Have we Discovered Only Half of Physics? The Hidden Supersymmetry

[@kato_dsrdr]

The science community really need to give awards to people that explain complex physics to us average people. It's honestly a HUGE contribution to science..

[@itisinickt]

science goes on whether YOU know about it or not

[@zephyr8]

@@itisinickt I bet you're a lot of fun at parties!

[@munks4548]

@@itisinickt you’re honestly weird asf trying to gatekeep physics

[@jacewulf4058]

@@itisinickt science research depends on public and private grants, those are voted on by the average populace, therefore, science doesn't go on if we dont know about it!

[@qwerty_314]

@@itisinickt as Jace stated, public opinion and general education levels absolutely have an impact on how money is allocated. There's a reason why so much money has been poured into NASA, and that's because general enthusiasm for space exploration is quite high for something that really gives society relatively few material benefits. In this way science education is an investment that can appreciate funding for the sake of research. Also see the whole pandemic for why science education is so important.

[@charlesclark6681]

Sometimes I listen to your videos and to others on the same subject five or six times with very little understanding. After a while I realized then I am developing a little bit of understanding. I am 72 years of age and there’s no way that I can go back to school and learn calculus and physics at a level that will ever be beneficial to anyone. It is however so extremely interesting. Every day I listen to videos from a host of different physicist who explain something slightly different each time. Thank you sir

[@russchadwell]

As usual, Nature could continue to say this to physicists: "Oh, you're basically correct... BUT, there's more to the story. "

[@AnthonyGoodley]

There is always more to the story until the day comes that we know everything about everything. I predict the day that happens to be the 35th of Nevertember.

[@russchadwell]

@@AnthonyGoodley oh, that's so true... but, shortly after Newton and well before Maxwell, science had ALL the answers, or so it thought! And, back during the time of Ptolemy, he had NONE of the answers, other than the results he was calculating. Because, though his scheme got a good answer, he didn't know that there was... more to the story, of how the Solar system worked.

[@johnmckown1267]

I read a sci-fi story like that. Once humanity knew everything, the universe self destructed and a new one with different physics came into being.

[@SpotterVideo]

Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?

[@jack.d7873]

This will inevitably stop. The Universe only operates in ONE way, newly discovered phenomena to us is not new to the Universe. Everything that exists and how it works is already there. Humans are merely a cog in the machinery of the Universe. We obey the Universe, we're not special or unique to it. Which is also another reason it is most likely freewill is an illusion.

[@bentationfunkiloglio]

Best explanation of super symmetry I've seen to-date! Before now, I hadn't really understood it's motivation. Although, I'm still not a fan of the theory's snaming sconventions. Seems a bit silly.

[@speedomars]

Changing the ending in the same way gives everyone a break in remembering the names.

[@cammccauley]

Ssilly* FTFY

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@@cammccauley slol

[@adi.olteanu.1982]

He has this gift trust me I've seen many of his shows ....even a normal person can understand the message That's what makes a good professor... great 🎉🎉🎉🥳🥳🥳💪💪💪🧠🧠🧠

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@@adi.olteanu.1982 sI sagree!

[@lucastvms]

Man, you are a great teacher, for real, such complex subject made much simpler. Thanks for the video :)

[@photonsonpixels]

Although you lose me after just a few minutes, I do enjoy watching these videos tremendously. And I always learn a little more :) Thank you!

[@neotower420]

This is how we begin to understand complex systems and relate these lessons to our life. Over time we form new circuits in the brain which provide insight and understanding.

[@saferugdev8975]

thats normal. same thing happens when i watch coding tutorials. the only way to learn that stuff is to watch the videos over and over and slowly massage the concepts into your brain.

[@idonthaveaname8164]

Even though I really suck at physics, I still love watching these videos.

[@drbeanut]

No one “sucks” at physics. We all have lots to learn!

[@ArvinAsh]

Many physicists say the same first sentence. This is some of the most complicated stuff we know about, so don't beat yourself up about it. We all feel that way.

[@ibrarkhan9878]

Physics is love.

[@stevebrindle1724]

Even the great Richard Feynman said nobody really understands the quantum world so you are in good company!

[@user-gz4ve8mw9l]

@@drbeanut Exactly the concept of difficulty is fictitious. Eliminate reluctance which if your here that's a good start. Chisel away at ignorance gradually over whatever time it takes. The only other potential hurdle would be external obstructions. An example of an external obstruction would be someone wanting to go to college. Yet the said someone in question is unable to afford it and no way to finance it via loans for instance. They have eliminated reluctance and seek to learn however an external obstruction is impeding further progress. Nothing is difficult once one understands something. If it's difficult that means you don't quite understand it sufficiently enough yet. Once you come to such realization only external obstructions can thwart you.

[@myownhistorian4923]

I LOVE your videos. Very well documented and explained. You are a true inspiration :)

[@josephhall5681]

Documented?

[@whocares2214]

@@josephhall5681 Yes, documented. His use of the word is correct bro.

[@loganpage1542]

This is really similar to my Master's research, and I really appreciate the great explanation! Thanks for the video, I'll be sharing it with my physics friends :D

[@ArvinAsh]

Great! Congrats on pursuing physics at the graduate level.

[@GaussFringe]

Your videos are treat to watch. The simplicity is just amazing. I find myself at lack of enough words when It comes to express how much I love your videos.

[@Naturamorpho]

How cool was that! Awesome, well explained! And as always, thank you for posting!

[@maximizer5063]

Can we talk about the fact that this is a somewhat overlooked theory whose particles are literally called slept-ons ?

[@Sokofeather]

Theyve been sleepin on this theory...!

[@matthewparker9276]

It's not exactly an overlooked theory. It's the most popular proposed extension to the standard model.

[@babazuki4725]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge sir. Humanity surely advances because of people like you. You will feed curiosity and inspire many young people to become scientists with your videos. ❤

[@clientesinformacoes6364]

On 11:50, galaxies don't fly apart because of the elasticity of space time. I believe that space time itself has a property in a quantum scale that makes the entire space time elastic (dark energy). If we imagine two particles close to one another in an elastic space time going around the particles, the space time between them will be more open and the outer space time squeezes them to opposite direction, that is gravity. If we imagine in large scale, the process is the same , the entire space time around the galaxy holds the galaxy by squeezing in all directions to the center, the differences of elasticity within galaxies that pushes and holds everything in the galaxy together because of the long distance within galaxies. Plus, all solar systems in the Galaxy is in constant movement and constantly stretching space time, it takes millions of years to reach the opposite side of the Galaxy, that open space still affects the complexity of attraction among solar systems while the stretching going farther away from the Galaxy won't affect anymore. My conclusion is, the more speed the Galaxy rotates the more accumulation of open space creates in the galaxy and the more is the force to the center.

[@aaroncoffman7267]

Question: why is the standard model not symmetric? If there are 4 spin 1 bosons, why is the Higgs sticking out like a sore thumb? Is there any reason to believe we have more spin 0 bosons out there we haven’t discovered? Also, why is it organized this way?

[@alfamike7336]

All good questions!

[@kakalibhattacherjee27]

Higgs field sticking out like a sore thumb, is mathematically derived, Higgs field potential, and for obvious, you can't ask why? Every new theory we built in modern physics, has pros and cons, where pros dominate in minimal over cons, again physicist take these negative points and again built a new theory, where pros dominate and so goes on.....

[@DrDeuteron]

force fields as we know them (Yang Mill Fields), have vector bosons: It started with the B for EM, W+/W0,/W- for Weak and 8 gluons for QCD...but the Weinberg angle mixed the B and W0 into the photon and the Z0. So: counting bosons isn't that easy. Also: the Higgs is spin-0: perfectly spherical. If it weren't, your mass could depended on your spatial orientation...that is: turn left and change your mass. Not consistent with experiment!

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

Already proved it here kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6XSepSKhbhkp8k

[@manicmadpanickedman2249]

@@DrDeuteron people are silly

[@kramesh56]

I am retd prof psychiatry with about 50 yrs plus in clinical psychiatry. I was fascinated by the simple ways you explain complicated scientific topics. "The tenet that what was right and true creates problems when you stretch the ends of its stability, is also a scientific truth": This is what I inferred. All sensations perception cognition and emotions beliefs truths (entities) are bound within a certain range because everything in and around us is dynamic and any interaction occuring must be within a certain range to maintain a balance and maintain their identity. We actually create constants in the dynamism in and around us to help us to comprehend and adjust to the dynamic changes in and around us to maintain our homeostasis. We expand our comprehension by extrapolating our comprehension of our inner state to the ext env. We further extend our comprehensions by communication with other with similar comprehensions (assuming similar constants). Our phylogenic and ontogenic evolution determines our range and perspectives of comprehension. The perspective of a child an adult a bee or man has to be different. Two persons cannot occupy the same point of view and language is also a created constancy in dynamism to help us comprehend better. Comprehending how we comprehend the dynamism in and around us will help us to understand the world better. If you think my line of thought is correct i would like to further discuss these in detail. Thank you.. My knowledge of computers is only limited to writing e mail. Prof. K. Ramesh M.D. My email [e-mail]

[@kramesh56]

The particle wave problem is created by our observation whrein we hold part of dynamic env as constant

[@yannk95]

There is something familiar about this.. Interesting and thought-provoking concept ... Spooky action at a distance

[@ArwenAreYouOK]

This was a great watch! 🙏🏻🙏🏻. Thanks Arvin.

[@petpaltea]

Isn't unification of electricity and magnetism (@10:24) fundamentally different than unification of electromagnetic and weak force? The former is perceived differently, i.e. as two different phenomena, due to relativity (in different reference frames they act as different force, but they are interchangeable, relative, i.e. fundamentally the same - that is what Maxwell found out); and the latter IS fundamentally different IN LOWER ENERGIES, temperatures, but they combine in higher temperatures. Electroweak force splits only because the symmetry breaks in lower energies. And the thought goes, that in even higher energies (in the same order as there was in the beginning of the Big bang) other forces combine, first with strong force and then even with gravity. Not that they are always the same, as the electricity and magnetism are. On that note, it would be interesting to watch your video about that! EDIT: I see you made a video about that

[@jibcot8541]

This was amazing, the clearest description of Super Symmetry I have ever come across.

[@shethtejas104]

Thank you Arvin. As always, complex questions explained easily by you. One question though: would the elusive theory of everything, if discovered, be able to explain and predict women's moves?

[@ArvinAsh]

Now that would certainly deserve a Nobel prize for anyone who figures it out! I have no idea myself.

[@shethtejas104]

@@ArvinAsh Damn! I had high hopes but never mind. Good luck to all men :)

[@hiiamjustacoolrandomuser168]

No lol

[@georgehunter2813]

Listen to this guy talk. Just spews that stuff out without missing a beat. Arvin is a natural.

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Excellent video, as always. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video. Many thanks for the links to the papers.

[@avadhutd1403]

Hello @arvin ash If we create collider (liner or circular) that can look at planks length Will it resolve supersymmetry and qutuam gravity issue? And if we not detect at planks length then does it mean that supersymmetry not exsist or practical are more heavy/healthy^^^^ Thanks for beautiful video 🎉🎉

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks. We would not need to detect things at Planck level to prove supersymmetry. We just need to detect a particle at higher energy levels.

[@avadhutd1403]

@@ArvinAsh thanks for your reply For qutuam gravity? looking at Planck level will solve issue?

[@philiplauren7024]

I think you forgot to also show the Graviton as a force carrying particle. Because without it, there isn’t any symmetry between the Fermions and the Bosons? Now, with the supersymmetric particles, there are 12 Bosons, but only 10 Fermions Doesn’t the Graviton particle also have to be accounted for?

[@ArvinAsh]

Perhaps, but it's not described in the equations of the std. model. So, I did not include Likewise, there may be other particles missing from the std model we don't know about. So I included the things we know about.

[@Anonymous-df8it]

@@ArvinAsh sOh, sokay!

[@kritrimkritrim4481]

@@ArvinAsh Hang on. If graviton is a force carrying particle, then gravity is a force. But you have so lucidly explained in your ealier video that in fact gravity is not a force. So, is gravity a force or not?

[@ArvinAsh]

@@kritrimkritrim4481 Einstein‘s theory of general relativity describes it as a bending of space-time. But we know this is incomplete. To make it compatible with quantum mechanics, most physicists think that it will eventually be shown to be a force just like the other three fundamental forces of nature.

[@kritrimkritrim4481]

@@ArvinAsh Thank you so much. "But we know this is incomplete". To be honest, I dont know why it is incomplete! But I got a brilliant idea for your next video. Why dont you do a video just to explain what makes einsteins theory of gravity incomplete. Trust me, most of your watchers aren't a physics doctor like you. So, may be a video that summarizes all the possible contenders for the theory of gravity would be super good. Thank you again for the great work you are doing!

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

Another great video Arvin!!

[@smlanka4u]

Higgs boson would become a tiny Black Hole when it becomes the 3rd generation of Higgs Boson. I could guess that there is probably ANOTHER Higgs Boson with a mass around 4000 (or maximum 4800) GeV that can emerge as a 2-dimensional (2D) Higgs Boson. The maximum energy produced in the 27 km long LHC is around 1000 GeV. And that energy is not enough to discover a relatively higher mass experimentally. But according to the dimensional structures, 3-dimensional (3D) structures emerged in the universe first. The energy required to make the 3rd Higgs Boson (like a solid Higgs Boson) or higher energy/pressure would make a tiny Black Hole. E.g., Likely, the core of a massive dying star makes a tiny Black Hole that can grow. Thank you so much Dr. Arvin Ash.

[@alfamike7336]

I've been thinking for some yrs now about discovered and yet to be discovered that, the "Big Bang" is possibly just the singularity of a universe size ... Toroidal Electromagnetic Field, whereby entering into a black hole is entering (going into or flowing into) the Southern pole of an electromagnet. That would imply exiting (anew of course), "flowing" from the singularity out the Northern pole in a universe size Electromagnetic Field, starting over as it were. Thnx for the stimuli, excellent discourse. 👍

[@kakalibhattacherjee27]

No more Nobel prize for discovery of new particles 😂

[@smlanka4u]

​@@kakalibhattacherjee27, This video explains the theory of everything 'Ultimate Realities Are Discovered - 28 Material Forms Really Exist'. It is outstanding.

[@smlanka4u]

@@alfamike7336, nice. Thanks

[@stevebrindle1724]

Just discovered and subscribed to this excellent channel. after watching I got great satisfaction in suspecting there could be an alternative reality where I fully understand Quantum physics!

[@neotower420]

I'm curious if these mirror particles exist outside of observation, or are they a product of the frame of phase space being manipulated to extend beyond just the present.. Wave function introduces a representation of T I M E to the particles, so they can be observed within a relative frame of reference.

[@petermartin7885]

Wow what a phenomenal job. Interesting all the way through and you explain all the nooks and crannies of the current situation in a way people can understand. Thank you!

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

At the end you took the words out of my mouth. I was lost and then it came together. The particles being massive and so needing a bigger machine has never been obvious to me. The particles being weakly interactive never occurred to me. We never really understood gravity and then we did. A very good piece of work 👏. Great images 👌 👍 that enhance this topic.

[@chriskaplan6109]

As usual you have a brilliant way of making complex topics accessible and interesting, thank you

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad you like them!

[@FelixIsGood]

What if the particles only interact very weak by gravity?

[@seasidescott]

gravity is a minimal force inside an atom, not much space to bend I guess. So we have the Strong Force, Weak Force explanations, charge, magnetism, etc and now seek an answer to whether there is another force (not gravity). But the whole point is that, at distance, the sum of the mass of these particles do heavily influence gravity and keep very fast moving stars at the edges of galaxies from flying apart. Think about picking things up with a magnet; at short distances magnetism wins, at long distances gravity wins.

[@DrDeuteron]

as in Weakly Interacting Massive Particles? aka:WIMPs.

[@clarkh3314]

Arvin with the LEGEDARY content that the world needs. We love you bro, thank you.

[@StitchTheFox]

Great video, and a question: What does it mean when you say the electromagnetic and weak force "combine", or are "connected"? I'm not questioning IF they are, I just want to know what that is all about.

[@ArvinAsh]

They emanate from the same fundamental force - electroweak force. This video explains: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2GYh35mpbiWbas -- be warned, this is some really complicated stuff. I did my best to simplify.

[@StitchTheFox]

@@ArvinAsh thank you so much. You are awesome

[@mnahmedlimited6022]

If symmetrical particles can be disproportionately more massive than their standard counterparts, they can have massively different other physical properties as well, so basically these can be used to explain anything and everything to fit into narrative, no wonder this has been a wild goose chase for such a long time!

[@ChessQuickiesEcon]

Hello Arvin - Can you cover how astronomy is in physics, or a vid about the pauli exclusion principle. It was covered a bit in the vid, but a detailed explanation would be nice - greatly appreciated. thanks

[@Naturamorpho]

Yep! I'd also love to hear Arv's take on the Pauli Exclusion Principle! That one I never get right...

[@marconmaurizio1]

Always great, Arvin!

[@zetadroid]

There is only one universe, so it cannot "favor" one configuration over the other. You cannot observe more univeres and decide that it is more or less likely to have an equal number of integer and semi-integer spins. With the same arguments I could declare that we should have a spin-3 and a whole tower of spins above the spin-2, because what's the likelihood that spins stop at 2, right?

[@ryeclansen7371]

I have been watching Alexander Unzicker's you tube videos and have also read several of his books. I am not a physicist, I am a retired electrical engineer but have been involved with physics most of my life. I think Professor Unzicker's ideas and criticism of modern physics merit consideration. Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

Seeing how life, mind, and consciousness are, arguably, the singular most important aspects of reality, then there can be no so-called *Theory of "Everything"* that does not include an explanation for the existence of life, mind, and consciousness.

[@seasidescott]

Must a ToE also explain justice, raspberries, the color purple, and K-pop? There is a solid foundation for the origin of life (Stanley Miller, etc) and very reasonable explanations of mind and what you are calling consciousness (an ego, or differentiation from others - research brain development, development of empathy, bipedalism, etc ). A ToE is only responsible for a coherent theory of the forces that exist that made effects (like Life) possible. What you're asking for is a simplification such as "God did it" instead of understanding the immensely long chain of events that led to all the variety of things that currently exist. And you are declaring that "consciousness" is a different fundamental property of some undiscovered magical substance that is apart from the universe while probably simultaneously declaring everything is one. Life is one of the possible gifts can arise in what we already understand of the universe. And it did arise here, so enjoy it!

[@silentsoup8857]

Consciousness is known as a hard-emergence problem in biology/neuroscience, just like the emergence of matter in physics. It has nothing to do with k-pop and strawberries. But we're not saying we need to get out of physics to explain it either - but if physics cannot explain a fundamental aspect of nature (which isn't explained by any of those biology fields you mentioned - you'd have to get into connectomics and even then it's tricky) then there's a problem, because we can't call it the basis for all forces in the universe since it misses one (intention/free will). You say it's simplification to introduce such a "random" element to the question, but the real simplification is you saying that it emerges simply as a random aggregate of particle interactions, without a speck of evidence from Stat Mech or even evolution (it's now clear that mutations aren't random). Science is about curiosity, don't taint that with ideology about randomness and the lack of God. It doesn't have to be God that introduced consciousness, but we have to be able to question it (and again, those fields you mentioned don't cut it).

[@ArvinAsh]

A theory of everything does not mean it would explain every single phenomenon. It just means that it will explain how all particles, forces, and quantum pheonmena work at a fundamental level. Once we have it, we will have the basis to explain everything else, but we will still need to explain those things.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

​@@ArvinAsh But Arvin, if according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the phenomenal features of the universe cannot even take form without the presence of consciousness to collapse the wave function, then don't you think that consciousness might hold a prominent position in any search for a theory of "EVERYTHING"?

[@jareknowak8712]

@@TheUltimateSeeds Cosmos was here long before any consciousness, and it will be long after the last consciousness.

[@avonsternen6034]

Great clarity on spin.

[@ibrarkhan9878]

Thank you Arvin for this great work. I love your videos. You, Eugene Khutoryansky and PBS Space Time are outstanding.

[@TheFos88]

I don't know why but I like getting blasted on psychedelics and learning advanced sciences.

[@erickperez1807]

I remember when I was at school in physics classes, they only made me solve distance and speed problems, or convert measurements, and I found it quite boring, then I started watching videos like this and discovered how interesting quantum physics can be, if I had known at the time, I most likely would have studied something like this. For now I think I'll have to settle for continuing to watch videos.

[@damienlopez4634]

Of course we need such symmetry. SuperSymmetry as you are describing it, Is the nonphysical energetic force that’s balancing all of the matter that is in this universe. It’s the Vibrational Alignment of every single atom and the components within all atoms in universe that he Law of Attraction is also helping maintain, that is that binging force that you are perceiving / labeling as supersymmetry. It is only not known that it is needed if the individuals vibrational countenance is not in harmonics with its own collective vibrational supersymmetrical balance you see. For when your own vibration is unbalanced, your visual perception is altered depending on how misaligned you are. Meaning (what you are allowing or disallowing yourself to perceive based on your belief factor)

[@neotower420]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, the idea that we've only scratched the surface. I feel like one notion we often sleep on is our "connection" with fundamental physics. There is a relative "flow" in life that even humans can pick up on, but it is not within our natural set of senses. Perhaps it is something associated with our emotional stability, our energy. And our position within reality, how we affected the past.. and how we will impact the future.

[@drunkterrorist6296]

I've been watching a lot of particle, quantum, and astro physics videos lately and had similar thoughts. I've even considered, from a strictly scientific and physics/ chemistry standpoint that there are likely many more fundamental forces out there that we don't even know we don't know about. What if consciousness is a field? We still can't figure out how both living and inanimate things (e.g. life vs. Cosmic bodies) reproduce and exist, but only one of those categories has the capability to be aware of existence. I think that its a field generated in some way. And I mean that in a wholly physical standpoint, not in any philosophical or existential way

[@CaptainPeterRMiller]

Thanks Arvin. As usual, blown away.

[@Culpride]

Fun thing is: in my head quantum fluctuations of the vacuum has a net negative mass so that the galaxies are compressed by the empty space around them. Also explains acceleration of the expanding universe...

[@KibitoAkuya]

It's is already understood that empty space exerts a kind of negative pressure on itself, which is what causes the expansion and its own acceleration It's in fact well measured and known to be a very big in modern physics, becaused the measured vacuum energy density is so far off the predictions (as high as 120 orders of magnitude off) that it's effects as the cosmological constant should have already ripped the universe apart compared to the theorized value based on its observed effects

[@rishikaushik8307]

man the squarks take all the attention while the others re just slepton

[@zetadroid]

The goal of physics is to describe the world, not to find a theory of everything. Also, SUSY is an old idea with less and less evidence by the day.

[@Henry-jp3mc]

Amazing video you answered all my questions, thankyou.

[@gesalerico]

Another great contribution. Thank you, Arvin!

[@Rationalific]

You explain even the strangest of things so well!

[@porcivale]

i just hope this kind of videos now at days helps someone in a isolated part of the world to understand and bring a new equation.... that´s for why the technology used in the right way now at days could be a game changer!

[@Souleman561]

A great example of hidden forces we may not detect but do effect outcome... Think of a basketball game, it's defined by Newton physics , the games rules and the players. Now take into account how a crowd or other seemingly outside forces effect the outcome of the game, a player mother dies, player having g/f issues , anything that effects the mental state of the player/coaches that we don't directly see during the game we can't account for , apply that concept but to the universe , we have scientific laws that help describe a vast majority of the visible universe but there are plenty of unkowns variables that we can't account for yet as either we can't fit it in the already established theories or it clashes with 1 principle of science while being confirmed by other principles

[@X-boomer]

These sparticles could exist but be so massive that they just can’t be produced.

[@سيدةالمطبخ-ذ2ك]

Arvin Ash t hank you for this explanation, you really deserve all the appreciation

[@Rampart.X]

Without understanding consciousness, I expect that a 'theory of everything' will not emerge. However, we might still produce a 'theory of almost everything'.

[@ArvinAsh]

What does consciousness have to do with a mathematical theory?

[@Rampart.X]

@@ArvinAsh - it has everything to do with reality. Is mathematics not concerned with modelling reality?

[@florh]

Another question if you don't mind... The Higgs was found at the LHC at about 14 terra-electron-volt, apparently that's about the highest the LHC can work at. Sabine Hossenfelder mentioned that if a 1500km long underwater particle collider in the gulf of mexico would be build, it could do about 600 terra-electron-volt. Myself, I see potential in a 3500km long particle collider in both Barendt- and Kara-sea, also underwater (that's where they exploded the Tsar Bomba), which could potentially reach energy levels above 1 peta-electron-volt... How much, in electron-volt, would be needed to reach conditions as when the universe was before the strong nuclear force separated. When I look at how closely the Higgs gained its non-zero potential and when electroweak symmetry breaking happened, I think those energy levels are within our reach (after building a new collider), or are there other ways?

[@svergurd3873]

Very good explanation, e.g. of CPT symmetry. It became much clearer to me.

[@ArvinAsh]

Great to hear!

[@adiboy010]

I really wish I had a physics teacher like this.. 👍

[@mahlonmarr856]

The answer is staring at us in the face through the EPR experiment. As both Einstein and Bell suggested, quantum entanglement implies nonlocality. Fundamental Planck scale particles (quarks, leptons bosons) must exist in both local and nonlocal space simultaneously, enabling them alone to be entangled. Larger particles (protons, neutrons, molecules etc.) are segregated in local space, with Planck scale dimensions being the filter between the two.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

ER = EPR?

[@buckstarchaser2376]

11:38 The obvious answer to this supposed mystery - that I have yet to hear anyone propose, nor oppose - is that: If you assume the speed of particle interactions is fixed at the "speed of causation/light", then the "gravity effect", and thus "Time", are direct results of causation intensity and quantity for every given particle in the system. One good example is the muon, which is formed and degrades too fast in the outer atmosphere to make it to the surface of the earth in a conventional sense, but it interacts very weakly. It moves so fast that its "time dilation" effect allows it to travel all the way into the crust of the earth before it naturally expires. A second expected hypothesis that I've yet to hear is that distance is largely scaled by those same rules, and so there should have never been any confusion that amounts to a mystery of "Dark Matter". The outer regions of the galaxy are moving "faster" to our observers simply because there is lower particle density out there, but we assume that there is a hard speed limit. Yet, somehow we assume this is caused by an otherwise undetected mass, while we already have the answer. Fewer [ ( interaction_quantity * magnitude ) / ( causation_rate ) = "Spacetime" ] need to be resolved per "tick" of what we perceive as [local]time. It gives the appearance of outer galactic arms moving faster than we think they should. These expectations have been built upon our local experiences, and don't account for the observed lower densities out there. The observation is different than - for example - a "bathtub vortex", because everything in a bathtub is much more casuationally adjacent. On our planet, the density of energy exchange is usually quite stable, and makes our time feel constant. The outer galactic arms have a lower particle energy exchange density, and so the hard limit of causation dictates more completed local system updates than in our local space. If a photon zooms nearby our planet, the difference in the quantity/intensity of mutual interactions on the earth side of the particle are greater than the quantity/intensity on the vacuum side, and so the photon will slightly curve in the direction of the planet, due to greater amount of causation updates in that direction, or "frame drag", I believe it's called. In this mechanism, there is no force of gravity, but an effect that manifests as a "pull" simply because the side of an object more proximal to a higher density of interacting particles simply needs more causations to occur than the far side, imparting a form of uneven drag that we experience as a separate force. Likewise, there are so many more particle interactions to resolve in a "singularity", that a tangential photon path could be curved into an orbit at the "event horizon". Photons and electrons are therefore always particles, but can't be measured as such in some instances, and can in others. When we can't provide the conditions were we can slow, or guide them for a particle count, we measure the cumulative effect they impart on a test instrument. This is when/why they can appear to be a "wave". I don't think this is a required argument to describe the previous points, but should be further evidence when we assume a "probability cloud" of electrons is composed of individual electrons, that are simply updating too fast for our high-density measurement apparatus to complete a definitive measurement (requiring cause and effect) within few enough orbits to effectively anticipate a future location and then test our assumptions. To do so would require an instrument that exceeds the universal speed limit, which would nullify that limit in this universe. Once I watched your (I think it was on this channel) video on the fixed speed of causation, that one constant seems to transform a great quantity of transcendental questions into algebraically resolvable solutions. I don't know enough about these excessively hypothesized and elaborated minutia to even see how more educated people than I have overlooked such an obvious solution, and I urge various people to discuss these things with me so that I can improve my understanding to the point that I can think of the next interesting conundrum.

[@User53123]

Best video on this subject, hands down.

[@KrossFire330]

TWO ARVIN ASH VIDEOS IN ONE WEEK??????????? What a time to be alive

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks, but I think the last video was about 2 weeks ago.

[@jhwilly3098]

Wow, I need to watch this 10 or 20 more times. Thanks.

[@gcoffey223]

Some of the best teachings on the net. Thank you sir

[@alexanderweaver7613]

I couldn't help but think of my latest mixtape when I heard the term 'Slepton' x)

[@gmtoomey]

An EXCELLENT explanation.

[@88888888tiago]

"The principle of polarity: everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites." The Kybalion This is known since ancient Egypt

[@nmarbletoe8210]

Does that principle also have its opposite?

[@nadvga6650]

this is like listening to my classmates after learning something new. we suddenly feel so great

[@bartekordek]

"half" is impossible. We don't know even what we don't know.

[@mikemaddux6633]

Shakespeare knew something about stars - Oh No! It is an ever fixed-mark, That looks on tempests and is never shaken, It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

[@gothboschincarnate3931]

What exactly is Reiki healing energy? what is life force energy? I wish i could leave my body easily in order to answer these questions for you.

[@ArvinAsh]

It has no basis in established science.

[@chasejefferies-warren9989]

Your skin looks great bro. Congrats.

[@eyeofthetiger7]

One of the best educational content creators in the world

[@jasonemryss]

Great show!! Very informative!! Supersymmetry is the guiding theory of everything

[@seanferguson5460]

Considering that we can't account for 95% of mass in the universe, I'd say we have only have a handle on 5% of physics.

[@Kyanzes]

It's maybe a dumb question but couldn't increasing the collision energies cause some massive damage at some point? I mean, if we have no clue what happens to "spacetime" or chunks of matter (be those made up by allowed configuration of particles) at various massive levels, what if it suddenly releases some unknown energy or produces some "unwanted" type of particles etc. Or is that impossible? Maybe, every single gamma ray burst we detect is the destruction of a civilization that has reaced the "right" collision energy. Yeah, it's probably dumb but it seems as we don't have much clue what is "hidden" at higher and higher levels.

[@ArvinAsh]

These are typically proton-proton collision. There is no reason to think we are destroying any civilization as a simple particle could not be civilization of some sort. Regarding more destruction, while energies are high, we are only dealing with subatomic particles contained within a narrow beam, so it's not enough energy to cause big damage.

[@Kyanzes]

@@ArvinAsh Thank you for taking the time to answer, very nice of you!

[@HikariMagic20]

Did he really just say "It's only a theory"... 14:16 :/ This sort of use of "theory" feuls the notion that "theory" is synonymous with "guess" or "hypothesis".

[@NoGeometryDashSongs]

1:04 hey, that SUSY force particle looks a bit SUSSY

[@danisaguilera]

OMFG! I understood this! This guy is a wizard!

[@FairyWeatherMan]

I'm running short of compliments. Please accept a simple *THANK YOU FOR YOUR VIDEOS*

[@triplec8375]

The conservation laws are also a kind of symmetry. No matter how you alter a system, the amount of mass/energy, momentum and angular momentum remains the same. Every change is offset by a counterbalancing change. Ideally (philosophically speaking), everything should have it's opposite somewhere in the universe. We certainly recognize the problem of a perceived matter/antimatter imbalance. Then there's the asymmetry of entropy and time. Using super-symmetry to fix problems of the standard model of particles, is an isolated exercise -- a stopgap explanation for a single problem It might be better to try to derive a universal symmetry that describes a universe where matter/antimatter are in balance, entropy equals zero, and both space and time are fields that have an opposite, symmetrical field, making mutual cancellation possible. That can be done topologically, but requires an open-mindedness to examine of some accepted but unproven beliefs, such as Inflation Theory, that form the basis of our current cosmological standard model .

[@imafackinjunglist]

Where is the image in the thumbnail from?

[@ArvinAsh]

We created it

[@imafackinjunglist]

@@ArvinAsh Nice. It’s just how I imagine something about physics that I can’t convey with words.

[@marcellorossini5490]

Good morning Prof. Indeed (in my opinion) the concept that the point of unification is at temperatures and energies much higher than those that our current accelerators can produce, makes a lot of sense. In fact the baryon matter (and therefore "we") "come" from a moment of very high temperatures and energies released after the big bang. Dark matter would have formed before baryon matter due to the progressive cooling of the universe. Today we are in a "very cold" universe compared to the primordial one so (I think) the one hypothesized in your video makes a lot of sense. - A final consideration and my personal theory: supersymmetry could also have "generated" at the precise moment of the big bang "producing" TWO mirror universes ... one is ours with our particles and forces, and the other is another "bubble" in inflation (mirror) where there are "normally" particles and "mirror" forces that we cannot observe here. This would show and prove that the universe respected supersymmetry BUT unfortunately we cannot measure it. Greetings and congratulations on your work.

[@listonheinz9103]

14:17 Shouldn’t it be “it’s only a hypothesis” instead? I’m allergic to “it’s only a theory”.

[@starrynight1657]

The ending is interesting when you show the symmetry broken. Though from you say it should show both sides as large particles, and the interaction with the weak force causing one side to shrink.

[@csikel22]

great episode. one of the best

[@clientesinformacoes6364]

Maybe the universe splitted into two mirroring dimensions at some point and only quarks interacts to the mirroring dimension through the nucleus, time can't be splitted, unless splits into dimensions or as two timeframes at same time. There might be a property in the nucleus that separates matter from antimatter, maybe a portal inside the nucleus. Space time itself may be connected to anti space time in all directions that guides the nucleus, that's because there's no explanation for how space time form a solid structure from nothing we can see or detect. If both dimensions works together and they can't merge, we are only able to see matter in our dimension.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could there be a time supersymmetry after removing dimensions of space?

[@ArvinAsh]

Interesting. There was a recent paper theorizing a "symmetric" universe running back in time. So, to answer your question, it is possible.

[@Giavani-t4k]

Great video Arvin. I was commenting on the topic of black holes and my posit that the copious amounts of matter swallowed obviously do not remain inside but are funneled to "the other end" of this monstrosity. The terminus may be in this universe or even another dimension. I look for cosmic objects which would fit the bill in titanic quantities of matter being ejected into our universe, while the phenomena are described as something completely different. The terminus could be responsible for replenishing fresh matter on this side, spewing the constituents of perhaps another universe into our space. I still believe we are afloat on a sphere-like universe, much like the common shape of our cosmos. Outside of this space/time are an unlimited array of dimensions and the ability to transverse into the interior is the direction of interest. To me, the optical illusion of distant matter overcoming the speed of light is likened to the sun rising or setting and the apparent speeding up in the earth's prism, which is a mirage. If the universe is spherical then this illusion would make sense. We see the effect of this at the horizon if this were to be. I believe there is an eternity of dimensions and humans are sorely ill-equipped in accessing them. We are an extremely limited species even with our technology. In fact, this is hastening our demise not strengthening it. The technology gene is our undoing in its maturation to this most dangerous junction.

[@sanjuansteve]

The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel. And given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, we can imagine that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?

[@dinozaurpickupline4221]

Arvin ash is so underrated channel

[@jimmyzhao2673]

The Mirror Particles have cool names.

[@koimaster]

Fantastic video!

[@SeanGilchrist]

SUSY jumped the shark with STRING THEORY

[@EmergentUniverse]

I suggest re-examining Jefimenko’s equations and the Lienard Wiechert potentials and remove the smuggled in concept of the photon and c, the speed of the photon. Next instead of c, use the speed of the electric potential field emitted by the point charges on which these equations are based. Next, give the plus and minus point charges a magnitude of |e/6|. Last, realize the velocity of the of the point charges is not limited by their potential field speed. That leads to the missing sector of physics that has caused the crisis.

[@Griffin12536]

My question is how do we know there isn’t some symmetry theory (sans super) where photons are the symmetrical particle of electrons?

[@zetadroid]

In that case electrons and photons should have all quantum numbers equal except for spin, which is not the case (e.g. charge)