1:25 - You put in 2 red balls, shake up the box, put in the divider between the balls and when you open the box you see 1 red and 1 BLUE!!!... looks like a very critical error in the narration... you had to say 'you put in 1 red ball and 1 blue ball, shake up the box ...'

Keep up!

Very good. Thank you. It was informative

because the speed of transmission of the electromagnetic signal in the medium is precisely the speed of light

These videos feel like the graduated version of MinutePhysics :)

You better read Freeman Dyson's paper about renormalization! Than study Oliver Consa's paper titled "Something is rotten in the state of QED " ...

This is probably the best explanation of negative temperatures I have seen so far.

We do nearly the same thing in toy models of condensed matter physic

I also like to think that this fact is hidden in Maxwell's equations. This is because the wave equation of light can be derived from a special case of Maxwell's eqs and you get an expression for the wave that does not include any particular information about a 'medium', you get it's speed in terms of fundamental constants ε0 and μ0. Maxwell's equations describe electric and magnetic fields with only spatial and temporal derivatives, no physical information about the reference frame used whatsoever suggesting they are constant no matter the reference frame. Thus, this invariant nature is not only of light, but of any kind of electric field or magnetic field.

8:15, should we not have 3 possible feynman diagrams since we need to distinguish between s,t,u channel? I think you missed one of the terms there

When watching this I realized exactly where physics has gone off the rails. Sure, we can speak of complex and abstract interior spaces and hopefully we can use what has been found so far once we get back to "reality". Some of you may be aware that there is a large effort at this time to examine, verify and reformulate quantum physics so that it will correspond directly with reality and adhere to a foundational philosophy. We can locate atoms. They exist in physical reality. We can locate the nucleus. Where we start having issues is with the leptons and quarks. With both it has something to do with their size. These are not point particles but they may be fundamental. If "space" actually exists inside a proton then we should be able to locate the components of its physical matrix within. There is the chance however that nothing exists inside the proton except confined energies which we could "imagine" as a substance possessing the necessary properties to sustain the proton and allow for all other observed variables as well. Whatever we end up deciding upon it will allow us to better comprehend the entire picture. We will likely require that so called quantum reality meet the same symmetry and other requirements as macro size reality does. If the theory does not do this then one must return to experiment and the drawing board to figure it out. It may be difficult but we must acquire a physical understanding of fields as well instead of the abstract overlay/immersion within spacetime. What does a field consist of? What is its actual structure in space? The idea of probability/statistics, wave functions and realizing everything is energy does not rule out physical reality. Reality is a mixture of determinism and probability with a major leaning toward determinism at our scale. We need to get rid of the notion that life and existence is random happenstance. For too long now quantum physics and cosmology have acted as gatekeepers. At best we can claim this was done to consolidate and protect the gains made to date. At worst... well.. if we had built careers on these things some of us would likely do the same unfortunately. We need new perspectives to achieve this. This includes some large scale aspects as well. Gravity for example. Spacetime. How does something without substance bend by reacting to substance? How does it expand from internal energies if it has no boundary or internal structure to act upon? Do you really believe gravity operates by the exchange of messenger particles? I think Einstein was very close and was convinced to go for a "geometric" description. IMO the vacuum/space whatever you want to call it is a substance. Sure its not what we usually expect but here is where metaphysics and philosophy become important. In the detailed ancient cosmologies everything that is manifested within our universe is matter. They would call radiation a form of matter it would just be matter without mass. At this time we are not going to get academia to go beyond the physical plane so we have to leave out consciousness/mental/emotional/spiritual aspects. It seems that space is modified in the presence of mass/energy but how? What if big G is a property of the vacuum not mass/energy? Maybe it is the coupling or inverse coupling that is responsible for the initial acceleration or "pressure" gradient. the funny thing is that a "gravitational aether" like this acts the same way as all gravitational effects witnessed so far. If this is the case then Dark Matter is nothing more than the ultrafine "substance" of space itself. The DM halos around galaxies would be due to enough baryonic mass accumulating within a region to initiate a degree of coupling. Dark Energy would be due to a back reaction caused by the baryonic mass/energy immersed in DM space. volumes of immense mass concentration would cause the distant volume to "flee" in response to the compression of the DM. ZPE or vacuum energy is just the baryonic potential energy in the volume. I think our "expansion" is very limited even if an initial inflation occurs. A funny coincidence becomes apparent if one takes 4/3pi and cubes it. Is that not the Hubble constant? Think about how that relates.

8:40 But you also don't need a spontaneous symmetry breaking to have this effect, you only need the lowest energy state is not zero-particle. Does symmetry really matter in terms of "giving particles mass"?

dude this is nuts: at first I said this is brilliant, How they made appear another solution?!, and instantly notice they have introduced a variable 1/d with d->0: physicists have made a full theory based on dividing by zero! bollocks I said

spin is xyz vector written as xb complex number (x, y+jz)

Great video! Can you tell me if the quantum fields are real things that exist, or if they comprise a mathematical model that is more or less a useful abstraction? What programming language did you use for your code in the git repository? I was wondering if a simulation that is based on a finite-size circular quantum field will generalize to an infinite size quantum field on a cube? That is, does the formation of "particles" depend on the disturbances being restricted and bumping into one another within a small region of a special shape? Is there any useful insight to be gained by looking at the Fourier Transform of the quantum field?

spin isn't a hard thing to grasp...... youre make it confusing..... it's the magnetic field that irradiates in and around a particle... the field spins on its axis thus creating angular momentum and spins helically with respect to x as in as it travels along x the field spins in a circle from up to down..... like the earth spinning creating day and night and the angular momentum creating seasons almost but spinnin up and down by a full half of the particle.... wave functions aren't hard to understand..... people just explain this stuff like assholes.....

Oh goody! Another uneducated fool trying to explain things he has no idea about!

Actually electron didn't spin it behaves like it.............

If QM 'spin' isn't classical spin, then don't call it 'spin'. Call it torque.

@5:50 "... famously Wu did not receive a Nobel Prize..." 🤮 Hooray for the Swedish nobs. It should be at least "infamously".

@18:20 can we have someone give an outline of spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Goldstone bosons that does not refer to the anthropomorphism of "eating"? ffs Something like: the degrees of freedom associated with the would-be Goldstone bosons are physically manifested as the longitudinal polarization components of the gauge bosons, this is what accounts for the gauge bosons becoming massive while still preserving gauge invariance and renormalizability of the theory. Or... in the Lagrangian, terms arise that couple the would-be Goldstone bosons to the gauge fields (by "arise" we mean we cannot suppress them if the Higgs is a reality, which it is). These (unphysical) terms can be eliminated through a gauge transformation, effectively absorbing the Goldstone bosons into the gauge fields. They are unphysical _precisely because_ they can be eliminated by a gauge transform (meaning they were an unphysical redundancy of the Lagrangian formalism). After this transformation, the gauge bosons have acquired mass terms in the Lagrangian, corresponding to their now physical (irremovable) longitudinal polarization.

Awesome video. Finally some visual representation.

@4:00 Mr Higgsino is probably wrong there, imho. Has he considered the Frauchiger-Renner Inconsistency? QM cannot consistently account for QM. It is a convoluted case of Wigner's Friend, a bit like a Cantor-Gödel diagonal argument. Totalizing QM (a fail) is not just about large objects making it trickier to compute the interference, it is about the larger and more exposed a system the more likely entanglement structure breaks down, and so interference does not occur, and that makes a classical account valid. (See also Jacob Barandes, who describes this - without needing an unphysical Hilbert space - as a breakdown of non-Markov indivisibility in the underlying stochastic dynamics transition probabilities). Applied to the universe as a whole you can then see gravity does not need to be (re)quantized, since GR was already a quantum theory (if spacetime is nonclassical, i.e., admits nontrivial topology, i.e., indivisible non-Markov transitions, i.e., entanglement topology).

All due respect, but you are the one with the misconception. Whatever the measurement does, it is causal. (Otherwise... are you kidding me! You would destroy science: principle of sufficient reason. Denial of that amounts to Satanism (of some sort). LOL.) Correlation, as you well know, is not causation. So _whatever it is_ that "collapses" the ψ description, whether ontic, epistemic, or MW branching, that is an *_interaction_* by any other name dude. What you can say is that this is nonclassical. How? No one knows. But there is a nice toy model or metaphor or maybe even exact mode for this interaction, ER=EPR. Classical matter cannot traverse nor probe an ER=EPR wormhole due to topological censorship (qv. Friedman, et al., maybe also Geroch?) but a qubit can (proven by experiments in teleportation). But in all known Bell pair entanglement it is only ever a qubit. Case closed?

This is consciousness. :-) Making conscious decisions while in various brain wave states, storing memories, generating ideas, sleeping. Conscious electrical energy.

Yes, I'm definetly subscribing.

@27:35 not necessarily. The left-right symmetric SM is almost all we need. Dark matter = RH neutrino. Abundance of RH ν accounted for by usual letogenesis. Early cosmology = CPT-symmetry ⇒ metric analyticity (no inflaton, thermodynamics accounts for flatness, homogeneity and isotropy), Big Bang goes through a conformal zero, so GR holds if you analytically continue going around the pole at conformal 𝜏=0. SM then only needs one new thing, 36 dimension zero Bogoliubov scalars, which are vacuum transforms curing vacuum energy and Weyl and trace anomalies (not new particles), and this predicts 3 generations of fermions exactly. These scalars probably make a composite Higgs. Predicts no primordial gravity waves (no tensors modes in the CMBR). Predicts lightest neutrino mass _has_ to be exactly zero. See talks & papers by Turok & Boyle.

Hi Where can I learn more about renormalization in condensed matter systems? Thank for help

I can't hear you. Uh, can you see me holding up my hand to say you're inaudible?

Ha yes, My favorite kind of physics, the one that i don't undertand

I wouldn't say that EARTH has orbital angular momentum. The EARTH/SUN SYSTEM has that. Earth actually has rotational angular momentum, all by itself - no reference to other bodies required. But that's not so re: the orbital angular momentum. I mean, you can just arbitrarily associate the orbital part with "Earth," when you name it, but it's not really a good physical picture.

Why add music?

Thank you for this amazing video!

Remember, this is a mathematical process and not a physical process. Nature is far simpler than what we currently know via mathematics.

I'm learning QM at my own and i easy understood the concepts and can say that this video is absolutly awesome and beautiful , i think that someone who did not understood it before the video would get enought information to start learning at it's own

The spin of quantum mechanics is affected by electromagnetic waves, and in superposition and entanglement, the entanglement is antimatter and the electric charge can be calculated. An example of seeing particle and wave nature at the same time is the blue glowing phenomenon of the fuel control rod. Western quantum mechanics is based on uncertainty. It is not the quantum mechanics of the invisible calculus like the principle, but the quantum mechanics that is visible starting from the eight trigrams of Eastern philosophy, where non-pole is taegeuk and taegeuk is non-geuk. It shows microscopic quantum mechanics and macroscopic atomic magnetic force. A quantum computer requires knowledge of elements and principles. Even a regular computer can produce the effect of a quantum computer. It is an error to explain the Earth's revolution and rotation in terms of angular motion. When the revolution is at perihelion, the amplitude is small. However, when it is at perihelion, the amplitude is large and numerous. This is why the four seasons are distinct. The rotation period is 230-400 million years, the amplitude is 17-8 years, and the rotation period is the same as the galaxy rotation period. This result is the absence of human science that has made it an unconditional feast of numbers with calculus equations that do not take into account the fact that the sun also orbits and the influence of the rotation of the galaxy on the sun and Earth.

2:49 Terrible way of explaining science. Always start from demonstrating an experiment.😮

To see why order/disorder is also a good means of understanding entropy one has to deeply/philosophically understand order/disorder: Order ultimately reduces to low information (when with a few parameters in a formula aka low-information, every entity in our system can be described=they are obeying a universal system-wide rule/pattern/law). That commonality/correlation (between system entities' properties) is the source of low information (order). So "one law/pattern to rule them all", "one formula to describe them all" means low information (low entropy). Disorder fundamentally means high amount of information/high-entropy (when every entity in our system is doing its own thing, not ruled by a universal law/rule/pattern or parameter or order and so we need lots of individual pieces of information to capture the whole system). I hole that was helpful.

I hope that many more people would see that video and many others from this channel

The more I learn about Gauge symmetries and symmetry breaking, the less sense it makes. Every explanation is like "so you know what a circle is, right? Well have you ever seen a sombrero? Pretty cool, right? Anyway, now the Schrodinger equation has an 'm' in it. Bye!"

I love your videos , thanks for spending that huge amount of time creating this videos for us viewers

I've always assumed there must be a higher dimension that our flat 3D cosmos is expanding into, otherwise our universe would have to curve back onto itself.

fucking neutrinos man with their rachet oscillation

kzbin.info/www/bejne/porIg4Zrlph7mKc

Is this a JoJo reference?

delete your channel

Interesting video, as usual. I have to make a picometre correction though: At 1:50, ℏ is the reduced Plack constant, also called the Dirac constant. It is equal to the Planck constant divided by 2π So we have: ℏ = h/2π en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Reduced_Planck_constant_%E2%84%8F

If spin isn't spin why call it spin?

It’s funny that this is done so often to clean up dirty physics.

When the two particles come close together in the simulation, The probabilities around the rest of the ring suddenly decrease. What's going on?