Theory of Everything (intro)

A brief intro to the current theory of (almost) everything - the Standard Model of particle physics. It's like cake, only universal.
minutephysics is now on Google+ - bit.ly/qzEwc6
And facebook - / minutephysics
And twitter - @minutephysics
Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!
Music by Nathaniel Schroeder
NEW ALBUM!! -- juliansaporiti....
youtube: bit.ly/pakJLE
Thanks to Nima Doroud and Alex Yale for contributions and to Perimeter Institute for support. Created by Henry Reich

[@YostPeter]

0:37 *Don't think I didn't see that!*

[@saeedbaig4249]

Illuminati confirmed

[@sagoot]

Also cat

[@firefish111]

Look on the left. e^iπ = -1. Euler's identity

[@redsusoverparadise2700]

Lol he forgot the +c

[@matisle119]

Schrödinger equation is wrong lol

[@mudkip9531]

poor man's version: "L = stuff"

[@IdaeChop]

Take the L, Water Frog

[@edeworabraham2761]

Lay man's version

[@Enderdragon0811]

I’m late

[@IdaeChop]

coming back, I do not understand what I was trying to say here it's genuinely baffling

[@leostahlheuer1064]

thats the theory... the answer of everything is 42!

[@moioyoyo848]

neh is 69

[@hyperfox0934]

42, which simultaneously can mean death, whatever you want it to be, and drugs. So basically, pretty accurate tbh

[@brandondavenport562]

666

[@lppunto]

At 0:37, you forgot +C on the integral of e^x (and the dx).

[@traso56]

was about to comment it

[@travellcriner6849]

Perhaps he is using the elongated S as a new operator. Namely: Sf is the antiderivative of f for which the +C is +0.

[@joelhaggis5054]

Or maybe just the derivative. Or maybe the Operator that doesn't change anything. Or maybe the operator that maps all functions to e^x. Or maybe, he made a mistake. We'll never know.

[@Nickesponja]

@@travellcriner6849 I know it's been a year but that operator doesn't exist. For example, the integral of sin(x)cos(x) can be done in 3 different ways, which yield 3 different functions +C. If you set the +C equal to 0 in those 3 results, you end up with 3 different functions. So the operator is not well defined. Check out this video on the matter: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHOTenl5otmjnqc

[@travellcriner6849]

@@Nickesponja I welcome your late reply. However, I believe you misunderstood me: I said "as a new operator," suggesting he invented it. It was partially a joke. It was also serious in the sense that math is all about invention. You say the operator doesn't exist. But that's only because no one invented it yet. Concerning the issue of sin(x)cos(x), your argument is contradictory. You argue the new operator is not well-defined and is thus less valuable than the standard +C operator. However, you verify your argument by pointing out the standard operator is not well-defined on sin(x)cos(x). Interestingly enough, the "antiderivative operator" actually returns a family of functions. It is thus not even an operator in the usual sense. So you're at least half correct in any case.

[@MarkTurnerChromium]

I believe that the equation is actually ℓ = 42

[@sinecosine7493]

Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy. LOL

[@IdaeChop]

Nah its π=ଘ²

[@Batman-vo9vx]

L = Jesus

[@imnimbusy2885]

ℓ = ඞ

[@falloutboygreenday7]

Thank you so much for making this! I have to give a huge presentation on the Standard Model and the Higgs Boson and these videos are going to be a big help in helping to explain it all to my audience!

[@PartystormDJ]

Hey Henry. I'd really, really love it if you could do videos on complex physics equations, such as the Schrodinger equation, and explain it simply :)

[@artbrox]

11 years later, this comment is at 12 likes.

[@Zakerius]

You're doing a great job, love the videos and love the doodles, really brings understanding science to the fore. Need more bright people able to understand science well enough to lay things out as clearly as you are.

[@Turtleman1234321]

It feels cool to be a 13 year old and already start to get the idea of this stuff

[@vickeyross]

minute physics is such a cool concept. to compile all the information that people spend years learning about into interesting short videos is genus and very much appeals to a visual learner like myself.

[@19billdong96]

0:36 Answer to life, the universe, and everything

[@rednidedni3875]

Standard Model is love, Standard Model is life.

[@TriniSpartanx868]

Thank you for all the work that you put into these short videos. learning has never been so fun. i wish more people would learn to appreciate the beauty in our universe rather than being afraid of burining in hell. life has so much more to offer when your mind is open.

[@8maidmarian8]

i am beginning to believe that i am in love with whoever makes these videos

[@AvZNaV]

Did anyone spot the 42?

[@isaacthefallenapple15]

L=42 Great!

[@MystyrNile]

The next Theory of Everything video is called "What is matter?".

[@luthfimuhammad3068]

Thanks sir

[@Mrdenverfan01]

Remember, the Standard Model of Particle Physics is the Theory of ALMOST Everything!

[@Odecious1]

You rock...People keep telling me to slow down...Keep it up man...I got this and it helps me explain stuff to the people around me that think "I" am a Nerd just because I can explain issues in a simple minute.

[@ExoVampire]

The equation from 0:06 is Lagrangian density! It contains all the dynamics of the QED (Quantum Electrodynamics). It describes the gauge bosons (force carriers), the fermions. Fermions interact with gauge fields. In QED, these would be electrons, and the gauge fields they interact with are photons. It also contains the Yukawa coupling between the fermions and a scalar field. This scalar is the elusive Higgs boson, and this term is responsible for giving the fermions masses. Last term is The Higgs

[@kurgaru]

Your wrong. The theory of everything is a level in geometry dash.

[@chaosonyoutube3551]

Theory Of Everything Form Geometry Dash Plays

[@izizwhatiziznt]

geometry dash is funnn

[@izizwhatiziznt]

I'm stuck on electrodynamic for some reason lol

[@kushal8406]

Never got bored while watching these videos

[@MissBamboo400]

(0:37) 42 is the answer to everything in the universe. Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy is my favorite book! Thanks for writing that, you just made my day! :)

[@Cosmalano]

That's not a theory of everything... the theory of everything needs to include gravity!

[@Cosmalano]

TheWalrusWasMe yep

[@tzakl5556]

electrocat1 loser commenting on his own comment lol

[@VexylObby]

LOGIC is the language of the cosmos, mathematics is simply our translation of it.

[@edmiliband7873]

Which in turn still makes mathematics the language of the cosmos

[@VexylObby]

Not something we discovered, but invented.

[@SarSaraneth]

Only in the same way that Spanish is the language of Russia.

[@oldkidsjonge]

Math is something discovered obviously. Just like a quantity of 1 which you add to another quantity of 1 is not something that man has invented. They're abstracted observations.

[@travellcriner6849]

The trouble here is math has multiple meanings. In the study of mathematics, all we do is discover. What we discover, we write in the LANGUAGE of mathematics. We invent the language. Nonetheless, the mathematics described by our language is what governs the cosmos.

[@bryceforsyth8521]

42

[@soulinthewall77]

This is mind-blowing. And to think, one of my 5th graders introduced me to this channel. Every day, after math, and science, he rushes over to show me a cool new "minute physics" video. On today's menu--higgs-boson. I just went ahead and snooped around at other videos. :) I fully welcome my kids' inquisitive enthusiasm (and, as a teacher, I'm not ashamed to say 'dude, this stuff is largely new to me!'). Great stuff!

[@IxiaClover]

Seriously Luminosity, watching minutephysics is a hard enough workout for our brain.

[@Javelin09]

Physicists are sorcerers, got it.

[@mudkip9531]

Gandalf CONFIRMED

[@SsJVasto]

lol @0:37! 42!

[@thatasiankid45]

Ayeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[@skele3310]

So long and thanks for all the fish!

[@junhao55]

42 is the number for life .

[@mcaeln7268]

Reminds me of Geometry Dash...

[@ilsgabo]

+Geometry Dash DarkBlocks Nope,this is easier e.e

[@ilsgabo]

TheCosmic Noodle e.e

[@Breathingdeeper]

By far the best channel on KZbin

[@chaosprite]

Keep it up kid, science is fucking amazing, and the future of our society is information based. How smart you are will make a huge difference in how your life will end up.

[@wizzzer1337]

so we have the theory of everything, how about the theory of nothing?

[@captainplanet999]

religion?

[@MonkeyBazinga1]

captainplanet999 Religion is Blasphamy

[@oscarheath5507]

'Theory of nothing' is one of those things that sounds meaningful but isn't. You might confuse it with a 'theory of the vacuum' - a theory describing the absence of 'stuff', but that actually comes under a theory of everything (I should clarify we *don't* have a complete theory of everything). The only other thing I could understand by a 'theory of nothing' is a theory that describes nothing, which would be, by definition, utterly useless. Sorry for the rant, have a nice day.

[@ViixEdits]

No mind. Your no mind is no different to mine, as opposed to your mind, which differs from mine. Where does your no mind stop and mine begin? Nowhere, we've all got the same silence inside of us. p.s. fuck religion.

[@captainplanet999]

ViixEdits wtf does that even mean?

[@benaneely]

Love the Hitchhiker's Guide reference. Also, thanks for all the great vids.

[@DarkwingScooter]

The whole point of the Planck length is that anything smaller than that has no meaningful length. It doesn't make sense to speak of lengths smaller than that. √2 = 1.41421... which is larger than one, but everything after the decimal is literally and by physical law spurious accuracy. The best you could say is that the that triangle will have an hypotenuse with a length of ~1.

[@SwordFighter151]

THey took the perimeter (circumference) of a circle, and divided it by the diameter of the circle, for a bunch of circles of different sizes, and consistently found the ratio to be a bit more than three. It was found with more precision as calculation techniques became more fine.

[@AsFewFalseThingsAsPossible]

I would not mind if you take longer ! These are great.

[@elijahgardi7501]

You should have the series of videos in the description

[@joanak9897]

i like how concise and simple this video is. :)

[@StephenRifai]

(0:37) the clever addition of 42 is awesome!

[@IanZainea1990]

A theory of everthing? DONE! (loved that part lol)

[@AnUntitledStory]

I love you for putting 42 in there.

[@thepigofhappiness]

i cannot get enough of these videos!!!!!

[@Edgerino]

You guys should talk about Noether's Theorem. It explains why symmetry is so important in physics

[@Svenskivsk]

I'm not sure if you know calculus or not, but here it goes. Basically, the langrangian give the shortest path between two points. It is based on the assumption that nature takes the path of least resistance. Mathematically: {Int[ f(Y'(x),Y(x),x)]dx | Y'(x)=y'(x)+en'(x), Y(x)=y(x)+en(x), n(x_0)=0 and n(x_1)=0} => (d/de)Int[f(Y'(x),Y(x),x)]dx=0 and the formula for the Lagrangian can be derived from this equation. If you want an analogue with calculus 1: the Lagrangian is akin to the optimization.

[@DarkwingScooter]

If you look at Kant's original description of a priorism (which is less well defined than you appear to think) you will find that axioms, are very much included in the definition. There is no third category in Kant, a concept is either a priori or a posteriori. The "Critique of Pure Reason" thing is that there are things which must be accepted on faith or intuition. The whole point of rationality is that there is NO NEW KNOWLEDGE gained analytically, this is essential to its nature.

[@TheResidentSkeptic]

We don't know that space is not infinitely divisible. There are proposals that it might be, such as the work of Fay Dowker, but it's far from certain. Zeno's paradox is not necessarily about the physics of the universe, but also a philosophical and mathematical argument. If you take a right triangle with each side the length of 1 Planck length, the hypotenuse must be √2 Planck lengths. For you to even postulate the existence of the Planck system, you must assume infinity.

[@SpoonerSpecter]

i must, MUST, show my physics teacher this next year.

[@TheResidentSkeptic]

Actually, when physicists talk about infinite spacetime curvature such as in a black hole, they don't mean that the force of gravity it's exerting is infinite, since there can be black holes of any mass, and their gravitational force is proportional to their mass. What they mean is that the spacetime loops back on itself the way a circle does. And so here we have a physical example of an infinite convergent series.

[@maeunderw]

Your background music reminds me of Blue's Clues, haha I love it!

[@DarkwingScooter]

Yes... because Kant included axioms in the definition of a priori. x=x is not in the same category as infinity because it can be finitely defined. The whole conclusion that not only Gödel, but also Russell, Turing, Church going all the back through Kant to Zeno comes to in so many different ways is that there is ultimately no way to resolve this issue is to throw your hands in the air and say: "I believe infinity exists because it lets me do math".

[@MrKorrazonCold]

The locational spherical inward absorption density and outward emission density electromagnetic waves forming antimatter matter annihilation, input+0/1-output electric charge and EM-fields or resonance and interference. All information recorded electrically via two equal pairs of opposite expression. Each cancels the other out in cyclic periodicities. Each then becomes what the other logarithmic and exponential equations were as time now unfolds time dilating moments of emission or acceleration!

[@DoctorFastest]

Get a textbook on quantum field theory, it'll be in there. :) That eqn is the standard model lagrangian, with terms for all the potentials of all the different quantum fields that there seem to be.

[@willlu3220]

Growing Wheat can also creating bread, crafting an oven (also known as a furnace) smelts ores and creates crucial metals, eggs can create more chickens, there isn't sugar in minecraft.

[@ExoVampire]

Well. It doesn't contain ALL since the hole equation of the Lagrangian density is huge. The equation highlights some of the most important ingredients of the Standard Model and particle physics. You can even get a t-shirt and a cup with it at the LHC.

[@AidanHaddonWright]

Lol hitchhikers guide to the galaxy joke in there. This video is now twice as awesome!

[@TheWimpytech]

Don't u think I didn't notice the 42 there,young zaphod

[@SweetSoulX]

..I have not seen this channel yet. I am subscribed...

[@ObalucawTheMan]

Wow ive learned so much from you imo this is the best educational channel ever! :).

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of time as a physical process! Based on just two postulates: 1. The quantum w-particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself with the future coming into existence photon by photon. 2. Quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w-function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!

[@Svenskivsk]

My apologies I thought you were asking what the lagrangian is. I'm not too familiar with the standard model because I haven't yet studied it, but yes that is the lagrangian of that system.

[@Halloweensmasher]

At 0:35 when he writes all the equations that describe the universe, he also puts in the number 42 by itself. Douglas Adams ftw!

[@fastestloader]

loving the add of 42 at the end. 0:37

[@DarkwingScooter]

I would be open to a discussion about whether infinities are a posteriori or not, it is certainly not a straightforward question. In fact I might argue that they were initially taken as such but can no longer be given the present state of knowledge. But this stretches the meaning of a posteriori to its limit. But axioms are always and everywhere a priori. So if you take infinity as axiomatic it must be a priori. I think you are mistaking "reasons" for "reason", they are not the same thing.

[@TheResidentSkeptic]

A black hole probably isn't infinitely compressed (dense). We don't know yet what's going on inside the black hole's singularity, but it's unlikely since, as you pointed out, infinities don't exist in nature. Instead what is infinite is the curvature of the spacetime around it. I'm not talking about wormholes, I'm talking about the path light takes when emitted from a singularity. It loops back on itself. Of course it's assumed! So is 1, and 9, and =

[@gmdille]

He explains in another video that he originally wanted to call the show "oneminutephysics" but decided to remove the "one" so that any multiple up to an order of magnitude (10 minutes) would still be technically correct

[@mariomario8888]

0:36 Anyone notice the 42? THis channel is so awesome.

[@TheResidentSkeptic]

Zeno's paradox says that for Homer to walk across the room (From 1 to 2) he must travel through an infinite amount of points (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.) therefore Homer never reaches the other side 2. Zeno is arguing that infinite the series does not converge on 2. (Which seems to be what you are arguing) It's a brilliant argument, but it was proven wrong with the invention of Calculus. It converges on 2 for the same reason that 0.999... = 1

[@TheResidentSkeptic]

There sure is because the mathematics from which we derive the equations of quantum theory which indicate the Planck scale, requires infinities. Also, the Planck length is simply the point at which quantum field theory breaks down, it doesn't necessarily indicate that space is particulate. In fact, string theory deals with exactly that; sub-Planck physics. Again, you need not invoke physics to prove Zeno wrong. It can be done with pure mathematics. But if you insist: Zeno's paradox ignores time

[@nigwar5140]

you are my favourite KZbinr . Like explaining the higgs field and I'm 12

[@DarkwingScooter]

It is not the mass of a black hole that matters, it is the fact that it is infinitely compressed. The force of gravity is not infinite at the singularity, but it IS greater than all the forces resisting compression. I'm not sure about the "space-time loops" you speak of except in the sense of worm-holes, but that is highly speculative stuff as far as I know. 0.999...=1 only if you have already acceded to the validity of (...), it doesn't prove the existence of infinity, it assumes it.

[@DarkwingScooter]

The point of the Planck scales is that it shows that space is NOT particulate at the smallest scales. That means that you cannot infinitely divide space, space just ceases to be measurable. It doesn't matter that you can do physics beyond that scale, it is irrelevant to our question. Again: If space were infinitely divisible Zeno's paradox would hold and you would need infinity to explain movement. The same applies to time, which also breaks down beyond Planck time.

[@Peelzhere812]

"if you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe" -Carl Sagan

[@DarkwingScooter]

I don't think Zeno was saying that Homer never reaches the other side of the room. You don't need calculus to prove that he does, simple observation will suffice. Aristotle "solved it" by postulating that neither time nor space is infinitely divisible, something we now know to be true. But if Aristotle's argument holds then there is no need to postulate an infinite mathematical series to solve it, and then the a posteriori justification for postulating infinity in the first place disappears.

[@DarkwingScooter]

Whatever it is you can count up to and (arguably) discretely remember. For most people that would probably be no more than a couple of thousand. I'm not claiming infinity does not exist, I am pointing out that you cannot prove it does and must therefore believe it does (even though you know it cannot in reality). Because if you don't neither F=ma nor E=mc^2 makes sense in the way required in physics. You can't do even basic arithmetic in a strictly rational way without infinity.

[@TheResidentSkeptic]

On Zeno's paradox: When I proposed the equation 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/4 ... = 2 it wasn't meant as an argument for infinity but rather simply to show that Zeno's paradox is wrong because Zeno proposes that 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/4 ... ≠ 2. The proof can be given as S[sub]n = [sum {n}]∑[sub {k=1}](a)[sub{k}]

[@localnebula]

That's the Lagrangian. Very cool concept (I think). It's a single equation that describes all the dynamics of a system. In classical mechanics (Newtonian physics), it's just the kinetic energy minus the potential energy; all of Newton's laws and all the equations of motion fall out of that. In the standard model of particle physics, it's that big old mess.

[@AuxAndCarl]

one of my favorite theories

[@ianwubby6271]

I'm just like, "Why am I watching this if I don't know what it means?" while I'm clicking the link to the next video.

[@ItsJustApollo]

Happy anniversary!

[@DarkwingScooter]

I don't think we know anything like enough about Zeno to say whether he actually believed that Homer doesn't reach the other side. We only know of him through the seven paradoxes, and Parmenides only through about 160 lines of poetry. What we do know is that mystery religions like these were common at the time and influenced both the development of math and science (Pythagoras was a big cultist) and Christianity, which is basically Judaism with Greek mystery religion added.

[@ScottDy]

If YOU understood infinity, you would realize it is a real number in the sense that you can replace it with a very large number. 1/∞ is infinitely small, however it still has a value. 1/3 = .333 is just an estimation. If you have ever taken calculus, you would know having 1/∞ is 0. this isnt because you cant ever "find" infinity, its because it is an estimated value, just as .9999 is an estimated value, the more decimal places you have, the more it "approaches" 1, the more accurate it is.

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Energy is motion! Matter is opposed motion simulating rest and balance now through violent motion! The locational spherical inward absorption and outward emission of electromagnetic waves is forming antimatter matter annihilation, + and - electric charge, EM-fields, curvature of spacetime (flow of time) input+0/1-output, subconscious and conscious, and all the forces of nature. The greater the oscillating energy or mass the greater the rate of absorption and emission and the slower time flows.

[@TheResidentSkeptic]

The ratio between a circle's circumference and it's diameter is an irrational number. The length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle with each side equaling a length of 1, is an irrational number. The value of the derivative f(x)=e^x is an irrational number. The reason Zeno's paradox fails need not invoke Planck lengths. It can be shown to be wrong with pure mathematics. Zeno's paradox does not take into account infinite convergent series. 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ... = 2

[@TheResidentSkeptic]

Time and speed are very important in Zeno's paradoxes because motion is not a series of jumping from point to point as Zeno assumes, particularly in his fetcher's paradox. Motion is fluid and at any given point in time a moving body has no static position. Remember that Homer is not traveling an infinite distance, he is traveling a finite distance which Zeno cuts up infinitely. Zeno's math was simply wrong.

[@Krikler7Productions]

Been looking for this equation all over the internet, I CANNOT FIND IT!!!

[@MrKorrazonCold]

It is the locational spherical inward absorption density of time and outward emission density of electromagnetic wave's thats forming everything now!!!

[@DarkwingScooter]

I'm not sure what you mean, but if I understand you correctly then no. Infinity is not a large amount of space or a long time or anything like that. It doesn't matter how many numbers you have already counted, there is still infinitely more numbers to count, so it not necessary to have a reference point. If you want your mind blown, consider this: There are more irrational numbers between e (2.718...) and Pi (3.141...) than there are integers. Even though there are infinitely many integers.

[@Twaugh136]

Hey Minute Physics, I love your videos and I was just wondering how you know so much about physics. Is it just an interest of yours (By the way I love physics too I actually almost failed my physics class because I wouldn't do my homework because I was so fascinated in the bigger and more challenging stuff), or are you a science or physics teacher somewhere. Just was wondering and keep up the good work. :)

[@urbanabyss6022]

There's a song called theory of everything by this guy called DJ Nate. You should play that in an episode

[@duc3R]

1:07 - i love your 'bam'

[@JonesBFMV1]

Love the 42 going on there!

[@BerZoDsan]

1) What are your credentials? do you have a degree in a field of science? 2)if you have such a new theory, why not get it peer reviewed and potentially win the nobel prize? 3)would you be kind enough to put up a video about these "new" mathematics and physics of yours?

[@Marcioscp]

PORTUGUESE LEGEND!!!!! Thanks so much Minute Physics.

[@MrKorrazonCold]

"Everything is formed by: A locational spherical inward absorption density and now outward emission density of Electromagnetic Wavefront's forming resonance antimatter+/-matter interference, forming + and -electric charge and electromagnetic fields. Spherical logarithm's forming and breaking exponential spirals "Fibonacci." We feel and see this process as the forward passage of time. The interchange between these two unbalanced opposites is the basis of all motion within this rhythmic Universe.

[@Avarwvs]

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe" -Carl Sagan Recipe Calls for: 1 standard model several apples flour water sugar cinnamon eggs butter milk a large heaping of dark matter ...and some dark energy to help it expand a bit. Cook time: Several Billion years.

[@karthikbalaji3739]

The higgs boson was already confirmed as the probability of finding it was already calculated? So the physicists were sure that they would discover(confirm) it.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

This is an invitation to see an artist Theory on the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. In this theory the physics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light (wave particle duality) is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual! Quantum uncertainty ∆×∆p×≥h/4π is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame.