Deep dive into the known forces

[@nicholashylton6857]

The deep dive was great. More please!

[@ditch3827]

ditto

[@dirkvdo]

ditto-ditto

[@mudfossiluniversity]

Try this my friends... Strong Force inside Protons are Gluons kzbin.info/www/bejne/mXaplaKqoZKcr7M

[@---cv8nq]

also want you to deep dive into randomness. over and over the study guides say "it's impossible to predict" random decay, BUT in other places, like a coin flip, from one perspective it looks random, and from another, with more information about the coin and speed and mechanics, the coin flip IS predictable. HOW do we "know" radiation and atomic activity is "random", and it's not just a situation where do not have enough information about what's going on? science cannot prove an impossibility, only posit theories to explain evidence, and in this case, the whole of physics is resting on the premise that sub-atomic activity is un-knowable. deep dive that, please.

[@scholtif]

Exellent!

[@gregjensen2482]

This is a really nice balance of, "whooboy, it's actually a lot more complicated than you've realized" and "let's explain what's going in a simple, approachable way." Solid programming, would love to see more like it.

[@carsond67]

More deep dives please. KZbin is saturated with surface level treatments of science, so these are gold!

[@slipperynickels]

i would actually argue that the sheer amount of surface-level scientific content is actively very harmful to science literacy. it’s the IFLS-ification of science content.

[@nikkan3810]

@@slipperynickels It is indeed. Kurzgezacht, my nemesis XD

[@foolishball9155]

​@@nikkan3810They are actually better than everything else out there.

[@nikkan3810]

@@foolishball9155 not by a lot. Making tons of claims that just have no experimental basis as if it's totally true and real. Too much confidence in things that we don't even have tools to comprehend, not to mention research.

[@APaleDot]

@@foolishball9155 Kurzgesagt is one of the most surface-level, IMO. ScienceClic and Science Asylum are better for physics. You've got PBS Eons for paleontology. Myron Cook for geology. Professor Dave Explains is better for just about anything.

[@WestOfEarth]

Deeper dives! You guys are one of the few channels with talent qualified to explain these concepts in more detail. Almost any science journalism channel can cover the broad concepts, and I feel it would be a waste of your expertise to rehash it. In particular this video was excellent in clarifying my understanding of forces, and I've watched countless videos on the subject (as well as read several texts on it). For example, I had no idea that to escape the strong force, particles actually change into others which aren't affected by its influence. That is a concept I've not encountered before, and I appreciate it!

[@onnastick]

The changing into other particles behavior is at the heart of the LHC collision experiments. They smash protons together, and when Quarks get ripped apart from each other the energy is converted into a "zoo" of new particles which hit the detectors. That's how I understand it, at least, as a layman.

[@Lin-vh7uv]

@@onnastick Physicist here, your explanation is correct. It's simplified, but that goes without saying for this topic

[@AECFXI]

When I saw "deep dive" in the title, I was expecting an hour long video! Shocked and confused the "deep dive" was only 10 minutes! Give us deeper dives!

[@AndrewSternkern]

KZbin is full of videos which are ankle-deep into particle physics, but the ones which go into intricate details and describe smaller topics in detail are rare. I would opt for having these kind of videos every once in a while, they are greatly appreciated!

[@aidarosullivan5269]

As a theoretical physicist I've always been fascinated with cutting-edge particle physics because it's difficult to explain in simple terms without adding something irrelevant.

[@pRahvi0]

I'd say this videw was at least knee deep. Maybe even waist deep.

[@filipdahlberg4420]

PBS space time does it well too

[@sakesaurus]

this is ankle deep. There's no math

[@aidarosullivan5269]

@@sakesaurus There are graphs of field intensity versus distance, arguably a math.

[@Apeiron242]

Scientist: Yo, gravity. You the weakest force! Gravity: Come say that to my event horizon.

[@BiggestBigBoy]

Scientist: Make me, I'm over here, and you're allll the way over there!

[@arikwolf3777]

Einstein: Gravity is not a force.

[@sp00n]

When a force cannot withstand a non-force

[@ZennExile]

that's a hoax. Gravity isn't actually a force. That's the plot twist. And the weak force is probably a pilot wave interaction rather than a massless temporary particle.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@ZennExile No forces are actually forces. By QFT, they are all exited vibration of respective field. Taken this way, Gravity is just the large scale bending of its field, the space-time itself. Large-scale bending and short-distance vibrations seems to be fundamentally the same object.

[@johnlinley2702]

The demand for more deep dives clearly restores our faith in humanity and physics. The deeper the better.

[@toastyburger]

More deep dives, please. Your delivery makes it so I can follow further down the rabbit hole than I otherwise could.

[@pdelong42]

More deep-dives please. I never even realized that the top quark doesn't live long enough to feel the strong force.

[@ChristopherCurtis]

Agreed, and I don't even know what that means: the strong force operates at a speed slower than the rate of causality? Is there a strong force equivalent of a sonic boom or of cherenkov radiation?

[@glowerworm]

​@@ChristopherCurtisit takes non-neglibble time for the strong force to take hold and bind quarks, and the top quark decays before that happens. Think of it like the egg yolk disappearing before you get a chance to fully scramble your eggs in a bowl.

[@ChristopherCurtis]

Thanks, but a disappearing egg yolk doesn't help. Gravity and EM move at the speed of light. How fast does the strong force go? And how far does it go to get there? Where is it coming from to get to this apparently-free top quark?@@glowerworm

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@ChristopherCurtis It's not slower than the rate of causality. The strong force simply isn't strong until a certain amount of time has passed because the particle needs to travel a certain distance before the force actually becomes strong. The weak force deals with that particle before it can get that far.

[@drdon5205]

@@glowerworm not so bad of an analogy

[@rarelycomments]

I don't know anywhere else on KZbin where I can hear advanced level physics topics explained in such an easy to understand style. It's what keeps me coming back to this channel. There are plenty of other channels that offer surface level overviews.

[@ruaidhrimcdonnell564]

The shallow videos are a great introduction, but the deep dive ones are much more thought provoking. If possible, keep producing both, as both are valuable to different audiences.

[@trelligan42]

Bump. #FeedTheAlgorithm

[@NevilDouglas]

This.

[@borisbukalov9407]

Yes, please Dr. Lincoln, a deeper dive into the weak and strong forces would be great! Keep up the great work!

[@markocam]

Deep dives! It helps to satisfy the 'but why' questions we have been asking from childhood. Also it's great to understand the limits of what we know, why we have reached those limits, and what's next.

[@Ostinat0]

Couldn't agree with this more! "But why?" is the question I always want answered when I'm looking for educational content; why are things the way they are?

[@UnionYes1021]

Deep dives please! Deeper and crazy deep helps me to know what I need to study next.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

4:50 One should mention that for _macroscopic_ objects, the negative and positive charges are usually almost exactly balanced, leaving only a _very_ small net charge in total. Hence for macroscopic objects, the ratio of charge to mass is ___much___ smaller than for electrons or protons, and hence the force of gravity is usually more important than the electrostatic force. (That's the point which all proponents of the "electric universe" conveniently ignore.)

[@viliml2763]

> Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology. However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next. why are you bringing this into the discussion out of nowhere?

[@Mmmm1ch43l]

yeah, but that's exactly *because* the electromagnetic force is so strong you don't really see big charge differences in nature because that would require a lot of energy, whereas pulling two masses apart is much easier your argument is like saying that the law prohibiting speeding is more important than the law prohibiting murder because a lot of people get speeding tickets but only a small number go to jail for committing murder

[@TheLoneWolfling]

@@Mmmm1ch43l The only reason there _can_ be charge cancellation is that the universe 'happens to' have a very close to equal (if not actually truly equal) amount of positive and negative charge.

[@irinaratushinskaja7900]

Finally a video where there's no BS about "universe borrowing energy for a shortest period of time" but the (slightly) more accurate description of the force carrier having a small enough mass. Kudos!

[@LeTtRrZ]

What’s wrong with the idea of borrowing/returning energy? I would like to know if/why this is a mistake, because if it is, I’ve been making it.

[@Andrew-rc3vh]

Yes but you only probe a tiny bit more into this strange world. If you want to do it properly you need a mathematical treatment of the subject.

[@Zamicol]

​@@LeTtRrZbecause it's obviously a neat accounting tool and shouldn't be mistaken for reality.

[@LeTtRrZ]

@@Zamicol So, how should I think about the concept of energy uncertainty? How would you describe the idea of intrinsic charm of protons if not borrowing or returning mass?

[@TheMadLiteralist]

​@@Zamicolif it has predictive power it's valid physics, all of quantum physics is a series of elaborate accounting tools.

[@markloveless1001]

Absolutely more deep dives, please. How about a deep(er) drive into asymptotic freedom, which you briefly touch on here. Good stuff!

[@Jrpyify]

I did it. I lived long enough to hear a physicist say, "don't sweat the units."

[@photon434]

Your intuitive exploration of uncharted territory provides a fresh and exciting perspective on quantum physics. Bring it! 💥

[@edwardlee2794]

more and even more deep dive. here is why. you make it captivating. this one, for example, i can absorb only a little, if I can dive in more, it adds up each time, over time, I become more enlightened and like many of your followers appreciate it very much. make it interesting and captivating. thanks for the effort and keep up the good work.

[@johnverdicchio2980]

More deep dives - loved the explanation for the weak force

[@tobyclayton2597]

I don't hold any qualifications in QM or any in maths and physics, but I find most KZbin videos to be too basic; a little more depth is excellent! Your videos are at the perfect level for me, simple enough to (usually) grasp but complex enough to make me think. Thank you!

[@jim-a74]

More deep dives, please! These videos are presented very well.

[@marschma]

Ah, another channel i can watch at 3am about physics while understanding absolutely nothing. Best way to fall asleep. You will make a fine addition to my collection

[@ke9ns]

I love your dives into the "actual" causes everyday phenomenon (light bending, light slowing down, magnetism, etc.)!

[@BillZBubb]

More please! I feel like I actually learned something for the first time in a long time. Or, at least seriously challenged my rudimentary understanding. I didn’t understand weak force before, still don’t, but now it feels like there is something more I can learn.

[@Dandelion_Stitches]

Deep dive is fantastic, please do more! Love actually gettiing to *LOOK* at a topic instead of just glossing over it.

[@dtrimm1]

Great video, and YES PLEASE to more deep dives - there are already plenty of other videos without this level of depth. Thank you for doing these - the channel is terrific.

[@claude_in_Cincinnati]

More deep dives. Love this host. Great explanations. Good energy.

[@jefftracy5528]

Keep the deep dives coming! Your KZbin platform is unique. You cover a given topic first at higher level then more deeply in subsequent episodes. That maximizes your audience reach and allows users to customize their 'curriculum'. Really enjoy your books and Teaching Company DVDs.

[@hummingbirb5403]

Deep dives are great! It’s not often I find like a 2 hour long lecture on some scientific topic but it’s always a pleasure to watch them

[@GavriilMichas]

Yes Jedi Don, please do so, more deep observations! Many thanks!

[@norbertscheller1611]

More deep dives, please. You provide so much insight.

[@vellovannak4789]

Deep dives are great, especially when you can link back to broader concept videos upon which one can construct a foundation for understanding. You’ve established quite a library for such development. Go for it!

[@EllenHuxtable-o1r]

Appreciate the deep dives, and it's helpful to list the more basic videos on the same topic, for background information.

[@donach9]

Yes, thoroughly enjoyed this. I think deep dives into narrow topics are a good idea. You've done, and there are plenty out there, broader videos and there's only so many of them worth making

[@jeffreysokal7264]

Don presents the absolute best videos on physics. More deep dives to stretch my mind even further, please! So far beyond what I can understand but I typically get a nugget from each. Not unlike my reading and re-reading A Brief History of Time probably 50 or 60 times in the last 15 years. I gain more understanding with each reading as time goes on.

[@TheArech]

This is one of my the most favorite channels! Please, more deep dives!

[@schifoso]

This was an excellent and very informative video on the forces. Haven't seen anything like it before on the forces and I learned a lot of new things. Please do create more content with deep dives.

[@seanspartan2023]

This format was great! More please 🙂

[@maxsluiter5132]

I enjoyed the level of detail in this one, I like deeper dives for sure!

[@andrefortin1960]

Please! Please! Please! More and more of these in-depht videos! Greeeeeeatly appreviated.

[@harmo2502]

I love this video style! Getting into nuance in any capacity makes these types of videos more interesting

[@sharpsheep4148]

More deep dive for sure. I've heard the same videos about QM a dozen of times. It is this type of content that gets me curious to do my own research on the topic

[@jacobblumin4260]

Excellent video. Deep dives at this level of detail are just what I need. Thanks and keep 'em coming.

[@Zenit321]

Please more dive deep! We really are capable of handle them, you're a fantastic teacher! 😊

[@NeilAMitchell]

I agree, more deep dives. Understanding what’s going on at a deeper level is what differentiates this channel from the majority of the others.

[@SilverAlex92]

Please please do like a series of videos on this rabbit hole! You are one of the more knowledgeable persons in this topic on youtube, and basically everyone else only touches surface level stuff. I would adore if you delved in the rabbit hole mentioned at the end. This video was kinda mind blowing and now I wanna learn more about the four forces

[@NeedToKnow851]

Thank you, Don, Kirsty and Fermilab for making these videos! I’ve watched them all over the last year and am left with many questions for your consideration: 1) What would happen if the slits of the double slit experiment were solid matter, but transparent, like glass? The photon interacts with the wave of the electrons in the glass, slowing the photon down, but is that enough to collapse the wavefunction of the photon? 2) Light is observed to move at the same speed regardless of the speed of the observer. Does this still apply when light slows down in a medium? Can light have a proper time if it is not going the speed of light when it moves through a medium like glass or water? 3) Since space contains virtual particles (quantum foam), does this act like a medium (like water) so that light never actually moves at quite exactly the speed of light? 4) Light can have a mass if it is a force carrier of QED (from an episode called “Quantum Foam”). Do photons still travel at c if they have mass? 5) Do gluons squeeze quarks together from the outside rather than pull quarks together from in between? 6) Are gluons everywhere in the vacuum or just inside of atomic nuclei? 7) How do we know that the two orthogonal wave components of a photon are associated with the electrical force and the magnetic force respectively? 8) When a force carrier is exchanged between electrons, how does the force carrier know where the target is? Does this rely on the principle of least action? 9) If force carriers must be exchanged for particles to be directed around the loop of a particle accelerator, does this mean that the path of the particles is rather geometric like a Feynman diagram (straight lines and sharp angles that average to the curvature of the accelerator)? 10) Can force carrier photons be absorbed by our retina and register as light in our brains? 11) What happens when the quantum foam (a virtual particle) interacts with something real? How do virtual particles disappear after getting intimately involved with real matter and energy? 12) How does the universe know which particles are virtual and which ones are real so that it can erase the virtual ones? 13) Just as virtual particles can pop into existence and then disappear, can real particles disappear, so long as they return? 14) When particles are entangled, could they be connected in a higher dimension so that there is really no distance in the “spooky action at a distance”? 15) If electromagnetism has no range limit, and electromagnetism acts by exchange of photons, is every electron in every galaxy pushing on every other electron in every galaxy and all are constantly exchanging photons? 16) Why is it that when kinetic and potential energy (like quarks swirling around each other at near the speed of light or quarks/protons stuck together by the strong force) are confined to a small space, it acts like mass (attracted to other mass by gravity and has inertia)? Since relativistic mass is not real, why would concentrated energy exhibit the characteristics of mass? 17) I’ve heard that a hot cup of coffee weighs more than the same cup of coffee when it is cold. How could this be true without relativistic mass? 18) What is the pion condensate and what role does it play in the mass of the atomic nucleus? 19) If one extra matter particle is created for every billion or so matter/antimatter pairs, and matter/antimatter pairs can annihilate back into energy, could this back and forth between matter/antimatter and energy be a filtering process until there is only matter? 20) Does the Higgs field impart mass to antimatter? 21) Once we know if antimatter falls up or down, will we be able to say confidently if antimatter is attracted to antimatter via gravity in the same way that matter is attracted to matter? 22) When a top quark (172 billion eV) decays to a bottom quark (4.2 billion eV) and a W boson (80 billion eV), where does the rest of the mass (eV) go? Photon? 23) Is the number of neutrinos in the universe increasing dramatically over time? 24) Why does it follow that the ability of neutrinos to change their identity means they have mass? 25) Why is neutrino oscillation regular over distance? Is this process effected by relativity (length contraction)? 26) If gravity information (which moves at the same speed as light) takes 8 minutes to get to earth, shouldn’t earth be attracted to where the sun was (as it moves around the galaxy) 8 minutes ago? 27) If gravitons exist, would a -2 spin antigraviton be responsible for antigravity (accelerating expansion of the universe)? 28) If the universe is expanding only at the scale of superclusters of galaxies, does that mean that each supercluster or maybe smaller groupings will eventually collapse? In other words, what is preventing many small “big crunches” from occurring under the force of gravity? For example, expansion is not sufficient to prevent the Milky Way from colliding with Andromeda. 29) What is the longest possible wavelength of light? If the universe continues to expand, the CMB will redshift theoretically forever? 30) The universe is ~5% regular matter, 27% dark matter, 68% dark energy, but what about regular energy? Is it less than 1%? 31) What is the relationship (if any) between dark energy and quantum foam/virtual particles? 32) How do we know that dark energy became important only 5 billion years ago and what happened around 5 billion years ago that made it important? 33) We can use limits to see if light experiences time. Do we trust the use of limits to give us the correct answer to this question? 34) In episode “Relativity's key concept: Lorentz gamma”, the flashlight emits many photons in an arc of many angles around the business end of the flashlight. Which photons hit the mirror: the ones that leave the flashlight along the axis of the length of the flashlight, or the ones that leave the flashlight at some angle to the axis of the length of the flashlight? It seems like the answer would be different depending on the observer. 35) Regarding episode “Relativity's key concept: Lorentz gamma”, can we derive the Lorentz factor if the flashlight is turned in the same direction as the motion of the train? 36) Why is the speed of causality one particular speed and no other. Would the universe be very different if the speed of causality was 300000000 as opposed to 299792458 m/s? 37) Spacetime is curved near mass, but why does that make mass want to move? We can think of curved space time as a slope that things roll down, but the reason that things roll down a slope is gravity! The logic is circular. Why does mass care if spacetime is curved? Why can mass be at a lower potential energy by moving into a gravity well? 38) Are orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, etc.) able to overlap without violating the Pauli exclusion principle because the electrons have different energies and are therefore not identical? 39) Why can’t an electron emit a photon, losing all kinetic energy, and fall into the nucleus just as it can emit a photon and fall from an exited state to the ground state? 40) In the double slit experiment the light goes through both slits because “it is a wave in addition to being a particle”, but the EM wavelength of light is always shown as being parallel to the direction that the photon is traveling. When talking about wave/particle duality in this case, does the wave refer to position of the photon as opposed to the EM wave? 41) Is there an uncertainty in the direction of a particle (like a photon) at t=0 when it is created, or does its position only become more uncertain the further it travels. Maybe both? 42) Can a photon be described as a particle, and two waves (energy and position), whereas an electron would be described as a particle and 4 waves (mass, charge, position, energy)?

[@juliavixen176]

This is a lot of questions, and I don't have time to even read this whole list, but I know the answers for the first few... 1. This is a lens... like camera lenses need to be designed, at great effort, to try to minimize diffraction. 2. In a transparent medium, the molecules of the medium are absorbing and re-radiating the incoming light. At the atomic scale the light is still propagating at the speed of light, but the sum total of all the waves in the medium produces a macroscopic effect that *looks like* the light slowed down, but it didn't actually slow down. There are some good videos on KZbin about how this process works. 3. Quantum field are Lorentz invariant... so the speed of light is still the same speed of light as always. (And also... the speed of light is what defines the measurement of other things... and those other things *don't* change independently.) 4. Light doesn't have "mass", it has *_momentum_* this is a very important distinction.

[@Rattiar]

I really liked this take on the relative strength of forces - I had never heard this before! Would love to hear more explanations like this. Thanks!

[@ericr999]

More deep dives please. This video helped me resolve some lingering questions I had about relationships between electromagnetism and the weak & strong forces. It's exactly the kind of zone in between popular science and university research level science that there needs to be more of in order to help bridge the gap for the curious.

[@tristanweiss722]

These deep dives are really cool. Definitely more of them. I would love a more in depth discussion on the electroweak force, for example

[@josevenegas9191]

I liked that you explained things not included in other videos. Please continue with videos like this one 👏

[@CoreyKatouli]

Deep dives…you are too good of a teacher and your deep dives would be very insightful and educational

[@xanderopal7367]

The more I know about the deeper workings of physics, and thus the universe, the more fascinating and beautiful everything is. Please do keep explaining these concepts so well and thoroughly.

[@joetaylor486]

Loving the deep dives! This finally answers a handful of questions I had about the fundamental forces.

[@CyrusDemar]

As a child and teen I read the equvalent of the popular mechanics and popular science magazines in my country every opportunity I had. A large thanks goes out to public libraries. These videos are the natural progression of these magazines and more. Thanks Don and his team. I love the deep dives. More please.

[@jballenger9240]

Thanks as always. I’d appreciate series of deeper dives similar to your sub atomic series. It was wonderful! Through, cleat, understandable, in good chunks., that Dr.Don presented so well. 5⭐️

[@erikledfelt8426]

Dive deeper - that’s why I follow this great channel - keep up the good work 😊

[@justinkane290]

More deep dives please! I wish there were more in depth videos like these that also are not just equations and derivations.

[@uthor707]

yes please, love the deeper dives. You're a talented communicator Don, very enjoyable.

[@odizzido]

This is a good video for me. As a passive physics enthusiast a lot of what I hear from videos are things I already know(or things that are wrong). This sort of video is right at my current level where it's understandable and informative.

[@CosmicVelocity3]

Thank you for the vid! That was as clear as it can get. Would very much appreciate more of that level.

[@stevenwilson5556]

Loved the video, would love to see a longer form with more info and comparisons.

[@vasilyp]

More deep dives please!! They are not that hard when you explain them so well 👍

[@alhdgysz]

This video was incredibly interesting. I would definitely love to watch more deep dive videos. Because, physics is everything

[@Google_Does_Evil_Now]

Deeper Dives please. Maybe give them a Relatively Score of how deep they are. This was a nice step but I'd like to know more about the 4 forces. If you've a few videos on a topic then perhaps they could be grouped into playlists? Start with the intro, then level 1, level 2 and so on as you bring us further into the subject. That way we can put on a playlist and get a deeper understanding of a subject.

[@piotrrasz]

I love those deep dive's. It tells me more than i can expect from the common videos.

[@edke9164]

There are a billion KZbin videos talking about the broad subjects, we need more deep dives, this was great!

[@daveondra1542]

I love it, Dr. Lincoln !! Really enjoy the channel. Thanks

[@vmstanford]

More deep dives, please. We need more than the typical shallow science videos provide. Thx.

[@DanJones-np8xb]

Great format, and subject matter. I would love to see more content, in a similar format.

[@rebanelson607]

This answered questions that I've had for quite a while. Thanks - deep dives get my vote!

[@hansfreivogel2419]

Yes, more deep dives are very welcome!!! Thank you for your great work.

[@FlamerOHR]

thank you for the deep dive, the level of detail was just enough for me to understand easily with some thought put into it

[@Mr-Garibaldi]

A Deep Dive that takes only 10 minutes is very manageable and understandable. I'd vote for more!

[@ronhukari33]

Mote deep dives but mix in some lighter subjects. Really have been enjoying your content.

[@rollinwithunclepete824]

Dr Don, I thought this was very interesting. I appreciate the 'deep dive'. More like this would be welcomed.

[@dafooster]

Love the deep dives. Keep them coming please. Thanks!

[@ianwheelband1393]

More deep dives please. Your explanation methods are great for my mathematically challenged brain! Thanks

[@karlhoffman789]

Deep dive, deeper understanding helps the people that are trying to learn what's really going on under the hood. Because you are capable of explaining things very well, you should try explaining some of the more difficult parts that are missed by the people that cannot do as good of a job. Thank you! We appreciate your physics!

[@uncoded0]

This may be my favorite video! I would love more of the in depth videos. KZbin already has a lot of surface level videos. Deep dive as deep as possible! Thanks!

[@Tenorman207]

Please, more deep dives! Especially with the equations explaining interaction and emergent properties as systems become more complex! Any chance you could do an episode on black holes and quantum complexity post thermal equilibrium?

[@dllahr]

More deep dives please! Thank you this video was great

[@hayleywhitehouse3223]

Love the deep dive, I'd love to see more of these types of video!

[@TristanLaguz]

Great deep dive 👍 ! I'd love it if you broadened your spectrum to *de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Þeory* . As for deep dives, I'd like one looking into whether ðe sphaleron process really be impossible in ðe SM, as ðe paper *Unobservability of the topological charge in nonabelian gauge theory* claims.

[@evanbasnaw]

This was excellent. I'd like more. It's more complete than most physics video explanations, but simple enough that you don't have to have a minor in quantum theory.

[@ΕυάγγελοςΤσισλιάνης-ρ1ζ]

That was a great video which enlightened this topic. More deep dives please!

[@eldandraken4850]

this video was super interesting. i knew so little about strong and weak nuclear force, nevermind understanding anything about it, now i know how little i know, but at least its more than yesterday and i appreciate that TL;DR: more deep dives, please!

[@physics3632]

Thanks for this brilliant video! I’d love to see more deep dives!

[@dj_laundry_list]

Such a good explanation. I studied all of the forces individually but had never put them together in this way

[@aidanr444]

Deep dives Doctor Don 👍 Show the way, mate! Don't abandon the introductory work, but please create more like this which light up the next stage of the journey down. I paused this maybe four times to let myself absorb a fully new piece of knowledge and I think you've enhanced my mental model without adding any woowoo metaphors. It was just quantative enough to keep me on the rails. How about a piece on the MeV? That could help a lot of viewers understand both your vids and the other ones out there where that unit is bandied about, giving quantified info that few understand.

[@STohme]

Very interesting indeed to have this more detailed information (the weak force in this video). Despite the fact that I am only a computer scientist I am very interested by physics and I appreciate very much you videos and your channel (being also a subscriber to Fermilab channel). Many thanks Don.

[@damouze]

"I do not believe you realize the gravity of your situation" "On the contrary, gravity was foremost on my mind!"

[@onourpath]

The deep dive broadens understanding. More, please!

[@marcooliveira389]

Easyly one of the best videos you ever made! Thank you very much!!!

[@aprosper]

This actually made me miss some of my 3rd and 4th year physics classes. Please do more deep dives.

[@paulblase3955]

So. 1) what does the weak force actually do? Keep quarks together? 2) How does one particle sending a “gluon”, or whatever, to another provide an force? And how does the gluon know where the second particle is going to be?

[@DrDeuteron]

Weak force changes flavors of quarks and leptons, kind of a big deal. No other force mixes generations. What’s wrong with a virtual particle being attractive?

[@RealMajor66]

Definitely deep dive. There are tons of videos which scratch the surface, please keep going into details, math even. Nobody explains it better than you do.

[@paulprobusjr.7597]

Deep dives, please. Thanks for your great work.