Here are really good questions that I want to repost for the benefit of everyone else who may watch this video: 1) QUESTION: 8:47 - The Heisenberg uncertainty looks wrong. ANSWER: The uncertainty principle is normally written as greater than or equal to, for REAL particles. But virtual particles can exist as long as their energy and time is LESS than h/4pi, as shown in the video -- this is a what makes them virtual and not measurable. This is a weird feature of quantum mechanics, but is the reason virtual particles can exist. I explain this in my video on "the mechanism of the 4 fundamental forces." 2) QUESTION: How did Glashow predict 4 massless particles? If they are all different particles, then why consider them as being the same force? ANSWER: This gets into really complicated concepts in gauge theory and SU(2)XU(1) symmetry breaking concepts. The simplistic explanation is that Glashow's particles have to remain massless in the mathematical framework, otherwise there are all kinds of infinities and the equations don't work. This massless-ness worked fine for electromagnetism, but did not fit the data for the weak force. So a second mechanism, that is not present in Glashow's framework had to somehow impart mass to the Weak force particles. This was the "symmetry breaking" mechanism discovered by Higgs et al, now called the Higgs Mechanism. The way the 4 Glashow particles (W1, W2, W3, B) work is that they interact with the Higgs potential (Mexican hat) in such a way that W+, W-, Z, and photons emerge from them. This puts photons in the same mathematical framework as the weak force bosons.
One doubt,when Heisenberg told about heisenberg principle,why Einstein opposed that?...i don't know what exactly that principle tells about but I know that Einstein didn't agree with that principle initially....
@Arvin Ash nice article and it's really amazing to understand with easy analogy that you present. But I wanted to also know that why Einstein opposed to Hisen uncertainty principle and hisen field. Also, we always forget to talk about Boss, who is all behind boson particle - God particle. And can you also cover on special neutrinos particle - Tachyons which can fundamentally be faster than light. I know it's not proven but this is one of the high possible theory which I and many viewers might like to hear it about. Last thing, I wish you take someone in your team and make more videos as it's so boring to wait for 7-15 days for the video ))
It's *very* tough creating a video explaining quantum theory to everyone and also be correct. But what's even tougher is responding to questions from people, especially if some of those people are knowledgeable about quantum theory or relativity. Kudos to Arvin for being able to do both, especially answering questions. Making a presentation correct is one thing, but debating with people (correctly) is an even more difficult thing. You really have to know your stuff to engage in near-real-time debates. When I talk about quantum physics, I might be wrong occasionally, but being wrong doesn't impact my income or reputation.
@@itspandatime @itspandatime You feel the need to insult someone whose post was to only provide Arvin Ash with several large compliments? That was very entertaining; thanks for making my day.
@@TheNameOfJesusthey hate you for the God you champion. Never lose hope, christians with intelligence like you are one of the only ways we could potentially reach the non-believers today
@@aryanbista747 He's not the best with technology, so he just talks and we follow along with the eqs in the textbook (written by him lol). I've heard a lot of people don't like him as a professor, but i honestly rly like his lectures. He focus on building up the proper motivation and derives most of the eqs (in the textbook at least), building up the foundation really well. It's easy to overlook and forget his brilliance when he acts so normal in class.
@@speeshers oh that seems cool!I mean whatever others say he has definitely proven himself as a great physicist.I heard he was being awarded 3 million or something. Would be awesome to hear some lectures from him. Thanks for sharing!!
You are a man to admire. Your videos have excellent graphics and they blend together beautifully with your narration. You have a very rare ability to explain such subjects and to lead us to understand such complex physics. I just wanted to say thank you, your videos really make my days a bit more interesting. I love the feeling that a have even a slight understanding of what modern physics has achieved. Thank you.
hope this guy knows just how appreciated the combination of explanations and animations that go into making these videos the best physics lessons on youtube are
Wow. Simplifying these complex concepts in 15 min , and most importantly making these concepts appealing to an audience that lacks the sufficient knowledge to understand these concepts is incredible. Thank you for your hard work
Most of of the video I watch are like they only talk about the phenomenon and never explain the causes. But in this channel, Arvind Sir is not only explaining it so good. Yeah sometimes it get complicated but it's all right. We want knowledge. So I kindly request you sir to explain your video in detail, like you are doing now.🙏
Another great video Arvin. You are probably the best at explaining concepts in physics to those who lack the requisite mathematics. This is the dilemma of all high school physics teachers.
Sometimes I have to stop partway through a video to make sure I click the like button. This is definitely one of those times. It's rare that anybody talking about the weak force goes beyond the famous one-liner of _"It's the force that's responsible for radioactive decay."_ The strong and weak forces kind of seem like that weird uncle that none of the family ever want to talk about..
I agree. This was one of the most difficult videos I've made. Sorry, it was the simplest I could make it. I may tackle less difficult material in future videos. (EDIT) Ok, given the feedback, I will keep tackling difficult subjects trying to make them as simple as I can make it. Thanks for everyone's input.
Arvin Ash Please don’t! Your videos are amazing, the complexity and detail is perfect. It’s what we need, there are plenty of other channels out there for simpler topics. There’s always a level of knowledge required to be able to understand some videos, and that shouldn’t change in my opinion. Look at PBS Spacetime for example.
Until Arvin Ash's explanation here, I never understood what was meant when physicists talked of forces being the same at high energies and the symmetries breaking as the energies decrease. Well, I still don't *understand* it, but now I have a clearer idea than ever before and a general idea of what is meant. Great job, thank you!
I watched the same video on PBS spacetime, couldn't understand a bit... Then I saw yours, my goodness..... The way you deal with each problem and solve them one by one is really amazing. Nice analogies and graphical representations. Big fan of your work. Please enlighten us with your amazing videos, Ash! Keep rocking ❤️
@@toufiquet6757 Sabine hossenfelder the asylum don lincoln fermilab veritasium skydivephil pbs space-time scishow space physics girl instituto de física teórica
@@UlaisisP veritesiam,domain of science,PBS space time for physics. Ted ed,in a nutshell, riddle, professor Dave explains for every type of science. Thanks for your replying.and I learned some topic from Fermi lab, crash course. And for technology learn engener is great.
Born in Pakistan, but educated all the university years in Cambridge and other british science centers. The nobel prize is more english than pakistani.
I’d like to thank you for the consistent quality, adherence to correctness, and continual “in touch with the audience” elements of your videos. As I question my perceptions on certain topics, I can stop by your channel and affirm/reject my thinking, allowing myself greater efficiency with advancement in knowledge. Having a single teacher for so many years, the diversity of the various perspectives I’ve seen in you, Sabine, and a few others, has functionally broadened my horizons in the realm of physics, well beyond where I would be without the presence of the said diversity. Bless your spirit, and may your knowledge in the immaterial flourish.
What's always missing from presentations of electroweak unification is a qualitative description of how the unified force behaves, i.e. in what ways the behaviour of photons and the W/Z change to become indistinguishable at high energies.
NO WORDS.....LITERALLY WOWW!!! AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE VIDEO IT ACTUALLY CAME TO ME , THAT I JUST WATCHED A VERY DEEPLY COMPLEX (YET EXPLAINED IN SUCH AN EASED OUT WAY) CUM PHYSICS INSPIRATIONAL VIDEO. ONE MORE THING , SIR, THE QUESTIONS PINNED BY YOU IN THE COMMENT SECTION MADE ME REALIZE THAT IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO GET QUESTIONS FROM A LECTURE RATHER THAN THE ANSWERS. PLEASE KEEP MAKING VIDEOS . THANK YOU SO MUCH😊😊
Heck, you can't even understand Heisenberg's uncertainty principle without understanding the classical uncertainty principle upon which it is based, and to do that you must understand Fourier analysis. If you want to understand, there is no getting around the math!
Can anyone suggest a better youtube channel than @arvinash, I am searching a lot, but haven't found yet...Simply awesome explanation of every single phenomena...
Another awesome science CLASS Arvin.. Other than WHY do the Natural Forces exist at all, the biggest mystery to me is, HOW could this video have received 10 downvotes ?? Peace.
I really liked the ingenious analogy of the boomerang effect of 'virtual photons' that pushed the boats toward each other. It looks like we are on the right track uniting the strong nuclear force with the weak nuclear force. But before we get there, we need to resolve some glaring issues. Afterward, I think it would be relatively easy, for the right minds, to unite both the strong and weak forces. Here are the two glaring issues: First, the no-hair theorem of the singularity tells us time is not a parameter. But from the inside of our own singularity, our universe, there is quite a big party going on in here. Everybody in here is having a great time in our little part of the universe where time itself only goes forward. Since the no-hair theorem tells us there is zero time, there must be a negative aspect of time for we are not recognizing. If we can account for this negative aspect, then it will help us balance the time equation back to zero. Second, the no-hair theorem of the singularity tells us that size, dimension, is not a parameter. Our universe should have zero size, but from the inside of our own universe there seems to be an awful lot of room in here. Again, we are missing out on the negative aspect of space. If we can properly account for this, then it will help us balance the equation for space back to zero. I contend that both aspects of negative-time and negative-space must certainly be all around us, but our intuition causes us to misinterpret what we see. We misinterpret things in such a way that makes sense to us, and this causes us to not see the negative aspects of time and space. I contend we should re-evaluate some of our observations - especially with photons. Like our universe, photons are bosons. Since our universe has both positive and negative aspects, this suggests that photons also have a negative aspect which we have not yet recognized. For example, space is created when a particle ejects a photon. Where there once was zero space between the particle and the photon, there is now a measurable distance between them. This distance can be described by the amount of time that it takes to traverse from the particle to the photon. Space is nothing more than this - a zero dimensional line between the particle and the photon, described by time. When the photon is absorbed by another particle, then in that instance, both space and time have been deleted. But this is not the end of the story because it only describes positive time and positive space popping into existence, and then reverting back to zero. In order for these positive events to occur, there should also be negative events that simultaneously occur. Then together, they can both account for a simultaneous plus and minus - which can then revert back to zero. This strongly suggests the photon has a negative aspect for which we have not been accounting. I am very confident that if we re-interpret some of our observations in such a way that still makes sense but in a way that also accounts for the negative aspects of space and time, then it will be much easier for us to unify the strong and weak forces. Then maybe we can finally deprecate the use of 'virtual photons' along with the use of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.
@Evi1M4chine As they say, we are on the same wavelength. I think you said it best - “...the universe still is nothing. Just made of two parts, a positive and a negative one...”. We can even get a glimpse of these two opposite dimensions in our universe. We point to a black hole singularity (positive gravity) and say that space is infinite at a zero point. Then we look outwards into the distant universe and we also say that space is infinite. One dimension cannot be responsible for both opposite types of infinities where there is no “zero” in between. So more correctly, the infinite space around a singularity should approach zero as distance increases to infinity, and a negative black hole (negative gravity) should be a point of zero space, and space would increase to infinity as distance from the negative black hole increases. This is the best way to account for both infinities from both dimensions. We have two opposite dimensions: one where space goes from zero to infinity, and another where space goes from infinity to zero. I have always contended the negative dimension of our universe is inverted, that is - turned inside out. So then, if we flip the negative dimension inside out - where zero and infinity reverse roles (let's also include time here), then the negative dimension should look exactly like- and behave exactly like- the positive dimension. Both dimensions are irreconcilably opposite, yet they are perfect identical copies that are reversed in every possible way. Most scientists do not have any means to recognize these two dimensions of our universe. Yet many equations in physics make use of both time and length. As a reminder, these measurements of time and length are not recognized in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Time and length simply come out of thin air, out of nowhere. Interestingly, in many equations and perhaps all equations, time can be substituted for length and the results of the equation will remain unaffected. We have a zero dimensional object - our universe - with both a positive and a negative aspect. We can also think of these positive and negative aspects as the very first two particles. We will need a means to describe the separation, or balance, between these two particles. Time, also acknowledged as length, is the best means to describe this balanced separation. We need to include time as a fifth fundamental force in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. In this way, we can begin to describe the separation of everything. And from here, we can reasonably state that “time” was the very first fundamental force in our universe. It allows for “space” in which everything else takes place.
@Evi1M4chine I think you said it best - “* not a 'bang', but an expansion”. The Cosmic Microwave Background can be misleading because we interpret it as leftover radiation from a “bang”. Accepting the CMB as as evidence of a catastrophic big bang requires one to accept that the fundamental properties of our universe have suddenly changed since then. It is far more reasonable to accept the CMB radiation is from gamma rays from galaxies and quasars that were once all around us. We ourselves were once a small point in a universe that looks just like it does now - mature galaxies and quasars everywhere. As space expanded around our own small spot in the universe, new particles were created and filled our new horizon with new galaxies. Eventually, gamma rays from our own galaxies will become a faint glow, a new CMB. We can see there is no “bang” associated with the creation of new particles. The “dark age” for new particles is still all around us but we simply do not notice them until after they condense into new stars, especially during the collision of galaxies. After billions of years, it seems the hydrogen and helium ratio has hardly changed. They are still overwhelmingly dominant and all other forms of matter are insignificant. I contend this is further evidence the “big bang” is still going on. Enormous quantities of new particles are still being generated, quietly and subtly.
@Michael Bishop I like your style. You get to the point right away. I think you should become more involved in a conversation by listing reasons for your disagreement. Anyway, this does give me a nice lead-in for what I'm going to say next, a valuable science lesson... As with any discovery, especially the recent discovery that Maxwell's laws and equations can describe our galaxy, there are implications that cause us to update our thinking accordingly. This ability to update is what has made science different from it's competitor - religion. If you are looking for people who get it right every time, then science is not for you. You should join a religion instead. So continuing... since equations for gravity fail to account for the orbits of stars on the outer edge of the galaxy, and since our galaxy can be described as a magnetic field in motion, this should cause us to question what gravity and mass actually are, and whether our perception of a graviton is correct. Both Newton and Maxwell may have been describing the same force, but from two different perspectives. If gravity and mass are indeed a manifestation, a subset, of this magnetic field then this means we need even fewer forces to describe the universe than what we originally thought. We may only need two.
Hi Arvin, I was wondering, how do the properties of a virtual particle compare to the properties of a normal particle, for example mass, spin and charge. Does quantum foam interact with the Higgs field? Thank you for a great video.
Virtual particles have different properties than their real counterparts. They are not quite the same. Photons, W and Z virtual bosons do interact with the Higgs field, using the mechanism outlined in the video. I am attaching below an excellent explanation by Arnold Neumeier online: All observed particles are real particles in the sense that, unlike virtual particles, their properties are verifiable by experiment. In particular, W and Z bosons are real but unstable particles at energies above the energy equivalent of their rest mass. They also arise as unobservable virtual particles in scattering processing exchanging a W or Z boson, though the existence of a corresponding exchange diagram is visible experimentally as a resonance. Virtual particles and unstable (i.e., short living) particles are conceptually very different entities. Since there seems to be a widespread confusion about the meaning of the terms (and since Wikipedia is quite unreliable in this respect) let me give precise definitions of some terms: A stable, observable (and hence real in the sense specified above) particle has a real mass 𝑚 and a real 4-momentum 𝑝 satisfying 𝑝2=𝑚2; one also says that it is on-shell. For such particles one can compute S-matrix elements, and according to quantum field theory, only for such particles. In perturbative calculations, stable particles correspond precisely to the external lines of the Feynman diagrams on which perturbation theory is based. Only a few elementary particles are stable, and hence can be associated with such external lines. (However, in subtheories of the standard model that ignore some interactions, particles unstable in Nature can be stable; thus the notion is a bit context dependent.) A virtual particle has real momentum with 𝑝2≠𝑚2 (one also says that they are off-shell), and cannot exist as it would violate energy conservation. In perturbative calculations, virtual particles correspond precisely to the internal lines of the Feynman diagrams on which perturbation theory is based, and are only visual mnemonic for integrations over 4-momenta not restricted to the mass shell. In nonperturbative methods for calculating properties of particles, there is no notion of virtual particles; they are an artifact of perturbation theory. Virtual particles are never observable. They have no properties to which one could assign in any formally meaningful way a dynamics, and hence some sort of existence in time. In particular, it is meaningless to think of them as short-living objects. (Saying they pop in and out of existence for a time allowed by the uncertainty principle has no basis in any dynamical sense - it is pure speculation based on illustrations for the uneducated public, and from a widespread misunderstanding that internal lines in Feynman diagrams describe particle trajectories in space-time).
@@ArvinAsh When exactly do we see the Z0 particle? What else is involved in this interaction, besides a neutrino? And what about a photon's energy, how do photons exist very long obeying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
Grey Troll the Z boson happens in pretty much every reaction since the weak force can influence all fermions. However electric charge must be conserved in every process so sometimes a Z is what is needed to conserve charge, other times a W+/- boson will come out instead. For photons, just use E=pc (p being the 4 momentum) instead of E=mc^2
@@ArvinAsh Neumeier's explanation is good. Note that he doesn't refer to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP), because HUP really has nothing to do with virtual particles.
@@ArvinAsh Is it possible for virtual particles to become real particles? For instance, if an electron "emits" a virtual, self-interaction photon which splits into a virtual electron-positron pair, and then that positron annihilates on another electron, does the virtual electron become real? If so, how would an off-shell virtual particle, like the virtual electron in this instance, become on-shell?
First of all, I want to thank you SO much for these videos!! Since I discovered this channel a few weeks ago, I can't stop watching! I am a university professor in chemistry and was always fascinated also by physics, but did not have the time to pursue both sciences at the same level. These videos clarified so many things for me, and you are such a likeable person! Now, small questions: how does it happens that during a proton/neutron decay a massive w boson is created and then it decays into electron and anti-neutrino? Where does it gets its mass, and where does this mass goes? I get that it is overall conserved, but during the process it does seem to change, and there is no antimatter involved, it seems... Maybe I am missing some fundamental knowledge here. Thank you very much again!
Hey man I just found your channel this is the 2nd video i've watched, and I've watched a lot of lectures on these subjects, but you describe this so so well. Thank you, easily earned a new sub
Aside from playing with magnets, are there other ways we can get a tangible idea of how these seemingly magical forces interact? (In a very basic conceptual way.) Thank you very much for making these videos!
The people on boats in THIS video. It amazes me they can be treated a bit like classical objects and not magic fields. (Although, are both?). Throw something and there is an opposing force...just simply due to energy
I watch many science channels in YT and I may or may not understand the topic at hand better afterwards...it's pretty random...but with respect to this channel I almost ALWAYS grasp the concepts presented much better after the video. In poker terms: Arvin Ash always comes to the table with his A-game.
I appreciate that. But the concepts in this video, to your credit, is very difficult to understand. This video and my video on Bell's inequality, I think are the two most difficult concepts I have covered so far.
This also allowed me to understand the big slurp end of the universe possibility; If that sombraro oscilates again farther out from the center to a lower level...
Request you to please make a video on the Cosmic Microwave Background. I'm very curious to know things like this because I want to become a Theoretical physicist and a cosmologist.
This stuff is so complicated that even simplified it is hard to wrap my head around due to the complexity. I can more or less understand the jist of the stuff to visualize it in my head but the fine details and especially the mathematics behind these things goes way over my autism addled mind >.< I am so curious to learn more in spite of this. I am trying to world build and write a story and stuff and part of it involves the inspiration I draw from what I can learn of the real world and science. I want to find questions that scientists haven't asked yet that might lead to new discoveries and contribute my ideas even though I have an admittedly novice understanding of the fine details of what has already been researched. I am filled with wonder for the universe I exist in and the more I learn of it, the more my creativity is fueled, and the more curious I become for the next discovery or innovation
Whereas scientists are making incredible advancements in all fields . I doubt if a few of them have identified the hard fact that the planet is already running through mass extinction of all species.
Don't feel bad about being confused about advanced physics. It's even confusing to those of us who have been studying physics all our lives. But that's why we like it! It's the hard problems that are fun. We like the things that stretch our minds. My students don't really get a big kick out of Newtonian mechanics, but relativity and quantum mechanics and nuclear physics are always fun topics for them. (They also seem to really enjoy the sections on acoustics because it's something they can totally relate to). So keep on studying and keep letting your mind be bent and stretched into new ways of thinking. To me, that's what makes physics so enjoyable.
@@dankuchar6821 Agreed. I am almost 30 and have independently researched a variety of science fields. I am a writer, musician, digital artist and would eventually want to advance to animation. I draw heavy musical and narrative inspiration from the things I learn of the universe which I use to fuel my creative endeavors . The primary question I have about the universe is the following; What is the fabric of all reality as my consciousness experiences it and how does this thing govern all the rest of physics? If I can learn an answer to this that basically amounts to the unified theory of everything before my body expires and consciousness disappears, I will feel fulfilled and full of awe and wonder.
I think we really need to sit down and define what gravity is. Is is the force objects with mass exert on each other and spacetime, or is it the warped space itself that results in objected being "pulled" together? Cuz if its the latter, i dont think we can define that as an actual force, because massive objects being drawn to each other has nothing to do with a force they exert on each others mass, and has everything to do with the resulting gravity well, that is simply the seemingly natural result, of having objects with mass in a 4D spacetime. That doesnt sound like a force to me, but of course, it takes energy to warp space, therefore the warping of space has to use energy that is carried by some force, so it does sound like a force at the same time. I mean if it really is a 'force' that means the continuous warping of spacetime that is the gravity well, would need a constant supply of gravitons to always have space warped there. I just looked at this paper publications.ias.edu/sites/default/files/poincare2012.pdf that talks about LIGO a bit and one of the things it mentions is this, "For an angular frequency of 1 Kilohertz, the single graviton energy density is at most 3.10^−47 ergs per cubic centimeter. So any gravitational wave detectable by LIGO must contain at least 3.10^37 gravitons." So i thought, ok, any one single missing graviton that makes it 3.10^37 -(1) then the wave would be too small to detect. But in the space between objects that are orbiting each other, that creates a gravity well, there must be a constant saturation of gravitons within that space that keeps spacetime warped, either literally being expelled by the objects with mass, or instead of gravitons radiating out from massive objects, pushing and warping space, in the same way excitations in the electromagnetic field that moves through the field, and through space and time, maybe gavitons are already manifested in the field. Like, photons are the excitations of the electromagnetic field, but there arent photons in the field 'waiting' to be excited (unless virtual photons can be described in this way as "waiting to be excited". Of this i do not know). I think gravitons are manifested in the field already, waiting to be excited, and when you put a massive object in space time or massless objects that just have energy (photons), the gravitons that are in what become the gravity well just kinda, turn on. I think gravity waves may function in this way as well; not as a wave of gravitons radiation out from colliding black holes say, but perhaps, im thinking of it like this- you have the black holes and they are sitting in space orbiting each other. As they move, because of their mass, excite gravitons in space and results in their individual gravity wells. As they move around each other in orbit, because of the nature of their orbit, and how massive they are, these gravity wells interact in a manner of speaking, that is to say they get excited in a kind of pattern, getting excited this way in that well, excited that way in this well, and excited differently when the wells intersect. I think these patterned and complex interactions, the result is energy in the form of photons, and because of how massive these objects are, these photons have a lot of energy that radiate outwards and excite gravitons far far from where the event happened. As this happens, gravity 'waves' appear to flow out from them. I think this is not gravitons that are released as this form of energy, but rather the energy is released, pure energy (photons((visible or not)), and the gravitons are already there to be excited by these photons. As they photons radiate outwards, they flow through space, exciting the gravitons and in the process, losing energy to them, until its lost all of its energy and this is when we say the wave has ceased. I think its a lot like, the human wave in stadium seats. Photons, dont already exist and for this thought ill refer to them as "electromagnetic field particles". So, these particles are excitations in the electromagnetic field, but i dont think that is to say, there are already individual quantized electromagnetic particles already in the field. With gravity and gravitons, i think there is. I think the gravitation field is there, AND that there are already individual quantized bits of gravity know as gravitons in every smallest possible measurable region and that the wave we are seeing is really the photons losing energy to the gravitons already in space itself; and the energy gained by the gravitons by the moving photon, warps space where that graviton is, the photon continues its path- loses energy to the next graviton, in turn warping space, just a little bit less, since it had less energy to start after losing the bit of energy to the previous exciting of a graviton, and so forth. So i dont think gravitons are a force carrier, i think their nature is to receive a force. Someone lemme know if im crazy, if this seems logical, if its already a generally thought about idea in the field, if i misinterpreted anything, or just whatev haha.
I was with you in the beginning. If this were correct though, should we not be able to detect the photons around every massive object? Should we not be able to detect the interaction? I personally would take the beginning of your thought and try to make it work without gravitons (which are purely theoretical).
What's funny is that it's possible scientist discover the Theory of Everything, and only then will they realize there's still soooooo much more to learn.
Consciousness or something? Biomechanics? There is already more lol. But yeh QM just caused more direpency, right? So the next one will fit and then not fit with something else that we never realised. Weirder than quantum mechanics like cant stop strings turning into actual mexican hats or opens weirder objects and effects than blackholes or entanglement that we then have to prove on scales we cant observe. I dont think will be string theory.
Think of it this way. If all the energy of the universe was squeezed into the tiniest space you can imagine, at the hottest temperatures you can imagine, everything - all matter, energy, and forces would likely be one entity. Only upon cooling and separation would any distinctions occur. Why these distinctions occur is a good question. Not known.
@@Henry-jp3mc Then we get to work figuring out the mysteries of the universe, like dark matter and dark energy. We will have a theoretical basis to figure it out.
Veritasium recently put out a video where he briefly mentioned that according to relativity charged particles which are stationary in a gravitational field are technically accelerating and therefor should emit photons. Could you make a video going into the details on this?
The charged particles emitting photons thing is called breaking radiation (bremsstrahlung) and is a very common phenomenon. It's how synchrotrons and x-ray tubes generate x-rays (in tubes it's the continuous part of the spectrum but not the sharp lines). It is why shielding a space ship with a material like lead is stupid. Solar protons don't go that deep , but if you have high atomic number shielding, the protons will brake much faster and generate penetrating x-rays. With light stuff like water, aluminium, plastic, beryllium etc. you get much softer x-rays that are easier to shield. Classically the effect should exist because if you wiggle a charged particles it will make electromagnetic waves. You don't really observe significant bremsstralung unless you have fairly extreme circumstances; e.g. an electron going a significant fraction of the speed of light making a 90 degree hair-pin turn around the nucleus of an atom. E.g. most beta radiation sources have too little energy (hundreds of keV) to give significant brehmsstralung with a few exceptions like phosphorus-32, which is spicy enough to make some x-rays this way.
@@soylentgreenb Interesting. I learned about bremsstrahlung radiation in a materials science course, but thought about it as a series of distinct scattering events, each one of which creates a photon. Comparing that to a particle being suspended against gravity, which seems like a continuous process took a bit. I guess any "continuous" process can be thought of (or mathematically modeled as) a sum of nearly infinitessimal discrete events. Is that how it works out on paper?
@@Nuovoswiss Quantum mechanically you get single x-ray photons from discrete events and there is a "cross section" for generating brehmsstralung radiation. The spectrum is continous because the kinetic energies are continous to some extent (collisions, prior emission of bremsstrahlung radiation so that the particle has lost some but not all energy) and because the charged particle can be deflected and slowed by differing amounts depending on the charge of the the thing they are being deflected by and how close they pass. Since both of those things are continous you don't get discrete energy levels in brehmsstralung radiation. The discrete energy levels you get from an x-ray source are from knocking out inner shell electrons and having some electron fall down to the unoccupied energy level; that's a well defined amount of energy (k-alpha is from a 2p orbital to a 1s orbital etc). Even these lines are not infinitely sharp with only one possible energy level; there is some broadening e.g. due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle (dT * dE ~ h, where dT is lifetime of the state) and doppler broadening. Even synchrotron radiation where you have particles spiraling around a magnetic field with a well known strength you get a very broad continous spectrum
I really like the way you break down equations and are not fearful of using mathematics. PLEASE keep on doing more and more complex ideas ☺️ Can you explain the colors consept I've never understood it
Yes my friend. This is a very difficult subject, so multiple viewings, and also supplementary reading would help if you want to understand it more fully. Also, see my pinned comment.
I'm not entirely sure it'd be a theory of everything. Once we do have a unification of the 4 fundamental forces, there's no guarantee that it would explain dark matter or dark energy. And it might not explain why there's more matter than antimatter.
Well, GR kinda has DM and Dark energy in it, so if we could unify a similar theory that is QM compatible, then you would get everything in the theory of everything.
@@MattiasThing thats a presumption since we do not know what either is. There is however a possibility the TOE resolves them by proving they do not exist. So far is not proven its actually "matter" of any kind nor proven that either is more than a theoretical gap: that remains a possibility! Just like finding planet Vulcan to explain spikes in mercury orbit before gravitational lensing, we simply found Vulcan didnt need to exist but it was the prevailing simplest solution before then.
@@MattiasThing in the sense that there's something we can't directly observe in the gaps. Matter makes the most sense as it now stands, but new observations are being made everyday.
Arvin ash you are really really great. Your explanation is simple outstanding. Please make this kind of videos I mean do videos on complicated topics rather than simpler topics.
What logic is that? I'm proud because i'm from the same country like some guy that contribute something to scince... come on... I for myself beeing proud of things i achive by myself, not because i live in a rich country or Einstein studies in the town i live... be a pakistani makes u not smart like Salam... my 2 cents...
Dumb question. It appears that the universe as we know it is ultimately the result of all these different fields and their interactions. I think the general assumption is that these fields are a constant, however is there a possibility that they do actually change over time. You pluck a guitar string and it vibrates for a while but it will eventually stop. Am I looking at this all wrong? Could in a billion years or so these fields have changed enough to give the universe a "different" physics.
Guitar strings stop because they are subject to friction and other forces which dissipate their energy. Overall energy of the universe does not go away. Fields only transfer energy from one to another. So I don't think the universe will just fade away. However, as things progress to higher entropy, it will become more disordered and less useful energy over time.
Higgs Field evolved to seperate the electroweak force so it is not constant, but in a constant state. Yes. There is some speculation that it’s evolution due to changing universe density could lead to a new state or collapse, but evidence suggests there is only two states likely possible.
@@gravitonthongs1363 That was my next question. if the electro and weak force separated once the energy density got low enough, I assume as the universe evolves the energy density is only going to get lower. Is it possible that once it reaches a threshold at a certain declining value, could new things emerge. It sounds like maybe.
@@stuglenn1112 maybe that is the mechanism to trigger a new bounce. if so then the time scales that might occur on are vast so the universe has time to evolve. vs waiting for fluxuations to save your universe and other stupidly improbable things.
@@stuglenn1112 This is indeed the outlook. The universe seem to be tearing itself apart and just grow. If this continues one day the solar system (or rather what remains of it), will be destroyed. But you won't be around, so don't worry :)
I find a couple of the analogies to be weak. The analogy for electron repulsion shows motion away induced by change in inertia due to the exchange of bosons. In the row boat analogy, momentum is conserved because the velocity of the center of mass of the boats and basketballs does not change. A single row boat from which a single basket ball is thrown will move in the same manner, but half as much. Thus, the analogy says nothing about why a singular electron cannot emit a boson and initiate unbalanced change of inertia (unless the velocity times mass for the e⁻ and the velocity times mass for the virtual photon zero out, which does not happen because the virtual photon is massless) and induce motion in the singleton electron, which would look just like spontaneous motion. A less damning critique applies to the row boat analogy for attraction. Although momentum might be conserved because the emitted particle has mass, spontaneous motion of a single particle still seems to be predicted. If we make a rule that the particles can only exchange bosons because they only emit bosons when they are close to each other, then we have to establish how they "know" that they are close to each other. We are back to the same problem we had be for virtual bosons were introduced. It looks to me as though we have analogized our way along a circular path to get back to the conundrum we were trying to solve.
That's why they are analogies. They are for simplicity as stated in the video and visualization. They are not going to be perfect analogies. What is actually going on at the quantum level is more complicated. See my video on the mechanism of the fundamental forces for a more thorough treatment of the subject: th-cam.com/video/xZqID1zSm0k/w-d-xo.html
Ahoy there, I thought this was a great video and one I've been looking forward to as most videos I can find are either too beginner and don't explain anything or too advanced and I don't get it, but I can always count on your channel to achieve the balance. I have still two more questions though, how did Glashow predict that there would need to be 4 particles for this interaction? And what did a unified electroweak force behave like?
Thanks. This gets into really complicated concepts in gauge theory and SU(2)XU(1) symmetry breaking concepts. I debated what to cover and not to cover in this video for weeks. I decided to do largely visualizations to explain how the Higgs mechanism works to give masses, and not to get in gauge theory, as I could not show it visually. The simplistic explanation is that Glashow's particles have to remain massless in the mathematical framework, otherwise there are all kinds of infinities and the equations don't work. This worked fine for electromagnetism, but did not fit the data for the weak force. So a second mechanism, that is not present in Glashow's framework had to somehow impart mass to the Weak force particles. This was the "symmetry breaking" mechanism discovered by HIggs et al, now called the Higgs Mechanism. The way the 4 Glashow particles work is that they interact with 4 higgs particle (yes there are 4) in such a way that W+, W-, Z, and photons emerge from them. This puts photons in the same mathematical framework as the weak force bosons. But to really understand this well, you would need to do at least a semester long course.
Hey Arvin, great video. One question I've always had about this: When we say they were "one and the same force," do we just mean that their strength and range were similar? Because if they were actually the same force, surely this single force would react the same as itself to changing conditions. In other words, for the force to split, it would already have to be made of component forces that act differently from each other at certain temperatures. Is my reasoning sound? Thanks again for the vid, I love your work.
Well this all feels like a puzzle, programmed and engineered brilliantly by some creator. If someone really made it then the simulation theory seems right at some point. But then again what is real real or ancestral simulation problem. Thanks for this amazing video btw!
@12:30 something just clicked! I'm not sure if I really understand it, but I think you're saying that at around the time of the big bang these bosons had no mass. I honestly can't think of a better indication that the universe was completely alien to our current experience. Thank you!
The universe is still alien to most people's "experience". We only have access to a three dimensional, local, low velocity, low gravity average. As soon any one of these conditions is violated, a human completely loses their orientation in the actual "complex" universe.
The weak force is within the nucleus much stronger ... And more important than GUTs would be to understand the complexity and evolving order of the universe including the fabrication of spacetime.
Here are really good questions that I want to repost for the benefit of everyone else who may watch this video:
1) QUESTION: 8:47 - The Heisenberg uncertainty looks wrong. ANSWER: The uncertainty principle is normally written as greater than or equal to, for REAL particles. But virtual particles can exist as long as their energy and time is LESS than h/4pi, as shown in the video -- this is a what makes them virtual and not measurable. This is a weird feature of quantum mechanics, but is the reason virtual particles can exist. I explain this in my video on "the mechanism of the 4 fundamental forces."
2) QUESTION: How did Glashow predict 4 massless particles? If they are all different particles, then why consider them as being the same force? ANSWER: This gets into really complicated concepts in gauge theory and SU(2)XU(1) symmetry breaking concepts. The simplistic explanation is that Glashow's particles have to remain massless in the mathematical framework, otherwise there are all kinds of infinities and the equations don't work. This massless-ness worked fine for electromagnetism, but did not fit the data for the weak force. So a second mechanism, that is not present in Glashow's framework had to somehow impart mass to the Weak force particles. This was the "symmetry breaking" mechanism discovered by Higgs et al, now called the Higgs Mechanism. The way the 4 Glashow particles (W1, W2, W3, B) work is that they interact with the Higgs potential (Mexican hat) in such a way that W+, W-, Z, and photons emerge from them. This puts photons in the same mathematical framework as the weak force bosons.
Read and consider my previous simplistic post.
One doubt,when Heisenberg told about heisenberg principle,why Einstein opposed that?...i don't know what exactly that principle tells about but I know that Einstein didn't agree with that principle initially....
@Arvin Ash nice article and it's really amazing to understand with easy analogy that you present.
But I wanted to also know that why Einstein opposed to Hisen uncertainty principle and hisen field.
Also, we always forget to talk about Boss, who is all behind boson particle - God particle. And can you also cover on special neutrinos particle - Tachyons which can fundamentally be faster than light. I know it's not proven but this is one of the high possible theory which I and many viewers might like to hear it about.
Last thing, I wish you take someone in your team and make more videos as it's so boring to wait for 7-15 days for the video ))
knew it
@@jamthespace1 yeah we can't wait for next video,kindly please put it as soon as possible
It's *very* tough creating a video explaining quantum theory to everyone and also be correct. But what's even tougher is responding to questions from people, especially if some of those people are knowledgeable about quantum theory or relativity. Kudos to Arvin for being able to do both, especially answering questions. Making a presentation correct is one thing, but debating with people (correctly) is an even more difficult thing. You really have to know your stuff to engage in near-real-time debates. When I talk about quantum physics, I might be wrong occasionally, but being wrong doesn't impact my income or reputation.
Thanks for that. There are indeed some very knowledgable people in the comments section.
TH-cam says you have 8 subscribers. My 6 year old niece has more. So forgive me for not entertaining you.
@@itspandatime @itspandatime You feel the need to insult someone whose post was to only provide Arvin Ash with several large compliments? That was very entertaining; thanks for making my day.
@@itspandatime wtf are you talking about?
@@TheNameOfJesusthey hate you for the God you champion. Never lose hope, christians with intelligence like you are one of the only ways we could potentially reach the non-believers today
This is wild. I'm taking a physics class with Weinberg right now at UT Austin. Crazy to think how he is forever a part of physics history.
Oh wow! Lucky you. Weinberg is easily one the greatest living physicists. I didn't know he is still teaching.
@@ArvinAsh He does occasionally I believe, and I sure am one lucky guy. Btw love your channel Arvin, looking forward to your next video!
@@speeshers hey how are his lectures?Fun??
@@aryanbista747 He's not the best with technology, so he just talks and we follow along with the eqs in the textbook (written by him lol). I've heard a lot of people don't like him as a professor, but i honestly rly like his lectures. He focus on building up the proper motivation and derives most of the eqs (in the textbook at least), building up the foundation really well. It's easy to overlook and forget his brilliance when he acts so normal in class.
@@speeshers oh that seems cool!I mean whatever others say he has definitely proven himself as a great physicist.I heard he was being awarded 3 million or something.
Would be awesome to hear some lectures from him.
Thanks for sharing!!
You are a man to admire. Your videos have excellent graphics and they blend together beautifully with your narration. You have a very rare ability to explain such subjects and to lead us to understand such complex physics.
I just wanted to say thank you, your videos really make my days a bit more interesting. I love the feeling that a have even a slight understanding of what modern physics has achieved.
Thank you.
Wow, thank you! Glad they make your day a bit better.
It is these videos that brings hope in humanity at these turbulent time, thank you .
hope this guy knows just how appreciated the combination of explanations and animations that go into making these videos the best physics lessons on youtube are
Wow. Simplifying these complex concepts in 15 min , and most importantly making these concepts appealing to an audience that lacks the sufficient knowledge to understand these concepts is incredible. Thank you for your hard work
"is coming up right now"
U truly explain amazingly
That's was the best explanation/analogy of how bosons works I've ever seen.
Most of of the video I watch are like they only talk about the phenomenon and never explain the causes. But in this channel, Arvind Sir is not only explaining it so good. Yeah sometimes it get complicated but it's all right. We want knowledge. So I kindly request you sir to explain your video in detail, like you are doing now.🙏
Another great video Arvin.
You are probably the best at explaining concepts in physics to those who lack the requisite mathematics.
This is the dilemma of all high school physics teachers.
Wow.. Beautiful conceptual animation of exchange interaction and the Highs mechanism. Thank you so much for these precious insights.
Great information & animation ....
th-cam.com/channels/wG0NAwVsFtK51Q_zT_p12w.html
Sometimes I have to stop partway through a video to make sure I click the like button. This is definitely one of those times.
It's rare that anybody talking about the weak force goes beyond the famous one-liner of _"It's the force that's responsible for radioactive decay."_
The strong and weak forces kind of seem like that weird uncle that none of the family ever want to talk about..
How did I miss this video before? This is exactly the intuition I was looking for in the Higgs mechanism! This video is worth gold!
Arvin Ash and I have different ideas of "Explained Simply"
I agree. This was one of the most difficult videos I've made. Sorry, it was the simplest I could make it. I may tackle less difficult material in future videos. (EDIT) Ok, given the feedback, I will keep tackling difficult subjects trying to make them as simple as I can make it. Thanks for everyone's input.
Arvin Ash
Please don’t! Your videos are amazing, the complexity and detail is perfect. It’s what we need, there are plenty of other channels out there for simpler topics. There’s always a level of knowledge required to be able to understand some videos, and that shouldn’t change in my opinion. Look at PBS Spacetime for example.
Until Arvin Ash's explanation here, I never understood what was meant when physicists talked of forces being the same at high energies and the symmetries breaking as the energies decrease. Well, I still don't *understand* it, but now I have a clearer idea than ever before and a general idea of what is meant. Great job, thank you!
I think simple is not meant easy
No, no, no easy material... Please! We need a way to understand difficult topics. Everything easy is already out there!
I watched the same video on PBS spacetime, couldn't understand a bit... Then I saw yours, my goodness..... The way you deal with each problem and solve them one by one is really amazing. Nice analogies and graphical representations. Big fan of your work. Please enlighten us with your amazing videos, Ash! Keep rocking ❤️
Despite I follow numerous physics channels, You always manage to blow my mind with a new perspective, well done
Tell me all physics channel you know. Please tell me.
@@toufiquet6757 Sabine hossenfelder the asylum don lincoln fermilab veritasium skydivephil pbs space-time scishow space physics girl instituto de física teórica
You?
@@UlaisisP veritesiam,domain of science,PBS space time for physics. Ted ed,in a nutshell, riddle, professor Dave explains for every type of science. Thanks for your replying.and I learned some topic from Fermi lab, crash course. And for technology learn engener is great.
Dr Abdus Salam, the only Pakistani to win a noble prize in physics.
Yup
Love to Dr Abdus from India 🥰
Born in Pakistan, but educated all the university years in Cambridge and other british science centers. The nobel prize is more english than pakistani.
@@EduNauta95 yeah true. He only born in pakistan which has nothing to do with noble price
@@anant_singh loved you also
Very well done, electroweak force is a complex topic which I have never seen before explained so straightforward
I’d like to thank you for the consistent quality, adherence to correctness, and continual “in touch with the audience” elements of your videos.
As I question my perceptions on certain topics, I can stop by your channel and affirm/reject my thinking, allowing myself greater efficiency with advancement in knowledge.
Having a single teacher for so many years, the diversity of the various perspectives I’ve seen in you, Sabine, and a few others, has functionally broadened my horizons in the realm of physics, well beyond where I would be without the presence of the said diversity.
Bless your spirit, and may your knowledge in the immaterial flourish.
What's always missing from presentations of electroweak unification is a qualitative description of how the unified force behaves, i.e. in what ways the behaviour of photons and the W/Z change to become indistinguishable at high energies.
yeah! what was it like to 'live' in that world
NO WORDS.....LITERALLY WOWW!!! AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE VIDEO IT ACTUALLY CAME TO ME , THAT I JUST WATCHED A VERY DEEPLY COMPLEX (YET EXPLAINED IN SUCH AN EASED OUT WAY) CUM PHYSICS INSPIRATIONAL VIDEO. ONE MORE THING , SIR, THE QUESTIONS PINNED BY YOU IN THE COMMENT SECTION MADE ME REALIZE THAT IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO GET QUESTIONS FROM A LECTURE RATHER THAN THE ANSWERS. PLEASE KEEP MAKING VIDEOS . THANK YOU SO MUCH😊😊
Best TH-cam channel, highly recommended.
Jim Can't Swim is truly the best but this is good too.
Thank you for the explanations.
I understood about 10% of this but I'm inspired to learn more.
Heck, you can't even understand Heisenberg's uncertainty principle without understanding the classical uncertainty principle upon which it is based, and to do that you must understand Fourier analysis.
If you want to understand, there is no getting around the math!
@@andrewstallard6927 Stop using fancy words! My head hurts.
@@Monte80 It's not the big words but rather the equations that hurt your head.
Can anyone suggest a better youtube channel than @arvinash, I am searching a lot, but haven't found yet...Simply awesome explanation of every single phenomena...
Thank you for this amazing story. So much information and so much to think about!
Thank you Arvin, your explanation made me a nanometer closer to a better understanding of this fundamental concept.
Another awesome science CLASS Arvin.. Other than WHY do the Natural Forces exist at all, the biggest mystery to me is, HOW could this video have received 10 downvotes ?? Peace.
Thanks brother. My question is why only 10 downvotes, given how difficult it is to understand? lol.
Downvotes? This ain't no reddit
@@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179 So what ?
Information .... Great , Animation .... Best
I really liked the ingenious analogy of the boomerang effect of 'virtual photons' that pushed the boats toward each other. It looks like we are on the right track uniting the strong nuclear force with the weak nuclear force. But before we get there, we need to resolve some glaring issues. Afterward, I think it would be relatively easy, for the right minds, to unite both the strong and weak forces.
Here are the two glaring issues:
First, the no-hair theorem of the singularity tells us time is not a parameter. But from the inside of our own singularity, our universe, there is quite a big party going on in here. Everybody in here is having a great time in our little part of the universe where time itself only goes forward. Since the no-hair theorem tells us there is zero time, there must be a negative aspect of time for we are not recognizing. If we can account for this negative aspect, then it will help us balance the time equation back to zero.
Second, the no-hair theorem of the singularity tells us that size, dimension, is not a parameter. Our universe should have zero size, but from the inside of our own universe there seems to be an awful lot of room in here. Again, we are missing out on the negative aspect of space. If we can properly account for this, then it will help us balance the equation for space back to zero.
I contend that both aspects of negative-time and negative-space must certainly be all around us, but our intuition causes us to misinterpret what we see. We misinterpret things in such a way that makes sense to us, and this causes us to not see the negative aspects of time and space. I contend we should re-evaluate some of our observations - especially with photons. Like our universe, photons are bosons. Since our universe has both positive and negative aspects, this suggests that photons also have a negative aspect which we have not yet recognized. For example, space is created when a particle ejects a photon. Where there once was zero space between the particle and the photon, there is now a measurable distance between them. This distance can be described by the amount of time that it takes to traverse from the particle to the photon. Space is nothing more than this - a zero dimensional line between the particle and the photon, described by time. When the photon is absorbed by another particle, then in that instance, both space and time have been deleted. But this is not the end of the story because it only describes positive time and positive space popping into existence, and then reverting back to zero. In order for these positive events to occur, there should also be negative events that simultaneously occur. Then together, they can both account for a simultaneous plus and minus - which can then revert back to zero. This strongly suggests the photon has a negative aspect for which we have not been accounting.
I am very confident that if we re-interpret some of our observations in such a way that still makes sense but in a way that also accounts for the negative aspects of space and time, then it will be much easier for us to unify the strong and weak forces. Then maybe we can finally deprecate the use of 'virtual photons' along with the use of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.
@Evi1M4chine As they say, we are on the same wavelength. I think you said it best - “...the universe still is nothing. Just made of two parts, a positive and a negative one...”.
We can even get a glimpse of these two opposite dimensions in our universe. We point to a black hole singularity (positive gravity) and say that space is infinite at a zero point. Then we look outwards into the distant universe and we also say that space is infinite. One dimension cannot be responsible for both opposite types of infinities where there is no “zero” in between. So more correctly, the infinite space around a singularity should approach zero as distance increases to infinity, and a negative black hole (negative gravity) should be a point of zero space, and space would increase to infinity as distance from the negative black hole increases. This is the best way to account for both infinities from both dimensions.
We have two opposite dimensions: one where space goes from zero to infinity, and another where space goes from infinity to zero. I have always contended the negative dimension of our universe is inverted, that is - turned inside out. So then, if we flip the negative dimension inside out - where zero and infinity reverse roles (let's also include time here), then the negative dimension should look exactly like- and behave exactly like- the positive dimension. Both dimensions are irreconcilably opposite, yet they are perfect identical copies that are reversed in every possible way.
Most scientists do not have any means to recognize these two dimensions of our universe. Yet many equations in physics make use of both time and length. As a reminder, these measurements of time and length are not recognized in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Time and length simply come out of thin air, out of nowhere. Interestingly, in many equations and perhaps all equations, time can be substituted for length and the results of the equation will remain unaffected.
We have a zero dimensional object - our universe - with both a positive and a negative aspect. We can also think of these positive and negative aspects as the very first two particles. We will need a means to describe the separation, or balance, between these two particles. Time, also acknowledged as length, is the best means to describe this balanced separation. We need to include time as a fifth fundamental force in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. In this way, we can begin to describe the separation of everything.
And from here, we can reasonably state that “time” was the very first fundamental force in our universe. It allows for “space” in which everything else takes place.
@Evi1M4chine I think you said it best - “* not a 'bang', but an expansion”. The Cosmic Microwave Background can be misleading because we interpret it as leftover radiation from a “bang”. Accepting the CMB as as evidence of a catastrophic big bang requires one to accept that the fundamental properties of our universe have suddenly changed since then. It is far more reasonable to accept the CMB radiation is from gamma rays from galaxies and quasars that were once all around us. We ourselves were once a small point in a universe that looks just like it does now - mature galaxies and quasars everywhere. As space expanded around our own small spot in the universe, new particles were created and filled our new horizon with new galaxies. Eventually, gamma rays from our own galaxies will become a faint glow, a new CMB.
We can see there is no “bang” associated with the creation of new particles. The “dark age” for new particles is still all around us but we simply do not notice them until after they condense into new stars, especially during the collision of galaxies. After billions of years, it seems the hydrogen and helium ratio has hardly changed. They are still overwhelmingly dominant and all other forms of matter are insignificant. I contend this is further evidence the “big bang” is still going on. Enormous quantities of new particles are still being generated, quietly and subtly.
@Michael Bishop I like your style. You get to the point right away. I think you should become more involved in a conversation by listing reasons for your disagreement. Anyway, this does give me a nice lead-in for what I'm going to say next, a valuable science lesson...
As with any discovery, especially the recent discovery that Maxwell's laws and equations can describe our galaxy, there are implications that cause us to update our thinking accordingly. This ability to update is what has made science different from it's competitor - religion. If you are looking for people who get it right every time, then science is not for you. You should join a religion instead.
So continuing... since equations for gravity fail to account for the orbits of stars on the outer edge of the galaxy, and since our galaxy can be described as a magnetic field in motion, this should cause us to question what gravity and mass actually are, and whether our perception of a graviton is correct. Both Newton and Maxwell may have been describing the same force, but from two different perspectives. If gravity and mass are indeed a manifestation, a subset, of this magnetic field then this means we need even fewer forces to describe the universe than what we originally thought. We may only need two.
You are a true Genius, trying to explain complex topics in simple language!
Hi Arvin, I was wondering, how do the properties of a virtual particle compare to the properties of a normal particle, for example mass, spin and charge. Does quantum foam interact with the Higgs field? Thank you for a great video.
Virtual particles have different properties than their real counterparts. They are not quite the same. Photons, W and Z virtual bosons do interact with the Higgs field, using the mechanism outlined in the video. I am attaching below an excellent explanation by Arnold Neumeier online:
All observed particles are real particles in the sense that, unlike virtual particles, their properties are verifiable by experiment. In particular, W and Z bosons are real but unstable particles at energies above the energy equivalent of their rest mass. They also arise as unobservable virtual particles in scattering processing exchanging a W or Z boson, though the existence of a corresponding exchange diagram is visible experimentally as a resonance.
Virtual particles and unstable (i.e., short living) particles are conceptually very different entities. Since there seems to be a widespread confusion about the meaning of the terms (and since Wikipedia is quite unreliable in this respect) let me give precise definitions of some terms:
A stable, observable (and hence real in the sense specified above) particle has a real mass 𝑚 and a real 4-momentum 𝑝 satisfying 𝑝2=𝑚2; one also says that it is on-shell. For such particles one can compute S-matrix elements, and according to quantum field theory, only for such particles. In perturbative calculations, stable particles correspond precisely to the external lines of the Feynman diagrams on which perturbation theory is based. Only a few elementary particles are stable, and hence can be associated with such external lines. (However, in subtheories of the standard model that ignore some interactions, particles unstable in Nature can be stable; thus the notion is a bit context dependent.)
A virtual particle has real momentum with 𝑝2≠𝑚2 (one also says that they are off-shell), and cannot exist as it would violate energy conservation. In perturbative calculations, virtual particles correspond precisely to the internal lines of the Feynman diagrams on which perturbation theory is based, and are only visual mnemonic for integrations over 4-momenta not restricted to the mass shell. In nonperturbative methods for calculating properties of particles, there is no notion of virtual particles; they are an artifact of perturbation theory.
Virtual particles are never observable. They have no properties to which one could assign in any formally meaningful way a dynamics, and hence some sort of existence in time. In particular, it is meaningless to think of them as short-living objects. (Saying they pop in and out of existence for a time allowed by the uncertainty principle has no basis in any dynamical sense - it is pure speculation based on illustrations for the uneducated public, and from a widespread misunderstanding that internal lines in Feynman diagrams describe particle trajectories in space-time).
@@ArvinAsh When exactly do we see the Z0 particle? What else is involved in this interaction, besides a neutrino?
And what about a photon's energy, how do photons exist very long obeying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?
Grey Troll the Z boson happens in pretty much every reaction since the weak force can influence all fermions.
However electric charge must be conserved in every process so sometimes a Z is what is needed to conserve charge, other times a W+/- boson will come out instead.
For photons, just use E=pc (p being the 4 momentum) instead of E=mc^2
@@ArvinAsh Neumeier's explanation is good. Note that he doesn't refer to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP), because HUP really has nothing to do with virtual particles.
@@ArvinAsh Is it possible for virtual particles to become real particles? For instance, if an electron "emits" a virtual, self-interaction photon which splits into a virtual electron-positron pair, and then that positron annihilates on another electron, does the virtual electron become real? If so, how would an off-shell virtual particle, like the virtual electron in this instance, become on-shell?
Utterly utterly fascinating video (which I need to watch again to have it all fully sink in) - thank you!
Arv bringing that heat! ♥️
First of all, I want to thank you SO much for these videos!! Since I discovered this channel a few weeks ago, I can't stop watching! I am a university professor in chemistry and was always fascinated also by physics, but did not have the time to pursue both sciences at the same level. These videos clarified so many things for me, and you are such a likeable person! Now, small questions: how does it happens that during a proton/neutron decay a massive w boson is created and then it decays into electron and anti-neutrino? Where does it gets its mass, and where does this mass goes? I get that it is overall conserved, but during the process it does seem to change, and there is no antimatter involved, it seems... Maybe I am missing some fundamental knowledge here. Thank you very much again!
I hope your next video can be on the Strong force! Man... This stuff is mind boggling! 🥴
Hey man I just found your channel this is the 2nd video i've watched, and I've watched a lot of lectures on these subjects, but you describe this so so well. Thank you, easily earned a new sub
Aside from playing with magnets, are there other ways we can get a tangible idea of how these seemingly magical forces interact? (In a very basic conceptual way.)
Thank you very much for making these videos!
Idk, throw stones at some kids maybe? Gravity ftw.
If you go get a PET scan, positron emission, or encounter radioactivity, such as at Chernobyl - Weak force at work.
The people on boats in THIS video.
It amazes me they can be treated a bit like classical objects and not magic fields. (Although, are both?). Throw something and there is an opposing force...just simply due to energy
Electromagnetic partical interactions.u can study them from.feymans diagrams
It's hard to express in words how excellent this channel is!
Seems to be great from description
Seen it complete just amazing
I watch many science channels in YT and I may or may not understand the topic at hand better afterwards...it's pretty random...but with respect to this channel I almost ALWAYS grasp the concepts presented much better after the video. In poker terms: Arvin Ash always comes to the table with his A-game.
I appreciate that. But the concepts in this video, to your credit, is very difficult to understand. This video and my video on Bell's inequality, I think are the two most difficult concepts I have covered so far.
This also allowed me to understand the big slurp end of the universe possibility; If that sombraro oscilates again farther out from the center to a lower level...
sombrero my friend not sombraro but its ok keep on with your spanish.
This video is a real treasure!!! Thank you so much for your effort and top-quality explanation!!!! You have such talent, Sir!
Sir, you are excellent. I love to subscribe to your channel. Greetings from Vienna!
Awesome, thank you!
What you do here, Mr. Ash, is amazing.
One video on Quantum Gravity please!!
Coming in out 3 weeks!
@@ArvinAsh Waiting!!
That boomerang analogy did make me think a bit. Thanks.
TOE and GUT always gives me chills.!!
Stunning episode!!!! Keep up the great work Arvin! You are amazing.
I got lost several minutes into the video. Yet there I was going, yep. Ah-huh. Makes sense.
The universe is a big sombrero hat. The universe is Mexican, esse.
Worth watching channel...👐🏿👐🏿😍😍😍..lehkhaa zir tawp ai chuan hetia en mai mai hi a nuam mawle
Request you to please make a video on the Cosmic Microwave Background.
I'm very curious to know things like this because I want to become a Theoretical physicist and a cosmologist.
@@mattmurphy7030Ohk Thank you,
will definitely see it.🙂🙂
Great video. Those graphics were very helpful.
I know this will be good, so I'll just like it now (in case I forget)
Inspiring ❤️❤️
This stuff is so complicated that even simplified it is hard to wrap my head around due to the complexity. I can more or less understand the jist of the stuff to visualize it in my head but the fine details and especially the mathematics behind these things goes way over my autism addled mind >.< I am so curious to learn more in spite of this.
I am trying to world build and write a story and stuff and part of it involves the inspiration I draw from what I can learn of the real world and science.
I want to find questions that scientists haven't asked yet that might lead to new discoveries and contribute my ideas even though I have an admittedly novice understanding of the fine details of what has already been researched.
I am filled with wonder for the universe I exist in and the more I learn of it, the more my creativity is fueled, and the more curious I become for the next discovery or innovation
Whereas scientists are making incredible advancements in all fields . I doubt if a few of them have identified the hard fact that the planet is already running through mass extinction of all species.
Don't feel bad about being confused about advanced physics. It's even confusing to those of us who have been studying physics all our lives. But that's why we like it! It's the hard problems that are fun. We like the things that stretch our minds. My students don't really get a big kick out of Newtonian mechanics, but relativity and quantum mechanics and nuclear physics are always fun topics for them. (They also seem to really enjoy the sections on acoustics because it's something they can totally relate to). So keep on studying and keep letting your mind be bent and stretched into new ways of thinking. To me, that's what makes physics so enjoyable.
@@dankuchar6821 Agreed. I am almost 30 and have independently researched a variety of science fields. I am a writer, musician, digital artist and would eventually want to advance to animation. I draw heavy musical and narrative inspiration from the things I learn of the universe which I use to fuel my creative endeavors .
The primary question I have about the universe is the following; What is the fabric of all reality as my consciousness experiences it and how does this thing govern all the rest of physics? If I can learn an answer to this that basically amounts to the unified theory of everything before my body expires and consciousness disappears, I will feel fulfilled and full of awe and wonder.
I would pay to see your list of best books required to know everything you know. You are an inspiration to humanity.
I think we really need to sit down and define what gravity is. Is is the force objects with mass exert on each other and spacetime, or is it the warped space itself that results in objected being "pulled" together? Cuz if its the latter, i dont think we can define that as an actual force, because massive objects being drawn to each other has nothing to do with a force they exert on each others mass, and has everything to do with the resulting gravity well, that is simply the seemingly natural result, of having objects with mass in a 4D spacetime. That doesnt sound like a force to me, but of course, it takes energy to warp space, therefore the warping of space has to use energy that is carried by some force, so it does sound like a force at the same time. I mean if it really is a 'force' that means the continuous warping of spacetime that is the gravity well, would need a constant supply of gravitons to always have space warped there.
I just looked at this paper publications.ias.edu/sites/default/files/poincare2012.pdf that talks about LIGO a bit and one of the things it mentions is this, "For an angular frequency of 1 Kilohertz, the single graviton energy density is at most 3.10^−47 ergs per cubic centimeter. So any gravitational wave detectable by LIGO must contain at least 3.10^37 gravitons." So i thought, ok, any one single missing graviton that makes it 3.10^37 -(1) then the wave would be too small to detect. But in the space between objects that are orbiting each other, that creates a gravity well, there must be a constant saturation of gravitons within that space that keeps spacetime warped, either literally being expelled by the objects with mass, or instead of gravitons radiating out from massive objects, pushing and warping space, in the same way excitations in the electromagnetic field that moves through the field, and through space and time, maybe gavitons are already manifested in the field.
Like, photons are the excitations of the electromagnetic field, but there arent photons in the field 'waiting' to be excited (unless virtual photons can be described in this way as "waiting to be excited". Of this i do not know). I think gravitons are manifested in the field already, waiting to be excited, and when you put a massive object in space time or massless objects that just have energy (photons), the gravitons that are in what become the gravity well just kinda, turn on. I think gravity waves may function in this way as well; not as a wave of gravitons radiation out from colliding black holes say, but perhaps, im thinking of it like this- you have the black holes and they are sitting in space orbiting each other. As they move, because of their mass, excite gravitons in space and results in their individual gravity wells. As they move around each other in orbit, because of the nature of their orbit, and how massive they are, these gravity wells interact in a manner of speaking, that is to say they get excited in a kind of pattern, getting excited this way in that well, excited that way in this well, and excited differently when the wells intersect. I think these patterned and complex interactions, the result is energy in the form of photons, and because of how massive these objects are, these photons have a lot of energy that radiate outwards and excite gravitons far far from where the event happened.
As this happens, gravity 'waves' appear to flow out from them. I think this is not gravitons that are released as this form of energy, but rather the energy is released, pure energy (photons((visible or not)), and the gravitons are already there to be excited by these photons. As they photons radiate outwards, they flow through space, exciting the gravitons and in the process, losing energy to them, until its lost all of its energy and this is when we say the wave has ceased. I think its a lot like, the human wave in stadium seats. Photons, dont already exist and for this thought ill refer to them as "electromagnetic field particles". So, these particles are excitations in the electromagnetic field, but i dont think that is to say, there are already individual quantized electromagnetic particles already in the field. With gravity and gravitons, i think there is. I think the gravitation field is there, AND that there are already individual quantized bits of gravity know as gravitons in every smallest possible measurable region and that the wave we are seeing is really the photons losing energy to the gravitons already in space itself; and the energy gained by the gravitons by the moving photon, warps space where that graviton is, the photon continues its path- loses energy to the next graviton, in turn warping space, just a little bit less, since it had less energy to start after losing the bit of energy to the previous exciting of a graviton, and so forth.
So i dont think gravitons are a force carrier, i think their nature is to receive a force. Someone lemme know if im crazy, if this seems logical, if its already a generally thought about idea in the field, if i misinterpreted anything, or just whatev haha.
I was with you in the beginning. If this were correct though, should we not be able to detect the photons around every massive object? Should we not be able to detect the interaction? I personally would take the beginning of your thought and try to make it work without gravitons (which are purely theoretical).
THANK YOU... DR.ARVIN ASH...!!!
Thanks, really good video! I was wondering is it possible that on very low energies and/or temperatures one force splits into two more?
It is possible, but unlikely. The forces we see today probably do not split further.
@@ArvinAsh Thanks Arvin!
Arvin Ash can we do the inverse of the CERN particle accelerator and simulate a lower energy universe?
Another awesome -amazing - and fantastic video from Arv🙌🙌🙌❤️❤️❤️
What's funny is that it's possible scientist discover the Theory of Everything, and only then will they realize there's still soooooo much more to learn.
that will be called camel TOE
Consciousness or something? Biomechanics? There is already more lol.
But yeh QM just caused more direpency, right? So the next one will fit and then not fit with something else that we never realised. Weirder than quantum mechanics like cant stop strings turning into actual mexican hats or opens weirder objects and effects than blackholes or entanglement that we then have to prove on scales we cant observe.
I dont think will be string theory.
dave randell critics say he just assumes all things get bigger all the time and everything is a consequence of that.
This is outstanding! Thank you very much Arvin Ash.
Still baffled how the forces “separated” during the Big Bang. Did these exist before the BB or did they invent themselves? Love the channel.
Think of it this way. If all the energy of the universe was squeezed into the tiniest space you can imagine, at the hottest temperatures you can imagine, everything - all matter, energy, and forces would likely be one entity. Only upon cooling and separation would any distinctions occur. Why these distinctions occur is a good question. Not known.
What happens when we get the TOE?
@@Henry-jp3mc Then we get to work figuring out the mysteries of the universe, like dark matter and dark energy. We will have a theoretical basis to figure it out.
One good way: there was no big bang. It was a black hole exploding and it happens in cycles. The animation at 8:30 is super nice.
chicken and egg question.
Wow this video really helped me to understand Higgs mechanism and its importance for electro-weak unification.
Neutron: Oh no
Proton: Anyway
W- boson: Oh no
Electron: Anyway
Antineutrino: Anyway
I had no idea what this means. I had to look it up. lol.
@@ArvinAsh what does it mean? Lol.
Idk exactly ethier but oh no=decay and anyway=stable.
Best video on Electroweak Theory
Veritasium recently put out a video where he briefly mentioned that according to relativity charged particles which are stationary in a gravitational field are technically accelerating and therefor should emit photons. Could you make a video going into the details on this?
The charged particles emitting photons thing is called breaking radiation (bremsstrahlung) and is a very common phenomenon. It's how synchrotrons and x-ray tubes generate x-rays (in tubes it's the continuous part of the spectrum but not the sharp lines). It is why shielding a space ship with a material like lead is stupid. Solar protons don't go that deep , but if you have high atomic number shielding, the protons will brake much faster and generate penetrating x-rays. With light stuff like water, aluminium, plastic, beryllium etc. you get much softer x-rays that are easier to shield. Classically the effect should exist because if you wiggle a charged particles it will make electromagnetic waves. You don't really observe significant bremsstralung unless you have fairly extreme circumstances; e.g. an electron going a significant fraction of the speed of light making a 90 degree hair-pin turn around the nucleus of an atom. E.g. most beta radiation sources have too little energy (hundreds of keV) to give significant brehmsstralung with a few exceptions like phosphorus-32, which is spicy enough to make some x-rays this way.
@@soylentgreenb Interesting. I learned about bremsstrahlung radiation in a materials science course, but thought about it as a series of distinct scattering events, each one of which creates a photon. Comparing that to a particle being suspended against gravity, which seems like a continuous process took a bit. I guess any "continuous" process can be thought of (or mathematically modeled as) a sum of nearly infinitessimal discrete events. Is that how it works out on paper?
@@Nuovoswiss Quantum mechanically you get single x-ray photons from discrete events and there is a "cross section" for generating brehmsstralung radiation. The spectrum is continous because the kinetic energies are continous to some extent (collisions, prior emission of bremsstrahlung radiation so that the particle has lost some but not all energy) and because the charged particle can be deflected and slowed by differing amounts depending on the charge of the the thing they are being deflected by and how close they pass. Since both of those things are continous you don't get discrete energy levels in brehmsstralung radiation. The discrete energy levels you get from an x-ray source are from knocking out inner shell electrons and having some electron fall down to the unoccupied energy level; that's a well defined amount of energy (k-alpha is from a 2p orbital to a 1s orbital etc). Even these lines are not infinitely sharp with only one possible energy level; there is some broadening e.g. due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle (dT * dE ~ h, where dT is lifetime of the state) and doppler broadening. Even synchrotron radiation where you have particles spiraling around a magnetic field with a well known strength you get a very broad continous spectrum
I really like the way you break down equations and are not fearful of using mathematics. PLEASE keep on doing more and more complex ideas ☺️
Can you explain the colors consept I've never understood it
See my video on "How do the fundamental forces of nature work" for an intro to QCD.
sir how can i contact you i want to talk something to you
This one was hard to follow, but you did a great job explaining it Arvin. It's just going to take multiple replays to "get" it.
Yes my friend. This is a very difficult subject, so multiple viewings, and also supplementary reading would help if you want to understand it more fully. Also, see my pinned comment.
I'm not entirely sure it'd be a theory of everything.
Once we do have a unification of the 4 fundamental forces, there's no guarantee that it would explain dark matter or dark energy. And it might not explain why there's more matter than antimatter.
Yeah the term is a bit presumptuous unfortunately the names has stuck >_>
Well, GR kinda has DM and Dark energy in it, so if we could unify a similar theory that is QM compatible, then you would get everything in the theory of everything.
@@MattiasThing thats a presumption since we do not know what either is.
There is however a possibility the TOE resolves them by proving they do not exist.
So far is not proven its actually "matter" of any kind nor proven that either is more than a theoretical gap: that remains a possibility!
Just like finding planet Vulcan to explain spikes in mercury orbit before gravitational lensing, we simply found Vulcan didnt need to exist but it was the prevailing simplest solution before then.
@@jorgepeterbarton well that is an option of course, but the evidence for Dark Matter is quite significant.
@@MattiasThing in the sense that there's something we can't directly observe in the gaps. Matter makes the most sense as it now stands, but new observations are being made everyday.
Arvin ash you are really really great. Your explanation is simple outstanding. Please make this kind of videos I mean do videos on complicated topics rather than simpler topics.
Seeing a Pakistani Physicist in this video has made my interest in Physics go higher. As A Pakistani I am proud
Yes, Abdus Salam was one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, in my opinion.
th-cam.com/video/5h1Anifgkwk/w-d-xo.html
What logic is that? I'm proud because i'm from the same country like some guy that contribute something to scince... come on...
I for myself beeing proud of things i achive by myself, not because i live in a rich country or Einstein studies in the town i live... be a pakistani makes u not smart like Salam... my 2 cents...
Adrian just curious what have you accomplished?
When smart guys get together, great things happen.
Amazing explanation 👏
Dumb question. It appears that the universe as we know it is ultimately the result of all these different fields and their interactions. I think the general assumption is that these fields are a constant, however is there a possibility that they do actually change over time. You pluck a guitar string and it vibrates for a while but it will eventually stop. Am I looking at this all wrong? Could in a billion years or so these fields have changed enough to give the universe a "different" physics.
Guitar strings stop because they are subject to friction and other forces which dissipate their energy. Overall energy of the universe does not go away. Fields only transfer energy from one to another. So I don't think the universe will just fade away. However, as things progress to higher entropy, it will become more disordered and less useful energy over time.
Higgs Field evolved to seperate the electroweak force so it is not constant, but in a constant state.
Yes. There is some speculation that it’s evolution due to changing universe density could lead to a new state or collapse, but evidence suggests there is only two states likely possible.
@@gravitonthongs1363 That was my next question. if the electro and weak force separated once the energy density got low enough, I assume as the universe evolves the energy density is only going to get lower. Is it possible that once it reaches a threshold at a certain declining value, could new things emerge. It sounds like maybe.
@@stuglenn1112 maybe that is the mechanism to trigger a new bounce.
if so then the time scales that might occur on are vast so the universe has time to evolve.
vs waiting for fluxuations to save your universe and other stupidly improbable things.
@@stuglenn1112 This is indeed the outlook. The universe seem to be tearing itself apart and just grow. If this continues one day the solar system (or rather what remains of it), will be destroyed. But you won't be around, so don't worry :)
Tough topic. Excellently explained!!
I find a couple of the analogies to be weak. The analogy for electron repulsion shows motion away induced by change in inertia due to the exchange of bosons. In the row boat analogy, momentum is conserved because the velocity of the center of mass of the boats and basketballs does not change. A single row boat from which a single basket ball is thrown will move in the same manner, but half as much. Thus, the analogy says nothing about why a singular electron cannot emit a boson and initiate unbalanced change of inertia (unless the velocity times mass for the e⁻ and the velocity times mass for the virtual photon zero out, which does not happen because the virtual photon is massless) and induce motion in the singleton electron, which would look just like spontaneous motion.
A less damning critique applies to the row boat analogy for attraction. Although momentum might be conserved because the emitted particle has mass, spontaneous motion of a single particle still seems to be predicted.
If we make a rule that the particles can only exchange bosons because they only emit bosons when they are close to each other, then we have to establish how they "know" that they are close to each other. We are back to the same problem we had be for virtual bosons were introduced.
It looks to me as though we have analogized our way along a circular path to get back to the conundrum we were trying to solve.
That's why they are analogies. They are for simplicity as stated in the video and visualization. They are not going to be perfect analogies. What is actually going on at the quantum level is more complicated. See my video on the mechanism of the fundamental forces for a more thorough treatment of the subject: th-cam.com/video/xZqID1zSm0k/w-d-xo.html
The boat analogy is awesome!
Ahoy there, I thought this was a great video and one I've been looking forward to as most videos I can find are either too beginner and don't explain anything or too advanced and I don't get it, but I can always count on your channel to achieve the balance. I have still two more questions though, how did Glashow predict that there would need to be 4 particles for this interaction? And what did a unified electroweak force behave like?
Thanks. This gets into really complicated concepts in gauge theory and SU(2)XU(1) symmetry breaking concepts. I debated what to cover and not to cover in this video for weeks. I decided to do largely visualizations to explain how the Higgs mechanism works to give masses, and not to get in gauge theory, as I could not show it visually. The simplistic explanation is that Glashow's particles have to remain massless in the mathematical framework, otherwise there are all kinds of infinities and the equations don't work. This worked fine for electromagnetism, but did not fit the data for the weak force. So a second mechanism, that is not present in Glashow's framework had to somehow impart mass to the Weak force particles. This was the "symmetry breaking" mechanism discovered by HIggs et al, now called the Higgs Mechanism. The way the 4 Glashow particles work is that they interact with 4 higgs particle (yes there are 4) in such a way that W+, W-, Z, and photons emerge from them. This puts photons in the same mathematical framework as the weak force bosons. But to really understand this well, you would need to do at least a semester long course.
Excellent job sir. Excellent teacher.
I vote that the name of all the fundamental forces combined is, The Force.
...and may it be with you my friend!
I love the boomerang analogy. Mutual attraction via photon exchange doesn't make much intuitive sense without it.
Hey Arvin, great video. One question I've always had about this: When we say they were "one and the same force," do we just mean that their strength and range were similar? Because if they were actually the same force, surely this single force would react the same as itself to changing conditions. In other words, for the force to split, it would already have to be made of component forces that act differently from each other at certain temperatures. Is my reasoning sound? Thanks again for the vid, I love your work.
great question
Thank you for the video.
Well this all feels like a puzzle, programmed and engineered brilliantly by some creator. If someone really made it then the simulation theory seems right at some point. But then again what is real real or ancestral simulation problem. Thanks for this amazing video btw!
@12:30 something just clicked! I'm not sure if I really understand it, but I think you're saying that at around the time of the big bang these bosons had no mass. I honestly can't think of a better indication that the universe was completely alien to our current experience. Thank you!
The universe is still alien to most people's "experience". We only have access to a three dimensional, local, low velocity, low gravity average. As soon any one of these conditions is violated, a human completely loses their orientation in the actual "complex" universe.
How complicated mathematics and theory
Thank you very much for this great work.
I hope, i am near to complete the minor theory of everything.
Great explanation of (parts of) the standard model.
Thanks to weak nuclear force for making sun to emit light for our living.
Biff the big guy in 'Back To The Future' learnt that 'weakness' is not a fault.
Such videos definitely needed
Quantum electrodynamics + Quantum chromodynamics
Chromodynamics is associated with the strong force, which does not fit into the electroweak model currently.
Another gripping narration Arvin Ash - if you can put all your videos on Megalan TV - brilliant 🙏
Hmm...hadn't considered that.
this makes all sense when I am drunk
Thank you again Arvin for another video that I should be able to fully understand if I was as smart as you. At least I can hope.
The weak force is within the nucleus much stronger ...
And more important than GUTs would be to understand the complexity and evolving order of the universe including the fabrication of spacetime.
Thank you. Perfect