planets momentum continues the magnetic field is forced to cycle back into itself. Quantum gravitational fields work the same way in the vibrating field of space. Occupied space by mass is the weakest point of resistance which is occupied in equalization of entanglement. Thermal energy is the only force known in different degrees of contained gravitational fields. Electricity is weight. Outward force. Thermal energy released from gravitational fields of cycling patterns in disrupted flow. Thermal energy is outward force of pressure known as weight. The contained gravitational fields of forced flow cycling through mass in area and thermal energy defines its weight. Periodic table of elements proves hypothesis. Outward force is unidirectional flow and is the only force. It cycles in mass. All other forces are thermal energy releases from gravitational field of forced flow. Like opening a valve a little bit, or wide open. And everything in between. Thermal energy and cold resistance. Perpetual motion. Harmonics harmonization of flow. Thermal energy is all mass in resistance in momentum. Resistance in mass is repulsion of force. Force is thermal energy singularity momentum retaining its value in mass in forced gravitational fields of cycling patterns. Disrupted gravitational fields, releases thermal energy in degress of momentum, or all at once. Outward force is thermal energy momentum in resistance to cold. Thermal energy and cold space don't mix. Forced fields of flow hold mass in cycling patterns. Magnetic fields prove it. We vibrate in a vibrating universal field of vibrating quatum space. It's finite. Alpha and Omega. Everything in between. Thermal energy is outward force unidirectional flow. Entanglement cycles this flow in degrees up and down the scale of frequencies. It is counterclockwise vs clockwise. Thermal energy and cold resistance. Perpetual motion cycling. It is momentum coming and going. It is positive and negative. It is the universal flow of unidirectional flow. It only flows in repulsion of resistance to cold in one direction, but entanglement causes it into forced fields of cycling patterns. Mass disrupts these patterns by interactions or collisions. One universal flow of vibrating quantum field of cold resistance. Cold points don't mix with thermal energy. Resistance is thermal energy singularity spiraling in momentum around these cold points in the fabric that is space, spiraling is the frequency quantum vibrating. Vibrations weaken the field proximity. Other singularities spiraling nearby trajectories curve towards these weakened areas of space and harmonization begins entanglement the lead frequencies of momentum repelled back through space in proximity to entanglement and begin to cycle through creating mass in forced fields of cycling patterns. Cold points are stationary fabric of space. Momentum of thermodynamics spiraling throughput space, exchange points in momentum of forward vibrations, as mass passes out of occupied space, reinforcement of momentum is amplification of proximity space surrounding mass out of equalization. One universal quatum force is foward momentum of thermal energy singularity frequency. Outward force. Name a element that doesn't have weight. Name a material that doesn't have thermal energy present cycling. Space has cycling material in entanglement. Space is vibrating as dark energy. You can only detect thermal energy in entanglement with entanglement. Vibrations nullified by vibrations in collisions. Patterns disrupted. Theoretically gravity is vibrations transferring thermal energy to proximity space. The apple vibrates to the weakest point of resistance which is occupied areas of space also vibrating. Quantum fields cycling thermal energy resist other quantum fields cycling thermal energy. Resistance stripping away thermal energy cycling in quantum fields is decay if thermal energy cycling can't be replaced. The apple rots. The thermal energy frequencies can tell us it is decaying by sight, sound, smell, taste, and texture. Cold resistance removing thermal energy unable to recycle is decay. Velocity of momentum in space vibrating increasingly faster than our quatum cycling patterns can maintain would age us faster. The faster we vibrate the faster we decay if we can't replenish thermal energy cycling through us. Resistance of cold space would stripp us of thermal energy cycling at increased velocities. We would age rapidly. Equalization couldn't be maintained in resistance to cycling our patterns of fluidity of necessary thermal energy cycling in us for renewable energy. Even if we could speed up our cycling, we would still age faster. Every action has an equal reaction. Thermal energy is outward unidirectional forward momentum of force. It is all known force in different degrees of resistance releasing thermal energy cycling out of patterns of renewable energy into vibrations of momentum repelled by cold resistance throughout space as various frequencies of outward force.
Could the relatively newly discovered time symmetry inherent in "time crystals" help us understand the "force" of gravity? Time and gravity are so intrinsically tied together.
I think that's unlikely. Gravity isn't actually a force like the others, it's a natural consequence of spacetime and relativity. I doubt there's a graviton, or that time crystals will be useful for understanding it.
@@Tanath No one knows what causes gravity so you're wrong to say it's consequence of XYZ.
Let's say you make the objection: "it's curved spacetime that causes gravity; near Earth spacetime is curved so objects fall towards earth"
If this is true then the thing that caused the spacetime to curve is the thing that causes gravity. But physicists don't know why spacetime's curved around Earth. It could've been Merlin the Lord Buddha for all physicsts know. It could've been time crystals.
@@alwaysdisputin9930 you're still operating under the assumption that gravity is "caused" by something as if it's a force, when in reality it's an illusion. When I say it's a natural consequence of the curvature of spacetime, I mean that's sufficient to explain gravity in general. It's actually well understood by physicists. The thing that's not understood is how it works with quantum mechanics. See here for instance: th-cam.com/video/qyxx7hzmwj0/w-d-xo.html as well as th-cam.com/video/XRr1kaXKBsU/w-d-xo.html
@@Tanath Either 1) spacetime curved for no reason whatsoever or 2) it curved because something caused it to curve. There's no other possibility. Therefore I'm just relying on logic not "assumption". Physicsts don't know what 2) could possibly be & you're completely wrong to say they do - they often lie that they know but it's just complete bullshit & all your links are total BS & all your explanations of what causes gravity will also be total BS regardless of whether or not you dress it up as "natural consequence of XYZ" you're still asserting gravity is caused & you don't know what caused it.
@@alwaysdisputin9930 you seem to be getting worked up over what I'm confident is a miscommunication. I assumed you knew (that physicists know) gravity (curvature) is caused by mass. My links were not "BS", they're good sources and help clarify & support what I'm trying to say.
One might ask how it is that symmetry comes about in the first place. I would suggest that if everything comes from nothing, that breaking down nothing forces a symmetry. One easy way to see this is (-1) + (1) = 0 . The total to nothing is conserved and implies a symmetry.
So Arvin do you believe that reality stems from math or that math describes reality?
Or as I like to say math is man's best attempt to describe what he only partially understands or what he is trying to comprehend. The day where we are all knowing and 100% understand everything there is to know is far, far off in the future imo. I seriously doubt that day will ever come for several reasons.
For example the universe has already expanded to the point that light from the outer limits will never reach us. Is there an edge to the universe? Is the universe infinite? We don't know what we don't know and we never can study these things.
We can never see back to what was before the big bang can we? If there are parallel universes it's unlikely we will ever reach them. If there are higher dimensions it's likely impossible that we could exist in them to study them.
You make it complicated... Lol
None of the math is right. It's all approximations. Even Einstein knew his theory wasn't correct. That's why he was working on a "Theory of everything" when he died.
Relativity and quantum mechanics don't play well together. Actually, they don't play together at all. So we know they're wrong. They're just VERY close in most cases. But LOT'S of things are broken.
For example, according to the math, the neutrino absolutely can not exist.......🙀
0:13 this has to be one of the strangest stock videos I've ever seen 😆
If these 3 symmetries are so fundamental to the wave functions of matter particles, then why does the electromagnetic force only affect quarks and half of the leptons? Why does the strong force only affect quarks? Why should the weak force affect all of the fermions?
What about gravity? How do you describe it with symmetry or group theory?
I just love your videos
Do symmetries like rotation and reflection actually happen in nature, without human being doing it? Are conserved quantities in nature happening because symmetries have actual existence?
yes
If particles are in superposition then spacetime curvature caused by them is also in superposition.particles in superposition interact gravitationally with collapsed particles in the same way particles in superposition interact electromagnetically with collapsed particles.gravitational effect of spacetime in superposition should be explained in the same way electromagnetic effect of particle in superposition happens and we know everything about electromagnetism.this must be correct theory of quantum gravity.
no wont work
Regarding the Higgs Boson, I recommend reading, "The Higgs Fake'.
i really love how conveniently the gravitational force was omitted
it's an effect not a force 💁♀️
15:48 - 😐 Wow.
I really love noether theorem!!!
Just like how its done on the cathedral of Notredame where you line up the symbol for the philosophers stone with the round window it matches the circle in the symbols middle what is more that dot in its middle represents the one or gold. Then the doors archway on the left has angle too it just like in the pic with the guy takeing his compass to the philosophers stone symbol. The right side door has not this. Whats more on each side of the triangle an circle the other smaller ones on each side line up as well. One for the sun one for the moon.
Always enjoyable watching your shows. But this quantum mechanics is so weird. But I’m pretty sure I understand it better than when I started 15 years ago. So small steps is still a kind of progress!
Seria interesante calcular la simetria de la fuerza de gravedad y ver si aparece el graviton como boson mediador !!!!!
In my degree, we learn that weak force violates the charge and parity symmetry. That's why the universe seems left handed.
Equilibrium is at the foundation of the universe, not rotation, reflection, and/or symmetry.
Wonder and second guessing quantum mechas. are the tools of deceit, as equalizing is to equilibrium.
So hoe far along are we with the symmetry that gives us gravity?
Great video! The hypothesized graviton is only one particle. Would that imply gravity also being a U(1) symmetry?
Don't know. No quantum theory of gravity exists. It is not a force according to General Relativity.
But it is a kinde of force, how may look its symmetry?
Alongside symmetry I would also think of gradient and entropy being the other roots/core of physics.
Depends on the regime you are in.
The U(1)×SU(2) group actually combine into a single group called the electroweak symmetry. This symmetry is broken by the higgs field, creating a completely different U(1) group for electromagnetism, sometimes denoted U_em(1) to differentiate it.
The weak force remaims completely broken and doesn't actually have a symmetry group.
Amazing video, as always. Also, thank you for including some governing equations. Many authors/creators/producers avoid including any mathematical equations because they fear it would intimidate their audience. So, it is refreshing to see some maths equations not only being included, but also being clearly explained. Thank you for respecting our intelligence enough to include some maths. Excellent work. I'm looking forward to your next video
The equations here were, IMO, *not* clearly explained, even just to the degree that would be relevant to the point being made.
(Like, I’m not saying that he should have said “this upper index mu here and this lower index mu here is an example of einstein summation notation, where we sum up the versions of it where mu ranges among the t,x,y,z coordinates. These gamma symbols are blah blah and obey these commutation relations, and this partial here is partial derivative along the axis labeled by mu”
I’m saying that he acted like he had demonstrated how something would be not symmetric under some particular transformation, but had not demonstrated that. I don’t even mean that he didn’t prove it. I mean he didn’t seem to showcase it.)
Wow, this video was stunning. I did not expect this to be described this well. Your best video I’ve seen by far.
Glad you enjoyed it!
My channel name is ARYABHAT CENTER FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
Can you review the quality of this channel ?
Howdy Arwin! Here again from Perú. Just watched your video. I had to watch it three times to repeat the dopamine rush! Thank you so much for your wonderful CLARITY. There is so much BEAUTY in it! Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
None of this would have been possible without Emmy Noether, she truly deserves much more recognition.
More recognition than she gets in every university level physics course? :-)
@@schmetterling4477 of course , same recognition as einstein gets, because her theorems form the foundations of modern physics and mathematical physics. And also, she revolutionized maths too, with her pioneering work in abstract algebra and topology.
@@devamjani8041 Physics is not saint veneration, kid. You are talking about people because you can't talk about nature.
@@schmetterling4477 and who are you to talk about nature kid 😂, you haven't produced any work in physics yet, so come back when you actually contribute something to physics or any subject for that matter.
@@devamjani8041 Who am I? I am a physics PhD who deigned the core component of one of the world's largest high energy physics detectors. What did you do, except for sex and drugs and Rock'n Roll? ;-)
Every process in the universe favors the formation of high symmetry objects. I believe the reason is to use the less possible energy and to use less information to increase the entropy. I have seen these patterns while working on my research project and by studying Claude Shannon's information theory.
This is a great video to get started on how Symmetry leads to the Standard Model. It provides a learning path, tells you what you have to go away and study more deeply elsewhere if you are going to get to the bottom of this subject. We learn that symmetries lead to conserved quantities, Noether's theorem, generators, Euler's number, then rotation in a complex plane, the symmetry groups U(1), SU(2), SU(3). Most other videos assume that you already know stuff. This is the very best "beginning "video that I've found. I feel orientated.
Lucky you. I'm lost. 🙄
@@wecas9596 Maybe you are looking for information that isn't here. This is just an introduction. We learn the idea that every continuous symmetry leads to a conservation law, but this doesn't go into enough detail to explain why. For that you need something like the book "Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem" by Dwight E. Neuenschwander. I've got as far as page 6 in that book and I'm struggling a bit already. I'd like to understand why Time Translation Symmetry leads to Conservation of ENERGY and Spatial Translation Symmetry leads to conservation of Momentum and not vice versa. After all the formulae for these two conserved quantities are very similar both involving just mass and velocity.
Your CG and visualization work has gotten a lot better!
I looks to me that symmetrical objects are more "stable" than irregular ones. A force acting on an irregular object tends to reduce those irregularities. Round pebbles in a stream are a good example.
It's not so much that they're stable, it's that round shapes have more entropy than irregular shaped pebbles. Why? Because there are far more ways for that pebble to become rounded.
Irregular shapes have less entropy because they are essentially all unique. How many ways can you get this pebble to have this exact shape? Not as many. So they have low entropy.
And gravity breaks symmetry, apparently. Only over totality of universe is it symmetric
That was an awesome presentation. Cool to see that symmetry is built on the work of Emmy Noether.
6:42 Doesn't Dark Energy violate what is said at this point in the video?
Space Translation Symetry that the laws of physics are same everywhere in the universe to paraphrase .... Yet as space expands it is expanding faster and faster. It isn't the same everywhere now is it?
and....thus momentum and energy aren't conserved on cosmological scales..e.g., the CMB is cooling.
15:23 Curiously, I've also come across the sequence 1, 3, 8 in Ramanujan's continued fractions related to the three symmetries of the Platonic solids. Note that the ONLY integers n > 1 such that 24/(n^2-1) is also an integer are 5, 3, 2, yielding the aforementioned 1, 3, 8. The integer n=5, of course, figures prominently in the Rogers-Ramanujan continued fraction and icosahedral symmetry. There are analogous continued fractions involving n=3 (for tetrahedral symmetry) and n=2 (for octahedral symmetry.) Hmm, I wonder if there is a connection?
Hi, is 24 chosen artificially or is there something there? Because I guess for any triplet you can generate another triplet by engineering a function such as 24/(n^2-1). Or you mean they are the same symmetry groups and that's the number of generators?
@@summerQuanta No, the integer 24 is not chosen artificially. It arises naturally in a lot of number theoretic contexts such as the Dedekind eta function which has the factor q^(1/24), or the 24-dimensional Leech lattice, etc, etc. For some reason, the Dedekind eta function can express those 3 Ramanujan-type continued fractions, and for some reason those 3 cfracs are connected to the 3 Platonic symmetry groups. Now it turns out the sequence 1, 3, 8 is the number of bosons of 3 fundamental forces. I don't know if it is just coincidence, but Felix Klein and Ramanujan, wherever they are now, would have known more.
Interesting insights.
Hey Arvin - mind if I make a quick observation and unsolicited suggestion?
I'm a long-time viewer and I've noticed that your videos are much louder than other videos. I hope I'm not overstepping here, but might I suggest having your audio normalized with a peak of -3dB? I know there's no industry standard or anything, but I'm pretty sure that spoken word is typically normalized to a -3dB peak.
Otherwise - excellent job :) Symmetry is utterly fascinating to me - great video!
Thanks for that. The audio in this video was suboptimal. We are working on getting it right for future videos.
I find humans desire order and seek order in order to satisfy their desire for order. Symmetry is elegant and shows the underlying universe contains order even though the outcome of this symmetry is pure chaos or disorder. I believe this represents the quest for the unknowable becoming the knowable. Math is the ultimate expression of order and balance and symmetry creates the ingredients to make a complete theory of everything.
This turned out to be more fascinating than I originally thought. Thank You!!!
FAR MORE.
Space itself is a thing. So how did this thing come about? You may say that space and time have been created after the Big Bang. The universe is expanding and creating new space. But where the universe is expanding, is it expanding in space or not. So what is the difference between outer space and inner space of the universe. The very noticeable answer is that there is no space outside the universe. Is that really so? So how is the universe expanding.
There is only this universe and nothing else. When the universe expands, literally all points in space expand. There is no outside.
This is one of those videos I'll have to watch more than once... great job, as always! Thanks, Arv!
Why do I feel that I am in a 'matrix'?
Is Reality too hard???
I want to stop thinking,
Hahaha Hahaha. Love your work.
Actually many people are in stressful situations and just need a fantasy story to get them through the day.
Now I really digress.
This is where the bad people, dictators, corrupt politicians, corrupt powerful step in.
Huge science/math hobbyist here. LOVE Arvin's videos and channel. This one just made my head hurt though. 😳😳😳
Symmetries are definitely beautiful, but symmetric asymmetry is even more beautiful. And fortunately existence is asymmetric and symmetric. If the universe was completely symmetric, then all the matter and antimatter would have completely annihilated. Also, philosophically, symmetry doesn’t exist without asymmetry just like order&chaos, positive&negative, hot&cold, etc.
Agree, the vectors appear to point to the binary, pun intended, and the Hegelian spectrums or gradients between the positive and negative poles, or 0 and 1, light and dark, push & pull, inertia and momentum, order and disorder, the attraction and repulsion etc.
"They've just come to the scene of the crime, which is the universe...". Perhaps not your best analogy and word choice, Arvin. 😉
(A nit in an otherwise fascinating video.)
I don't know, maybe im just lucky but they video topics match my progression in learning about fundamental physics. I've been yearning to understand symmetry.
Good video here. Good detail, not too generic that it doesn't make sense.
Look how much effort it takes to mathematically explain ONE PARTICLE or Three, moving around in space and time and accounting for any surrounding forces acting upon them. Its just mind boggling something as complex and diverse and intricate. So massive and also consisting of such vastly small aspects to itself is just mind bending and awe inspiring and fills me with intense drive to explore. I am so curious about all the forms of matter and densities, mineralization, geological, magnetic fields, etc etc etc. The natural world is awesome!
ya"He's hooked
Thank you. I got much more from this video than from reading Wikipedia articles.
Thank you so much for this. I've struggled so much with these concepts and bought a lot of books from physicists probably much more well-known than you, but this is the clearest, most logical explanation I've come across and you explained everything so well. Amazing work!
Thank you for simplifying the most complex nature's laws to us and everyone. This is like translating other languages to a more comprehensible every day englisch language. I think this is the way we may or should teach the next generation all over the world in the schools at least theoretically. That is, instead of wasting a lot of energy and time on teaching other complex lengthy mathematical logical relationships used usually to prove principles, which i like petsonally but i aknowledge its complexity. Maybe we should start from the top to the bottom in teaching science by teaching such profound and clear meaning of nature's laws to everyone who is eager to learn and then giving the opportunity of specialization to those who like to learn how to prove them. This way everyone may understand the laws of nature.
I agree that symmetry when exists and is not broken may facilitate the process of discovering and understanding the laws of nature. Personnally, beauty and symmetry helped me a lot to understand mathematics and statistics in my field of study and work. However, i agree with you and others that there is no obligation to the nature to be always symmetric or beatifull in all the connections and details in its laws. This is my humble opinion as a fan of physics and maths and as an outsider of the field.
Please could you present in another field of science like statistical analyses in other less solid sciences (although these fields have also some solid evidence) like in social and health sciences. In these last fields the literature is usually highly based on a conventional but rather arbitrary threshold of significance like p-value of 0.05 (i.e., p-value and null hypothesis testing were first proposed in the early 20th century i think). These last statistical techniques might to be biased to some levels if not other methods of appreciating the overall evidence levels are taken into consideration, like considering the effect size and/ or the bayesian methods of comparing alternative tested hypotheses or other methods i might have missed to mention. There are indeed many sources of biases and heterogeneities of study designs in such fields (e.g., studies are varying from observational to randomized blinded controlled trials with varied variables definitions), with varied tools of measurements showing varied psychometric properties (e.g., having different levels of validity, fidelity and sensitivity to change) as well as the use of varied methods of statistical analyses (e.g., stepwise analyses and its potential biasing effect on p-value, or using statistical tevhnique without respecting the underlying postulates. etc.) or using statistical adjustment for co-variables which may all very easily bias the usually reported marginally significant p-value. The last is frequently used as a lone measure of significance level with or without confidence intervals; and this can also bias the reported evidence level on the tested hypotheses. I think that also in physics, there is some problems of non replicability of some new discoveries like in astrophysics and where you use a more strict criterion like having something equal or greater than 5 sigmas, i think. The problem in social science that if we want to decrease the threshold of significance to more than two standard deviation from the hypothetical mean, as using a threshold of statistical significance of 0.01or even 0.001, we should increase the sample size which is usually impossible for practical and economical issues; otherwise, we will lose the statistical power and testing would be meaningless. I think that the use of significance level of 5% may be a good practical and conventional way of deciding in these fields, even though the philosophical meaning of using null htpothesis might be questionable to some extent. Man can argue that thete is rarely a difference which is exactly equal 0, and this is may be reflected in the fact that the more we increase the sample size the more the statistical tests would be sensitive to discover more and more smaller differences or even any random fluctuation in the sample which usually lack practical or clinical meaning.
What i like in physics, is that scientists suggest some new hypotheses and then they try to refute it, and which is also used in social and health sciences but the process might be sometimes less robust considering all what is mentioned above.
In fact, in social or health science like psychology, some authors found some increased p-value frequency just below the threshold of significance (0.05), which may indicate biased results with publication bias for example, others reported up to 50 % percentage of studies failing to replicate previous results (example. in the psychology field). The more one can study the literature in human sciences-based research, the more one may opt for a post-postpositivistic way of thinking where the real world associations in these fields might not be completely or precisely reachable using the actual scientific methods and techiques, at least nowadays, and which might improve in the future gradually to some extent, i hope.
I think therefore that having an opinion of you as an expert in another scientific field might help to shade light on such a problem and what might others have missed in tackling this problems of results replicabilities.
Sorry for my lengthy comments that i just wanted to share as a fan of your presentations🙏 and as a lifelong learner with some background in research 😊.
Thanks again, i always enjoy your presentations and videos and i think that a lot of people share the same opinion with me. Please keep with this amazing pace. All the best. H.B.
errr. . .I'm going to have to watch this a few times for it to sink in, but thanks for sparking my interest in symmetry.
Fascinating and very informative. How does this symmetry conservation apply within an expanding universe? Does conservation still apply? Thank you and best wishes.
It is not clear. Conservation of energy probably still applies.
@@ArvinAsh Hi Arvin, Thank you for the reply. Best wishes.
This was fantastic! Now, how about a video about broken symmetries?
I like the sound effects when bisecting triangles. The rotations sound kind of gross though.
Why would you have the same symbol for euler's number and electric charge, doesn't that confuse mathematicians and physicists? perhaps we should replace the e for euler's number to the euro sign? We europeans imagine we're millionaires now, because the euro is worth 40 of our old currency, so an imaginary number with a symbol that causes us to imagine, would be a fitting replacement for the e, right? 🙂
Haha...I like that idea!
Well done. I never comment, but I had to point out that this video is excellent.
Completely naive question, prompted only by this video’s explanation. Have we found gravitational force being the generator of symmetries?
No.
I think this is a great video, but I’m just having a hard time seeing how rotation group symmetry is related to things like electrons etc. On top of that I think I have a hard time grasping that the Lagrangian and it’s components are adequate, sufficient, and interact-able descriptions of electron fields etc.
Yeah, he didn’t explain much about the connection.
So, my understanding is:
We start with a “global symmetry” that quantum mechanics basically has always, which is, “when you multiply the wavefunction everywhere by the same phase, it doesn’t really change the physics”. So, we already have a “global U(1) symmetry”
But, if we want to “promote” this “global symmetry” to a “local symmetry”,
which basically means in this case that we want to make it so that we can multiply the function everywhere by a phase factor which changes smoothly over spacetime,
then, initially, it won’t be symmetric under this.
But, in some ways, it is kinda sorta close to being symmetric under this(
I think stumbling block I have is that I haven’t really grasped what conservation really is, and I’m not fully certain it’s definitely real.
I should point out that this is a comment about my own ignorance, and not about some conservationless physics
conservation is maintaining a balance?
If super symmetry turns out correct, what would new particles look like, as i recal, photons would be fermions in SS? Would we have a new "matter" ?
SS is different than the gauge symmetry I talk about in this video. I make another video on supersymmetry, called, "Have we discovered only half of physics" if you want to see it.
Is symmetry similar to entropy in that the universe seems to want to find an equilibrium of all its constituent parts? Could ' reverse engineering ' the math behind symmetry and entropy lead us to answers, ie..a true understanding of gravity?
This video has Science and Art combined.
Arvin thank you another mind challenging video, please may I ask you a couple of questions, firstly given that symmetry is a fundamental of our universe, did it sort itself out to conform in this way or did it form this way because all the correct elements were in place to allow it to happen. could the universe have been formed in any other way. apologies in advance if these are dumb questions
We only know how the universe works. Why it happened this way, or how did the universe we have come to be, are questions we can't answer.
@@ArvinAsh thank you Arvin I'm never sure if I should be asking questions but its so gratifying to receive a reply please keep putting out the videos they are outstanding.
Occult teachings have stated symmetry is a basic law of the universe for thousands of years. Even symmetry between the physical and nonphysical worlds. Its kind of the ground zero of all esoteric wisdom.
Sorry but that's non sense, not science. The term "Physics" include ALL forms of Energy and matter, by definition, weather that are known to us or not. The product of any symmetric transformation applied to the physical world is also part of the physical world, by definition. If what you mean is that there are unknown physics just say "unknown physics", which is perfectly fine.
@@javiej You make valid points about specific definitions. I would just like to suggest that there is very little not known about physics its just known by the few and all energy and physics are governed by consciousness. This is a bit like screaming BBQ in the middle of a Vegan convention but I assure you It is not malicious.
There is plenty more advanced understanding I'm seeking. BTW math and geometry reside in the nonphysical. We may be locking horns over definitions here.
Thanks for your comment.
Brilliant explanation. This is how kids should see how cool Physics is. Cheers !!!
The development of these equations alluded to the fundamental forces. Are there any equations that are alluding to dark matter or dark energy?
If Dark energy is a force, then it would stand to reason that there would some such equation describing it. But, currently, we don't know what it is. Dark matter is, in my opinion, likely a particle that we just haven't detected yet.
Could you do a video about this U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) stuff and how this is related to the QED and QFT with the actual math? Because all videos are either »it is too complicated, so we just skip it« or »it is so trivial, that with this well-known complicated equation nobody understand it is obvious«…neither is helpful.
See pinned comment links. I made videos about QED you might like.
@@ArvinAsh I saw them, but none of them answer my questions regarding the symmetry-stuff. The closes I found was this: th-cam.com/video/IFRyN3fQMO8/w-d-xo.html but this one of the »it is trivial and obvious, just use this well-known™ equations«, yet it is better than all of these videos, where this is just skipped, because nobody apparently likes math. Math does not have to be just plain equations. What you showed with this triangles is math too, even though some equations next to it might be good for those who are interested.
Best videooooo damnnn..... i love you mannnnn such a great channel
Everytime I move up the "understanding physics" ladder, you somehow always post a video that explains my next question.
YEAHHHH NEW ARVIN VIDEOOOOO YEEEEEEHHHHAAAAAA
this video honestly blew my mind, i feel like i am a step closer to understanding where all of the terms and theories come from, i like actually showing the equations much more than straying away from them, because they’re scary to the general public
What a picture on group theory.
I have always thought of this Field of maths to be mysterious and elusive, but with videos like this one, I feel like a maths genius already. Thanks for the good works
Does quantum gravity imply superposition of spacetime geometries?
We don't have a theory of quantum gravity...yet.
The number of abstraction layers required to understand modern physics feels impossible for me to understand. Starting from "what is the Lagrangian, and why?"
It's just a mathematical expression that describes the movement of a matter particle.
What the Lagrangian is can be found in every university level textbook on mechanics. Did you ever try reading one? ;-)
Now it makes sense of group theory completely
This was so awesome! Very clearly explained. And the end blew my mind 😀
Does this have some relationship to Lisi’s E8 Theory of Everything (which you did a episode on)? Or at least it’s on the right path …..?
I personally don't think there is any real validity to E8 as the theory of everything. It is interesting math that seems to provide quite incomplete results.
I'd say yes. It's believed there is some gauge group that contains the ones mentioned in the video. SU(5) was popular but ruled out by experiment, SO(10) also,.... but if you're using Lie groups, why not pick the biggest most exception one? (which is E8).
I've got a postgraduate degree in maths and I feel sorry for anyone less mathematically educated trying to follow the math 🤣. Thanks for this so much Arvin Ash, I love the mathematical detail you go into, personally.
I feel lost. Could you please tell me where to start? I understood only up to Noether's theorem.
One might start with learning how to solve some simple differentiatial equations because the operators used in the shrodinger equation build on this more simple idea
Bruh I'm literally sweating rn trying to understand the maths
Great mystery of universe and it's deep secrets...
"Even people with more symmetrical faces are considered more attractive"
Waw,
By advertisers maybe, and still!
There have been scientific studies done on this, and in general humans find other humans with more symmetrical faces more attractive.
@@ArvinAsh Scientific studies can be funny things sometimes i agree :)
You are the generator for understanding!
There's one thing missing here, Gravity. Why is this force missing from this discussion? Could it be that it's not a force at all?
Gravity is described by Einstein's theory of general relativity, which doesn't (yet) fit into the Standard Model.
@@ArvinAsh Can you do a video of why and how is gravity still not fitting in with the rest of the other fundamental forces? Why haven't scientist found the symmetry when it comes to gravity?
what would happen if electrons stop it's revolution around the nucleus?
Electrons don't really orbit around the nucleus. See this video on what an atom really looks like: th-cam.com/video/fP2TAw7NnVU/w-d-xo.html