A Crash Course In Particle Physics (1 of 2)

Professor Brian Cox of the University of Manchester presents an educational walk, through the fundamentals of Particle Physics.
Disclaimer: The copyright owner provides this content for educational purposes.

[@astrogirl1usa]

What a great video! My 15 year old will love this! Thanks to professor Cox for making particle physics so interesting and easy for the lay person.

[@urnormalnutshellanimator6606]

you still here?

[@YaBoiKeith]

I was looking for Hank Green, but I got Brian Cox. I'm not in the least disappointed.

[@randomunavailable]

One thing about Cox, he's a scientist and a poet, so he really understands how to drive the point home to those who don't quite grasp the mathematics.

[@ronromeo9914]

Thank you Brian, for showing enthusiasm in these wonderful discoveries!

[@Therolando]

Why do people keep making religion and science polar opposites? It just so happens that I'm a nuclear engineer and a christian. Just because I'm a scientist doesn't mean I believe in this extremely hypothetical big-bang theory, and just because I believe in God doesn't mean I don't believe in the standard model and scientific reasoning. Stopping making a war out of them.

[@TomInterval]

Because religion and science _are_ polar opposites. The former is based on belief, the latter on evidence.

[@navneetrout8193]

Science isn't a belief!🥴

[@blogtwot]

Imagine having Geiger as one of your students. You could always count on him.

[@baruchben-david4196]

He always offers a ray of sunshine...

[@johnm2558]

Your coat, sir.

[@pintificate]

I'll pay that one.

[@allosaurusfragilis7782]

blogtwot your lessons would always click with him.....

[@sakadabara]

There were two scientists who simultaneously developed such counters - Geiger und Müller

[@onegathers]

brian cox is one of the best popularisers of physics we have. he's great. and a fellow mancunian, too.

[@ernerwerkhardt9789]

Brian Cox is the ultimate popularizer of empirical reductionism. To him, everything can be reduced to some kind of material property. Still explaining the physical nature of reality to 8-year-olds.

[@pubuduweerakoon7174]

Instructional strategies are cognitive and appreciable. Thanks.

[@ogdocvato]

Dr. Brian Cox is as gifted a teacher as Michio Kaku, Neil D. Tyson and the late Carl Sagan.

[@thrunsalmighty]

I think that JJThompson did not discover the mass of the electron. But he did find the ratio of mass to charge. It took some later experiments with electrons on oil drops to separate the two. This was by a bloke called Millikan in the USA?

[@ocerg1111]

Brian Cox is the Davey Jones (of the Monkees) of physics. I love his passion and exuberance for curiosity. He reminds me an awful lot of Carl Sagan in that his love of science bubbles forth and makes you love it too.

[@uttaradit2]

and now I'm a believer

[@buzzerlogicman1380]

Hm particle accelerators give me a hadron.

[@pellepop100]

he he he!

[@ArrowsOfAthena]

Your clever wit pulls me to you like a Hydrogen atom to the nearest Carbon. ~

[@nwgaming7305]

+Katherine C. funny I have the t shirt that its from:3 www.amazon.com/Particle-Physics-Gives-Hadron-Accelerator/dp/B00LW3YCR6

[@Lumix_Corrupt]

I like to imagine this guy is just dyslexic and this is the most fitting spelling mistake of all time

[@oregondude9411]

Sure is a Large Hadron too! I wish we could collide our particles.

[@uscovenant2350]

That ending really clicked well with me. Forces and I think he said "forces stack" which makes me believe that's why gravity becomes stronger the more mass any object has. I mean we know that there's a direct correlation between mass and gravity. The earth's gravity is strong enough to keep the moon in orbit. While the Sun, being the mass of like 98% of the whole solar system, keeps all the planets in orbit AND all the far off dwarf planets that orbit the Sun. More like Asteroids and exo moons. And lastly- the black hole at the galactic center keeping the incredibly huge galaxy spinning. I think, gravity stacks from the smallest to the largest.

[@kevinhay7421]

The fabric of space does not provide the reactions associated with vacuum mechanics. It is, in fact, a compression derivative. Non-diatomically coupled hydrogen, to be precise. Atomically separated matter deserves a place in these discussions, however, it needs to be done outside of classified institutions and agencies. The electron is not a particle. It is a light wave response to opposing electromagnetic fields colliding. The photon, ion and graviton are all based on differing views of this reaction.

[@renupathak4442]

Just love Brian cox, articulate intelligent distinct and a hero for me. I am in India

[@zuhairbakdoud1360]

I have passed the Advanced Level physics examination in England in 1958. That is ALL the physics l know. Therefore, the way you explain the physics here is billions of miles above my poor head. Question: ls there a way to make someone (at my level in physics) understand the material you are presenting here? Meaning: Can you use my level and build on that so l could understand? I hope l have not not been inappropriate In humbly requesting this?

[@gtamediaproductions1]

He is the Carl Sagan of our time.

[@bipolatelly9806]

Yes. Both junk science guys.

[@jasonspades5628]

@@bipolatelly9806 what do you mean?

[@sargentstephens45]

I've got absolutely no understanding of any of this whatsoever, but still mind blowingly fascinating nonetheless.

[@kennethchow213]

In Kenneth W.Ford's "101 Quantum Questions" 2011 edition,p.186, he said"...what myriad other experiments confirm---is that a particle acts as a particle when it is created and annihilated (emitted and absorbed) and acts as a wave in between.......we just have to give up the idea that a photon is a particle at any moment other than the moments of its birth and death." For a Muon, the period of birth and death is 2.2 x 10^ -6 second. For Pion, this is 2.6 x 10^-8( + & -) and 8 x 10^ -17 (0), similarly short for Lambda, Sigma, Omega, Eta and Kaon particles (Table A.1 and A.4 of Ford's book) So, are these particles or waves,and should we call it waves physics instead of particle physics?

[@TjamVideoMan]

When I said I felt billions of tiny particles constantly bombarding and passing through my brain and body I was committed...

[@TheMachian]

The experiment at 3:00 cannot determine the electron's mass, because the deflection just depends on the ratio of the accelerating to the deflecting voltage, electron charge and mass cancels out. You need a magnetic field to measure the electron mass.

[@STEFJANY]

Einstein intelligence sends chills on my spine...how a human mind can come up with this counter intuitive ideas of curved space-time fabric...waw.

[@handsfree1000]

Einstein was married to a brilliant scientist. Her contribution has been almost totally ignored.

[@baruchben-david4196]

@Roger Baker No, he was not. Einstein was a fully-qualified teacher of physics. He couldn't find a job teaching because he acted like a jerk in school, and couldn't get a favorable reference from any of his teachers. If you take the trouble to read a biography, you might learn something. If it pleases you to believe bullshit, then you probably won't learn anything.

[@baruchben-david4196]

Yes, Einstein's genius was remarkable. He wrote five papers in 1905, any of which would have made him a respected physicist. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for one of those papers. Einstein had a knack for following non-intuitive paths.

[@mr.evasion]

The work of Einstein and co. has been born out in modern technology , like Tinterweb, for all to see. But that doesn't mean we understand Spacetime Or Life on Earth

[@mr.evasion]

@Roger Baker 😁😂😃😀😄😅😆😁never mind copy cat Einstein Do you really believe the moon landing was fake LMFAO

[@STEFJANY]

Paul Dirac: Dirac established the most general theory of quantum mechanics and discovered the relativistic equation for the electron, which now bears his name. The remarkable notion of an antiparticle to each particle - i.e. the positron as antiparticle to the electron - stems from his equation. He was the first to develop quantum field theory, which underlies all theoretical work on sub-atomic or "elementary" particles today, work that is fundamental to our understanding of the forces of nature. He proposed and investigated the concept of a magnetic monopole, an object not yet known empirically, as a means of bringing even greater symmetry to James Clerk Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.

[@leonmaliniak]

I have never understood the logic of concluding that by breaking up certain definitive coherent sub-atomic particles like electrons or protons and seeing them splitting up into smaller parts in a particle accelerator ...this automatically means that these smaller particles are DIFFERENT types of sub-atomic particles. Should we not just consider that these are mere smaller fragments of the SAME particle ? If you split up a BRICK and it breaks into thousands of pieces, those little pieces are pieces of the same brick material...are they NOT ? I am hoping that someone here will respond by telling me that when these particles are broken up in an accelerator that we eventually see the exact same type of smaller particles and that therefore this suggests that these are their own, separate, " defined " and different sub-atomic particles. If not...then my question remains and the significance of this would be that perhaps the constitution of matter is far simpler than what we think

[@alvindimes4729]

Fantastic this man is a born educator, I wish I had access to this when I was at school.

[@harpfully]

Warning: Viewers coming here to learn should be warned to ignore comments. All but one or two of the last ten are from crackpots.

[@rexjames0015]

I would think you are the one to ignore

[@sharulyahya7702]

Simply lovely "A Crash Course In Particle Physics" on youtube by Prof Brian Cox. Thank you - Neo 1978

[@Levon9404]

Well done! I think Brian Cox he is good politician, he explain things with out of adding his own opinion.

[@onegathers]

i've read the former book he wrote (with jeff forshaw) and one of it's great strengths is that it does not shy away from equations and explaining the meaning and joy behind them, such as the standard model. dumbing down is so condescending, and, well, dumb....

[@highpointsights]

years ago, (i can comfortably say that as I turned 75 this year in February) I read that if you could expand model of a hydrogen atom till the nucleus was the size of a basket ball, the lone orbiting electron would be the size of a pea and that it would have an orbital radius of 20+ miles.. Then the author of the statement went on to say that there is (at that time) was nothing that explains why the electron continues to orbit?? Does that hold any water. Did it ever!! It sure helped me to see why hydrogen is soooooo light!!

[@granskare]

I know nothing here but Dr Cox always interests me :)

[@Raych666]

🍆

[@MrKorrazonCold]

Vector Radius Mass/Field Velocity acting upon accelerated mass from a distance radius, forming spherical ring series wave-front's compressing+/-decompressing eXpanding sphere's dissipating gravity dividing time, at the same ratio, information is being multiplied generating volume within mass, at the expense of gravitational potential. There are only two combinations of these two wave-front's they have opposite vectors and spin forms the positron (input) and the electron (output) Physics is easy!

[@spideywhiplash]

Professor Dreamboat.😍 I could watch and listen to him forever!

[@grumpykitty3464]

Why are there 3 quarks in a proton or neutron? Why not 2 or 4? Is there an upper limit to the size of an atom, before gravity starts combining protons and neutrons? I've heard in here that quarks don't make up all the mass of a neutron/proton, if so what does?

[@KT189]

The difference is the energy in the strong nuclear force. Mass is another form of energy e=mc2. See the book Mass and the associated video on YT.

[@grumpykitty3464]

Robert Clare what happens when we reverse E=mc2 in a cell? Where does all this energy and information go?

[@islandbuoy4]

@ 10:13 Murray Gell-mann blurts out the most important thing so many folks ignore on their way to some kind of lalala land snowflake symmetry hexagonal star of david bliss ... "broken symmety" Broken symmetry is clearly the KEY, thanks Murray, and thanks for your theory called the 8-Fold way, it shows a beautiful convergenence with eastern thoth thoughts!

[@808tui]

......FOR REAL THIS ARE PROFESSOR ?????????

[@NoCrispin]

Dr. Cox, your name ROCKS!

[@clarencewright9841]

the electron is traveling around the proton at the speed of light so it appears everywhere at all times, so it is as Rutherford said, it is like our planetary system

[@ExiledGypsy]

Donna Blakeney has included this two part video in a 60 part playlist called "Crash Course Physics. Unfortunately and although the playlist probably has all the useful components of a crash course in physics, it doesn't seem as if it has been compiled in any particular order which is a shame. I am looking for a decently interesting (not some university course) playlist I can refer to my daughter to encourage her interest in physics. I think that she is kind of losing interest because she can't get a sense of continuity in all the information that seems to be bombarding her in the class, media and on the web. So, if any one knows of a one or a set of playlists that help, please let me know.

[@JLukeHypernova]

+Babak Kamali i'll look for one for you.

[@ennmatien9941]

Babak Kamali ha, simple, search for the "symphony of science" mix

[@clarencewright9841]

Thanks for pointing out the speed of electron, i will do more research, thats why we need each other to learn more

[@davidwilkie9551]

Good teaching of the method of experimentation that is basic to the science of measurement. (Favorite physics stories, plus the Faraday RI demonstrations and all)

[@marezidxiv]

Hi there: The point: inside star cores the protons fuse H to He, DESPITE their mutual homo electrostatic repulsion: time, density and pressure force them to. How come in the same places the protons DO NOT fuse with electrons because of their hetero electrostatic attraction: all the right conditions are proven by the proton-proton fusion chain. Ultimately at the Chandrasekhar boundary the electrons fuse with protons: Pauli principle cannot prevent that, on those conditions. But why doesn't this happens in main sequence star cores ? What is the barrier that prevents proton & electron fusion before the Chandrasekhar mass/gravity boundary ? Could it be that the Coulomb law is somehow invalid for proton to electron interaction, at densities present into mid sequence star cores ? Despite the fact that proton to proton interaction exists ? I imagine one proton precisely standing between to diametral opposed electrons: could it be that electron to electron exclusion force is higher at range X then the electron to proton attraction at range X/2 ? Could it be that the "exclusion repulsion" between the electrons is higher than the electrostatic attraction between the electrons and the proton ? We all know that plasma is electrically neutral, as proton population matches electron population. The Coulomb law is requisite for survival of the atoms as we understand them. It proofs that minimal range of its validity is on the order of magnitude of the atomic nucleus ( nuclear fission ). So what is wrong about the proton to electron attraction at ranges smaller then the radius of the H atom ?

[@adrianflores8432]

What did Rutherford think alpha particles were? Obviously he didn't know they were two protons and two neutrons. I guess he knew they were positively charged, but I don't understand how he deduced from firing them at a thin gold sheet that the positive charge of the atom had to be in the nucleus and that it was so much smaller the atom itself. Wouldn't an atom as proposed by Thompson produce similar results?, i.e., the bouncing back of some of the alpha particles?

[@hojoinhisarcher]

What is the force that propels scientists to believe that there will be a fundamental understanding to anything in the future?

[@libraryquiet]

+John Feesey+ The name of that force is "Tenacious Curiosity."

[@io4439]

can anyone make out what JJ Thomson says? Edit: I have found a transcript of this video The electron owes its practical utility to its smallness. It might parody Shakespeare to say my use is great because I am so small.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

It blows the mind to think the discovery of the electron is so new that we can watch original film strips on our smartphones. How quickly will we have practical applications of Higgs and CERN discoveries...

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

Doesn't it depend on what is discovered? Wouldn't it have been hard to predict television during the plum pudding era? We definitely will use gravity waves to peer inside where photons can't travel now that we have discovered them, although that's not a CERN thing.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

@Dirk Knight Bro I think you're reading too much into my original comment. Besides I don't think the way technology is marketed into practical applications has any bearing - the television would've been invented regardless, but not before the cathode ray tube was well understood. It's that progression that I was wondering out loud. The example I used of Ligo not only confirming Einstein but quantitatively measuring gravity waves, will lead to new ways of "looking" inside the sun and other stars. Anywhere photons are blocked, gravity interferometry will be useful. We're planning to put a larger interferometer into orbit which will open the doors to really good observations. Gravity waves should help immensely in understanding dark matter, and dark energy, since light doesn't interact with it gravity is the only game in town --how much do you think anti-gravity technology would be worth? However again my point isn't about making money but improving our lives (like television lol).

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

@Dirk Knight Did I say I know all about it? I kinda said the opposite by wondering out loud how today's discoveries will affect us in 40 or 50 years time +. However I'm pretty sure gravity waves and gravitational waves are the exact same thing. If pressed I think you'll agree that's a pedantic objection to the overall conversation. You don't know shielding from gravity or antigravity violates anything in nature. Since we don't understand how dark energy works, which is a repulsive force mediator. For eg. But thanks for peppering my original point with opportunities for follow-up points!

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

@Dirk Knight Wow, you really think a lot of yourself. I thought you had recognized what a pedantic statement that was and I wouldn't need to press the issue... You're full of shit there is no difference between "gravity waves" and "gravitational waves" - and you're the one who is making the claim so why don't YOU look up 2 distinct definitions and post them here. You can't because you're wrong. And you are now refusing to follow the line of thinking here also. You insist on being the guy who says "heavier than air flight is impossible for obvious reasons." Usually that is true, except for when it's not: after the *invention* of the international combustion engine and the aerodynamic wing. You call yourself a science geek but you can't even envision localizing dark energy which permeates spacetime, the stuff which is accelerating the universe faster than light. All we "simply" need is a lens that can focus dark energy and you'd have the rudiments of antigrav. The POINT is that we don't yet know how future tech will work. I don't understand why you're going all in that there won't be any.

[@glutinousmaximus]

2:20 - the device is known as a Crooke's tube. Sort of a forerunner of the cathode ray tube.

[@clarencewright9841]

our planetary system, the stars are formed by the same force that form the atoms or sub atomic particle, it is just space time moving mass around

[@margaretgrogan2467]

I fine this so amazing in what you are telling the world!...the alarm bells are now going off!!! Thank you

[@onegathers]

sir roger penrose's books like 'the emperor's new mind', 'shadows of the mind', and 'the laws of the universe' are pretty maths-heavy, but they are fascinating and make complex mathematical graspable........kind of!

[@georgethomas4889]

As much as I like this guy I was expecting a crash course in particle physics and not the history of particle physics.

[@-Zevin-]

learning the history puts things in context, at least for me. I used to be a person that said, I love science, but I'm bad at Math, Then i started learning the history of math, It made it easy to understand and retain. I learned more math in 1 month then i did in 12+years of public education. That's just my take on it anyway, everyone learns different too. -Peace.

[@Slarti]

Zevin X Very well put, we learn in different ways and school tends to be aimed at learning in one particular way.

[@jamesduke1330]

If you didnt know the history .... youd think you had figuered somthing ....

[@neilmiller2474]

Great man Brian Cox...great tutor.

[@kathleenprice9694]

i remember the failure i had burnt eyes that lasted for hours i think that the best thing that happened was that it failed that way..not another

[@beatup4236]

Probably the best video on particle physics that I had seen........Gave me the missing links in the chain XD

[@TC-tm3nq]

Everything from the atom up is a mini me of the Universe.

[@abukiran]

im 13 and i LOVE this type of stuff

[@stardust.23]

now u r 20! What's your majors now?

[@phillippardo5712]

@@stardust.23 I'm interested to see how this turned out as well. I hope great!

[@racastilho]

How did Rutherford know that the alpha aprticles were not bouncing back because they hit the atoms themselves (and that atoms were indeed solid spheres)? And that particles that went through maybe pierced the atoms, or went around them? His interpretation is so amazingly significant for such a simple experiment, it almost seems a bit far fetched. Today we know it isn't far fetched, but how did they know then?

[@optionqb]

I assume by "inner structure" we're merely talking about the order/regularity of experience. Finite beings need inner structure because that's what makes the universe predictable. That predictability is necessary for the survival of al things. Arguably it also has an aesthetic value too. Secondly, the classic, western view of a supreme being posits God as existing "outside" of time or as existing in an eternal present. That would be merely one reason why boredom would not apply.

[@wizardoflawz]

assuming the Higgs has been found, it still doesnt appear to explain gravity. the fact that a Higgs field gives objects mass doesnt explain why two objects in that field would therefore be drawn towards each other. Rather, the opposite is true.

[@cellofingers]

Worse than someone who is ignorant is someone who holds some knowledge in his grasp while at the same time spits out verbal barbs at others who either want to know or just curious to know thereby preventing their elucidation while at the same moment wasting what knowledge he (or she) has on their pitiful egos.

[@stevetrimingham6711]

Really good documentary.

[@cheb-2023]

On the site: vk.com/id215823556, you can read nexts articles: 1. "The Universe from the Birthday and till present time" - was published on October, 25, 2015; 2. " About the photon which has the distinguishable from zero rested mass " - was published on January, 10, 2016; 3. "Universe after Big Rip" - was published on August, 15, 2016.

[@wizardoflawz]

for the Higgs to make sense, the Higgs particles would have be sucked into massive objects. But this would imply that things are acquiring mass just by their mere existence, all of the time, as gravity sucked Higgs particles into them.

[@MEHAZ]

Introduction O man! You should be aware that there are certain phrases which are commonly used and imply unbelief. The believers also use them, but without realizing their implications. We shall explain three of the most important of them. The First: "Causes create this." The Second: "It forms itself; it comes into existence and later ceases to exist." The Third: "It is natural; Nature necessitates and creates it." Indeed, since beings exist and this cannot be denied, and since each being comes into existence in a wise and artistic fashion, and since each is not outside time but is being continuously renewed, then, O falsifier of the truth, you are bound to say either that the causes in the world create beings, for example, this animal; that is to say, it comes into existence through the coming together of causes, or that it forms itself, or that its coming into existence is a requirement and necessary effect of Nature, or that it is created through the power of One All-Powerful and All-Glorious. Since reason can find no way apart from these four, if the first three are definitely proved to be impossible, invalid and absurd, the way of Divine Unity, which is the fourth way, will necessarily and self-evidently and without doubt or suspicion, be proved true. THE FIRST WAY This to imagine that the formation and existence of things, creatures, occurs through the coming together of the causes in the universe. We shall mention only three of its numerous impossibilities. First Impossibility Imagine there is a pharmacy in which there are hundreds of jars and phials filled with quite different substances. A living potion and a living remedy are required from those medicaments. So we go to the pharmacy and see that they are to be found there in abundance, yet in great variety. We examine each of the potions and see that the ingredients have been taken in varying but precise amounts from each of the jars and phials, one ounce from this, three from that, seven from the next, and so on. If one ounce too much or too little had been taken, the potion would not have been living and would not have displayed its special quality. Next, we study the living remedy. Again, the ingredients have been taken from the jars in a particular measure so that if even the most minute amount too much or too little had been taken, the remedy would have lost its special property. Now, although the jars number more than fifty, the ingredients have been taken from each according to measures and amounts that are all different. Is it in any way possible or probable that the phials and jars should have been knocked over by a strange coincidence or sudden gust of wind and that only the precise, though different, amounts that had been taken from each of them should have been spilt, and then arranged themselves and come together to form the remedy? Is there anything more superstitious, impossible and absurd than this? If an ass could speak, it would say: "I cannot accept this idea!", and would gallop off! Similarly, each living being may be likened to the living potion in the comparison, and each plant to a living remedy. For they are composed of matter that has been taken in most precise measure from truly numerous and truly various substances. If these are attributed to causes and the elements and it is claimed, "Causes created these," it is unreasonable, impossible and absurd a hundred times over, just as it was to claim that the potion in the pharmacy came into existence through the phials being knocked over; by accident. In Short: The vital substances in this vast pharmacy of the universe, which are measured on the scales of Divine Determining and Decree of the All-Wise and Pre-Eternal One, can only come into existence through a boundless wisdom, infinite knowledge and all-encompassing will. The unfortunate person who declares that they are the work of blind, deaf and innumerable elements and causes and natures, which stream like floods; and the foolish, delirious person who claims that that wondrous remedy poured itself out when the phials were knocked over and formed itself, are certainly unreasonable and nonsensical. Indeed, such denial and unbelief is a senseless absurdity. THE SECOND WAY This is expressed by the phrase "It forms itself." It too involves many impossibilities and is absurd and impossible in many aspects. We shall explain three examples of these impossibilities. First Impossibility O you obstinate denier! Your egotism has made you so stupid that somehow you decide to accept a hundred impossibilities all at once. For you yourself are a being and not some simple substance that is inanimate and unchanging. You are like an extremely well-ordered machine that is constantly being renewed and a wonderful palace that is undergoing continuous change. Particles are working unceasingly in your body. Your body has a connection and mutual relations with the universe, in particular with regard to sustenance and the perpetuation of the species, and the particles that work within it are careful not to spoil that relationship nor to break the connection. In this cautious manner they set about their work, as though taking the whole universe into account. Seeing your relationships within it, they take up their positions accordingly. And you benefit with your external and inner senses in accordance with the wonderful positions that they take. If you do not accept that the particles in your body are tiny officials in motion in accordance with the law of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, or that they are an army, or the nibs of the pen of Divine Determining, with each particle as the nib of a pen, or that they are points inscribed by the pen of Power with each particle being a point, then in every particle working in your eye there would have to be an eye such as could see every limb and part of your body as well as the entire universe, with which you are connected. In addition to this, you would have to ascribe to each particle an intelligence equivalent to that of a hundred geniuses, sufficient to know and recognize all your past and your future, and your forbears and descendants, the origins of all the elements of your being, and the sources of all your sustenance. To attribute the knowledge and consciousness of a thousand Plato's to a single particle of one such as you who does not possess even a particle's worth of intelligence in matters of this kind is a crazy superstition a thousand times over! THE THIRD WAY "Nature necessitates it; Nature makes it." This statement contains many impossibilities. We shall mention three of them by way of examples. First Impossibility If the art and creativity, which are discerning and wise, to be seen in beings and particularly in animate beings are not attributed to the pen of Divine Determining and Power of the Pre-Eternal Sun, and instead are attributed to Nature and force, which are blind, deaf and unthinking, it becomes necessary that Nature either should have present in everything machines and printing-presses for their creation, or should include in everything power and wisdom enough to create and administer the universe. The reason for this is as follows: The sun's manifestations and reflections appear in all small fragments of glass and droplets on the face of the earth. If those miniature, reflected imaginary suns are not ascribed to the sun in the sky, it is necessary to accept the external existence of an actual sun in every tiny fragment of glass smaller than a match-head, which possesses the sun's qualities and which, though small in size, bears profound meaning; and therefore to accept actual suns to the number of pieces of glass. In exactly the same way, if beings and animate creatures are not attributed directly to the manifestation of the Pre-Eternal Sun's Names, it becomes neciessary to accept that in each being, and especially animate beings, there lies a nature, a force, or quite simply a god that will sustain an infinite power and will, and knowledge and wisdom. Such an idea is the most absurd and superstitious of all the impossibilities in the universe. It demonstrates that a man who attributes the art of the Creator of the universe to imaginary, insignificant, unconscious Nature is without a doubt less conscious of the truth than an animal. Risale-i Nur Collection 174 - Bediüzzaman Said

[@perennialbeachcomber.7518]

#33 A Crash Course In Particle Physics: SPIRAL GALAXY @ 9:40 - 13:00.

[@whitenightnight5245]

If Order is Elegance. Chaos Must be Freedom! There's Nothing Perfect! Was It Worth It ?

[@ankeunruh7364]

Elegance is simply some point of view of some outcome... but, yes: only chaos (better: uncertainty) can be the foundation of freedom... it's a value by itself, no need to construCKt dependencies!

[@astroash2697]

What was the first clear evidence of glutons and quarks your referring? What did this guy come up with exactly?

[@MelliaBoomBot]

Cannot find a reference for this on the Web. NO YEAR?? its sort of old now...

[@connorstone6671]

with Robbie no one wakes you up we can now to find more particles like particles smaller than a quark that would be undetectable by their size but by their masks we could detect them that'd be very slow moving particles because the slower the particle moves The more mass it has

[@cottersay]

I must be getting old: This Brian Cox kid looks like a senior in high school, not someone with a friggin' doctorate in physics!!

[@amyneeley4157]

cottersay lmao.

[@VidMashUp]

You don't like Brian Cox? Usually this comes from someone who is a) a physicist, and b) jealous. I think pretty much everyone else has tremendous respect for him.

[@charleslong5373]

A man in Alaska noticed that a cyclotron was going on the chopping block. He applied for and received three separate permits to operate this cyclotron in his basement. It turns out that it is extremely difficult to ship radioisotopes to Alaska.so this man had the idea of generating the medically needed isotopes right there in Alaska. The machine was shipped to Alaska and the man set it up and got it running. He, however, made a tragic mistake. He fell victim to pride. He was so proud of his machine that he invited his son’s high school science class to come and see the machine in operation. The kids didn’t understand what it was exactly,. All they knew was that it was a nuclear machine. Just the saying of that word strikes fear in the hearts of anybody who doesn’t know what it means. One of the kids who viewed the machine had a lawyer as a father, and that lawyer decided he could make his career by prosecuting this poor man in the court of public opinion. The lawyer won, the permits were rescinded, and a dream died.

[@michaelbastin9851]

Brian, if you're detecting traces of radioactivity in the desk draw, should you have your nuts near it?

[@gretawilliams8799]

I need an answer... Can we unite everything in terms of subatomic particles??

[@MrWizardjr9]

lol how i like to learn is to speculate about something then have a debate with someone knowledgeable and the will often point me in the right direction

[@kryrins]

the word "lol" existed 7 yrs ago!!! LOOOOL

[@mickkennedy1344]

9:10 --- Brian has just got off his Manx Norton but forgotten to take his helmet off --- notice how he pronounces 'quarks' correctly ( quark rhymes with Mark -- James Joyce)

[@kokfahchong9547]

I discovered photons are saturated within electrons, protons and neutrons. This is an important step to understand what is chemical energy! As a matter of fact, chemical energy is energy that tapping from the nucleus. It is wrong to believe chemical energy is energy derived from electrons that are sharing between reacting atoms. Exothermic reaction would cause dynamic photons to dissipate out from the nucleus of reacting atoms. Most energy that we are dealing with is energy of photons. How we know this is true? Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2 is wrong otherwise garbage also can be used to make nuclear bombs as long as it is matter or it has mass. Energy and matter can't interchange one another according to Einstein's famous equation. One must have photons before one can emit out photons. Photons are particles and they have mass. All forms of EMWs including light and heat are dynamic photons per volume per time in different saturation. The finding that photons have mass can trigger the collapse of the entire quantum physics. If you are interested in real discoveries, I would recommend you to read my book, The Unification Theory - Volume One and you will be amazed with lots of new, interesting discoveries. In God I trust.

[@Simonjose7258]

6:04 but why were they "expecting" anything in particular? Why would they think that it was mostly empty space? That's not intuitive!?

[@lisaharris2487]

I wonder how many people questioning how he got a doctorate...actually have one themselves? lol...or for that that matter any degree? Dr. Cox is one of the most eye opening physicist of this generation. check out his material on what 'time' is! The point of the internet should be dissemination of information. Take that info as you will, do what you will with it. Name bashing, and gossipping about someone who is at least trying to figure out this universe, IS THE EPITOME OF STUPID!

[@tomsaxton9534]

all matter in the beginning was potentials and what we end up with is us how sad.What a waste of potential.

[@Eli7PM]

What are the fundamental building blocks of these particle? Because theoretically we could go infinitely inside each particle. Or is it particle a proper term? Yeah there are proofs that the universe expands and scientists are still doing research on it, but have you ever asked yourself that in every single thing/particle/force in the universe, each thing is infinitely inverted? there is no essential thing/particle/force in the universe or universes that actually form the universe or universes itself. Our answers might be at our preconceptions and understandings about energy.

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

For an alternative! This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light & time Based on: 1 Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function represents the forward passage of time itself photon by photon continuous creation a continuously renewing process! 2 Is that HUP ∆×∆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!

[@mayuraitavadekar7968]

This is gold!!!

[@jonathanjollimore7156]

Big question what happens to particles smashed in to a point of 0

[@ncsfree3163]

i am an accountant and i hope one day i can solve all the mysterious question of sciences

[@ericsmith9846]

If youre serious, start with neuroscience so you can find more effecient rapid learning techniques

[@AdamMclardy]

Science is the best way to explain the world just as religion was over 2000 years ago but because of science it's not really relevant these days

[@billyjohns332]

Watching this in 2022

[@yojimbome]

when he says they shoot particles into/at something how is this done, where do these particles come from...sorry if its a stupid question.

[@dmar9658]

The wizard of Brian Cox

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

actually when you "observe" light, you detect it on a screen, it's detected as an individual photon hitting. another way to observe light is to have it hit your eye, when it interact it also acts as a photon. in fact that's a rule in QM, when a system is interacting, it interacts as particles, when particles move freely without interacting , they are waves of probability.

[@Somerandomdude-ev2uh]

Wait howcme runefords muffin model, the one where there were no gaps suggests no bounce back, should it jt be all bounce bac

[@Somerandomdude-ev2uh]

Not runeford thompson sorry

[@ebonyl9312]

Somerandomdude4.2526 Because it placed a tiny TINY amount of mass in a HUGE area, the alpha particle should pass through. Imagine in this video that the apple had been broken into tiny pieces and spread across a kilometre - you would expect everything to go through it! BUT if it was all concentrated into one apple in the middle, other things would bounce off it.

[@CayLundberg]

The key word is "amorphous". It's the difference between a solid and a gas. If you throw a drop of water at a cloud of room temperature water vapor it would pass right through. Do the same against a block of ice and it would "bounce" (or at least not pass through). The muffin model imagined the positive charge of atoms as a cloud of charge in which the electrons move around. If that is true then a positively charged object such as particles from radio active decay should always pass right through. Later experiments showed that this isn't true and that particles sometimes bounce hence it can not be a cloud. Make sense?

[@nataliab5350]

i don't know how i ended up here at 4 am but I am not complaining

[@bipolatelly9806]

Brian Coxless. Actor.

[@rahulronaldo6813]

Verithanam

[@kaylamania6294]

ah man gonna need to look that up next time I need unique new mmo name, sigma could totally work, wonder if there all that freaken magical

[@LostBoysPod]

Just me or does the lil’ beat in this go kinda hard?

[@kanben7]

If I was one, I would disappear every time fanatical atheists and religious people started their arguments instead of talking about the awesome videos we just watched.

[@gianis666]

still watching in 2019

[@laurieobrien6130]

shut up

[@hopebetterfuture9698]

Thank you for this video🌹