30 Subatomic Stories: Can we find a theory of everything?

[@HUEnshiro_do_Norte]

Don, I'm not from a country that speaks English, but you sound so clean that I can fully understand you. It's a joy to listen you talking.

[@davidjenn5871]

Hi

[@thingsiplay]

You talk like a good friend in a bar, but with the intellectual property of a professor. Can't stop listening. I am addicted.

[@DavidMaurand]

This is a fantastic series and I hope it lives beyond the pandemic.

[@seionne85]

Thank you for the series Dr. Lincoln! It's been so much fun! Specifically, thank you for re-igniting my interest in physics!!!!

[@markross699]

Dr. Lincoln - you're a terrific communicator. Wonderful videos and approach. I love your analogies .

[@natecurley3090]

Just wanted to say thank you for keeping me on track whenever I struggle❤

[@UpcycleElectronics]

Dr. Lincoln You've come a long way with this channel since the last time I watched. You've obviously applied several elements you've picked up from Professor O'Dowd. I also appreciate the background bookshelf with books scared with the marks of reading. There were a few really interesting points in this upload, like the way you explained the standard model with the graphic around 4:00, and tied it to Super String theory in context. If you broke the habit of reading a teleprompt and adopted a summary outline instead, I think you would see a massive growth on this channel. You have good writting skills, and are pleasant to listen to, but it takes a bit more effort for me to dwell on your key points and the elements I find fascinating. I'm no expert, just a casual layperson viewer of edutainment content like this. I know how much effort is involved with content in general. So from that perspective, I'm not trying to discourage or be negative. I could make an enormous list of things I would need to do if I wanted to make content anywhere near your current capabilities. I'm only saying, I found myself somewhat distracted by how your reading pace is not always aligned with emphatic flow of the content. Some of the high points of your otherwise great writing, slightly miss their mark as a result. I found myself hitting the back 10 sec button a few times just to be sure I caught the point, ...,but I was watching this in the pre-coffee morning...and writting this after...(probably too much coffee...) Anyways, stay well, and thanks for the upload. -Jake

[@gregorykeating4195]

Just stumbled upon this series - awesome! 95% goes over my head - but the other 5% really causes me to pause and consider the implications! Thanks for expanding my universe Don!

[@thedecktothe16thpower56]

As a conceptual orientated thinking person its kind of easy to picture in my mind what physics is really explaining through differential equations. We are talking about one object, interacting with itself, through many phases. Essentially what we think of as space is actually an object. It is difficult to understand this because we came in trying to calculate this in the midst of a phasing interaction. In essence we did not come from a big bang we are IN a big bang.

[@morkovija]

Сant believe its been 30 episodes already, what a ride! Thank you Don!

[@glossblack2045]

I love thumbing through his books behind him while we get a debrief of the biggest questions of our time. And that he takes time to make these vids in the first place. Great work you guys are doing here

[@glennstasse5698]

Doesn’t the Cleopatra book seem incongruous?

[@ramiengrey1177]

@@glennstasse5698 Nah, it's right next to a book on the Roman Legions, and several other books on that shelf are history-oriented as well. He has his books well organized!

[@glennstasse5698]

@@ramiengrey1177 Oh! I assumed it was a book about Elizabeth Taylor! :-). [better be careful here, Son. You’re perilously close to being banned for life.]

[@ramiengrey1177]

@k1w1 Well, the shelf on the right is for physics too, including a few books by Don himself, if I'm seeing things properly.

[@shadowjack22]

Absolutely love your videos. Slightly weird suggestion. Sometime could you give us a brief tour of the library behind you? Looks like you have a wide range of interests 😎

[@robertprz4959]

2:35 I'm totally shocked by the fact that James Maxwell knew a refrigerator! Maybe he even invented it? I never knew that, but he was a true genius, I guess ;)

[@patrickaycock3655]

Please dont stop making vids like these! I be sad.

[@joseraulcapablanca8564]

Thanks Doctor Lincoln. You are a great communicator. Great to hear Scwarzchild and Le Maitre, getting credit for their parts in the expansion picture. Keep up the good work.

[@user-wu8yq1rb9t]

It's just a great subject, I'm so excited. Thank you Dr Lincoln.

[@anaxim1]

Really enjoying Heavy Duty Mysteries Time with Dr. Lincoln. Keep up the good work, please.

[@onehitpick9758]

I like your analogy of how little we may know compared to the limited of high energy and the Planck scale. One thing that may make it less confounding is if there is a set of rules we can find that apply, perhaps recursively, at different scales. I also think we have the same analogy in the other direction, perhaps to an even greater degree. Some may "think" we have entered the precision age of cosmology, when we have only just begun to look into the universe from a relatively narrow aperture in both local space and time and the notions of what we're seeing are still changing rather rapidly and drastically.

[@ShaunCKennedyAuthor]

You featured one of Jimmy Akin's questions! That's awesome! I have listened to him for a couple years.

[@JohnJohansen2]

Can't wait to the next episodes! Although it's a hard one. I believe you're my biggest idol on KZbin, that doesn't has food as the subject.😉

[@ColbyNye]

Another fantastic video! Thank you, and looking forward to the next series!

[@nicholasperry2380]

What a superb series! Thank You. I'm very impressed that you can give people like me a hint of the wonder in science that we can understand. You must be a superb educator and scientist. Interesting bookshelf too. Sort of a question is - How are some of these subjects related to stuff that we might be able to make later such as super-strong cables, rapid recharging power cells and the like.

[@vikramgupta2326]

That comparison really put it in context on how hard it is to find a TOE.

[@absoluteego]

8:25 how i want to be greeted by dr. lincoln every morning

[@TheSilentWhales]

Cannot...stop...laughing 😂👍.

[@Bassotronics]

Hi beautiful!

[@mogenslysemose6757]

Didn't know there were groupies in high energy physics, i stand corrected.

[@MrWildbill]

Thanks for a great series but I have one question or really one question that stands out more than the million other questions watching your series raised in my mind. Does the Weak Force exist in stable atoms, like in Iron or Silicon or for that matter Hydrogen. If it does exist in stable atoms what does it do?

[@KonekoEalain]

Hey Don! Any thoughts on the black holes discovered that are thought to be too big for how ancient they are? Love the series!

[@montenegroalvaro]

Hi Don, great videos as always. Question for the Q&A section: if a particle (or anything) cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, how can we decelerate photons (Glasgow experiment) in a vacuum? Aren’t we breaking some kind of logical symmetry?

[@arthjai]

Hello Dr Don Electromagnetic interactions occurs due to exchange of momentum of virtual photons so what causes weak interactions to occur? Do they also exchange momentum of w boson? Also please tell me why virtual particles have less mass compared to real particle?

[@edwardlulofs444]

Weak interaction comes from W and Z bosons. And they are the reason that the Higgs had to be added to the standard model. The SM has more holes than swiss cheese. But it's the best we have. . . .

[@arthjai]

@@edwardlulofs444 I was asking that how exchange of w and z bosons result in weak interactions

[@Petrov3434]

Thank you for all your efforts !!

[@peterb9481]

Love Fermilab and Penrose and Einstein and Newton... Possible the Universe could be likened to a black hole in at least some ways - space expanding faster than the speed of light. However matter still prevails whereas in a black hole: only gravitational waves. But the concept may remain that if there is an outside to the universe (suck as “the bulk”) looking in - the universe may be seen as contracting.

[@ГалактионДауге]

So big difference between achievable scales and the scales of the toe unification. Is there any hint of how could we get to needed energy even if we had all the time there is?

[@KasiusKlej]

If we had all the time there is, it would be easy. We could harvest solar energy and store it in a big battery and once we gathered enough of it, run the experiment. I would put that battery on a space station far from Earth by the way.

[@mikeclarke952]

Cosmology and all the instruments need to make better measurements of all things electromagnetic, including better rockets to get them into space.

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANKS AGAIN PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!! Looking forward to the recent topics after the general relativity theory. May be about findings of black holes and PARKER PROBE. THANK YOU...!!!

[@althomas6045]

you never stop teaching us, helping us see, enlightening us: " a quadrillion is a lot ". thank you for all you've done and all you've done for us.

[@jcf20010]

This is a super condensed version of "The Theory of Everything, The Quest to Explain All Reality" which I have watched several times.

[@folkertjanhoogstra820]

Hi Don, Can u maybe also do a video on the electro-weak model? Great series!

[@jonc6157]

Awesome clarification !

[@jimroyal]

Dr. Lincoln, a question on relativity: When time dilation is explained to people, it's usually illustrated with two observers moving past each other (such as the photon clock thought experiment), to make the explanation simple. But does it get more complex when observers move directly toward or directly away from each other? If two observers are moving toward each other, do they still observe time slow down for the other, or does the observed rate of time speed up and slow down as the observers approach and then recede from each other?

[@drdon5205]

The time dilation occurs in all of the cases you mention.

[@grolmidri7759]

Thank you for making these videos.

[@roshanismailrm]

I always watch your channel with my Wife. Thank God she is also a Physics lover like me.

[@Oniongarlicginger]

What is the temperature at which the Higgs field turns off? Can we reach that temperature at Fermilab or CERN?

[@drdon5205]

High. No.

[@vishalmishra3046]

The most practical theories to unify would be QED and GR using well crafted experiments between particle accelerators (e.g. LHC) and satellites (e.g. ISS). Strong and weak force integration can be ignored for simplicity since they are strictly confined to short distances and have nearly no influence at long range. QED includes SR (Special Relativity) and needs to be expanded to curved space-time with terrestrial and near-space experiments. If QED and GR are found to be special cases of this experimentally provable general theory, it's a great stepping stone to a more general TOE.

[@Simonov85]

Dr. Lincoln, could you perhaps address the question in one of your future videos whether all atoms will eventually decay into elementary particles? There are so many different factors to take into account from entropy to possible recombination (not the epoch) to the expansion of the universe to the unimaginably long time that it would take 'stable' elements to decay that I am not able to come up with a definite answer myself. Much appreciated!

[@barryomahony4983]

love this series

[@zbyszekz77]

Can we have episode covering fine-structure constant and maybe other dimensionless constants?

[@morkovija]

Oh hey, a fellow man of culture i see!

[@mikeclarke952]

I like the football field analogy and helps explain why Sabine gets so mad at particle physicists begging the world to give them billions of dollars so they can build a bigger particle accelerator. Subscribed.

[@drdon5205]

Yeah...Sabine is smart, but I don't agree with her. She cartoon-ifies the conversation. Nobody thinks we will get a TOE from another accelerator. Nor do we know that it will answer a big question. It's exploratory science. We don't know the answer until we do it. It's totally valid to ask if it's worth the money. And I have asked her personally what experiments should be done instead. Sadly, her answers are pretty vague and, as you say, a big angry. She does grumpy old guy better than I do and I >>AM

[@mikeclarke952]

@@drdon5205 Thank you for the informative reply.

[@Dra741]

Mysunbelt mental understanding of our environment is that every particle and every leaf is , fits and the formula

[@martijnvangorp]

Great video again!

[@smlanka4u]

There are mathematical structures and mathematical ratios between elementary particles: Finding a mathematical beauty between the elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics: The Mass of a Up Quark = 2.2 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Charm Quark = 1280 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Top Quark = 173100 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Electron = 0.511 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Muon = 105.66 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Tau = 1776.8 MeV/c^2 2.2 / 0.511 = 4.305283757338552 ---- (A) 1280 / 105.66 = 12.11432897974636 ---- (B) 173100 / 1776.8 = 97.42233228275552 ---- (C) From (B) and (C); 97.42233228275552 / 12.11432897974636 = 8.041909085153082 or around 8 ---- (D) Bottom Quark 4180 MeV/C^2 / Strange Quark 96 MeV/C^2 = 43.5 or around 40 ---- (E) Strange Quark 96 MeV/C^2 / Down Quark 4.7 MeV/C^2 = 20.4 or around 20 ---- (F) From (E) and (F); Main Pattern Factor = 40/20 = 2 ---- (G) From (D) and (G); 8/2 = 4 ---- (H) From (B) and (H); 12.11432897974636 / 4 = 3.02858224493659 (But (A) = 4.305283757338552) Finding a mathematical beauty: From (A); (2.2 - 0.511) / 0.511 = 3.305283757338552 ---- (I) 11.11432897974636 / 4 = 2.77858224493659 96.42233228275552 173100 / 4180 = 41.41148325358852 1280 / 96 = 13.33333333333333 2.2 / 4.7 = 0.4680851063829787 41.41148325358852 / 13.33333333333333 = 3.105861244019139 13.33333333333333 / 0.4680851063829787 = 28.48484848484848 28.48484848484848 / 3.105861244019139 = 9.171320367160919 ------------------------------------------------------- Finding a mathematical beauty: 173100 / 1280 = 135.234375 Pattern Factor = 2 135.234375 / 2 = 67.6171875 1280 / 67.6171875 = 18.93009820912767 18.93009820912767 / 4.7 = 4.027680470027164 18.93009820912767 / 0.511 = 37.04520197480953 37.04520197480953 / 4.027680470027164 = 9.197651663405088 1280 / 105.66 = 12.11432897974636 12.11432897974636 / 13.33333333333333 = 0.908574673480977 ------------------------------------------------------- Finding a mathematical beauty: 173100 / 1776.8 = 97.42233228275552 97.42233228275552 / 41.41148325358852 = 2.352543899144529 or around 2.35 or 4.7/2 A mathematical beauty: 2.352543899144529 x 2 = 4.705087798289058 (around the mass of a down quark) According to the Pattern of the Down, Strange and Bottom Quarks: 4.7/10 = 0.47 0.47/5 = 0.094 If the Down Quark is at the center; The Mass of a quark in the smaller 3rd quarks group = 4.7 / 50 = 0.094 4.705087798289058 / 50 = 0.0941017559657812 or around 0.093463217 MeV/c^2 The number of standard elementary particles groups (columns) = 3 The most obvious impact between the last particles group with the first particles group of the standard model: The impact = (The Up quark position / 8) for (The Tau position / 2) OR The impact = (The Tau position / 2) for (The Up quark position / 8) Start of the Pattern Factor = 2 Growth of the Pattern Factor = 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 18.93009820912767 / 8 = 2.366262276140959 (2 + 2.366262276140959)/2 = 2.18313113807048 (around the mass of a up quark) My calculations show a mathematical beauty between some elementary particles in the Standard Model which can help to find the missing links of the other particles. - W. Suresh Madusanka

[@smlanka4u]

Finding a mathematical beauty to calculate the Masses of nearest main small elementary particles: According to the ratios of the Masses there are many Pattern Factors. Eg: The Pattern Factors of Electron, Muon and Tau should be equal to 3. And there are Pattern Factors for Up, Charm and Top quarks around 4 : 8 or 2 : 4 : 8, and it shows an impact to the Electron too. If we remove the impact to the Tau then the virtual mass of the Tau = 1776.8 x 2 = 3553.6 MeV/c^2 The virtual mass of the Tau 3553.6 MeV/c^2 / The mass of the Muon 105.66 MeV/c^2 = 33.63240583002082 The Pattern Factor of Leptons = 3 The mass of the Muon 105.66 MeV/c^2 / The virtual mass of the Electron = 33.63240583002082 x 3 The virtual mass of the Electron = 105.66 / 100.8972174900625 = 1.047204299864926 MeV/c^2 The virtual mass of the Electron 1.047204299864926 MeV/c^2 / 2 = 0.5236021499324629is or around the standard mass of the Electron = 0.511 MeV/c^2 So the most possible impacts (ratio); (The Up quark position / 8) : (The Electron position / 2) : (The Tau position / 2) Prediction 1: The virtual mass of the Electron 1.047204299864926 MeV/c^2 / A small Electron = 100.8972174900625 x 3 A small Electron = 1.047204299864926 / 302.6916524701875 = 0.0034596404998914 MeV/c^2 OR A small Electron = 0.511 x 2 / 302.6916524701875 = 0.0033763732552904 MeV/c^2 The most possible Mass of a small Electron = 0.0034 MeV/c^2 Prediction 2: -------------------- The 1st possibility: Main Pattern Factor = 2 135.234375 / 2 = 67.6171875 67.6171875 / 2 = 33.80859375 A small Up Quark = 2.2 / 33.80859375 = 0.0650722125938764 MeV/c^2 But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.0650722125938764 / 0.0034 = 19.13888605702246 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 3.02858224493659 / 4 = 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 2nd possibility: 2.2 / 135.234375 = 0.0162680531484691 MeV/c^2 But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.0162680531484691 / 0.0034 = 4.784721514255616 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 3rd possibility: 1280 / 2.2 = 581.8181818181818 581.8181818181818 / 135.234375 = 4.302295047529016 or around 4 A possible Pattern Factor = 4 A possible Pattern = 4 x 135.234375 x 4 (OR 581.8181818181818 x 4) The virtual mass of the Up Quark = 18.93009820912767 MeV/c^2 A small Up Quark = 18.93009820912767 / (4 x 135.234375 x 4) = 0.0087487455616997 MeV/c^2 OR A small Up Quark = 2.2 x 8 / 2163.75 = 0.0081340265742345 MeV/c^2 (0.0087487455616997 + 0.0081340265742345) / 2 = 0.0084413860679671 A possible mass of a small Up Quark = 0.008441 MeV/c^2 (OR 0.00874 OR 0.00813 MeV/c^2) But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.00844 / 0.0034 = 2.482352941176471 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 4th possibility: 2.2 / 581.8181818181818 = 0.00378125 MeV/c^2 But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.00378125 / 0.0034 = 1.112132352941177 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 5th possibility: 2.2 / ((135.234375 x 4) x 3 / 2) = 2.2 / 811.40625 = 0.0027113421914115 MeV/c^2 But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.0027113421914115 / 0.0034 = 0.7974535857092647 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 6th possibility: A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 So the required mass of a small Up Quark = 0.00844 x (0.7571455612341475 / 2.482352941176471) = 0.00844 x 0.3050112450469314 MeV/c^2 So the most possible Mass of a small Up Quark = 0.0025742949081961 MeV/c^2 OR around 0.00257 MeV/c^2 A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.0025742949081961 / 0.0034 = 0.7571455612341471 -------------------- Conclusion: It seems that there are many types of small Up Quarks (Upper Quarks). The most possible main Mass of a small Up Quark should be around 0.00257 MeV/c^2 OR 0.00271 MeV/c^2 OR 0.00844 MeV/c^2 --------------------------------------------------------- Finding a mathematical beauty: 41.41148325358852 / 13.33333333333333 = 3.105861244019139 (The Pattern Factor = around 3) 13.33333333333333 / 3 = 4.444444444444443 (But; Up Quark 2.2 / Down Quark 4.7 = 0.4680851063829787) -------------------------------------- If a small Up Quark = 0.00257 MeV/c^2; A small Up Quark 0.00257 MeV/c^2 / A small Down Quark 0.467 MeV/c^2 = 0.0055032119914347 ------------------- The 1st Possibility: 0.4680851063829787 / 3 = 0.1560283687943262 0.1560283687943262 / 0.0055032119914347 = 28.35223666418296 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 28.35223666418296 = 0.01647 MeV/c^2 ------------------- The 2nd Possibility: 4.444444444444443 / 3 = 1.481481481481481 1.481481481481481 / 0.0055032119914347 = 269.2030551952725 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 269.2030551952725 = 0.00173 MeV/c^2 ------------------- The 3rd Possibility: The virtual Up Quark 18.93009820912767 / Down Quark 4.7 = 4.027680470027164 4.027680470027164 / 3 = 1.342560156675721 1.342560156675721 / 0.0055032119914347 = 243.9593747733699 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 243.9593747733699 = 0.00191 MeV/c^2 -------------------------------------- If a small Up Quark = 0.00844 MeV/c^2; A small Up Quark 0.00844 MeV/c^2 / A small Down Quark 0.467 MeV/c^2 = 0.0180728051391863 ------------------- The 1st Possibility: 0.4680851063829787 / 3 = 0.1560283687943262 0.1560283687943262 / 0.0180728051391863 = 8.633323249638665 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 8.633323249638665 = 0.05409 MeV/c^2 ------------------- The 2nd Possibility: 4.444444444444443 / 3 = 1.481481481481481 1.481481481481481 / 0.0180728051391863 = 81.97296822889235 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 81.97296822889235 = 0.005697 MeV/c^2 ------------------- The 3rd Possibility: The virtual Up Quark 18.93009820912767 / Down Quark 4.7 = 4.027680470027164 4.027680470027164 / 3 = 1.342560156675721 1.342560156675721 / 0.0180728051391863 = 74.28620772127507 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 74.28620772127507 = 0.006286 MeV/c^2 ----------------------------------------------------------- Finding a mathematical beauty: Down Quark 4.7 / The virtual mass of the Electron 1.047204299864926 = 4.488140471354282 or around 4 Strange Quark 96 / Muon 105.66 = 0.9085746734809767 or around 1 Bottom Quark 4180 / Muon 1776.8 = 2.352543899144529 or around 2 The above Pattern Factors ratio = 4 : 1 : 2 The most possible Pattern Factors = 0.5 : 4 : 1 : 2 OR 2 : 4 : 1 : 2 OR 3 : 4 : 1 : 2 The 1st Possibility: A possible mass of a small Down Quark 0.00173 / A small Electron 0.0034 = 0.5088235294117647 or around 0.5 The Pattern Factor of the 0.00173 small Down Quark matches the above most possible Pattern Factor 0.5 which came from this pattern factors 0.5 : 4 : 1 : 2. The 2nd Possibility: A possible mass of a small Down Quark 0.006286 / A small Electron 0.0034 = 1.848823529411765 or around 2 The Pattern Factor of the 0.006286 small Down Quark matches the above most possible Pattern Factor 2 which came from this pattern factors 2 : 4 : 1 : 2. Final Prediction: According to the impacts of the most Pattern Factors the most possible previous layer of the Up Quark, Down Quark and Electron: The most possible Mass of a nearest main small Up Quark (Upper Quark) = 0.00257 MeV/c^2 (OR maximum around 0.008441 MeV/c^2) The most possible Mass of a nearest main small Down Quark (Lower Quark) = 0.00173 MeV/c^2 (OR maximum around 0.006286 MeV/c^2) The most possible Mass of a nearest main small Electron (Mini Electron) = 0.0034 MeV/c^2 The 27km long LHC could discover the 4.7 MeV/c^2 particle, and maybe a 100km long LHC or a maximum a 500km long LHC can discover can discover a 0.00257 MeV/c^2 Upper Quark, 0.00173 MeV/c^2 Lower Quark and a 0.0034 MeV/c^2 Mini Electron particles etc. - W. Suresh Madusanka

[@sadakotube]

I think its an impossible goal because everything is a huge scope. But its the journey that matters. The journey has given us many advancements.

[@davesutherland1864]

I have a question that I am sure must have been considered by physicists, but I can not find any discussion of it anywhere. As part of a theory of everything, is it possible that general relativity is correct as it stands and the singularities can just be eliminated by a boundary condition? This would mean there is no need for a quantum theory of gravity. For example, in the case of looking at increasingly dense energy/matter concentrations, can you map an evolution from a neutron star to a black hole and apply a boundary condition at the surface of the entity? If I understood a video I saw on PBS Space time a neutron star is nominally compose of neutrons, but if it acquires enough mass the neutrons may start to transform into quarks (quark matter) and these quarks may then transform into strange quarks (strange matter). If you just keep adding mass will you go through various ‘matter/energy’ transformations where the minimum size will be determined by quantum properties, which then set a boundary condition (non zero volume) beyond which general relativity does not really have meaning?

[@grayaj23]

To be fair, even Penrose says that CCC is unlikely. It's interesting enough to be worth thinking about -- but only just.

[@dogcarman]

Interesting ideas are always worth the effort. When the idea has been twisted, bent and knocked around and declared quite dead, someone may look at a detail in the wreckage and go “Hang on - what’s **that**?” And that’s where science starts, not with a shout of “Heureka!” but a simple question.

[@spudhead169]

I have a problem with CCC and dark energy, if it is a constant density then there would be an absolute butt load of it by the time of the next aeon. Where would it all go? If it becomes a part of the new aeon then each time it recycles the amount of dark energy would increase by a ludicrous amount.

[@gr00veh0lmes]

Even though it’s published and makes predictions that have been confirmed by analysis to have a 99.98% accuracy. It also accounts for the required low entropy seen in the CMB. 🤷🏽‍♂️

[@monkerud2108]

i think the idea of "eons" is probably right in some sense, it would basically just be a phase transition, of the vacuum in some sense. although a more realistic version would likely not have quite the same consequences or look quite like Penrose's idea.

[@gr00veh0lmes]

@@spudhead169 Dark energy, (or the cosmological constant Lambda) has been experimentally tested. It isn’t constant.

[@wizardofki]

I think that it's the tough questions that will lead us closer to TOE if anything will and exploring around the "edges" of what we already understand. The thought that we could build a particle accelerator with a diameter of four light-years or more is just silly.

[@RittervonNord]

Say there is a technological limit we can't cross to run experiments, can we infer reality just from theory and equations? If a theory is supposedly so complete and flawless but our experiments can't observe a certain phenomenon, can we still agree that a theory represents reality? Could simulations replace practical observations?

[@shawnchong5196]

You're hair style got better!!!!

[@wayneyadams]

00:59 Dr. Don, in the nine years I worked as a chemist, and the four years in University, I never once looked through a microscope. LOL

[@sapelesteve]

Great video as always Dr. L! So, even if we found the answer for TOE, it wouldn't change anything that we already know or would it? What real difference would it make? Just curious... 👍👍😉😉

[@LynxBlackWind]

Hi Doc, If EM force is exchanging photons between charges and the force is very curved, do photns fly on such a curved lines intead stright? The spacetime is not that bent between magnetic poles, is it?

[@nHans]

3:45 The chart *"Can all forces be unified?"* had a different term *"Super Unification"* where *"Theory of Everything (ToE)"* used to be. Are these the same? Or has ToE been moved further to the left because GUT + GR still cannot explain dark matter and dark energy?

[@setharnold9764]

Oh man are you going to explain TimeCube next episode!? I'm so excited!

[@mosgnz]

In my understanding, the frequency of a photon depends on the velocity of the source and the observer, which we call as the doppler effect. Are other force carrying particles affected by doppler shift? Also, the mass carrying particles are basically vibrations in a field. Do they experience or affected by doppler shift? Sorry if these questions are not related to the topic in the video. I discovered this series recently and I'm binge watching them multiple time. I assumed my comments won't be read if I put them in the older videos. Thank you

[@drdon5205]

Yes.

[@DoDoENT]

If we could build a Dyson sphere and use it as lens to focus all of the Sun's energy into a point of size of a proton, how far this point would be from having a Planck energy?

[@DoDoENT]

@spaghettarius* from magic mirrors 😛

[@GlennHamblin]

Physics is everything!!

[@KaiseruSoze]

How do you reconcile the high metallicity of the earliest stars of the universe with the age of the universe.

[@sigmawaves8970]

OMG.. my question got picked 🤓🤓

[@TupacMakaveli1996]

Hello Prof. Don, I really like your videos. Thanks for great videos. I have a question to ask. What are your thought about TOE and Gödel incompleteness theorem? Do you think the two can coexist? Thanks

[@kalokajoe357]

Just a big thank you.

[@bobinmaine1]

Hidden in the math of string theory does it find what causes the vibrations? What keeps the regions or strings vibrating at the same frequency to maintain the specific Quarks, Neutrinos and what nots? Or does it state that once a "particle" is created that particle now exists in whatever dimension it has propagated? When I ask these question it seems that there must be something even smaller to set the "fine tuning" of the string field/dimension.

[@jjeherrera]

There's a question I would like you to explain: We measure time against some established reproducible pattern, such as atom transitions, in other words, we need a clock. However, I can't understand how people can talk about the first seconds after the Big-Bang, when there was no such pattern to use as a clock.

[@KasiusKlej]

This question must be explained by theoretical physics, because a theory can describe time such as it is without a need to measure anything. Big bang theory and theory of relativity describe time as an unusual thing. It is usual today, here on Earth that we age as fast as the Cesium atom makes some transitions, but in the first seconds after the big bang we don't know much about, it could be different. If we were there at that time, says one theory, we would not age that fast, we would be like in a cloud of youthfulness in those early days, from which it follows that during the big bang we wouldn't age at all. It's an interesting question to which some better answers are needed.

[@LV75RDM]

Time is a unit of measure, like a football field. It should be based on localized events and remain independent of one another. This question was asked yesterday, I replied today, tomorrow it will be read as a continuous uninterrupted exchange with no gaps of time between them, until observed.

[@ivanmarianek35]

Great video! What do you think about Wolfram physics project? Could it be right? Could his theory become TOE?

[@francretief1]

I suspect that even if Stephen Wolfram is correct in his TOE, he will receive a lot of resistance from the physics community because he is not an insider and perhaps too radical! We may to wait for the existing generation of physicists to move on to allow a new generation to come forward who can appreciate new ideas.

[@benediktwalch1605]

I am definitely looking forward to those upcoming episodes?

[@sagarwadhwani1610]

Can a deuteron nucleus be used instead of protons at lhc? What would the effect be?

[@codyramseur]

I’m glad to hear your take on CCC. I had the same skepticism regarding the prediction of Hawking Points, given that we have observed the sky in the microwave wavelength. wouldn’t it be useful to consider a redshift in this circumstance. Also I’d think it would be useful to address the idea that a singularity in reality is not actually pointlike and as such might contain topological information that would influence the early structures in the Universe. Like it seems difficult to logically go from a 2D object to a 0D object, then back to a 2D again. It would seem more likely that the singularity is 2D but just many orders of magnitude smaller. Idk

[@AmitPatel-xz9pp]

Does QED explains how the photons creat attractions and repulsion between charges please pick this up please

[@joseraulcapablanca8564]

Bosons, or force mediating particles are usually credited with this feat. Doctor Lincoln has a very good analogy about throwing things from boat to boat, which nicely explains this.

[@betaneptune]

Yes. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons.

[@الكوابيسالثانيه]

@@betaneptune Development of the theory of cosmic membranes The Big Bang theory needs a complete formulation of M-theory/The eleventh dimension theory Therefore, the membranes theory needs to compress its additional dimensions to build candidate models for the four-dimensional world (The fourth dimension of our world is time) Because the M- theory is the eleventh dimension theory We ask mathematicians and physicists to create correct mathematical equations in order to fully formulate the membranes theory The number of dimensions in M-theory is 11 But the number of spatial membranes in the M- theory is a mere nine The necessary suggestion is: ( such a formulation should describe two- and five-dimensional objects called branes and should be approximated by eleven-dimensional supergravity at low energies ) Please communicate the request as well as the necessary suggestion to mathematicians and physicists

[@dans4323]

The name "Schwarzschild" has now been mentioned in many videos, so let me try to teach you its pronunciation (or you could simply google the German words "Schwarz"="Black" and "Schild"="Shield"). Your "schwarz" is almost correct, just change the ending to sound like "arts". "Schild" is pronounced like "shield" except the "i" sound is short like in "bin" So all together: shv + arts + sh + i + ld. (For English speakers the German "W" is almost impossible to pronounce correctly but the "v" sound is usually the closest equivalent.)

[@ivan-Croatian]

Thanx.

[@blinkin304]

since we are fairly certain that most if not all of the forces we currently know were combined to make different forces in the past, would it be theoretically possible to split any of the currently known forces again to make "new" forces and if so do we have any idea what some of these child forces might be like?

[@angelomarcio8382]

Dear Don Lincoln, what is the most dangerous "matter" for the "ordinary matter"? Antimatter, strange (quark) matter or high generation (2nd or 3rd quarks generation) matter?

[@alexkok5669]

What observations are not adequately explained by the standard model and general relativity (thus requiring more unification)?

[@edwardlulofs444]

There are many, many data that can't be explained. Almost every Wikipedia article about physics mentions unexplained data. I hate that in other sciences but love physics for it.

[@smlanka4u]

Very interesting. Thank you so much for sharing your great knowledge.

[@smlanka4u]

There are mathematical structures and mathematical ratios between elementary particles: Finding a mathematical beauty between the elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics: The Mass of a Up Quark = 2.2 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Charm Quark = 1280 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Top Quark = 173100 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Electron = 0.511 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Muon = 105.66 MeV/c^2 The Mass of a Tau = 1776.8 MeV/c^2 2.2 / 0.511 = 4.305283757338552 ---- (A) 1280 / 105.66 = 12.11432897974636 ---- (B) 173100 / 1776.8 = 97.42233228275552 ---- (C) From (B) and (C); 97.42233228275552 / 12.11432897974636 = 8.041909085153082 or around 8 ---- (D) Bottom Quark 4180 MeV/C^2 / Strange Quark 96 MeV/C^2 = 43.5 or around 40 ---- (E) Strange Quark 96 MeV/C^2 / Down Quark 4.7 MeV/C^2 = 20.4 or around 20 ---- (F) From (E) and (F); Main Pattern Factor = 40/20 = 2 ---- (G) From (D) and (G); 8/2 = 4 ---- (H) From (B) and (H); 12.11432897974636 / 4 = 3.02858224493659 (But (A) = 4.305283757338552) Finding a mathematical beauty: From (A); (2.2 - 0.511) / 0.511 = 3.305283757338552 ---- (I) 11.11432897974636 / 4 = 2.77858224493659 96.42233228275552 173100 / 4180 = 41.41148325358852 1280 / 96 = 13.33333333333333 2.2 / 4.7 = 0.4680851063829787 41.41148325358852 / 13.33333333333333 = 3.105861244019139 13.33333333333333 / 0.4680851063829787 = 28.48484848484848 28.48484848484848 / 3.105861244019139 = 9.171320367160919 ------------------------------------------------------- Finding a mathematical beauty: 173100 / 1280 = 135.234375 Pattern Factor = 2 135.234375 / 2 = 67.6171875 1280 / 67.6171875 = 18.93009820912767 18.93009820912767 / 4.7 = 4.027680470027164 18.93009820912767 / 0.511 = 37.04520197480953 37.04520197480953 / 4.027680470027164 = 9.197651663405088 1280 / 105.66 = 12.11432897974636 12.11432897974636 / 13.33333333333333 = 0.908574673480977 ------------------------------------------------------- Finding a mathematical beauty: 173100 / 1776.8 = 97.42233228275552 97.42233228275552 / 41.41148325358852 = 2.352543899144529 or around 2.35 or 4.7/2 A mathematical beauty: 2.352543899144529 x 2 = 4.705087798289058 (around the mass of a down quark) According to the Pattern of the Down, Strange and Bottom Quarks: 4.7/10 = 0.47 0.47/5 = 0.094 If the Down Quark is at the center; The Mass of a quark in the smaller 3rd quarks group = 4.7 / 50 = 0.094 4.705087798289058 / 50 = 0.0941017559657812 or around 0.093463217 MeV/c^2 The number of standard elementary particles groups (columns) = 3 The most obvious impact between the last particles group with the first particles group of the standard model: The impact = (The Up quark position / 8) for (The Tau position / 2) OR The impact = (The Tau position / 2) for (The Up quark position / 8) Start of the Pattern Factor = 2 Growth of the Pattern Factor = 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 18.93009820912767 / 8 = 2.366262276140959 (2 + 2.366262276140959)/2 = 2.18313113807048 (around the mass of a up quark) My calculations show a mathematical beauty between some elementary particles in the Standard Model which can help to find the missing links of the other particles. - W. Suresh Madusanka

[@smlanka4u]

Finding a mathematical beauty to calculate the Masses of nearest main small elementary particles: According to the ratios of the Masses there are many Pattern Factors. Eg: The Pattern Factors of Electron, Muon and Tau should be equal to 3. And there are Pattern Factors for Up, Charm and Top quarks around 4 : 8 or 2 : 4 : 8, and it shows an impact to the Electron too. If we remove the impact to the Tau then the virtual mass of the Tau = 1776.8 x 2 = 3553.6 MeV/c^2 The virtual mass of the Tau 3553.6 MeV/c^2 / The mass of the Muon 105.66 MeV/c^2 = 33.63240583002082 The Pattern Factor of Leptons = 3 The mass of the Muon 105.66 MeV/c^2 / The virtual mass of the Electron = 33.63240583002082 x 3 The virtual mass of the Electron = 105.66 / 100.8972174900625 = 1.047204299864926 MeV/c^2 The virtual mass of the Electron 1.047204299864926 MeV/c^2 / 2 = 0.5236021499324629is or around the standard mass of the Electron = 0.511 MeV/c^2 So the most possible impacts (ratio); (The Up quark position / 8) : (The Electron position / 2) : (The Tau position / 2) Prediction 1: The virtual mass of the Electron 1.047204299864926 MeV/c^2 / A small Electron = 100.8972174900625 x 3 A small Electron = 1.047204299864926 / 302.6916524701875 = 0.0034596404998914 MeV/c^2 OR A small Electron = 0.511 x 2 / 302.6916524701875 = 0.0033763732552904 MeV/c^2 The most possible Mass of a small Electron = 0.0034 MeV/c^2 Prediction 2: -------------------- The 1st possibility: Main Pattern Factor = 2 135.234375 / 2 = 67.6171875 67.6171875 / 2 = 33.80859375 A small Up Quark = 2.2 / 33.80859375 = 0.0650722125938764 MeV/c^2 But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.0650722125938764 / 0.0034 = 19.13888605702246 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 3.02858224493659 / 4 = 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 2nd possibility: 2.2 / 135.234375 = 0.0162680531484691 MeV/c^2 But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.0162680531484691 / 0.0034 = 4.784721514255616 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 3rd possibility: 1280 / 2.2 = 581.8181818181818 581.8181818181818 / 135.234375 = 4.302295047529016 or around 4 A possible Pattern Factor = 4 A possible Pattern = 4 x 135.234375 x 4 (OR 581.8181818181818 x 4) The virtual mass of the Up Quark = 18.93009820912767 MeV/c^2 A small Up Quark = 18.93009820912767 / (4 x 135.234375 x 4) = 0.0087487455616997 MeV/c^2 OR A small Up Quark = 2.2 x 8 / 2163.75 = 0.0081340265742345 MeV/c^2 (0.0087487455616997 + 0.0081340265742345) / 2 = 0.0084413860679671 A possible mass of a small Up Quark = 0.008441 MeV/c^2 (OR 0.00874 OR 0.00813 MeV/c^2) But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.00844 / 0.0034 = 2.482352941176471 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 4th possibility: 2.2 / 581.8181818181818 = 0.00378125 MeV/c^2 But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.00378125 / 0.0034 = 1.112132352941177 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 5th possibility: 2.2 / ((135.234375 x 4) x 3 / 2) = 2.2 / 811.40625 = 0.0027113421914115 MeV/c^2 But, A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.0027113421914115 / 0.0034 = 0.7974535857092647 And, A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 -------------------- The 6th possibility: A small Up Quark / A small Electron should be equal to around 0.7571455612341475 So the required mass of a small Up Quark = 0.00844 x (0.7571455612341475 / 2.482352941176471) = 0.00844 x 0.3050112450469314 MeV/c^2 So the most possible Mass of a small Up Quark = 0.0025742949081961 MeV/c^2 OR around 0.00257 MeV/c^2 A small Up Quark / A small Electron = 0.0025742949081961 / 0.0034 = 0.7571455612341471 -------------------- Conclusion: It seems that there are many types of small Up Quarks (Upper Quarks). The most possible main Mass of a small Up Quark should be around 0.00257 MeV/c^2 OR 0.00271 MeV/c^2 OR 0.00844 MeV/c^2 --------------------------------------------------------- Finding a mathematical beauty: 41.41148325358852 / 13.33333333333333 = 3.105861244019139 (The Pattern Factor = around 3) 13.33333333333333 / 3 = 4.444444444444443 (But; Up Quark 2.2 / Down Quark 4.7 = 0.4680851063829787) -------------------------------------- If a small Up Quark = 0.00257 MeV/c^2; A small Up Quark 0.00257 MeV/c^2 / A small Down Quark 0.467 MeV/c^2 = 0.0055032119914347 ------------------- The 1st Possibility: 0.4680851063829787 / 3 = 0.1560283687943262 0.1560283687943262 / 0.0055032119914347 = 28.35223666418296 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 28.35223666418296 = 0.01647 MeV/c^2 ------------------- The 2nd Possibility: 4.444444444444443 / 3 = 1.481481481481481 1.481481481481481 / 0.0055032119914347 = 269.2030551952725 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 269.2030551952725 = 0.00173 MeV/c^2 ------------------- The 3rd Possibility: The virtual Up Quark 18.93009820912767 / Down Quark 4.7 = 4.027680470027164 4.027680470027164 / 3 = 1.342560156675721 1.342560156675721 / 0.0055032119914347 = 243.9593747733699 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 243.9593747733699 = 0.00191 MeV/c^2 -------------------------------------- If a small Up Quark = 0.00844 MeV/c^2; A small Up Quark 0.00844 MeV/c^2 / A small Down Quark 0.467 MeV/c^2 = 0.0180728051391863 ------------------- The 1st Possibility: 0.4680851063829787 / 3 = 0.1560283687943262 0.1560283687943262 / 0.0180728051391863 = 8.633323249638665 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 8.633323249638665 = 0.05409 MeV/c^2 ------------------- The 2nd Possibility: 4.444444444444443 / 3 = 1.481481481481481 1.481481481481481 / 0.0180728051391863 = 81.97296822889235 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 81.97296822889235 = 0.005697 MeV/c^2 ------------------- The 3rd Possibility: The virtual Up Quark 18.93009820912767 / Down Quark 4.7 = 4.027680470027164 4.027680470027164 / 3 = 1.342560156675721 1.342560156675721 / 0.0180728051391863 = 74.28620772127507 A possible mass of a small Down Quark = 0.467 MeV/c^2 / 74.28620772127507 = 0.006286 MeV/c^2 ----------------------------------------------------------- Finding a mathematical beauty: Down Quark 4.7 / The virtual mass of the Electron 1.047204299864926 = 4.488140471354282 or around 4 Strange Quark 96 / Muon 105.66 = 0.9085746734809767 or around 1 Bottom Quark 4180 / Muon 1776.8 = 2.352543899144529 or around 2 The above Pattern Factors ratio = 4 : 1 : 2 The most possible Pattern Factors = 0.5 : 4 : 1 : 2 OR 2 : 4 : 1 : 2 OR 3 : 4 : 1 : 2 The 1st Possibility: A possible mass of a small Down Quark 0.00173 / A small Electron 0.0034 = 0.5088235294117647 or around 0.5 The Pattern Factor of the 0.00173 small Down Quark matches the above most possible Pattern Factor 0.5 which came from this pattern factors 0.5 : 4 : 1 : 2. The 2nd Possibility: A possible mass of a small Down Quark 0.006286 / A small Electron 0.0034 = 1.848823529411765 or around 2 The Pattern Factor of the 0.006286 small Down Quark matches the above most possible Pattern Factor 2 which came from this pattern factors 2 : 4 : 1 : 2. Final Prediction: According to the impacts of the most Pattern Factors the most possible previous layer of the Up Quark, Down Quark and Electron: The most possible Mass of a nearest main small Up Quark (Upper Quark) = 0.00257 MeV/c^2 (OR maximum around 0.008441 MeV/c^2) The most possible Mass of a nearest main small Down Quark (Lower Quark) = 0.00173 MeV/c^2 (OR maximum around 0.006286 MeV/c^2) The most possible Mass of a nearest main small Electron (Mini Electron) = 0.0034 MeV/c^2 The 27km long LHC could discover the 4.7 MeV/c^2 particle, and maybe a 100km long LHC or a maximum a 500km long LHC can discover can discover a 0.00257 MeV/c^2 Upper Quark, 0.00173 MeV/c^2 Lower Quark and a 0.0034 MeV/c^2 Mini Electron particles etc. - W. Suresh Madusanka

[@smlanka4u]

Combination of the duality of 6 directions and the 6 distances of the first start of the Universe: (+0-0)^6 + (-0+0)^6 = MATTER + ANTIMATTER (+0-0)^6 = i: (+1-(-1))^3 X ii: (+0.0-0.0)^3 = ( This should be the Pure Eight (Pali: Suddhātthaka) in Buddhism: Maybe there is a fundamental cause for the stable existence of the Heat, Solid, Liquid and Gas. Heat...: + (+1)^3 Solid..: - ((+1)^3 x (-1) Liquid.: - ((-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) Gas....: + (-1)^2 x (+1) - ( + (+1)^2 x (-1) - ((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 - ((-1)^3 x (+1))) + (-1)^3) )) x ii: (+0.0-0.0)^3 = ( This should be the 12 elementary particles (of matter) of Standard Model (in particle physics): 01. electron neutrino: + (+(1))(+1)^3 02. electron: - ((+(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 03. down quark: - ((+(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 04. up quark: + (+(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) - ( { Standard Forces } AND/OR { 05. charm quark: + (+(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 06. strange quark: - (+(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 07. muon: - (+(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 08. muon neutrino: + (+(1))(-1)^3 } ) - ( 09. tau neutrino: + (-(1))(+1)^3 10. tau: - ((-(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 11. bottom quark: - ((-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 12. top quark: + (-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) - ( Mini Forces: 13. Mini Z^0 boson: + (-(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 14. Mini W^+ boson: - (-(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 15. Mini gluon: - (-(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 16. Mini photon: + (-(1))(-1)^3)) ))) x This should be the Higgs boson field in Standard Model (in particle physics): 17: (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) OR = ( This should be position and structure of the 12 standard elementary particles and the 4 forces of the Standard Model (in particle physics): 01. electron neutrino (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 0.0022 | (ii.) 0.000468 | (iii.) 0.000052631 | (iv.) 0.000011198): + (+(1))(+1)^3 02. electron (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 0.511 | (ii.) 0.1087 | (iii.) 0.01222489 | (iv.) 0.00260104): - ((+(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 03. down quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 4.7 | (ii.) 1 | (iii.) 0.112440192 | (iv.) 0.023923445): - ((+(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 04. up quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 2.2 | (ii.) 0.468 | (iii.) 0.05263159 | (iv.) 0.01119821): + (+(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) - ( { Forces: 05. Z^0 boson (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 91190 | (ii.) 19402.1 | (iii.) 2181.5789475 | (iv.) 464.1657335): + (+(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 06. W^+ boson (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 80390 | (ii.) 17104.25 | (iii.) 1923.205742 | (iv.) 409.192711): - (+(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 07. gluon: - (+(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 08. photon: + (+(1))(-1)^3 } AND/OR { 05. charm quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 1280 | (ii.) 272.34 | (iii.) 30.62201 | (iv.) 6.5153212): + (+(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 06. strange quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 96 | (ii.) 20.4 | (iii.) 2.2966508 | (iv.) 0.4886491): - (+(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 07. muon (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 105.66 | (ii.) 22.48 | (iii.) 2.527754 | (iv.) 0.53782): - (+(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 08. muon neutrino (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 0.17 | (ii.) 0.036 | (iii.) 0.004067004 | (iv.) 0.00086532): + (+(1))(-1)^3 } ) - ( { 09. mini neutrino: + (-(1))(+1)^3 10. mini electron: - ((-(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 11. lower quark: - ((-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 12. upper quark: + (-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) } AND/OR { 09. tau neutrino (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 18.2 | (ii.) 3.87 | (iii.) 0.435408 | (iv.) 0.09264): + (-(1))(+1)^3 10. tau (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 1776.8 | (ii.) 378 | (iii.) 42.50727 | (iv.) 9.0441): - ((-(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 11. bottom quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 4180 | (ii.) 889.36 | (iii.) 100 | (iv.) 21.276596): - ((-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 12. top quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 173100 | (ii.) 36829.787 | (iii.) 4141.148333 | (iv.) 881.09539): + (-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) } - ( { Mini Forces (including Quantum Gravity): 13. Mini Z^0 boson: + (-(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 14. Mini W^+ boson: - (-(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 15. Mini gluon: - (-(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 16. Mini photon: + (-(1))(-1)^3)) } AND { 13. mini charm quark: + (-(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 14. mini strange quark: - (-(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 15. mini muon: - (-(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 16. mini muon neutrino: + (-(1))(-1)^3)) } ))) x 17: (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) = nearly: ( Maybe there are 6 layers of elementary particles with spin (0.5 or 1/2), and Charge 2/3 and -1/3: ((+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......))) x (2,/3 / (1........x(7/7)) x 1......x(5/5) x 1_..../(3/3) / (1...... x 1_../(1/1)) - 1..../3 x (1....../(5/5) x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 1_..../(3/3) / (1.....x(5/5) x (NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1))) x 0.00000 According to my mathematical calculations, the unstable 6th dimension caused to make 1/2 Spin, 2/3 and -1/3 Charge, 6 layers of elementary particles, Combinations of layers etc. - W. Suresh Madusanka

[@smlanka4u]

There is space for 6 dimensions because of the 6 directons of the Universe. I have explained how (+1-(-1))3 dimensions combined and make 8 dimensional formations including 4 dimensional forms with 3 dimensions and 4 dimensional forms with 4 dimensions. And then a 5th dimension (+1-(-1)) from this (+0.0-0.0)3 with a strange field (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) which caused to form the 6 quarks, 6 leptons, 4 forces and a strange Higgs boson of the standard model in particle physics. (+0-0) x (+0-0) x (+0-0) x (+0-0) x (+0-0) x (+0-0) = (+1-(-1))3 x (+0.0-0.0)3 (+0.0-0.0)3 = (+(1)-(-(1))) x (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) Most Possible or Probable Outputs of (+0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) : (+0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) = (+0.0-0.0) x (0) x (0) x (+0.0-0.0) ----(A) (+0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) = (+0.000/(0) - 0.000/(0)) x (+0.0x(0)-0.0x(0)) ----(B) From the (A): (+0.000 - 0.000) x 1_../(1/1) = (+0.0-0.0) x (0) x (0) x 1..x(1/1) ----(P) ((+0.000 - 0.000) x 1_../(1/1))/ ((0) x 1..x(1/1)) = (+0.0-0.0) x (0) ----(C) From the (B) and (C): (+0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) = (+0.000/(0) - 0.000/(0)) x ((+0.000 - 0.000) x 1_../(1/1))/ ((0) x 1..x(1/1)) 1_..../(3/3) x (+0.0-0.0) = (+0.000/(0) - 0.000/(0)) x (1....x(3/3) x 1_../(1/1))/ ((0) x 1..x(1/1)) ----(Q) (+0.000/(0) - 0.000/(0)) = 1_..../(3/3) x 1..x(1/1) x (+0.0-0.0) x (0) / (1....x(3/3) x 1_../(1/1)) ----(D) From the (B) and (D): (+0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) = 1_..../(3/3) x 1..x(1/1) x (+0.0-0.0) x (0) / (1....x(3/3) x 1_../(1/1)) x (+0.0x(0)-0.0x(0)) (+0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) = (+0.00-0.00) x (+0.00-0.00) x 1_..../(3/3) x 1..x(1/1) / (1....x(3/3) x 1_../(1/1)) Using this (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2 mathematical formula to get the Most Possible or Probable outputs of this result: (+0.00-0.00) x (+0.00-0.00) x 1_..../(3/3) x 1..x(1/1) / (1....x(3/3) x 1_../(1/1)) = (0.00^2 - (1...... x 1......) x 0.00 x 0.00 + 0.00^2) x 1_..../(3/3) x 1....x(3/3) / (1......x(5/5) x 1_../(1/1)) = (0.00000/(1......x(5/5)) - (1......) x (NEUTRAL) x 0.00000 /5 X5) + 0.00000/(1......x(5/5))) x 1_..../(3/3) x 1....x(3/3) / ((NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1)) = ((0.00000/(1......x(5/5)) + 0.00000/(1......x(5/5))) x 1....x(3/3) - (1......) x 0.00000 x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5 x 1....x(3/3)) x 1_..../(3/3) / ((NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1)) Starting to use the 6th dimension. But it makes many small forms of it, because it is unable to make a large main dimension. = ((0.00000/(1......x(5/5)) + 0.00000/(1......x(5/5))) x 1....x(3/3) - (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) x 1....x(3/3) x 0.00000 x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 1_..../(3/3) / ((NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1)) = (((0.00000/(1......x(5/5)) + 0.00000/(1......x(5/5))) x 1....x(3/3)) - ((+0.5......-(-0.5......)) x 1....x(3/3) x 0.00000 x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5)) x 1_..../(3/3) / ((NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1)) = (0.00000/(1........x(7/7)) x 2, x 3 /3 x (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) - (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) x 1....x(3/3) x 0.00000 x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 1_..../(3/3) / ((NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1)) = (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) x (0.00000/(1........x(7/7)) x 2, x 3 /3 - 1....x(3/3) x 0.00000 x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 1_..../(3/3) / ((NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1)) = (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) x (2, x 3 /3 /(1........x(7/7)) - 1....x(3/3) x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 0.00000 x 1_..../(3/3) / ((NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1)) = (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) x 3 x (2,/3 / (1........x(7/7)) - 1..../3 x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 0.00000 x 1_..../(3/3) / ((NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1)) = ((+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......))) x (2,/3 / (1........x(7/7)) x 1......x(5/5) - 1..../3 x 1....../(5/5) x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 0.00000 x 1_..../(3/3) / (1......x(5/5) x (NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1)) = ((+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......))) x (2,/3 / (1........x(7/7)) x 1......x(5/5) x 1_..../(3/3) / (1...... x 1_../(1/1)) - 1..../3 x (1....../(5/5) x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 1_..../(3/3) / (1.....x(5/5) x (NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1))) x 0.00000 So, the final output of this (+0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) is nearly: ((+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......))) x (2,/3 / (1........x(7/7)) x 1......x(5/5) x 1_..../(3/3) / (1...... x 1_../(1/1)) - 1..../3 x (1....../(5/5) x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 1_..../(3/3) / (1.....x(5/5) x (NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1))) x 0.00000 According to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, the Spin of most elementary particles = 1/2 (or 0.5) the Charge of some Quarks = 2/3 the Charge of other Quarks = -1/3 the Charge of electrons = -1 According to my mathematical calculations the 6th +1-1 dimension is unstable, because already there are +0.5-0.5 half dimension with larger +2/3 dimension against the -1/3 dimension, so that is why those dimensions behave like Spin and Charge of elementary particles. I think my mathematical calculations clearly show a similarity to the elementary particles of the Standard Model in Particle Physics. - W. Suresh Madusanka (That was the second part of My Theory Of Everything.)

[@GiovanniMilani37]

I hear a lot of discussions about GUTs and TOEs (and EYEs?) and I wonder: is there any experimental or theoretic hint that such theory should even exist? It seems to me that discoveries in the past century has brought us more forces and matter, not less. Plus every attempt I recall that we made in unifiing what we barely know usualy comes with whole new fileds, interactions or even dimensions. Does pursuing unification make any objective sense?

[@KasiusKlej]

It is like two teams of diggers are digging a tunnel through a hill, each team starting at their end of the hill. By the time the tunnel should be completed the diggers find out they missed each other by a mile. Now if this hill is wider than a mile, there is a hint that the theory exist. The tunnel is possible. But what if the diggers are working on two different hills? The only theoretic hint that suits your question, is this speculation that it's the same hill. I personaly don't think it is, the way it looks to me is two hills with two completely finished tunnels.

[@drdon5205]

It worked in the past. Maybe it will work in the future.

[@nHans]

Didn't find as many ToE jokes and puns in the comments as I hoped. So I added some, including direct quotes from the video taken out of context: 😎 Hey Dr. Lincoln, did you put your fingers 🖐 between the ToEs and pick your feet 🦶 in Poughkeepsie? Jimmy Doyle was asking. 😎 4:10 *Dr. Lincoln:* "Scientists have even tried to imagine what a ToE might look like." *Me:* I have some suggestions: • Have the scientists-I'm assuming Dr. Lincoln means "physicists"-tried asking biologists, doctors, pathologists, morticians, or literally anyone else, what one looks like? • Assuming they have intact feet, have they tried looking at it directly? Of course, they'll need to take off their footwear, including socks. So don't do this on a construction site or in Antarctica. • Alternatively, have they tried googling it? • As for Nick Vujicic-you're an inspiration-what do you imagine one might look like? I'd love to see; it'll be fascinating for sure. 😎 By the way-true story-I started typing "what does a toe look like " into the Google search bar, and it gave me these suggestions: • what does a toenail fungus look like 😝 • what does a toe infection look like 🤢 • what does a toe look like without a toenail 🤮 😎 *Dr. Lincoln:* The most successful ToE-and it's not all that successful, by the way-is called the Superstring Theory. *Me:* Well, for one, it has a name. That's more than you can say for almost every other toe out there. 😎 *Dr. Lincoln:* So you might ask yourself if a ToE's a reasonable idea. *Me:* Prehensile, sure. Vestigial stubs like mine-definitely not. *Dr. Lincoln:* Well in my opinion it is. I don't know if it's right, but it's reasonable.

[@behappy5081]

Hello Dr. Don, thank you for taking the time to make these programs I greatly enjoy - I wondered have you time for a question? Q: Would it be possible to use quantum entanglement to 'see' inside a black hole? (This certainly isn't my idea but it sort of seems plausible in a 'spooky' way - I'd share where I heard it but shamefully I can't remember!! )

[@cloudpoint0]

Entanglement doesn’t convey any information. Entanglement just tells us the likely state of the partner particle that we can’t observe.

[@drdon5205]

As cloudpoint says, there is no transfer of information in entanglement. In addition, a particle falling from the outside, never actually enters the black hole - at least from the perspective of an external observer who would measure the entanglement.

[@behappy5081]

​@@drdon5205 Thank you Dr. Don....... Oh well, I thought it was to good to be true! I'm glad I asked the question as your answer(s) have made me understand a little more deeply the implications of the statement 'nothing escapes'. My brain has now locked up. Mind truly blown. Thank you!!! : )

[@behappy5081]

@@cloudpoint0 Thank you

[@RussellSubedi]

I'm just glad that the conformal cyclic cosmology got mentioned. While I agree that it would be foolish to bet money on it being right, you must admit that it's mathematically pleasing. Probably in the same way Kepler's conic orbits were pleasing, but then GR showed up and (pardon the drama) ruined everything.

[@thstroyur]

"in the same way Kepler's conic orbits were pleasing" A more likely comparison would be his polyhedra ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterium_Cosmographicum )

[@RussellSubedi]

@@thstroyur I wholeheartedly agree.

[@dr.kasrafarahani1172]

Hi Dr Don. Thanks for your great videos. A quick question. If gravity is quantised and transferred via graviton Boson, then for a black hole, how can a graviton escape a black hole to reach another mass for force interaction? If photon can't escape black hole, so can't graviton. I'm not physicist but looks like graviton idea doesn't make sense. Thanks for your answer.

[@glenwoofit]

I love these videos

[@Harazmatik]

Nice video as always!

[@oisnowy5368]

One of the reasons I don't think strings will work is because of their scale - jumping from a quark to a string is way too big a leap. But assuming something fundamental exists how many "levels" (molecules/atoms, nuclear particles, quarks, so on) would be between that what we know? 2? 3? 4?

[@monkerud2108]

liked the video tho what I was trying to say even more simply; the Weyl hypothesis= open past + possible new future evolution after exponential expansion. which is not that far fetched, it's the predictions that are bad in my opinion. its actually completely compatible with the standard picture in cosmology, apart from the pieces we cant see because of limitations in measurement and wiping out of information.

[@Mandragara]

Dear Dr. Don, I'm interested to know your thoughts on the challenges of physics outreach. What are some of the biggest hurdles you think science communicators need to overcome when interacting with the layperson? Greetings from Australia (USyd Physics dept)

[@xgrnsxs]

Dear Dr. Lincoln, I really like your series. I have one question about dark matter, that has bothered me for a long time. It is thought, that particles of dark matter neither interact with matter, nor with itself, except via gravity. The hotter an ordinary gas is, the more unlikely it is to collapse into a star forming cloud. I think, we can suppose the same principle is true for any matter, e.g. dark matter. But if we suppose, that dark matter is hot, it cannot collapse. If it is cold, how can it clump to large blobs that stabilize galaxies etc., because If it collapses, it MUST heat up, due to gravity accelerating the particles. But dark matter has no way of radiating that energy, because it doesn't produce radiation. And if we suppose that it still can clump, what stops dark matter from collapsing into black holes? In Stars it is the pressure of the heat in the core, in neutron stars it is the fermi-pressure. But in the case of dark matter, there is no force (that we know of) other than gravity, so in my understanding, it just could collapse directly into a black hole. Can you shed some light on this contradiction? Maybe (most likely) i am missing something here... Thank you, and keep up the good series ;) It always brings new ideas to my mind!

[@varunravindranath6153]

What kind of travel mechanism is required for a interstellar or fast travel in space according to theory? We have been hearing about concept of wormhole is this really possible? Can you talk or provide some theoretical articles about the new tech evolved on the space travel?

[@StanleyKowalski.]

5:10 proxima centauri is the nearest star, nonetheless, i wish Mr Lincoln was my physics teacher in college.

[@DaveyGa]

Isn't it a binary system?

[@drdon5205]

If you're being pedantic, Sol is the nearest star. Just saying.... ;-)

[@maxiclmaths1289]

Stephen Wolfram's theory is also quite interesting and allows dark matter, energy etc. Maybe not the actual TOE but very thought provoking!

[@mattcontact1]

Could time be the product of expanding space? And could that explain the discrepancy when we measure the expansion rate using the CMBR method and measuring closet galaxies?

[@randolphtimm6031]

The physical universe as we, observe it, is built on dimensions: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 .... With 0 dimensions we have a point, the beginning. Then, extend that point along a line and we have 1 dimension. Gravity is a 1 dimensional force between 2 points. Extend the line perpendicularly and we get a plane, 2 dimensions. Electroweak is the force of 2 dimensions, with positive and negative charge. But to make a closed universe, rather than extend the line perpendicularly, we must extend it radially creating the closed surface of a sphere. Light is the force of 2 dimensions. Extend that spherical manifold perpendicularly and we get the 3 dimensional space that we call the universe. The 4th dimension is not time. Time is the 1 dimensional manifold upon which the other dimensions are built. The 4th dimension is mass, also 1 dimensional, like gravity, and not perpendicular to anything. It does warp the manifold of the 3dimensions of space, however. Any ideas what the Fifth Dimension might be?? This is all theoretical, of course.

[@ukasznowak5422]

Hi. Question for the Q&A section: Is it possible that dark matter or/and dark energy are photons ? Light is everywhere and going in all directions, so if mass of photons is very, very small (so we can't measure) but number of photons is very big, maybe it is missing mass of universe ?

[@smlanka4u]

Combination of the duality of 6 directions and the 6 distances of the first start of the Universe: (+0-0)^6 + (-0+0)^6 = MATTER + ANTIMATTER (+0-0)^6 = i: (+1-(-1))^3 X ii: (+0.0-0.0)^3 = ( This should be the Pure Eight (Pali: Suddhātthaka) in Buddhism: Maybe there is a fundamental cause for the stable existence of the Heat, Solid, Liquid and Gas. Heat...: + (+1)^3 Solid..: - ((+1)^3 x (-1) Liquid.: - ((-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) Gas....: + (-1)^2 x (+1) - ( + (+1)^2 x (-1) - ((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 - ((-1)^3 x (+1))) + (-1)^3) )) x ii: (+0.0-0.0)^3 = ( This should be the 12 elementary particles (of matter) of Standard Model (in particle physics): 01. electron neutrino: + (+(1))(+1)^3 02. electron: - ((+(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 03. down quark: - ((+(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 04. up quark: + (+(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) - ( { Standard Forces } AND/OR { 05. charm quark: + (+(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 06. strange quark: - (+(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 07. muon: - (+(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 08. muon neutrino: + (+(1))(-1)^3 } ) - ( 09. tau neutrino: + (-(1))(+1)^3 10. tau: - ((-(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 11. bottom quark: - ((-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 12. top quark: + (-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) - ( Mini Forces: 13. Mini Z^0 boson: + (-(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 14. Mini W^+ boson: - (-(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 15. Mini gluon: - (-(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 16. Mini photon: + (-(1))(-1)^3)) ))) x This should be the Higgs boson field in Standard Model (in particle physics): 17: (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) OR = ( This should be position and structure of the 12 standard elementary particles and the 4 forces of the Standard Model (in particle physics): 01. electron neutrino (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 0.0022 | (ii.) 0.000468 | (iii.) 0.000052631 | (iv.) 0.000011198): + (+(1))(+1)^3 02. electron (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 0.511 | (ii.) 0.1087 | (iii.) 0.01222489 | (iv.) 0.00260104): - ((+(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 03. down quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 4.7 | (ii.) 1 | (iii.) 0.112440192 | (iv.) 0.023923445): - ((+(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 04. up quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 2.2 | (ii.) 0.468 | (iii.) 0.05263159 | (iv.) 0.01119821): + (+(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) - ( { Forces: 05. Z^0 boson (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 91190 | (ii.) 19402.1 | (iii.) 2181.5789475 | (iv.) 464.1657335): + (+(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 06. W^+ boson (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 80390 | (ii.) 17104.25 | (iii.) 1923.205742 | (iv.) 409.192711): - (+(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 07. gluon: - (+(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 08. photon: + (+(1))(-1)^3 } AND/OR { 05. charm quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 1280 | (ii.) 272.34 | (iii.) 30.62201 | (iv.) 6.5153212): + (+(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 06. strange quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 96 | (ii.) 20.4 | (iii.) 2.2966508 | (iv.) 0.4886491): - (+(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 07. muon (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 105.66 | (ii.) 22.48 | (iii.) 2.527754 | (iv.) 0.53782): - (+(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 08. muon neutrino (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 0.17 | (ii.) 0.036 | (iii.) 0.004067004 | (iv.) 0.00086532): + (+(1))(-1)^3 } ) - ( { 09. mini neutrino: + (-(1))(+1)^3 10. mini electron: - ((-(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 11. lower quark: - ((-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 12. upper quark: + (-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) } AND/OR { 09. tau neutrino (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 18.2 | (ii.) 3.87 | (iii.) 0.435408 | (iv.) 0.09264): + (-(1))(+1)^3 10. tau (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 1776.8 | (ii.) 378 | (iii.) 42.50727 | (iv.) 9.0441): - ((-(1))(+1)^3 x (-1) 11. bottom quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 4180 | (ii.) 889.36 | (iii.) 100 | (iv.) 21.276596): - ((-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1)^2)) 12. top quark (Mass Ratio Array: (i.) 173100 | (ii.) 36829.787 | (iii.) 4141.148333 | (iv.) 881.09539): + (-(1))(-1)^2 x (+1) } - ( { Mini Forces (including Quantum Gravity): 13. Mini Z^0 boson: + (-(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 14. Mini W^+ boson: - (-(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 15. Mini gluon: - (-(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 16. Mini photon: + (-(1))(-1)^3)) } AND { 13. mini charm quark: + (-(1))(+1)^2 x (-1) 14. mini strange quark: - (-(1))((+1)^2 x (-1)^2 15. mini muon: - (-(1))((-1)^3 x (+1))) 16. mini muon neutrino: + (-(1))(-1)^3)) } ))) x 17: (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) = nearly: ( Maybe there are 6 layers of elementary particles with spin (0.5 or 1/2), and Charge 2/3 and -1/3: ((+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......)) + (+0.5......-(-0.5......))) x (2,/3 / (1........x(7/7)) x 1......x(5/5) x 1_..../(3/3) / (1...... x 1_../(1/1)) - 1..../3 x (1....../(5/5) x (NEUTRAL)/5 X5) x 1_..../(3/3) / (1.....x(5/5) x (NEUTRAL) x 1_../(1/1))) x 0.00000 According to my mathematical calculations, the unstable 6th dimension caused to make 1/2 Spin, 2/3 and -1/3 Charge, 6 layers of elementary particles, Combinations of layers etc. - W. Suresh Madusanka

[@AwijeetRishav]

Hi doc, since you have written all episodes, i was wondering do you read(from a screen in front of you), references of videos or really remember them? Regards

[@jacobc258]

Grand unification sounds grate to dream about every night, but are there any spacific flaws in the standard model why we need it.

[@edwardlulofs444]

Yes there are. That's a motivation for these theories of everything. That and GR being not compatible with QM. Wikipedia has articles on the problems with the standard model. There seem to be an infinity of details that don't fit physical understanding. But it's human nature to not like being asked a question where you have to answer "I don't know". I have always loved this about physics. And there are a lots of hypotheses that Don doesn't want to talk about. Also, no one gets paid to say "I don't know".

[@zackyezek3760]

For the SM itself: 1) The "generations" or "flavors" of the SM have no known explanation. Why are there 2 heavier copies of each of the quarks & electrons that make up stable matter? 2) Where's the antimatter? All known SM processes combined can only explain why we might see 1% more "normal" matter than antimatter, not the matter-only universe we actually see. 3) Neutrinos clearly have mass and violate flavor conservation, but the SM has no accounting for this. Physicists hacked the SM to include those discoveries and retain predictive power at low energy for neutrinos, but at the cost of breaking it for higher energies. . 4) At energies far beyond the explored ones, the SM becomes mathematically inconsistent. It's math ultimately involves DIVERGENT power series, and again it is only elaborate mathematical hacks like "re normalization" that make it work at experimentally accessible conditions. The situation is worst for QCD- pure mathematics can't even guarantee that its equations are complete or always HAVE a solution. Outside the SM things get way worse. 1) Our current theory of gravity, General Relativity, appears to be broken for the extremely weak field limits of galaxies & larger scales (hence the fudge factors of "dark matter" and 'dark energy"). It is also conceptually & mathematically incompatible with the entire "quantum" idea, especially quantum field theory. 2) Quantum theory appears to have nonlocal and superluminal, instantaneous effects that require elaborate handwaving to reconcile with relativity. Especially the general kind. 3) Those same 'dark' matter and energy observations point to the existence of at least 1 new force of nature, even if it is just a "new" gravity. 4) There's no consensus on anything but the math for quantum physics, nothing akin to Einstein's clear explanations of the conceptual foundation of relativity. Explanations for QM weirdness literally range from parallel universes to time travel, and comparatively little scientific effort has been put into finding out compared with particle collider or telescopes. We now have engineers trying to build computers based on a scientific theory that's really little more than a mathematical cookbook, and they therefore have little guide to what is actually possible or feasible with an "unnatural" quantum system. A few tentative cracks within the SM may have arisen as well. There are multiple experiments now with results implying that muons are NOT just heavy electrons (muon g-2, B meson decay). If they pan out, the SM will need patching or replacing.

[@jacobc258]

@@zackyezek3760 You have given me alot to look into, thank-you. My math skills are still lacking, I'll see how much I can grasp.

[@Valdagast]

I'll stick with Thales. _"All things are from water and all things are resolved into water."_

[@ristopaasivirta9770]

There are three ways to drink whiskey: - with water - without water - like water

[@Nulley0]

"All things are from starstuff and all things are resolved into starstuff"

[@freddan6fly]

@@ristopaasivirta9770 Shane mc Gowan (The Pogues) - We drank whiskey by pint. kzbin.info/www/bejne/o4HTeKOVf5itaKM

[@ahmadal-hajj1513]

Can you explain the interaction of the electron and proton in an atom based on QED? Can you make a video that would explain proton renormalization?