I'm a UK engineer who became a Physics teacher and have waited some time (twenty years) for a video that has helped me get a greater appreciation for the standard model. Thank you.
Wow this was a fantastic explanation! Although quantum theory isn't at the high school level, I think it would still fit with the scope of your channel and I would love to see you make more videos on the topic! Thanks again!
These videos are really great. I'm getting old, and one of my goals is to go back to college, get a degree in physics and study QM. So I really enjoy videos about the standard model. Thanks!
@@PhysicsHigh I have a physics Ph.D. but my quantum mechanics professor was so bad... I know how I passed my Masters's Quantum mechanics course. lol.... thank god it done
This is awesome, wow. So can the level up be explained by the quark level beneath it? Are the protons and neutrons that form the nuclei of common atoms from the periodic table made up of specific quarks forming baryons, mesons etc? Eg is the nucleus of a single Oxygen atom made up of a combination of specific quarks in its neutrons and protons in the nucleus, while a Nitrogen atom is made up of different combinations of quarks in the form of baryons and mesons?
All the elements are made up of protons and neutrons and they are only made up of the up and down quark - 2 x up , 1 x down for the proton; 2 x down 1 x up, for the neutron. So there is NO element, certainly not naturally occurring anyway, of atoms made up of any other quark. Now subatomic particles are made in cosmic collisions and in particle accelerators, but they have a very short half life so we only know of they existence by their decay products . Mesons are also only created by particle accelerators, again have a very short half life and are made up of two fermions, one quark and one antiquark. Again, do not exist naturally
If the nucleus is so well understood, why hasn't there been a revolution in fusion yet ? One would expect that knowing all the properties of the reactants would allow for their manipulation is such a way that the product is orders of magnitude more likely to be produced (catalysis), rather than in the case of random bumping (Tokamak) where the energy input is huge
Thank you for this great explanation! If protons and neutrons are made up of only 2 types of quarks and some gluons, where do the rest of the particles exist? Are quarks fundamental or does something smaller make them up?
Simplistic? Because the charges of hadrons are obtained by summing those of the quarks? I can’t see how else it’s simple since the population of the standard model doesn’t seem too much lower than that of the particle zoo.
Importantly, quarks have never been observed. So, when we throw previous models in the trash and pretend they do not exist and that philosophy is moot in view of hard evidence, it is a bit comical that quarks have literally never been observed. Note that they were introduced to simplify--to explain all the particles observed using "elementary particles" (which assumes such a thing to even exist.) And then, because they were insufficient, we had to keep adding new versions of quarks, then antiquarks too. We went from 2 to 12. Why is that ok? I thought the objective was to explain more particles using less, not to create a new array of particles that clearly are no longer anywhere near the intended quantity.
@@James-le8gd A very good question. In essence with any particle (not boson), there is a corresponding anti particle that has the same mass but opposite in other ways. Neutrinos however are a little more problematic. You are right, they have not charge. This is still some mystery. One option is that they are their own anti particle, then there is the idea of right vs left handed ness (weird right) I suggest you look at this site on neutrinos - which is a good start further understanding. The source is Fermilab so reliable - neutrinos.fnal.gov/
" *Philosophers don't test their models* " I agree, but you try to explain that to a Philosophy Prof and you'll get nonsense back. .. I debate the Philosophy Professors. Here is how you blow the mind of a Philosophy Prof. .. Say - *There was logic before the Sun began to shine* [The dopes have never even considered this.]
Tge whole nivers was in a sthot dens states then nearly forty million years adgo we built a bomb awe built a pyramid math sceince histroy unraveling the hitroy it all started wilth a bing bang
No, you need to explain spin and strangeness... Literally every single video on youtube decides to skip the explanation of spin and strangeness... What are they? Where do they come from? If you understand, explain it simply.... Don't skip over it. Particle physics seems like a joke.
My pitch is to high school student level in this video so spin and strangeness is not necessary and beyond the scope for most HS curriculum. However, I take your point and it is on list of future videos.
I'm a UK engineer who became a Physics teacher and have waited some time (twenty years) for a video that has helped me get a greater appreciation for the standard model. Thank you.
Thanks for the great feedback.
I don't get how this isn't getting more views. It helps so much!
Thanks for the feedback. Wish it got more views too. 😄
Was thinking the same thing!
same doubt
by far the best, simple and interesting explanation presented elegantly
This is honestly the most helpful video on the standard model !
Thanks very much
Wow this was a fantastic explanation! Although quantum theory isn't at the high school level, I think it would still fit with the scope of your channel and I would love to see you make more videos on the topic! Thanks again!
This is the first video I've seen about the Standard Model that I actually, completely understand.
very well explained, with a lot of details. thx
It give me an great understanding to me, and clear my great confusion
These videos are really great. I'm getting old, and one of my goals is to go back to college, get a degree in physics and study QM. So I really enjoy videos about the standard model. Thanks!
Glad you like them!
NICELY EXPLAINED
This needs more views! This topic od very interesting to me and im only 12
Thanks. Feel free to share 🙂
Great explanation!! Thank you!! So glad I found your channel!
Thanks. Hope you subscribed 😉
@@PhysicsHigh Yes, I did. Will binge watch as time permits.
Well explained, became very easy😍😍😍
Amazing explanation thanks! I've a chemistry PhD and we never went that deep. I've always wanted to know haha. Thanks a million 👍👍
Should have done a physics PhD 😆
Seriously, you’re welcome. glad it helped.
@@PhysicsHigh yeah maybe 😂😂
@@PhysicsHigh I have a physics Ph.D. but my quantum mechanics professor was so bad... I know how I passed my Masters's Quantum mechanics course. lol.... thank god it done
Very well presented and explained.
Damn! That was so helpful
Could you do a video on hierarchy problem, and how that relates to the Higgs boson?
Fantastic video. Thanks
Glad it helped.
This is awesome, wow. So can the level up be explained by the quark level beneath it? Are the protons and neutrons that form the nuclei of common atoms from the periodic table made up of specific quarks forming baryons, mesons etc? Eg is the nucleus of a single Oxygen atom made up of a combination of specific quarks in its neutrons and protons in the nucleus, while a Nitrogen atom is made up of different combinations of quarks in the form of baryons and mesons?
All the elements are made up of protons and neutrons and they are only made up of the up and down quark - 2 x up , 1 x down for the proton; 2 x down 1 x up, for the neutron. So there is NO element, certainly not naturally occurring anyway, of atoms made up of any other quark.
Now subatomic particles are made in cosmic collisions and in particle accelerators, but they have a very short half life so we only know of they existence by their decay products .
Mesons are also only created by particle accelerators, again have a very short half life and are made up of two fermions, one quark and one antiquark. Again, do not exist naturally
If the nucleus is so well understood, why hasn't there been a revolution in fusion yet ? One would expect that knowing all the properties of the reactants would allow for their manipulation is such a way that the product is orders of magnitude more likely to be produced (catalysis), rather than in the case of random bumping (Tokamak) where the energy input is huge
Simple and nice
Thank you for this great explanation! If protons and neutrons are made up of only 2 types of quarks and some gluons, where do the rest of the particles exist? Are quarks fundamental or does something smaller make them up?
As far as we k is quarks are fundamental. Some theorists believe in string theory but the problem is that it’s not testable.
So, if I understand well, the standard model is just a classification? Like a kind of periodic table for particles?
Correct.
I now understand why I only scored a "Pass" and not a "High Distinction" in Physics at Uni. Thanks for the humiliation.
can you explain how the proton and neutron are made? What are your opinoins on the onium theory?
Protons and neutrons were made in the early universe after the Big Bang. I am not super familiar on the onium model. I’d have to read into it.
you didn't add graviton. Was it bcs its not proven(only hypothesized) or any other reason?
Yes that’s a biggy. The would unify quantum theory with general relativity, the holy grail of physics.
Simplistic? Because the charges of hadrons are obtained by summing those of the quarks?
I can’t see how else it’s simple since the population of the standard model doesn’t seem too much lower than that of the particle zoo.
_"What's the stuff all around us made of."_
Oh...Nothing. Well mostly nothing.
its a shame that they dont teach this in NA high school, its so interesting
Little of this was ever mentioned in my high school physics courses, but that was in the 1960s in Jesusland (the USA).
Importantly, quarks have never been observed. So, when we throw previous models in the trash and pretend they do not exist and that philosophy is moot in view of hard evidence, it is a bit comical that quarks have literally never been observed.
Note that they were introduced to simplify--to explain all the particles observed using "elementary particles" (which assumes such a thing to even exist.) And then, because they were insufficient, we had to keep adding new versions of quarks, then antiquarks too. We went from 2 to 12. Why is that ok? I thought the objective was to explain more particles using less, not to create a new array of particles that clearly are no longer anywhere near the intended quantity.
whats the difference between particles and anti particles that have no charge?
In principle only fermions have anti particles. And thus they have charge.
@@PhysicsHigh what about fermions like neutrinos?
@@James-le8gd A very good question. In essence with any particle (not boson), there is a corresponding anti particle that has the same mass but opposite in other ways. Neutrinos however are a little more problematic. You are right, they have not charge. This is still some mystery. One option is that they are their own anti particle, then there is the idea of right vs left handed ness (weird right) I suggest you look at this site on neutrinos - which is a good start further understanding. The source is Fermilab so reliable - neutrinos.fnal.gov/
Are anti particles really antimatter
what is the statement on your shirt and where do i get one? hahaha
Neutrinos?
What about them?
@@PhysicsHigh I heard they don't fit into the standard model.
Yes. They don’t quite fit. But that’s the nature of models. They work well but can get modified or even rejected when evidence demands it.
@@PhysicsHigh Isn't neutrinos part of muon neutrino, electron neutrino and Tau neutrino?
" *Philosophers don't test their models* " I agree, but you try to explain that to a Philosophy Prof and you'll get nonsense back. ..
I debate the Philosophy Professors. Here is how you blow the mind of a Philosophy Prof. .. Say - *There was logic before the Sun began to shine* [The dopes have never even considered this.]
Tge whole nivers was in a sthot dens states then nearly forty million years adgo we built a bomb awe built a pyramid math sceince histroy unraveling the hitroy it all started wilth a bing bang
No, you need to explain spin and strangeness... Literally every single video on youtube decides to skip the explanation of spin and strangeness... What are they? Where do they come from? If you understand, explain it simply.... Don't skip over it. Particle physics seems like a joke.
My pitch is to high school student level in this video so spin and strangeness is not necessary and beyond the scope for most HS curriculum. However, I take your point and it is on list of future videos.
my friend Alice Circelli from mount gambier wants to know if you are single
my wife says I'm not - sorry :-)
Speaks too much like a high school teacher in love with his own voice.
For highschool 😂?
Yes it is taught in y12 here in Australia.