Are Virtual Particles A New Layer of Reality?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ต.ค. 2018
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Let me tell you a story about virtual particles. It may or may not be true.
You can further support us on Patreon at / pbsspacetime
Get your own Space Time t-shirt at bit.ly/1QlzoBi
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit: / pbsspacetime
Help translate our videos!
/ timedtext_cs_. .
Previous Episode:
Will We Ever Find Alien Life?
• Will We Ever Find Alie...
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Graeme Gossell and Matt O'Dowd
Graphics by Luke Maroldi
Assistant Editing and Sound Design by Mike Petrow
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
Sometimes our mathematical hacks point to strange new aspects of reality. For example Max Planck used a quantization trick to figure out the spectrum of light emitted by hot objects. The quantization part of his math trick was meant to disappear in the final form of equation, but it remained - it proved fundamental. That math hack turned out to represent the very real quantum nature of the photon. This insight let to the discovery of all quantum physics. A more recent mathematical hack is the virtual particle. They started out as a trick to make impossible calculations in quantum field theory possible. Possible, at least, for the sort of people who can do quantum field theory. So will virtual particles also prove to represent a new underlying aspect of reality? We’re going to go pretty deep in this one - but it will bring us to a better understanding of the quantum nature of reality, so stick with me.
Special thanks to our Patreon Big Bang, Quasar and Hypernova Supporters:
Big Bang
David Nicklas
CoolAsCats
Anton Lifshits
Fabrice Eap
Justin Lloyd
Juan Benet
Quasar
Tambe Barsbay
Mark Rosenthal
Dean Fuqua
James Flowers
Vinnie Falco
Hypernova
Chuck Zegar
Jordan Young
Joseph Salomone
John Hofmann
Martha Hunt
Matthew O’Connor
Ratfeast
Brent Mullins
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
Max Levine
Thanks to our Patreon Gamma Ray Burst Supporters:
Alexander Rodriguez
Alexey Eromenko
Brandon Cook
Brandon Labonte
Daniel Lyons
David Crane
Fabian Olesen
Fauzan Ardhana
Greg Allen
Greg Weiss
Jack Frosch
James Hughes
JJ Bagnell
Jon Folks
Joseph Emison
Josh Thomas
Kevin Warne
Malte Ubl
Mark Vasile
Nathan Leniz
Nicholas Rose
Nick Virtue
Scott Gossett
Shannan Catalano
Shawn Azman
Tommy Mogensen
سلطان الخليفي
After a lot of these videos I'm starting to think that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the main antagonist in the series
It's breaking my brain, bad.
If only he didn't invent it...
Heisenberg spent a lot of time doing the math just to get back at us.
Heisenberg, in any form, is a badass. Shares the top spot together with Entropy.
@@davidroberts1689 You're mistaken. This.......is not a meth crystal...it's a time crystal!
I feel like a character in a video game trying to understand how the game was programmed
That may be far more accurate than you think, except I see no reason for us to NOT have a significant degree of free will/self-determination. (A 5/D being could see the entire timeline like a book, but we created our decision-tree part Planck-clock by Planck-clock.)
@@thesoundsmith The dimensions might be "nested" such that a N+1 dimensional being can observe N-dimensional beings.
You are
Yes you're right, we live in a simulation just like characters in video game, simulated by higher dimensional creatures. But some of us have consciousness that is directly connected to the body of that higher dimensional creature.
Star Ocean: Til The End Of Time
QFT in a nutshell: The only things that really exist are quantum fields. Real particles are perturbations of those fields. Virtual particles represent potential perturbations of those fields. Virtual particles are useful to model interaction between real particles.
@@RubbittTheBruise
Exactly !
I would say that quantum fields don't exist either, being just models themselves. It seems that only information needs to exist, whether it is represented as something in space-time or not: any "physical reality" is probably only a representation of information, a "way" in which information is "stored".
Third sentences seems not good for me.
Why potential? Maybe this peturbations are real.
You got it. (Or at least, WE TWO agree...) The ONLY thing that actually exist are the q-fields. It's all we need to have all - this...
@@pierfrancescopeperoni This universal hard drive sucks, the past always disappears and forgotten :/
Sitting back and taking in that THIS is where we are when it comes to physics modeling is absolutely insane. What a time to be alive.
indeed. all of those statements like "born too late to explore X, too early to explore Y, just in time to explore Z" are just wrong
Watching Space Time sober: "What?! That hurts my brain!" Watching Space Time slightly inebriated: "Well of course. That makes sense."
Invin And watching really intoxicated, Matt’s voice will make you sleep happily knowing he will take care of the universe.
Yeah drunk didn't make me understand this more, LSD did though
It actually has a name. It's called the "Ballmer Peak", a comical exaggeration of the famous Yerkes-Dodson principle.
Keep it balanced !
I'm in a constant superposition of brain hurt and understanding. My wave function collapses when he cracks a joke though
reminds me of when sometimes when I take my ADHD medication and get into a hyperfocus state I will spend like 8 hours on a project, feeling as though I can see the matrix numbers and everything suddenly has a refreshing clarity to it, and I work so quickly and don't stop for breaks, because I must finish what I started.
But I will come back the next day, and it will all work... but I have absaloutly no idea how. And when I try to understand it I get a headache. It's like it was made by another person, much more qualified than myself.
Unfortunately that hasn't happened in a long time, but I hope it happens again because it is nice when it does.
Matt, you and this channel are perfect together. As a layman and largely uneducated regarding these topics, PBS Spacetime has really made me appreciate both the wonderous nature of our universe and the many great people that have worked so hard to gain and share the knowledge. You guys are just amazing!
How do real people sound like paid commenters so much on youtube? "I thoroughly enjoy this video, you are both an excellent creator and your videos are easy to understand." comes up so much and I don't want to believe you're just getting paid to post... although that's occams razor for you to just accept that you and all the others are.
@@vladdangel Hey, if it's fake then good on the bot, I support our A.I. overlords!
Nope, fellas, I have degrees in both English and law, so proofreading prior to hitting "send" is a habit. I am horrible at math, but that doesn't prohibit me from being good at what I do besides that.
as a layman. (translation, as an easily mesmerized and hypnotized moron sheeple who will believe anything framed as "true")
@@mickrussom
A conspiracy theorist. (translation, an easily mesmerized and hypnotized moron under the impression that everyone else is an easily mesmerized and hypnotized moron)
Its the simulation making the program more efficient, this way the computer doesn't have to render particles when they aren't being observed, freeing up those cycles for things that are.
This is why I love the internet, I can come to learn things about the quantum field and virtual particles whereas if the internet didn't exist I'd probably be reading literature.
Literature is tight, too.
@@Nobddy indeed
except that ultimately cat videos have brought everyone here
ew.
@@1Plebeian ew you
Your videos always make me question reality. I love it! Thanks!
username checks out.
But I thought you invented QM
Hey Jesus!
I see you everywhere
@Ix Suomi Jesus Christ
“But even that description is way too physical, and Australian.” 😂😂
That cracked me up too...
They said the same thing about Olivia Newton John....
@@RoboBoddicker I will never forgive you for posting that joke before I did.
Copydot, Well played, Sir. Well played... :)
When in doubt...just dive into a TH-cam hole
"Try increasing your screen resolution ..." Best comment today.
They asked me what I know about Virtual Particle Physics, and I told them a have a virtual degree in Particle Physics!
Amazing
Tell us more about lattice field theory.
Lettuce field theory is better. Its where they grow salads.
Waka waka
I am developing a Phase Field theory for explaining and unifying Quantum and RELATIVISTIC PHYSICS
9:10 - "I'm SO EXCITED to be a particle!"
9:20 - "Meh."
I'm genuinely proud of myself for successfully following the whole video
teach me sensei
Flips_Bad .. That was because it was very simple and non-mathematical.
@@MrMichaelFire To actually truly follow the video you must know the maths behind it though.
If the math of virtual particles accurately describes scientific observation, it seems they are quite real to me even if they aren't used in other types of QFT. Maybe there is another layer here that we have yet to understand that these virtual particles are signaling. I love the ideas of David Bohm and his implicate order - I wonder how this concept of virtual particles relates with that?
It doesn't.
Okay PBS spacetime blows my mind yet again
layperson: Do they exist?
scientists: Kind of, but probably not while we aren’t looking at them.
I found you two weeks ago PBS Space Time and this channel is great. Very, very interesting subjects. Some things I’ve wondered about and some I didn’t know I should wonder about but I have learned so much even when I don’t understand it all. Thanks!
Love the burn on the end of the video!! Great delivery! Love to watch all the way to the end to see what crazy comment you answer!
Never thought I'd be learning astronomy from Keith Urban
my engineering diploma is made out of virtual particles.
so you have a theoretical degree in theoretical engineering?
It only exists when you look at it.
so is my girlfriend!
@@Scorch428 my wife collapses when she,s being measured
---- > That is not scientific.
This video is amazing, thorough, and precise. Easily one of my favorites! Thank you for making these trustworthy and precise videos time and time again! There are so many other online sources that make exaggerated or plainly ignorant claims and thereby misinform the public. Spacetime, you are the best!
I just got a new understanding of Hawking radiation. I always thought it was due to virtual particles.
Thanks Matt!
You might want to check out what Roger Penrose has to say about Hawking radiation.
There is poetic beauty in the mathematics. But I’m ugly, can’t do maths and I hate poetry..
But I love the show lads!
You are sexually attracted to the presenter?
MrCHINBAG idk about him but I definitely am. No homo 👌
Don't speak of yourself so badly. Treat yourself like you would a loved one you're responsible for caring for.
That you hate poetry is poor,
'Tis a pity math is not your fit,
But cheer up laddie and have another drink, for
Ugly is virtual to the eye of the observer
You must admit
@@agimasoschandir hahaha nice rap
Brain.exe stopped working.
Quantum meets inception.
thats beacuse updates broke it :-D
I seriously can't find it possible for people to actually understand this, let alone discover it... yet I keep watching. This channel is amazing.
This is the best description of virtual particles! Thank you!
“Every particle is an unnecessary defect in a smooth and featureless field.”
- Brian Skinner, Samuel Beckett’s Guide to Particles and Antiparticles
In a smooth and featureless field, the idea of smooth and featureless field would not exist.
@@Verpal of course it can
I would have to modify that description to: "Every particle is a necessary deformation of a constantly reverberating field." That would at least describe reality as it actually exists and functions.
@@animistchannel2983 didn't the video say it is not reverberating constantly though? And why would it be a "necessary deformation"?
@@freediugh416 I was trying to make fun of the fact that organism capable of conferring meaning does not exist in a smooth and featureless field...... but nvm.
13:13 Are Virtual Particles A New Layer of Reality? nope.
I remember discussing these things loads in Uni. There are many interesting discussion to have about whether a virtual hole particle is a valid thing and whether a lack of something qualifies as much in being a thing as presence of something. Or whether it makes more sense to say that an infinite, weighted amount of interactions are happening or a particle just goes undefined for a while and emerges in a random state
The best part of the video is the end, where he always manage to say "spacetime".
It's really great to see how strange the universe is and really strange to see how great it is.
Harry Stapp’s Transactional Interpretation is really helpful when thinking about VPs
my favorite video of yours, studied some particle physics (not majoring in it though) and never really knew what was going on with virtual particles
Another of your vids I'll add to my favorites. There was always something missing when I tried to grasp virtual particles. Now I get it. I can 'work' with this view of virtual particles. Thx.
Missed chance to have a paradox in the title: Are Virtual Particles Real? =P
Il Re è nudo. The king is naked.
It's not a paradox it's just a pun
Glad they didn't
No, but virtual girlfriends are.
virtual waifus*
This is an interesting analogy. As virtual particles, virtual girlfriends can explain a lot of my admittedly messy behaviour.
2D > 3D
Like Krieger's girlfriend Mitsuko.
We know the bond between a couple can exist. The more we try to detect it in space time, the more confusing and impossible it seems to be tho.
Love your work, don't stop.
Enjoying the videos, thank you!
Ok.. my brain *exploded* half way
But it was still there...
That means you're starting to get it.
It’s ok mate I had to rewatch the intro!
You did well to get half way. I was about 2 sentences in. I wish I could understand this - I love maths and physics but there are just too many things I can't grasp. Thank heavens there are people who can.
think of each virtual particle as a stack of task cards - each VP is not an object, really, so much as a set group of possible paths
In Quantum Field Theory (QFT) the primary construct is a field and therefore not just virtual but even real particles are just a perturbation in it's unique quantum field (e.g. electron field). Since we call the real ones *particles* so the virtual ones are also called *particles* although some properties of real particles can be missing.
This video is great for giving an extra level of explanation than most popular science videos give.
This video is the best compact explanation of the whole of QFT ever made.
Really cool idea that started with Fourier analysis: All signals can be thought of as a superposition of waves.
So this superposition of particles forming a single signal is not that far fetched.
Are individual scattering events a superposition of weighted (by probability) all possible interactions? Or, does QFT only predict the "average scattering" over lots of events ? Is QFT a "stationary process"? Time Average = Ensemble Average???
Oh hi you're here :D
Virtual Particles don’t virtually exist
...virtually speaking of course.
Did a software guy named these particles?
They exist period.
Plot twist: All particles are virtual, we're living in a simulation.
instantaneous energy pulled from the void to complete the calculation... SIMULATION???
"It's too physical... And Australian" - I LOL'D irl 🤣
Missed this video earlier. What great Aha!-video for me. Thank you so much.
Why is the PBS theme/logo/thing playing faster in the end? Time dialation?
And yeah, I noticed.
sounds like its just the pitch, might be a rendering problem
coz its cooler different and less damaging to ears and they should fkin make this to all their themes like the starting is so bad.. he talks so small. . volume and i increase a lot then get blown headache i usualy listen 1% music all day and i have to increase this a lot for his voice then start next video and gotta decrease just for intros so annoying
@@SrmthfgRockLee why is the intro the same though
How much you wanna bet they did it just to mess with us
It's wierd and yeah maybe it's an AI or ghost lol
The more I learn the less I understand, it's frustrating.
Theoretical physics is like this.
Knowledge of one's ignorance is actually a good thing. A more apt declaration might be: "The more I learn, the less my preconceived notions of reality serve me."
Welcome to physics! By the time you get your PHD, you won't understand anything anymore. Don't panic, it's normal. Just shut up and calculate!
"As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it" - Albert Einstein
Ah yes, it's the uncertainty principle in effect
I had to go back and see the animation of the binary stars. And there it was ! Not the black hole, but the slip of the pen.
So amazing that some PBS Space Time viewers actually spotted that !
Fantastic episode.
Steady state uncertainty of vacuum space sounds like an excellent way to save computational energy.
If measured spend energy
Else don't spend energy and maintain probabilities.
I am not sure I understand your statement. The pure randomness of the vacuum space means there is no gradient of energy. You need a gradient to extract useful work, as far as we know. See the PBS videos on entropy and Maxwell's demon.
@@ailijic He is supposing the universe is a simulation. The energy being saved having to do with whatever other worldly processing system runs the computation, not something to do with saving energy in the hypothetically simulated vacuum space itself.
@@mcmaho17 It might not necessarily be a simulation in the sense that some sentient being created it. It could be that whatever process at the deepest levels (way down under the Planck length scale) that determines particle behaviors might be equivalent to running some sort of self organizing program similar to a cellular automation. We will probably never know though because the Planck length seems to be as deep as we can ever expect to see.
Tell me this, Matt: If a quantum tree falls in a vacuum, and nobody is around to measure it, does it still have any energy?
@@pluggthis this explanation has no potential.
@torus dfgdfgdfh is*
Out of all the possibilities you had to pick that tree in that vacuum, tut! I suppose it would be in a superposition
lol it would be is a superposition of all the ways it could possibly fall with a real energy fluctuating over a closed-loop in phase space :P
Yes and no at the same time.
Very informative ,Thanks 👍👍👍👍👍
@17:05 Aha! Yep, I've increased my screen resolution and now can definitely see the singularity right there!
That's a pixel, not a voxel...
My undying love to you my friends at Space Time. My week would be in smithereens without you!
Smithereens = Virtual Particles
If virtual particles are just mathematical devices then what is hawking radiation?
@@OnlyLyricsMatter
Presumably (less we are all screwed) all of the laws of physics can be described by mathematics, that does not mean all mathematics describe the universe. Approximations though do not count, as they are inherently incorrect. If virtual particles are just approximations then I wouldn't call them real.
@@OnlyLyricsMatter
Okay, fine.
Superbly explained. Thank you.
I'll have to see this five or six times before I get a grip on what's going on
Lol me too after that I 90% understand
A few addenda:
*Perturbation theory, yes, but that's not the whole story (grab Griffith's QM textbook, you won't see mention of virtual particles (VPs) in his examples); the _true_ origin of VPs is in the iterative solution of the Heisenberg eq for the evolution op using the _free_ solutions as input - which leads to the Dyson series, which we rewrite as Feynman diagrams (FDs)
*The vid gives the impression FDs tell you what happens with the particles post-interaction. _They do not_ - you put the legs as input, figure the VP lines that make for a legal diagram, and _then_ you calculate its contribution
*There's a subtle difference between how zero-point energy and the 'random particle-popping vaccum' relate that's not portrayed here: like mentioned above, we use free particles to approximate the interacting-particle picture - and this includes the vacuum as well. So, if you could solve the problem exactly and describe the vacuum in terms of these solutions, there would be no popping in-and-out of existence, _by definition_ - but there still would be some zero-point energy...
incorrect..
Griffith's book doesn't talk at about QFT!!! I recommend Zee's on QFT.
Question: I've wondered why the word "excitation" is used to describe how a quantum field behaves as a particle. Would it be accurate or inaccurate to say that it could also be called a "wave" or "ripple" in the field? And why?
The word "excitation" refers to a change in the quantum states (probabilities) that are associated with a collection of points in space, a specific quantum field. When a change happens, a range of points in a quantum field changes, never just one point. An excitation might be thought of as the general location where the peak probability is at any moment. Other fields can react to the excitation. An excitation can be stationary or spatially moving in the quantum field. It must be moving if it is massless or it wouldn’t exist, since no mass (temporal movement) and no spatial movement means no states are changing.
The words "wave" or "ripple" both refer to how an excitation lives within a quantum field, in a sort of repeating way. These two words suggest that some physical movement of the quantum field is happening although this isn’t happening - just probabilities are changing up and down.
Particles don’t exist as dot-like things in quantum fields. A particle is just a name for a wave or ripple of the minimum energy quanta allowed in that quantum field. But you do observe dot-like things if you attempt to classically interact with a quantum field (i.e. interpret its probabilities as one outcome).
Usually this will be where the excitation is but it could be anywhere within some limits.
Well show. Good information. Well information.
best explanation ever i really didint know what is the meaning of virtual particle now i have learned every thing
So, if there's no actual physicality to the behavior of virtual particles, what can we say about the physical features of quantum fields that we represent through virtual particles? Aren't we moving the goalpost from virtual particles to quantum fields?
No because all the quantum theories we currently have use quantum fields. But as Matt points out in the video not all functioning quantum theories use virtual particles. Since you can apparently predict how physical reality behaves without using virtual particles it follows that they aren't actually physical objects (if they were physical then you would need to have them reflected in any accurate physical model). There is as yet no such way to eliminate quantum fields which indicates that the fields are representing something actually physical in a real sense.
The only real things are the legs in the diagrams - experiments in colliders only ever look at those, and this has been working fine the last 80-ish years, so...
Here's a filter for the Fermi Paradox: agriculture. It leads to ever evolving technology, increased population, more complex societies, and drives out hunter/gatherers since it clears wild lands and replaces them with farmland. We are the only species to develop agriculture and it did not spread to every population on the planet even. Until the age of Exploration, it was limited to Eurasia and some parts of Africa. The Polynesians had limited agriculture, but their island based existence limited them from growing to a large population since islands are very limited in land and clearing tropical and subtropical islands tends to destroy the ecosystem so badly that they become uninhabitable or can not support large populations by agriculture alone.
Humans are not the only species to develop agriculture, or even prey-population management, or even herding; and it was developed independently by humans in multiple places. It's not a good filter because it's so obvious.
@@animistchannel2983 Name times when intentional environment manipulation was pared with it. Human agriculture clears forested areas and replaces them with pasture. While grazing animals, both domestic and wild (like those that used to live in the now cleared forest), are present, the forest WILL NOT RETURN. I caps'd this to point it out. When you pair it with the population boom agriculture grants humans, just to not starve after switching to pure AG, humans have to keep grazing animals in the pastures.
Even if there is a war, famine, or other population lowering event, the wild herbivores will take up the slack and keep the forests from returning. This happens with the wild herbivores because humans will kill off any predators that attack their livestock since not doing so would be like letting food for their families be stolen by wild animals. Europe and North America used to have wolves everywhere. Central and north central America had jaguars. All of these regions used to have bears, either or both brown and black. Continental Europe used to have lions, extinct now because of human herders killing them.
The situation I was referring to was human specific agriculture. It comes with changes that are permanent even after the humans are removed and also encourages close, large communities for humans. This is for trade, not an exclusive modern humans, but also for defense. Cultures typically have to have developed a sense of ownership for warfare, but only with woodlnd clearing based agriculture do you get communities with the meas to defend against large foes and to apply large manpower to take out foes where they resided. Raising a city that is a week or more travel away is not easy. Building a city and defending it is another thing that we did after agriculture and we do not see hunter/gathers building cities.
We also have no records of societies outside of those with agriculture that can support individuals within them that do not have to spend time on producing food outside of the ruling class (chieftain's family and priest's family, if they even have one). So, there is little time to create new technology, alter the land, or dedicate to warfare that can take city states, which human AG creates by default.
(Done explaining anthropology in TH-cam, but at least I did it the way a true anthropologist would; drunk. I am more of an engineering and physics person, so it is faster to just find the answers by observation and experiments then to debate the topic, even though debate and rational discussion could also give us the answer.)
@@KnightsWithoutATable
Your looking at it from an overall perspective and adding other pieces of development done in ignorance or fear. Given better population management and advanced agriculture (perhaps autonomous permiculture) and a deep social imperative to do no harm and replace or repair nature humans could live more in harmony with the present environment
@@agimasoschandir That involves crossing from hunter/gatherer into agriculture first. A population will not have the time or size to invent new technologies and engage in more complicated social development, such as more complex religion or even philosophy, without this transition.
I am not talking about where we currently are, I am talking about what happened around 12,000 years ago at the start of the Neolithic era. That was a massive change in humanity, allowed larger populations, and led to technological growth. You don't get out of the stone age without agriculture. You don't get radio transmissions without getting out of the stone age. You don't get space travel. You don't get interstellar travel. It is as much of a requirement as tool making and intelligence.
The species has to have the population size and have enough food production to allow specialization into non food production activities. We don't see large earth moving projects or stone monuments until the Neolithic. They obviously had the time to make these structures and had reasons for making them. This means they had enough free time outside of ensuring they didn't starve to think of a reason to build them, come up with how to build them, and organize to build them. Hunter/gatherers don't have that much free time since they are always on the move and/or bringing food to a central location to survive.
@@KnightsWithoutATable
The filters are meant to preclude life from existing to the point that their presence was noticible. Your agricultural example is more of one of the parameters.
[Name times when intentional environment manipulation was pared with it.]
Just realized, you add a stipulation to animist channel's comment, intentional, that would mean only humans. If not, then the others have intent to manipulate their environment for survival purposes.
The population does not significantly grow until modern medicine allows a higher birth rate then the death rate. Medicine then would be a soft filter.
I have a hard time coming up with a hard filter because in the cases I think of there is some hint or prelude that shows it is inevitable it will be discovered or invented. Many times, other things need to be developed, inventive, or a new way of thinking before the "thing" becomes a part of human endeavor (This is the premise behind J. Burke's *Connections*).
Ancient Greece, although an agricultural society, relied on slave labor to give leisure time for men, and almost only men, to think at pleasure. The Minoans probably comes close to a civilization that relied more possibly on textile trade then agriculture to thrive, but they needed agricultural neighbors to get their food. Sort of the Greek idea but with wages (paid by cloth).
I will also point out that many hunter/gathers only spend part of their day getting their necessary daily calories, especially humans, who can once and a while provide a big kill to provide a rush of calories as opposed to the typical smaller snack-size meat gathering such as small creatures like rabbits etc., and who have a wide range of things to eat. They have a lot of leisure time. I got the impression hunters went out to hunt much for the same reason that hunters and fisherman do now, to get away, as well as getting meat.
I am not sure about how much leisure time groups in extreme conditions have such as the Inuit, but they must have some in order to tell stories which is the binding of human culture
Finally a channel that goes into detail.
Excellent discussion.
So, every particle is an amalgamation of many quantum fields, right? Would it be helpful to think of an electron (for example) as creating a dip in the electromagnetic field as part of its existence? When looking at that dip, it extends in a gradient within the electromagnetic field around the electron. Then, when two electrons come close to each other, the two electromagnetic fields collide and exchange energy at the meeting point between the gradient of each field, causing the fields to repel since that’s easier than merging the energy from the EM field into a big dip. - In that case, couldn’t a positive charge be looked at as a rise in the EM field, then when the gradient of the field meets with the gradient of a dip in the field, the two begin to ‘fall into each other’? Am I making any sense or have I completely misunderstood this concept of virtual particles?
you may be wrong, but i understand what you sad, so for me that is what happenning with this shit hahaha
_Long long ago ...while watching TV_
*Narrator*>According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle the space is never empty,there are constantly getting created and distroyed these pairs so called "virtual particles".So when that happens near event horizon of a black hole something remarkable happens .. - Hawkin-radiation.
Me>Wow I love astrophysics!
*3rd Nov 2018*
😡
Particles popping in and out of reality would defininetely go against the law of conservation of quantum information and thus would not be possible.
@@mephistovonfaust it said virtual particles, not real particles so it wouldn't violate the law of conservation of energy, there's also another type of quantum field theory that can have the same outcome without making virtual particles.
I believe it was Noam Chomsky who had the idea that the unique ability of the human brain is recursion. To apply a function to itself and infinitum. From simple things like chaining together sentences ("She said that he said that they thought that ...") to the ability to think on meta levels, like thinking about thinking. Maybe that's the great filter that blocks the leap from smart animals to a scientific species.
I have heard of the lattice theory of quark confinement, but I have never heard of lattice theories of the Unruh effect or Hawking radiation.
I can imagine if we see quantum stuff like we saw math 100 years ago and how "difficult" it would been to do certain math calculations... and that in 100years we will have a quatum calculator on our phones p:
*our brains
Or maybe we'll just have 8D shapes represent our pure energy state of consciousness.
Or maybe we'll wake up in bed, unplugged from our "simulation"
Probably not... You'd need a quantum cpu in your phone and thus far, we aren't able to cool it without liquid nitrogen and even then only have a couple of qbits. If we are one day able to do so, it won't be in a hundred years.
@@mephistovonfaust a lot can change in a hundred years bud, we went from slavery to nearly harnessing the power of stars in that amount of time.
I've just vaped cannabis.
therefore, I have to watch this multiple times.
This is one of my favorite channels!
Thanks for making and uploading this.
This made me think back to learning integration in Calc 2.
Would saying virtual particles are the rectangles used in integration be a good analogy?
We use rectangles to approximate the area under a curve. When we make infinite rectangles, it gives an exact answer. In a sense, the rectangles aren't used in the end but are required to reach that end.
No, not really. These things are the result of a kind of Tayler series approximation of the path integral.
12:52 I hope you are planning a video about lattice field theories.That would be awesome!
Oooh. Lattice. Yes.
The scalars are.. well, it’s turtles all the way down... and up... until it isn’t!
Also, my question remains: As the Universe dies, does zero point energy 'stop' a final entropic death?
Ask me when we get there... (Buddhist joke, I think.)
Just by the title, this video has my like!!! Wicked cool!
The phrase "in order to remain uncertain" @ 9:31 made me laugh and think to myself "Wubba lubba dub dub!"
You should do a video on some more 'FTL' proposals like the 'Musha Junp Drive' by Dr Takaaki Musha. So far, if possible, it's the most feasible 'FTL' drive yet! The Musha Drive also deals with the zero-point field as said here. :)
*But can the universe run "Crysis"?*
No
So far we only know of one running program called Earth. Pretty boring. Maybe we can install something more fun.
@@shadow105720 Sure, but the minigames called "Missile Crisis", "Economic Crisis" etc. are amazing
This throwing stick idea of yours has boomeranged on us
Finally a non-dumbed down/sensational explanation of zero point energy. Thanks for this
*When Quantum Physics meets Inception*
Quantum Physics to Inception: you merely adopted the confusion, i was born within it, molded by it...
@@91plm And, as I'm still not completely matured, I haven't yet got out of the confusion.
What about Interstellar? Now I am hearing the gravity waves may NOT travel across five dimensions? ) :
Unobserved particles are in a quantum state thus they are not particles at all but wave functions of said particle. Therefore virtual particles don't exist.
THE QUANTUM STATES ARE COLLAPSING!
After an intensive but fruitless hour-long search of a single kitchen tile for pheromones, the ants concluded that there are no living humans out there
But what if the ants were looking for other insects as well? Maybe we can't detect super advanced aliens, but what about less advanced ones? Surely not everyone is so much ahead of us.
@@SunnyApples That depends on how old does a civilization have to exist before we can no longer comprehend their existence. If that time is short, then we may have missed our opportunity to see such a civ as they have transcended our understanding. If that time is long, there's a higher chance we would detect a civ with the same or lower tech level as us.
kitchen tiles are flat
check mate atheists
Not that I necessarily agree with the idea, but it would be a second or a minute long search.
@@alvinoid12 It's a *big* tile
Excellent job, science dudes! Yet would you give a non-virtual explanation for the Casimir effect, virtually pretty please? It is often explained by some virtual particles "not having space to virtually exist".
They can't, quantum waves exist outside reality.
This is a macroscopic equivalent: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Water_wave_analogue_of_Casimir_effect.ogv
The difficulty of explanation is that the effect DOES depend on things not having space to exist between the plates; waves. In the video linked you can see there are more and larger waves outside the plates than between them, it being impossible to fit a two inch wave in a one inch gap.
But people will see this and go 'But the waves are virtual particles!' No they are not, they're used to MODEL the waves. But a lot of people just refuse to understand the difference.
2:52 y’all just showed how 2 universe’s will not ever touch each other.. But that lightning in between is where our focus should expand.😁
missed an opportunity to dress as Carl Sagan...........
you used more than three dots
Next year, please!
..........................................................
Perturbation theory seems very useful for quantifying unknowns in our own theories, but it doesn't really seem to be in the "heart" of the history of physics. It seems more like we're just adding bits and bobs into our equations until they fit the observations, instead of finding a "truer," more complete theory of particle interactions. To me, it seems lazy. Could you maybe expand on how this provides a more in-depth look into the actual mechanics of our Universe, instead of just being a band-aid for a deeper problem in our theories?
My understanding is the "truer" form is a continuum approach. Take your wave and make it infinitely detailed, infinitely large, in all 4 dimensions. Sadly we don't have a way to calculate that so instead we attempt to simplify it and still get useful predictions out; that gives us virtual particles, lattice theory, etc.
Whether it's lazy or not doesn't matter, it works... And you absolutely must apply observations to fix our theories, the other option is just not have any working theories. It's the best that we have now.
I understand that the real calculations are too complex, perturbation make it simple. Example: if you try to launch a rocket to Mars you should calculate the gravitational influnce from the sun, the moon and all the planets on the solar system, the calculation would be too complex.
However, bacause the influence from other planets and even the sun is small, you can ignore it to simplify the calculation. Furthermore: if you use relativity equations to make your calculations it will be very complex, almost imposible, so you can ignore gravity and use Newton laws to make it easyer.
This is how i undestend "perturbation", from Brian's Green book, a simplification.
Sorry for my bad english
Perturbation theory is NOT a theory for “quantizing unknowns”, whatever that means. It is not the theory of particle interactions, it does not add bits and bobs into our equations to fit observations. All of laws that govern the interaction are already there when we wrote down the equations that govern the quantum fields.
Perturbation theory comes AFTER we have written down our equations of motion(of the quantum field). Specifically perturbation theory comes up when we try to solve these equations. We need a method to actually solve them. These equations are pretty much impossible to solve by hand, and even with computers are still extremely difficult. Perturbation theory provides a way of simplifying that calculation. More precisely perturbation theory provides a systematic framework of making approximations: identifying big quantities that we need to calculate and ignoring small quantities that contribute little. It is a very intuitive method, developed by brilliant minds that sought to find visualizable ways to make approximations, which is probably why most people mistake perturbation theory for describing actual physical processes.
It’s like when observatories do weather forecasts. We do know the equations of motion of our weather system(Navier-Stokes equations, with inputs from thermodynamics and non-inertial effects and so on), and in principle if we can solve this equation, we can predict with absolute certainty whether it will rain or be sunny tomorrow, the exact temperature of every part of the atmosphere, even the exact speed and location of every breeze.
But alas when it comes to solving these equations, the Navier-Stokes equations are perhaps even harder than QFT calculations. In order to provide even a tiny bit of useful information, we must apply approximations. A common approximation is to instead of looking at our atmosphere as infinitely infinitesimally small volume elements of gases(like the equations tell us to), we cheat and look at finite, but still quite small boxes of gases and do our calculations discretely. That way computers actually have a hope of solving these equations. Of course they aren’t going to be 100% correct, which is why weather forecasts aren’t absolutely correct, but they give us a pretty good idea of what will happen next.
Clearly you don’t say that boxes of gases with finite volume is an underlying physical reality(if you want more accurate results you can make those boxes smaller, but it will take longer for the computer to calculate). Perturbation theory is the same: it is a useful tool of simplifying our calculations, and it is very intuitive(far more intuitive then boxes of air), but in the end it is still just an approximation.
Perturbation theory is just a way of writing and solving equations that reduces unsolvable mathematical problems into an infinite sequence of much simpler problems. It doesn't result in an answer, but a method for generating an arbitrarily precise answer. Tell me how many significant digits you need, and I can tell you how many terms you need. This is mathematically essentially the same as an "exact" answer because this is roughly speaking the same as one of the several equivalent standard definitions of the real numbers used by mathematicians. And the same basic idea cuts through almost all of real and complex analysis at or above undergraduate mathematics.
It didn't make sense to me either Matt. Good job on changing the thinking boy!
Closed captioning cuts after the first few minutes-please fix this for those of us who depend on it. Thank you.
I once had a girlfriend who was made up of "virtual particles". She left me. 💔
Guessing you were perturbed
_This idea popped into my head, and I was just wondering what people though. Or, more accurately, why it's wrong, 'cause I'm just some loser; doubt I'm first to think of this._
What if gravity works somewhat like the Casimir Effect, but instead of plates being extremely close together, mass causes a disruption in certain "frequencies" of gravity's quantum field? i.e. if you're not experiencing any significant gravity, your atoms are being hit by nigh-infinite virtual gravitons from all directions, but, as you enter a gravitational field, the ratio of gravitons hitting you from one side becomes greater and greater, causing greater and greater acceleration as you're hit with more virtual "towards mass" gravitons than "away from mass" gravitons?
Maybe another way of putting it is bit like how the channel explained how black holes interfere with quantum fields, resulting in the tiny positive energy difference at their horizons (at least, IIRC) that leads to Hawking Radiation. Could gravity be a result of mass causing less severe "dips" in a field, leading to a sort of energy difference? I had a way of expressing the idea in terms of this last night, but forgot it when I went to sleep.
There're probably other, better ways I could convey my idea, but, like I said, I'm just some rando in the TH-cam comments hoping someone smart sees my idea and can tell me why I'm wrong.
Maybe Matt-senpai himself will notice me.
...probably gonna keep posting this 'til one of the resident smartbois does.
@@Julian-by7on if we can't just reload the last save.
That has been thought already, decades ago. I dont remeber exactly the name of the theory, but in this class Richard Feynman himself talks about it: th-cam.com/video/1SrHzSGn-I8/w-d-xo.html
Particle based Gravity is an interesting idea, but ultimately there are issues that haven't been understood yet. First off is our inability to create experiments in nano-gravity environments... anywhere in our solar system has gravity 3000 times greater than the predicted value at which a change from Newton's formulation would occur.
The idea is that after a certain tiny threshold of gravity, gravity will pull with a force proportional to 1/R as opposed to the usual 1/R^2. I imagine this is because of the quantized nature of gravity and the fact there is a minimum energy that gravitons can exist at. Any gravitons reaching you after a particular distance or weakness would be guaranteed to have a minimum energy, and you can only acquire acceleration from the gravitons in discrete quantities from that point on. Testing this would be impossible currently.
This idea doesn't suggest that gravitons radiate towards massive bodies, they still radiate away from massive bodies.
Your idea has the gravitons coming in from very far away, whereas in labs gravitation radiates from massive sources... Gravitational waves observed in LIGO propagated towards us from a massive object, not away from us and towards the massive object. The speed it took for the gravity waves to reach us was precisely the speed of light.
If gravity falls into massive bodies as opposed to radiating away from them, then that conflicts with the results of the LIGO experiment. We can be almost certain that gravity travels away from massive bodies at the speed of light.
This is a new one on me, although I have looked at concepts on vacuum engineering before...
@@roblaquiere8220 , why couldn't we think of space as aether and the gravitational waves are just that, waves. If some material falls toward something, the material behind it will fall into its place and so on forever moving away from where the "hole" appeared, just as waterfalls travel upstream over time. The idea makes sense to me: there is pressure that is most consistent in the most pure "vacuum" and thus undetectable, similar to how I assume water is most still and consistently dense at the bottom of the ocean. So, maybe massive bodies are actually a drain. The experiment proving that aether does not exist just proved that light is not a wave in an ocean of aether, right? But what about space itself? Maybe what we call particles are bubbles of non-space and we just have everything backwards. Um, but what was that idea supposed to solve again? --consistency with existence of black hole, why things come together due to gravity, why speed of light for gravity (or light)(because it functions like the speed of sound--there's a maximum)?
Energy in vacuum is one of the most weird yet interesting thing to get the reason behind. It reminds me of the proverb, 'everything is just tge result of nothing'.
So, tell me, how much energy did you receive from the vacuum today?
The trinery star system thing made me laugh my socks off.
I think i speak for most of us when I say: Huh?
I love how every episode ends with the word, Spacetime.
Matt:"like a boomerang" me thinks:"totally Australian explanation" Matt (seconds later):" the explanation is too Australian" me thinks:"information *does* travel backwards in time in a decipherable manner"
The shorter the video the more i keen to watch