The Davisson & Germer Experiment finally provides the necessary experimental evidence to the bizarre hypothesis of de Broglie th-cam.com/video/WJknTbOwktw/w-d-xo.html
That's OK by me. Where I think you really shine in rock-star fashion is in the Sci-Lab videos. So important to teach us this tool, either in the context of QM (like the SE video) or other. Thanks again !
Nice video! A de Broglie fact that surprised me just a few days ago is that he began his musings in 1905 after reading Einstein's paper on photon emissions. He was only 13! The PDF link below is a CC BY 4.0 edited-for-clarity English translation of the 1967 interview in which he describes his decade-long journey to discover matter waves: _Louis de Broglie Looking Back on His Discovery of Electron Waves_ sarxiv.org/apa.2023-05-19.0855.pdf
Thankyou sooo much sir ❤ i really appreciate your efforts for students it's really a great pleasure for all of us getting chance to watch your video thankyou sir 🔥
For long time i was scarching for such kind of physics full lecture on critical topic.....please made one full video on observer in duel slip experiments.....means what was the arrangement to observe.
Moun decay is given by Radioactive decay law, so the exponential comes from there. It tells us the number of muon particles that survive after some time has elapsed
Louis de Broglie is the person who _invented_ the pilot wave theory. However, Einstein critiqued him pretty severely for it, causing de Broglie to abandon the public defense of his idea. Decades later, David Bohm became deeply interested in de Broglie’s abandoned idea and developed into a full theory, one sometimes called Bohm mechanics to distinguish it from de Broglie’s less developed (and abandoned, at least by de Broglie) pilot wave idea. Einstein, despite his deep dissatisfaction with Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation, wanted none of it. When presented with Bohm’s version of pilot waves, he immediately dismissed it as ”cheap, like de Broglie’s idea.” Ouch. The most famous English-speaking pilot wave supporter was John Bell. Ironically, while Bell explicitly (and rightfully) credited pilot wave thinking for giving him the crisp analytical approach he needed to come up with his famous Bell Inequality, his support for pilot waves also likely prevented him from getting a Nobel Prize for that same work. Incidentally, it’s not quite true that pilot waves “eliminate” entanglement. Entanglement is better described not as a theory issue, but as a well-established structural issue in a now-vast body of experimental data. For folks who take the entanglement results seriously, pilot waves lead either to superdeterminism - e.g., Sabine Hossenfelder and possibly John Bell himself - or to “factoring out” entanglement so it occurs _only_ in the pilot wave that guides the particle.
@@TerryBollinger - Thank you for the quite complete and yet succing historical explanation. I used to believe in the mainstream particle-wave duality but as of late I realized that a single particle has never been reported to have wave-like behavior, so I now tend to believe that, pilot wave or not, the wave behavior is only collective, not individual. This links with entanglement and the DCQE experiment, which I interpret explainable only because photons experience no proper time (and that's totally Einsteinian in spite of Einstein not accepting its ultimate implications). If the pilot wave is made of photons, in my limited understanding, that may explain everything, entanglement, incl. info going backwards in time (DCQE). As for superdeterminism, it's not something I've chewed much on. As human I tend to intuitively favor non-determinism, maybe just because I can't easily predict the future and be simultaneously in the future and the past as a photon can be (at the expense of being unconscious even at the most fundamental level of the concept). Also if we mix quantum uncertainty with Chaos Theory, we get a fundamentally indeterministic Reality. I guess I can conceive how a "timeless" (proper time) pilot wave made of photons (EM field) might lead to determinism But I haven't considered it in enough depth to have an opinion. Cheers.
@@TerryBollinger To go a step further, QM leads to QFT's. But the general opinion is that quantum fields are not the fundamental entities. So even the theories that describe only 5% of the content of the Universe are still in an embryonic state.
@@LuisAldamiz _“… as of late I realized that a single particle has never been reported to have wave-like behavior …”_ whoa there! Two examples: ---------- (1) A single photon passing through an extremely tiny pinhole becomes localized and thus particle-like only for a decidedly short transit time through the hole. Even there, it’s best described as a more intense form of a wave, e.g., something akin to an exciton if the hole is metallic. After that transition, the photon _instantly_ becomes a lovely and almost perfectly coherent hemispherical wavefront. This is vividly demonstrated both by the extreme uncertainty in where it will “land” and by its laser-like diffractability, refractability, and reflectability. Indeed, before lasers, this was how they _made_ decently coherent light. _The same is true for particles,_ including not just puny electrons but individual organic molecules with up to about 2000 carbon atoms equivalence total mass (!!). Two-slit experiments have shown such molecules to self-interfere molecule-by-molecule. I'm using my phone, so I don't have the reference, but I'm sure a good Google or (wow) ChatGPT search can find the paper. It was just a few years ago. ---------- (2) Individual slow neutrons reflect at low angles from mercury surfaces. This case is described in detail in the (online) Feynman Lectures. ---------- The deeper problem is that our brains are wired at the neural level to think in terms of objects moving in xyzt, which is a fantastic computational shortcut that nicely promotes survival at slow speeds on mild planetary surfaces. In the case of extremely small objects far from our neural comfort zone, the uncomfortable reality is that the transiently localized wave functions we call “particles” are the _least_ common instantiation of small units of mass or energy. Our brains like to say things like, “The triode electron was emitted _here_ and traveled in a straight line until it landed _there.” However, this particular brain-friendly shortcut _never_ correctly predicts the behavior of low-mass (or no-mass) entities with very low momentum. Experimentally, those behave _only_ like waves that often undergo dramatic size rescalings. It's those rescalings that, for a century now, tend to drive folks a bit bonkers.
Sir what happen if a ball is in deep outer space and it is very far from all the matter now let a box of 50kg is floating in space have speed very small but not zero then the matter wave behave like electron or not as electron behave?
It's a bit difficult to say. I make + edit all the videos myself. So creating a complete video on a topic (reading+making notes+recording+thumbnail) all consumes more than a day for me. I don't have any support of any kind from anyone else. Given that I make a living by teaching, this time is very precious, as I am almost always busy with classes etc. I earlier thought maybe I will upload 2-3 times a week, but recently the commitment of my courses hardly leave any time. I am open to suggestions. I want to do a comprehensive course on QM, so I don't want to finish it for the sake of finishing it. I want the lectures to be through and rigourous, hence it's going a bit slow. I will try to improve I guess
@@FortheLoveofPhysics Sir, you can upload the video lecture slowly, but sir, if you give the notes of quantum (2) and quantum (3) according to your syllabus, it would be very beneficial. Because sir exam is 1 month left
Sir I have a doubt. In case of a ball which is stationary where momentum is zero then wouldn't the wavelength be infinite. I know this can be explained away by saying that the earth is in motion therefore ball is not at rest. But the problem I have with that explanation is that the momentum is frame dependent does that mean wavelength itself is frame dependent. I'm so confused pls clear it for me
Nothing is completely at rest, according to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There is an uncertainty in x and p, that is just too small for us to perceive in the case of a ball (due to the small size of h)
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
If you increase the frequency then the energy will correspondingly rise so you need to be prepared for it. A shorter wavelength may also prove more difficult to resonate with.
He also said he can throw it such that it travels 100m/s. Clearly you had no need to comment.... Your observation is as negligible as the wave like property of the golf ball. It is so tiny to be taken into consideration. But it is valid none the less. Just like the wave behaviour of the golf ball. 😉
The Davisson & Germer Experiment finally provides the necessary experimental evidence to the bizarre hypothesis of de Broglie th-cam.com/video/WJknTbOwktw/w-d-xo.html
Travel like a wave, hit like a particle 🙂
Superb❤
"I am the greatest"
-MUHAMMAD ALI
This was incredibly informative and so clearly explained. Thank you professor!
This is fantastic, high quality content. Thank you.
What a great teacher u r ? Fantastic. Recently i take admission in BTech in AMU(aligarh muslim university) and now I'm watching u
loving the wayy he is so much into the topic
Excellent explanations, it made several years of reading about the subject finally begin to sink in. Aha moments. Thank you.
Please sir,,,, continue this playlist!!! I'm amazed with these things!!and loving quantum mechanics!!
These videos is gold mine for physics lovers.thank you very much sir
That's OK by me. Where I think you really shine in rock-star fashion is in the Sci-Lab videos. So important to teach us this tool, either in the context of QM (like the SE video) or other. Thanks again !
The lecture is really impressive
your teaching style is very lucid pleas sir upload complete lecture series on mathematical physics 1 and 2
Nice video! A de Broglie fact that surprised me just a few days ago is that he began his musings in 1905 after reading Einstein's paper on photon emissions. He was only 13! The PDF link below is a CC BY 4.0 edited-for-clarity English translation of the 1967 interview in which he describes his decade-long journey to discover matter waves:
_Louis de Broglie Looking Back on His Discovery of Electron Waves_
sarxiv.org/apa.2023-05-19.0855.pdf
Love your passion ❤
Dibs really does love physics. That is why he is so great. His enthusiasm is infectious and contagious.
U are great sir... excited to learn from u... continue the series sir 😀
Sir, please continue this interesting series. 😍
Your "Sighs" show how passionate you are to teach.. I am so so grateful to have you as an explainer. Thank you so much for your efforts sir..❤🙏
I love this channel, is this the last video in the QM series?
No words for you. So well explained sir. Thankyou so much.
Thanks a lot sir your explanation easy to understand
Tomorrow I have final exam of classical dynamics sem 6, am from ramjas college. U helped me a lot sir during my entire graduation 😁😁😁😁🎉
Great lectures!!❤
Thank u sir for all this great lectures
Hats off to you sir💯💯
Amazing
Thankyou sooo much sir ❤ i really appreciate your efforts for students it's really a great pleasure for all of us getting chance to watch your video thankyou sir 🔥
Sir next video on superconductors. please!!
great great lecture!
Good explanation 👍🏻
Good explanation🙏
Congratulations for your didactics!
For long time i was scarching for such kind of physics full lecture on critical topic.....please made one full video on observer in duel slip experiments.....means what was the arrangement to observe.
Sir in the lecture “ muon decay experiment”I did not get the calculation of exponential value for muon decay ratio
Can you please elaborate that ?
Moun decay is given by Radioactive decay law, so the exponential comes from there. It tells us the number of muon particles that survive after some time has elapsed
Sir,
In em wave e-field & b-field oscillate but sir what things oscillate in matter wave?
nothing oscillate in matter wave as like in em wave.
You are the best
can we measure frequency insteed of wavelength , as frequency of larger mass is very high .
Thank you so much sir
Sir I could not plot wavelength for n=1. If possible, please show in your TH-cam shorts. Thank you sir
Thank you so much
What about pilot wave theory?
Haha, don't start the interpretations of QM yet.
The disappointment comes much later ;-)
Louis de Broglie is the person who _invented_ the pilot wave theory. However, Einstein critiqued him pretty severely for it, causing de Broglie to abandon the public defense of his idea. Decades later, David Bohm became deeply interested in de Broglie’s abandoned idea and developed into a full theory, one sometimes called Bohm mechanics to distinguish it from de Broglie’s less developed (and abandoned, at least by de Broglie) pilot wave idea.
Einstein, despite his deep dissatisfaction with Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation, wanted none of it. When presented with Bohm’s version of pilot waves, he immediately dismissed it as ”cheap, like de Broglie’s idea.” Ouch.
The most famous English-speaking pilot wave supporter was John Bell. Ironically, while Bell explicitly (and rightfully) credited pilot wave thinking for giving him the crisp analytical approach he needed to come up with his famous Bell Inequality, his support for pilot waves also likely prevented him from getting a Nobel Prize for that same work.
Incidentally, it’s not quite true that pilot waves “eliminate” entanglement. Entanglement is better described not as a theory issue, but as a well-established structural issue in a now-vast body of experimental data. For folks who take the entanglement results seriously, pilot waves lead either to superdeterminism - e.g., Sabine Hossenfelder and possibly John Bell himself - or to “factoring out” entanglement so it occurs _only_ in the pilot wave that guides the particle.
@@TerryBollinger - Thank you for the quite complete and yet succing historical explanation. I used to believe in the mainstream particle-wave duality but as of late I realized that a single particle has never been reported to have wave-like behavior, so I now tend to believe that, pilot wave or not, the wave behavior is only collective, not individual.
This links with entanglement and the DCQE experiment, which I interpret explainable only because photons experience no proper time (and that's totally Einsteinian in spite of Einstein not accepting its ultimate implications). If the pilot wave is made of photons, in my limited understanding, that may explain everything, entanglement, incl. info going backwards in time (DCQE).
As for superdeterminism, it's not something I've chewed much on. As human I tend to intuitively favor non-determinism, maybe just because I can't easily predict the future and be simultaneously in the future and the past as a photon can be (at the expense of being unconscious even at the most fundamental level of the concept). Also if we mix quantum uncertainty with Chaos Theory, we get a fundamentally indeterministic Reality. I guess I can conceive how a "timeless" (proper time) pilot wave made of photons (EM field) might lead to determinism But I haven't considered it in enough depth to have an opinion.
Cheers.
@@TerryBollinger To go a step further, QM leads to QFT's. But the general opinion is that quantum fields are not the fundamental entities. So even the theories that describe only 5% of the content of the Universe are still in an embryonic state.
@@LuisAldamiz _“… as of late I realized that a single particle has never been reported to have wave-like behavior …”_ whoa there!
Two examples:
----------
(1) A single photon passing through an extremely tiny pinhole becomes localized and thus particle-like only for a decidedly short transit time through the hole. Even there, it’s best described as a more intense form of a wave, e.g., something akin to an exciton if the hole is metallic.
After that transition, the photon _instantly_ becomes a lovely and almost perfectly coherent hemispherical wavefront. This is vividly demonstrated both by the extreme uncertainty in where it will “land” and by its laser-like diffractability, refractability, and reflectability. Indeed, before lasers, this was how they _made_ decently coherent light.
_The same is true for particles,_ including not just puny electrons but individual organic molecules with up to about 2000 carbon atoms equivalence total mass (!!). Two-slit experiments have shown such molecules to self-interfere molecule-by-molecule.
I'm using my phone, so I don't have the reference, but I'm sure a good Google or (wow) ChatGPT search can find the paper. It was just a few years ago.
----------
(2) Individual slow neutrons reflect at low angles from mercury surfaces. This case is described in detail in the (online) Feynman Lectures.
----------
The deeper problem is that our brains are wired at the neural level to think in terms of objects moving in xyzt, which is a fantastic computational shortcut that nicely promotes survival at slow speeds on mild planetary surfaces.
In the case of extremely small objects far from our neural comfort zone, the uncomfortable reality is that the transiently localized wave functions we call “particles” are the _least_ common instantiation of small units of mass or energy. Our brains like to say things like, “The triode electron was emitted _here_ and traveled in a straight line until it landed _there.”
However, this particular brain-friendly shortcut _never_ correctly predicts the behavior of low-mass (or no-mass) entities with very low momentum. Experimentally, those behave _only_ like waves that often undergo dramatic size rescalings. It's those rescalings that, for a century now, tend to drive folks a bit bonkers.
Sir what happen if a ball is in deep outer space and it is very far from all the matter now let a box of 50kg is floating in space have speed very small but not zero then the matter wave behave like electron or not as electron behave?
I could not understand/hear what the relativistic formula components were
Sir approximate how much time it is going to take to complete the whole Quantum mechanics series.
Please answer
It's a bit difficult to say. I make + edit all the videos myself. So creating a complete video on a topic (reading+making notes+recording+thumbnail) all consumes more than a day for me. I don't have any support of any kind from anyone else. Given that I make a living by teaching, this time is very precious, as I am almost always busy with classes etc. I earlier thought maybe I will upload 2-3 times a week, but recently the commitment of my courses hardly leave any time. I am open to suggestions. I want to do a comprehensive course on QM, so I don't want to finish it for the sake of finishing it. I want the lectures to be through and rigourous, hence it's going a bit slow. I will try to improve I guess
Sir, we are with you ❤❤❤❤❤
Love you and your work 😊
@@FortheLoveofPhysics Sir, you can upload the video lecture slowly, but sir, if you give the notes of quantum (2) and quantum (3) according to your syllabus, it would be very beneficial. Because sir exam is 1 month left
Lots of love for you sir...m from Pakistan
Sir I have a doubt. In case of a ball which is stationary where momentum is zero then wouldn't the wavelength be infinite. I know this can be explained away by saying that the earth is in motion therefore ball is not at rest. But the problem I have with that explanation is that the momentum is frame dependent does that mean wavelength itself is frame dependent. I'm so confused pls clear it for me
Just one more thing I have heard of doppler effect in which the wavelength and frequency change with velocity but how does that solve my doubt
Nothing is completely at rest, according to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There is an uncertainty in x and p, that is just too small for us to perceive in the case of a ball (due to the small size of h)
@@FortheLoveofPhysicsthank u sir
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics.
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Sir could you please increase the frequency of your videos as I have to appear for TIFR-GS ❤
If you increase the frequency then the energy will correspondingly rise so you need to be prepared for it. A shorter wavelength may also prove more difficult to resonate with.
@@cantantephoto8696 😂😂😂😂
Sir , please make vedios on quantum mechanics
Please 🙏🏻🙂
Thanks sir
19:25
Please upload next videos
It's nice when you stop writing and starts to discuss the implications of the presented facts and equations.
❤
Golf ball weights 100 g? Definitely much less.
He also said he can throw it such that it travels 100m/s. Clearly you had no need to comment....
Your observation is as negligible as the wave like property of the golf ball. It is so tiny to be taken into consideration. But it is valid none the less. Just like the wave behaviour of the golf ball. 😉
Slaaaam from Pakistan
AAAALA...
prelude