CERN: The Standard Model Of Particle Physics

/ sciencereason ... The Standard Model Of Particle Physics. This film was produced as part of the CERN/ATLAS multimedia contest internship.
---
Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:
• / best0fscience
• / sciencetv
• / ffreethinker
---
STANDARD MODEL OF PARTICLE PHYSICS:
www.youtube.com...
1) First Second Of The Universe:
• First Second Of The Un...
2) Force And Matter:
• The Standard Model Exp...
3) Quarks:
• Quarks | Standard Mode...
4) Gluons:
• Gluons | Standard Mode...
5) Electrons, Protons And Neutrons:
• Electrons, Protons And...
6) Photons, Gravitons & Weak Bosons:
• Photons, Gravitons & W...
7) Neutrinos:
• Neutrinos | Standard M...
8) The Higgs Boson / The Higgs Mechanism:
• 'The God Particle': Th...
---
The standard model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear interactions which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Developed throughout the early and middle 20th century, the current formulation was finalized in the mid 1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, discoveries of the bottom quark (1977), the top quark (1995) and the tau neutrino (2000) have given credence to the standard model. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the standard model is sometimes regarded as a theory of almost everything.
Still, the standard model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it does not incorporate the physics of general relativity, such as gravitation and dark energy. The theory does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not correctly account for neutrino oscillations (and their non-zero masses). Although the standard model is theoretically self-consistent, it has several unnatural properties giving rise to puzzles like the strong CP problem and the hierarchy problem.
Nevertheless, the standard model is important to theoretical and experimental particle physicists alike. For theoreticians, the standard model is a paradigm example of a quantum field theory, which exhibits a wide range of physics including spontaneous symmetry breaking, anomalies, non-perturbative behavior, etc. It is used as a basis for building more exotic models which incorporate hypothetical particles, extra dimensions and elaborate symmetries (such as supersymmetry) in an attempt to explain experimental results at variance with the Standard Model such as the existence of dark matter and neutrino oscillations. In turn, the experimenters have incorporated the standard model into simulators to help search for new physics beyond the standard model from relatively uninteresting background.
Recently, the standard model has found applications in other fields besides particle physics such as astrophysics and cosmology, in addition to nuclear physics.
en.wikipedia.or...
.

[@philowenify]

Phil Owen here, the guy who made the video. Thanks for the upload, added music and all the great comments! I'm glad people like the video, was great fun to make, : ).

[@mannys9130]

13 years go by and nobody has commented yet to say good job and thank you for making it? I'm shocked!!!

[@philbennettowen3932]

Thank you!

[@actionoverloaded887]

Thank you Phil

[@P90XDoubles]

I love when they set scientific videos like this to classical music... makes things seem so elegant and cohesive as if there is a simple and logical answer to it all in the end.

[@shiroineko13]

An elegant, and very accessible video. Well done!

[@Slarti]

If you look at the history of science it has had a tendency to always 'know' then to be surprised at some new discovery. Unification theories are as old as science itself. All we are doing is poking things with a more pointy stick each time. Science is fantastic as we learn so many new things - however let's not get carried away believing we are close to knowing exactly what existence is as all we ever seem to do is get closer to it - like in Zeno's paradox(which I know has been disproved at a quantum level).

[@jvincent6548]

OK. But what do the elementary 'particles' actually consist of? Is there an end to it all or will we find that an ‘anti-up-quark’ is made of of further 'super elementary particles? Even then if and when we get to the end of it all, what will be the stuff there? What is it then made of? Is it all completely random? Is this 'stuff' just randomly made and therefore how it all sticks together or not etc. is just luck?

[@Therealtyler7765]

J Vincenzi the answer to this is string theoru

[@jvincent6548]

@@Therealtyler7765 I knew someone would suggest that. But then that immediately requires my question (in a more generic form) to be asked about 'strings'. I think all physicists know this problem: infinite decomposition. Matter is made of atoms; atoms made from electrons, protons & neutrons; each of these made up of other more fundamental particles; and these from strings; and the strings from what....and even if we discover that they're made up of a new form of energy I'd still ask of what that new stuff is made of....

[@Therealtyler7765]

J Vincenzi do u think the string can be a part of the metaphorical fabric of space time and that is why they are the smallest things and that also encompasses gravity. Hol up I just made a theory of everything

[@59vlada]

There will always be unanswered questions, for we are limited in perception and intelligence. But the purpose is the voyage, not the destination. Best we can do is to enjoy it. As T.S. Elliot wrote: ""Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh; the worlds revolve like ancient women gathering fuel in vacant lots.".

[@nikkitytom]

A clear overview of the Standard Model ... and beautifully presented with elegant graphics and wonderful music. A treat for the mind and soul.

[@RJL738]

nikkitytom How fast do Mesons travel between Baryons?

[@taariqm-star6162]

+nikkitytom - its all lies

[@nikkitytom]

+Taariq M-Star 616 It's clear you have a fundamental distaste for Quantum Physics .. and blithely ignore the fact that most of what we work with today is still "theory". Which is actually rather exhilarating. There are still gaps in the Standard Model and there is a constant push to discover new information to fill in those gaps. No one seriously claims that the Standard Model is the final and absolute answer. No one.So easy and facile to claim it's "all lies". Now show us the truth. Cogently and believably. That will take a little effort. But I'm all ears.

[@nikkitytom]

+RJL738 Oh they run like crazy ... trying to outpace those Neutrinos which keep confounding the spectators by changing their flavors. But then those dear little mesons only carry two quarks each and so may be less burdened than the baryons with three. I'd say all are travelling well within the normal parameter ... which is of course, the speed of light.

[@RJL738]

nikkitytom So Mesons travel most of the way to The Speed of Light?

[@zestydude87]

@RDYS Thank you for coming out and saying this! Its something ive been trying to get thru to people for a while now.

[@belkacemgueliane7490]

we found it haha

[@cheekymonkey3929]

Mohamed Gueliane hoo ray ?!♥️

[@Wahledu]

Got to agree at least in part with Van Jones that KZbin is not the best place for these discussions. However, I do enjoy KZbin as a place to begin these discussions. A great place to feed our curiosity and erase the limitations we tend to put on our view of this amazing universe. Never stop asking, "What if?"

[@adianmoisescoronelvelez3139]

Thanks For You information Congratulations Bye from México 🙋🌎

[@Octoschizare]

The "6-pronged gear" icon to change resolution is directly under the video on the right side. Try 480p resolution, and pause to let most of the video load before watching. Still to high of a data rate? Try 360p. To pause you can just click the video (same to un-pause), or press the [||] button on the bottom left when the video is playing.

[@arefeshghi]

Just a recommendation: next time when creating an informative or educational video, you might want to turn down the pain in the neck music when people are talking (especially when they have an accent)! :)

[@shanmugamv493]

நாடகம்

[@DarkArcticSun]

i love particle physics! these particle graphics are so clean and shiny they border on adorable

[@jackmeyergarvey759]

The Higgs has been found biiiiiiiiiiiitches!

[@Wide000]

Yes, two years after this video was made. Who are you calling bitches and why?

[@2001ivar2001]

Wide000 Im pretty sure he is saying it because he is happy like "lets go bitches!"

[@E-2.71]

@@Wide000 He thinks he's being funny or he has no class!!!

[@luneawang2496]

@@E-2.71 damn y'all crusty lmaoo

[@mairisberzins8677]

Higgs is that one world champion of hide and seek isn't he?

[@zarcothecheese]

No, the Periodic Table is that way because when you add electrons, they naturally go into different shells according to a certain pattern, and that makes them have the properties they do. They line up because the things that line up (properties, valence electrons, etc.) are all interrelated.

[@cloudricklloyd1]

Beautifully concise!

[@adastraperaspera99]

we are living in a great time of discovery in Physics, a kind of Golden Age what a fantastic time to be alive :)

[@bigchefkoch1]

Does anybody know the name and composer of the this music?

[@TheNathan99097]

I want to know the same thing

[@magsflute]

I think that the flautist is William Bennet.

[@Octoschizare]

It's not the physicists fault if your internet connection isn't fast enough to stream the video! I can't smoothly stream at 720p resolution either so I watch most youtube videos at 480p. (you can change that by clicking the gear icon) To watch streaming youtube video requiring a data rate faster than your bandwidth, just start the video, press pause, and simply wait a few minutes before playing. It'll load on your hard drive in temporary folders. (The grey bar indicates loading progression.)

[@skba1704]

love watching this years after; we know more hahahaha!

[@theesikstee.fawr.doler.kwe9585]

@@theqrealm So true, and for those still searching there's this kzbin.info/www/bejne/jprNpKaYjsl3b68.

[@TigerJohny555]

@julsHz I can be specific: Before surgery a patient is oftem advised to seek second expert(medical) oppinion or even third. 2) Some scientists believe in evolution and some do not. 3) In court cases often prosecution and defense lawyers will present conflicting expert witnesses and leave it to oppinion of the jury who to believe(like in OJ Simpson case). Actually there are infinite examples of experts disagreeing.

[@Jordan-vr7ip]

Why isn't the graviton included in the standerd model, it is a force carrier.

[@timhorton2486]

Sick Dece Have we even found the graviton yet?

[@Orgoster]

Tim Horton To find the Graviton we need an 100 times bigger particle accelerator.

[@tommymeyer8281]

***** Aren't gluons held together by the strong force?

[@pepecohetes492]

Tommy Meyer No; gluons supply the strong force itself, which holds the protons and neutrons together...

[@arefeshghi]

+Sick Dece It seems that there is a huge debate on graviton and its existence.

[@Goproflying]

Does anyone know a website that has a full list of ALL known particles? Thanks.

[@kingkusnacht]

Isn't there also the Graviton?

[@IamGrimalkin]

Not in the standard model there isn't.

[@gauravproton1956]

hypothetical. if it exists then it could fail standard model

[@misceryyt2897]

Math will break down if you try to add graviton to the mix

[@cuttysnark7]

finally, a video that's simple, well made, AND makes sense. too bad i found it after having suffered through 20 others.

[@stephen7774]

The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle. This particle has 3 states - left spin, right spin and no spin. Empty space contains only left and right spinning particles which are unattached. These particles spin at the speed of light. Matter forms when a spinning particle stops spinning and creates a hole in space which the spinning particles rotate around. The sun gets its energy from these spinning particles which are pushed together as they approach the sun. The spinning particles give off their spin energy - 2 particles pushed together - E=MC squared. Light travels through these alternately left and right spinning particles like the cogs in a watch as a spin/wave. Thus, spin energy is the common denominator which unifies all the elements and forces of the universe.

[@deepanshugajbhiye]

+Stephen 777 interesting theory but can u explain last line?

[@stephen7774]

+Deepanshu Gajbhiye To unify the 4 forces - gravity, electromagnetism, light and electron forces you need a common denominator. Spin is the only possible common denominator which can unite all these forces. Matter, light and gravity can be defined in terms of spin energy. Spin and rotation creates matter itself. Galaxies spin, planets spin, the sun spins and atoms spin. Spin is the key to the universe.

[@deepanshugajbhiye]

Stephen 777 but why spin is has such effects. an electron spins and acts like a little magnet, gyroscope spins n have some weird behaviour, same with earths core, black hole.but only Q is why?

[@stephen7774]

+Deepanshu Gajbhiye There are no fields, gravity or pulling forces of any description in the universe. There are only black holes which particles fall into. There are small black holes - atoms; large black holes - suns and very large black holes galaxies. Its all a matter of fractal dimension.

[@deepanshugajbhiye]

Stephen 777 can u explain what blackhole is made up of?

[@CACBCCCU]

The effects of a coherent stream of bosons are easier to explain than the effect of each boson. A coherent photon stream can be compared to a stack of face-first-flying discs imprinted with two related vector field effect contributions, E, B. The stack shows a variation of the vector lengths as it passes by a point because each plate's vectors are slightly different than the next, the variation repeats once over the stream's wavelength. Gravitons stream edge-first, each plate spins ultraslowly.

[@TeacherFlash]

Sorry to disappoint you guys but this is not how it actually looks like... An electron does not have a definite position.

[@Gamergang708]

***** Why would you say that an electron does have a definite position

[@Gamergang708]

***** To my understanding it does not have a definite position

[@Gamergang708]

oh okay

[@kingkusnacht]

Yes, that is called the Uncertainty principle which was discovered in the 1920's.

[@physicsinanutshell3778]

Animated Anatomy . the position of an electron can't be predicted at an instance and alsonot both momentum & position . this is known as heindsberg uncertainty principle this is because of their superposition and wave packet

[@Ivan_1791]

What is exactly the spin? I still don't understand it. Is it some kind of rotation in 4 dimensions?

[@Amorphousbeing01]

Booyeaaah! Higgs found! :)

[@PaperMoonShine1]

i love how on all different higgs boson or standard model videos comments, people say "WE FOUND THE HIGGS BOSON!!!" when its the extremely gifted and smart scientists who have been working their asses off everyday to prove its existence, its great that you think in a sense of unity knowing this information is for the good of all people, but thank the countless people who actually DID something to discover the boson.

[@KevinP32270]

EPIC

[@khtervola]

If you observe just particles, all kinds of things will show you jurt their particle like sides. If as you go further, you get a more varied set of particles with odd rules and exeptions, it is likely that you are in fact observing the particle like sides of some other type of phenomena, which would be much easier to explain if you could know or guess right what kind of phenomena they are by their nature.

[@nikolanebulus7259]

Marijuana brought me here :D

[@KennethYoung926]

That's what always has me looking at physics videos

[@ketonealdehyde8151]

That marijuana may give u hint predict new particles,😉😉😉

[@pterodactylrain813]

FBI OPEN UP

[@meadsky]

This means that we ourselves determine what information shapes the perspective of our reality and as such the ability to determine whether or not an idea is valid and meshes with our own reality, is determined by the subjective data that each individual has taken in though the years. In this regard those who chose to ignore certain data will continue to ignore the data, as these determinations are made as early as 1 year old in life, and cemented by age 15.

[@Octoschizare]

If it's youtube videos, just reduce the resolution and pause to pre-load the video like I mentioned before. If you are trying to steam the video from a TV network website, there's probably nothing you can do about it since their web players don't have many options, but you can try the pause & pre-load method if it's a video from the past, but that won't work with live feeds. For live feeds... use your TV instead.

[@kiddhitta]

i have no idea what they're talking about, but it sounds FASCINATING!

[@GreatImperium]

@lepthymo there are devices called particle accelerators which can separate quarks.

[@SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

[@thewhatever379only]

this is a spectacular video. Music is precisely what every single science vid needs to keep the ordinary person interested.

[@philowenify]

@Aresftfun I'm so glad people noticed the tesseract! I had a bit of trouble representing some of the future discoveries graphically. I used a tightly coiled tube to represent small dimensions that may be too small for us to currently see.

[@ivyinetbiz]

Try to observe how the fundemental properties change or behave. Basically from the fast traveling matters point of veiw would be as if everything around itself would seem to be normal but the world around it would be invisible behind it and extreamly bright in front like looking at a violet ball that would shoot an entire light spectrum outwards.

[@MeSPal1999]

Well.. better late than never.. watched this after 10 years on the course of study.. nicely presented... thanks for this wonderful presentation. Loved it.

[@Bluelemonzz]

i consider myself a lover of science and learning but this is all new to me. Now I must pick up a particle physics book and start learning!

[@EarosioN]

@timewasteland It's Omega (Ω), but the minuscule (lowercase) version (ω), which in particle physics represents the Meson of Omega. But in a more conventional physics represents angular frequency/velocity.

[@TurboLoveTrain]

@puncheex a cookbook shows how to predict, plan and control interactions where a model is a representation. We have no valid representation of quantum particles but we have robust data that shows us interactions.

[@philbennettowen3932]

I put quantum gravity and strings near the back which are very relevant to the Planck length. It will be a while before we can start exploring those energy levels though.

[@555skooterboy]

@julsHz on the contrarty I knew nothing of particle physics or indead standard biotchnological knowlege until I studied applied science for one year at college, only until you grasp a basic understanding, not a phd degree, do you begin to piece together your own interpritation of the 'new age theoretical ideas' of what we are lucky to be a part of. No need to be an expert, just interesting and insperational enough for the individual to realise what an opperyunity they have

[@samhayes-astrion]

It's so weird to see videos from before the Higgs was discovered. This must be what it was like centuries ago when we were first laying the groundwork for physics, and looking back on old texts that were correct, but didn't have all the details.

[@שאולקפלן-י6ז]

Good job Absolutely wonderful Just remember Such an incredible design Has to have a DESIGNER

[@MnM4516]

(2) We know it will never include the gravity part, though. So, recent technical publications by CERN are hinting to the fact they may have found it - or at least, found the energy level it exists at. But to get a reliable, concrete result in particle physics, you must repeat it several times. And the LHC can't do that until it is ratcheted up to 7 TeV, in 2013.

[@martinflynn8939]

Maybe we could explore this in more detail?

[@fourbrothers1289]

@Legend shub lol

[@NotHomelessAnymore]

I have a question. Why is the Higgs regarded as the missing observable piece of the Standard Model when the graviton (a theoretical particle and almost impossible to observe) is also one of the SM's six elementary bosons?

[@BigHuggyBear1]

A theory is a calculated guess, its a stab at working out how and why things happen the way they do. Theories evolve over time as new knowledge is gained through scientific experimentation and observation. Sometimes theories have to be abandoned altogether when data does not fit what is expected and predictions turn out wrong (Feynmann). Sometimes theories remain speculations, and sometimes they are accepted as proofs because no-one has been able to modify them further.

[@mosshark]

i have put this video on my blog. great job on simplifying the most ambitious theory of all time.

[@twitchalmighty]

Well the graviton doesn't seem to have a mass (which would allow it to have what could be considered infinite range which can be seen by what is known as gravitational lensing), and having a spin-2 field, allowing for it to have a warping effect of what is known as Space-time, All of the particles of matter experience this, because it is only that it is without mass that we are unable to actually see it, but we see it's effects everyday. Consider this for a while.

[@philowenify]

@SpaceTime4D Thanks for pointing those inaccuracies out, I did seem to get those particles wrong. The textures kept getting mixed up while I was rendering this.

[@annasokolova4786]

No, the music is gorgeous! ) Please make more with music like that.

[@8cupcakes5]

There may also be a multiverse option. A parallel which has the derived surrogate creator. If we dismiss the micro and the macro, and look upon how we feel inside ourselves, even in the scientific world,no matter how minute we go, what really creates a connection with other beings? What dismisses us from a completely unconventional relationship with the beauty of color, sound and feeling? If you dismiss a total depletion of energy at your end of life, what reason is there to understand science?

[@fenexj]

This is incredible, the model actually predicts the future.

[@jedi88full5]

Great video, however the background music was distracting/unnecessary.To loud.

[@penarth17]

You're correct of course. And I am on a teeny Thai island. I've tried double downloading music, which works. But detailed text like the physicists' might be better as text as well as video.

[@UFOIST]

I eagerly await the announcement of the IN OUT IN OUT SHAKE IT ALL ABOUT particle.

[@philbennettowen3932]

Here's what I know about the subject. Dark matter appears to be some entirely new kind of matter that doesn't currently fit into the standard model. It doesn't interact with light but does have mass and gravitational effects on matter around it so it therefore has mass, which it likely acquires from its interaction with the Higgs. I am planning to do an update on this video in a year of so now that the Higgs has been discovered, I'll make sure to try and cover questions like these.

[@BigHuggyBear1]

Claude Bernard an 18th century physiologist/philosopher put it succinctly " it is often what we think we know that prevents us from learning" a theory that can stand the test of time and repeated experimental investigation is what I would consider a fact. "Laws of Nature" imply by the term used they either cannot be broken and fundamental forces that there is nothing more than them.but we have to be careful here not to assume we do know enough that these ideas cannot be modified or superceded.

[@slowpoke96Z28]

Watching this in 2020 and considering what has been learned since then. Now to a modern music producer to track new beats for these kinds of videos.

[@Inolbod]

Very elegant presentation. Why didn't you specify the author of the music you used as a background soundtrack, a sort of Higgs musical field, besides your acknowledgements?

[@mickycheese27]

@roadlittledawn I would think its pointless to search for a graviton, since gravity is a force, just like electromagnetism and in a way, heat and nuclear force. they are caused by the movement of atoms or some fundamentals in a specific way. No particle could cause gravity, it's the way the particles move that determine it's function. hope you understand. P.S. the higgs boson is also called the graviton

[@philowenify]

@SuperFinGuy I used Maya and After Effects for this video. I thought about showing the particles as 3D wave packets, kinda hard for me to imagine though. I do like how some of the particles are shown in the Cassiopeia project. I'm playing around with different designs at the moment for a future video.

[@brianwisenbaker8103]

Does gravity change at all with the change of particles? Does gravity behave differently with some particles than with others without regard of mass?

[@RTRVII]

wow all this news about the Higgs and the LHC really got me interested in the subject. I'm beginning to read a book about Introduction to elementary particles (Griffiths) :)

[@Raptor302]

The cute little animations make this a lot easier to stomach instead of the chalkboard filled with greek math that a layman like me has no hope of understanding.

[@birminghamb1ues]

1. you're quite correct! my judgement is indeed clouded by my fundamental 'belief' in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 2. it doesn't matter how many scientists accept evolution. science is not about concensus. 3. few biologists have studied physics at depth.

[@KittenKodersViews]

I am still a bit lost in particle physics. I can't seem to wrap my head around anything beyond chemistry in this area. But this did help a little bit, now I know what is meant by the twelve particles of matter bit.

[@eran5005]

To be honest, i have a greater passion and affiliation to biology, and i am currently in med-school... but medicine is not pure science, and it has little to nothing in relation to physics (which is the purest of sciences IMO). But i do intend to keep myself posted about discoveries in those fields, and will keep enjoying studying them in my free time. But thanks for the vote of confidence, i appreciate it :)

[@SaveTheFuture]

Did that undiscovered landscape at the end include particles and forces smaller than Plank length?

[@GreatImperium]

@lepthymo though gluons are strong, their range are short and once enough energy is thrown into it, this bond would break. just like how we can break the nucleus (also held by the strong force) with nuclear reactions, the collision of energetic protons can set free quarks). the speed of the particle has something to do with it, but since these particles are traveling near speed c, the particles start increasing in mass measured in electron volts (and thus create a more powerful collision).

[@unvergebeneid]

I really wonder whether all this complexity is needed to build a universe such as ours and thus if there is a mechanism that generates universes, it prefers simpler ones or if you could get life with a much simpler set of rules in which case the probability distribution of "physicses" would be completely different.

[@TaNgLeD2121]

@julsHz that was beautifully put,..... this world needs more people like you who can think clearly without dogmatic bullcrap clouding there judgement

[@rex635]

They have been looking for the particle since the 1960's, that's why it's so important. And yes they've found it, and the entire scientific community, as well as some non-scientists, was very happy.

[@ahmedshinwari]

@mattakudesu May be. Besides, for philosophy, science is not the only 'something', it is one of many.

[@TravisMorien]

@michaelmage There are a lot of particle physicists who are really hoping that the Higgs Boson doesn't show up, and something entirely different is found instead. If all the LHC does is find the Higgs then the standard model as it stands will be confirmed, shedding no new light on the questions raised in the video. They know the standard model is incomplete but they haven't got any data yet which they need to explain which would allow them to complete it.

[@dan69052]

Very good presentation. I will tell my friends and students about this site.

[@Brascofarian]

nice brief guide to the particles

[@gustjorodedheo]

At some point, we'll reach the boundary at which tiny particles are indistinguishable from quantities of energy, and this is why I think String Theory holds a lot of potential. It postulates that the *actual* fundamental particles are basically "solidified" energy with certain vibrating properties. Quarks, leptons, bosons, etc. will all go the way of the chemical elements, e.g., they will not be so fundamental anymore.

[@TurboLoveTrain]

@puncheex I guess what I'm alluding to is the classical idea of a particle, as it is currently modeled (physically depicted and taught in schools) is no-bueno. It is only useful for chemistry and exotic materials and not much else... so I don't see it as a model, only the cover for a cookbook for baking up materials but not much else.

[@ahmedshinwari]

@mattakudesu I said subordinate, not unnecessary. What made Einstein to think that all of the fundamental forces can be a single force? Science or Philosophy?

[@regan4000]

Great video. That was a cool adaptation of the table of elements. Do you have an entire chart constructed like that somewhere? A still picture is fine.

[@tanmaypaturu3459]

This was very helpful.I am in grade 8 In many websites and videos there are some complicated stuff which I was not able to understand but this video was clearThank you for making this video Tanmay

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

Agreed. Who needs a graviton when gravity isn't really a gauge-bosonic force, but rather a relativistic warping of space-time?

@Best0fScience but what about gravity. It is a standard force too, is it not ? Why didnt they include it ?

[@ElvisKnucklehead]

I don't know how many times I've heard some "religious" person say that atheism is a religion. Actually, from now my answer to that challange is going to be SCIENCE is my religion for it is upon the altar of Science that I worship. Thanks BestOfScience.

[@truvelocity]

@jeebersjumpincryst It is a great age to live in. Can you imagine the 1920's, when atoms were quantifiable for the first time, without directly observing them? We have really come a long way.

[@catninja909]

Finally FINALLY in physics senior year after reading about string theory FIVE YEARS AGO I finally actually get to learn it lol

[@socratus1]

What Gives Particles Mass? Searching for Higgs Boson is needed vacuum So vacuum gives mass to particles First question: What is vacuum ? The Vacuum is the lowest background level of Energy E= 0 and temperature T= 0K If Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space then particles there are energetic particles Dirac named them : virtual particles Second question: Which parameters can they have in T=0K ? Third question: How can these virtual particles become real particles ?

[@lydiajoseph6029]

Beautiful Demonstration

[@Scardy]

I only barely understood that, and certainly not the implications! I pretty much got that there are more than just the three particles noted in atomic structure, that these all have different properties and cause different things to happen... yeah... I think I want some more science classes.

[@bRuuIMarley]

@roadlittledawn the way to graviton is open, even more now that neutrinos can travel 1 dimension above (if they can go faster then light, then they r 1 dimension above light, = dimension of gravity (cuz gravity affects light))

[@sicktoaster]

I was going to post before I was rudely interrupted by the automatic transition. My question is do quarks stay inside their hadrons and mesons or do they move between them?