Quantum Theory's Most Incredible Prediction | Space Time

Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Let’s talk about the best evidence we have that the theories of quantum physics truly represent the underlying workings of reality.
You can signup for your trial to The Great Courses Plus at: ow.ly/bugR30hIvbu
Quantum field theory is notoriously complicated, built from mind-bendingly abstract mathematics. But are the underlying rules of reality really so far from human intuition? Or are physicists just showing off? For better or worse, the physicists are definitely on the right track. We know this because the predictions of quantum field theory stand up to experimental test time and time again.
The Great Courses Plus is currently available to watch through a web browser to almost anyone in the world and optimized for the US, UK, and Australian markets. The Great Courses Plus is currently working to both optimize the product globally and accept credit card payments globally.
You can further support us on Patreon at / pbsspacetime
Get your own Space Time t­-shirt at bit.ly/1QlzoBi
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit: / pbsspacetime
Help translate our videos!
/ timedtext_cs_. .
Previous Episode:
How Close To The Sun Can Humanity Get?
• How Close To The Sun C...
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Graeme Gossel and Matt O'Dowd
Graphics by Luke Maroldi
Assistant Editing and Sound Design by Mike Petrow
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
Special thanks to our Patreon Big Bang, Quasar and Hypernova Supporters:
Big Bang
Anton Lifshits
CoolAsCats
David Nicklas
Fabrice Eap
Quasar
Dean Fuqua
Mark Rosenthal
Mayank M. Mehrota
Roman Pinchuk
Tambe Barsbay
Vinnie Falco
Hypernova
Chuck Zegar
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
Eugene Lawson
John Hofmann
Jordan Young
Joseph Salomone
Matthew O’Connor
Ratfeast
Thanks to our Patreon Gamma Ray Burst Supporters:
Alexey Eromenko
Asa Hood
Benoit Pagé-Guitard
Brandon Cook
Brandon Labonte
Daniel Lyons
David Crane
Deborah Whittaker
Fabian Olesen
Greg Allen
Greg Weiss
Ian Anoan
James Flowers
James Hughes
JJ Bagnell
Jon Folks
Kevin Warne
Malte Ubl
Mark Vasile
Nicholas Rose
Nick Virtue
Scott Gossett
Shannan Catalano
سلطان الخليفي

[@FadeRadio1]

Hey, not one to typically comment on youtube, but just wanted to say thank you for everything you do with this show. You find a wonderful balance of making some of THE most confusing concepts in existence understandable to the layperson, while also not shying away from the specific numbers and statistics that would commonly scare away the casual curious minds stumbling across these things. Keep doing you.

[@f4k4]

Fade layperson :)))

[@johnd2058]

3:45 NOT OK DOOD

[@dr.vishnushukla6863]

beautifully done work,keep it that way. all the best to the team .

[@dickJohnsonpeter]

Is a pants?

[@ManyHeavens42]

Kissy,kissy.

[@1111boone]

Any time I start feeling that I’m an intelligent human being, I just watch one these videos!

[@williamrid7603]

TheuthBe Told!

[@namehere4954]

Intellectual intelligence is only one of many.

[@1111boone]

activelink activdisc Several of these videos go over my head, no doubt!

[@Adityarm.08]

@Mister Sifter but it does humble you, as it should.

[@nathanaelbiemer1734]

@Mister Sifter but listening to the concepts should be enough to understand the video?

[@1776_Reasons]

I won't pretend I fully understand the math/details in this video, but I'm always impressed at how well Space Time is able to help me either understand or, at the very least, make me feel like I've gained some concept of, and an appreciation for, a given mystery of this amazing universe.

[@tansu1499]

Who came here after watching Muon g-2 results? It's really amazing to see such a progress in science and technology.

[@Penfolduk001]

Wondered why KZbin suggested ac2 year old video to me. Now I know, due to the initial g-2 results.

[@Roachehh]

Yup

[@masamune2984]

Yep 🙂

[@bitbandita8889]

Yip :)

[@limerence18]

Yes

[@ross1972]

I watched this with my cat on my knee I swear she understood this as well as I did. The only difference is it didn't bother her.

[@bworldrighteousness3895]

Yeah, my cats are pretty smart too. I root for them if we humans decline from our high position.

[@fellon8019]

Don't feel too bad. My Alexis just blew a tube.

[@noelstgelven1994]

My cat doesn’t look me as before... did he understood something I didn’t ?

[@katakana1]

She did understand it as well as you did: Not at all (neither do I)

[@warsin8641]

My kitty is chilling with me

[@yaldabaoth2]

As a chemist, I've measured g factors of radicals in electron paramagnetic resonance experiments. Now I finally know what the hell that was!

[@frankschneider6156]

Somebody really uses EPR spectroscopy in reality ?

[@yaldabaoth2]

We used EPR to determine protein folding (while two or more radicals are linked to certain amino acids). So yes, it has some use.

[@garethdean6382]

SIR. I must screenshot this moment. For it is as miraculous and rare as encountering a unicorn. None of my friends will believe I had contact with such a mythical and strange creature.

[@frankschneider6156]

Yaldabaoth Really ? I'd have still gone with crystallization and X-ray scattering analysis for that, or using XANES and EXAFS for analyzing the active center or doing it just in the computer based upon secondary structure elements (alpha-helices, beta-sheats) and then calculating the thermodynamic folding optimum (assuming that chaperones don't play a major role), but I'm no expert on this and you'll know what you are doing.

[@yaldabaoth2]

Not the crystal structure. The change in folding during active catalysis in cells.

[@seankelly1291]

“And if that doesn’t make your head hurt, try thinking about it again.” How often can anyone say that?

[@Theneweastwood]

Excellent! So this explains why physics experts suggest that when you think you understand quantum physics, you just start to understand you really don’t, and that’s ok! Thank you for u for this clip! Some of the best content and delivery in history! 😊

[@darioinfini]

It's astounding to me we've managed to gather this kind of insight at all. Also astounding that there are enough super intelligent people in the species to continue this work with every generation.

[@AanandBajaj]

And all this has happened in the blip of human history

[@deusexaethera]

With a population of 7 billion people and almost as many computers, the rate of progress should continue to increase until physical equations appear to be updated in-realtime from the layman's perspective.

[@MortyrSC2]

@@deusexaethera The scientific progress might speed up, slow down or come to a screeching halt. It's impossible to predict, because you can't know the complexity of knowledge we don't have yet. The more is known in any given field, the harder it is to pass down that knowledge using conventional education. It doesn't matter how many people and computational power we have if it takes them a lifetime to even read and understand what's already discovered. Unless we can enhance human intelligence, lifespan or learning methods, there is a looming limit to knowledge possible to obtain.

[@deusexaethera]

@@MortyrSC2: What you say is only true if _humans_ are learning the knowledge and performing the experiments. Computers already do most of the mathematical work for new scientific advancements, because they don't need to learn and remember knowledge -- they can just read data and apply rules to that data -- and they can do the math billions of times faster than humans can. Many recent advancements in particle physics have directly enabled the construction of faster computers, so I stand by my original comment that the pace of scientific discovery will continue to increase until humans can't keep track of the advancements anymore.

[@jstar3943]

@@MortyrSC2 Things like quantum computing and AI should push us further at a faster rate than we are currently going. I think it is probable that our progress will continue exponentially. At the current time, we are at the segment of the exponential curve where the curve begins to really pick up. Also, with a larger population, we don't need everyone to be an expert at everything. We can divvy out work. Once an expert discovers something new in their field, they should be able to explain it to others in simple terms. Thus, the work doesn't need to be repeated to be taught by any means. For example, in geometry you may prove the Pythagorean theorem once to get a grasp of it, but after that you don't reprove it every time you use it. I also don't think we are any where near the limits of the human brain. In the future, when we can describe it easier, Quantum Field Theory will probably be at the level that the Pythagorean Theorem is today. Also, people live longer so we can gather more information in our lives and do more. I can go on and on, but the evidence is there that we still have the edge on knowledge and this will continue for the foreseeable future.

[@thirrteenthirrteen5528]

Even though I can claim to comprehend only a terribly small percentage of what is discussed in Space Time, I still find it breathtakingly interesting. Well done.

[@guyrichardson7358]

"If that doesn't make your head hurt then think about it again". My favorite line.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Anyone wants some science-youtuber-recommendations?

[@KeyserSoseRulz]

Did not understand anything, but watched it all. I deserve a hug.

[@TallyRocky]

Wow...obv pre-COVID comment ;-)

[@IanTheTroll]

is it weird that i need to listen to these videos to fall asleep? despite being genuinely interesting there’s just something about Matt’s voice that winds me down like no other

[@jinxed7915]

I do the same, although I usually go back and watch them to (try to) learn afterwards

[@evaristegalois6282]

I tried delving deep into quantum field theory once ... my mind still hasn't recovered from the serious damage it received from that

[@alexlewis109]

Evariste Galois omg he said tamagochi and i saw some in smyths yesterday!

[@bumpty9830]

Yeah, I tried once, too. Not done yet. Still learning remedial math so I'll be qualified to properly start.

[@KingWill333]

Bb

[@Ghryst]

that should tell you something about its accuracy in representing reality. even just trying to process these absurd ideas causes damage to your logic-processors

[@ETSnipers]

Once you eneter the Quantum realm. Your mind could never go back to normal. I went down the rabbit hole and now i see everything by there chemical compounds with imagination of there electron configurations.

[@ocnus1.61]

I remember taking intermediate dynamics for my ME degree and learning about gyroscopes in detail. As soon as he mentioned torque, it reminded me of it. When he said it precesses, it got me so excited because although I barely understood the video, seeing something connect felt amazing.

[@iamchillydogg]

The knowledge that I am nothing more than excitations in quantum fields is fueling my existential crisis. 🤯

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Anyone wants to check out some yet-unkown-to-him/her science-youtuber?

[@reazuddinkazi6716]

11:13 the music tricks me into thinking I've understood everything. It's like I am ascending.

[@tonykaze]

It's unbelievable how well you translate these things into just the right level of simplicity for amateur physics enthusiasts (like me!). Thanks so much and please keep them coming! My favorite channel on KZbin

[@AmbitiousLearnWithGeorge]

@ 7:57 "If that doesn't make your head hurt.." buddy this whole video makes my head hurt right from the start, but I love it, great content, thanks!

[@KirbyTheKirb]

Matt O'Dowd you're doing such a good job. I love the content you provide. PBS spacetime is an amazing place to learn about space.

[@Master_Therion]

That moment when you are waiting for your compass needle to point North/South. Yeah, that's a dipole moment. edit: finished the video. 16:03 Wow! Not boring at all. I am in an Excited State! Does this mean when I return to my normal state I'll emit a photon?

[@eidolor]

Are you thinking of SciShow? This punist has great and varied tastes

[@hjh1972]

MT If you emit a photon, does it make a sound and also a smell? If so - I know what you mean ;-)

[@emanuelebinetti3143]

Bro your jokes are weaker than the weak force.

[@MrRolnicek]

Maybe Sebastian will release a photon first and it will cause you to LASE. That would make ME excited.

[@katrinal353]

Everybody has a dipole moment.

[@TheBendejo]

You're the first person I've encountered that explains this in a straightforward way and it is starting to click. Well done

[@waywardsons4596]

I love watching these videos and learning but there is so much information to remember. I'll have to start taking notes

[@xgozulx]

I needed this to understand my classes, your explanations are much much better :D

[@Seytom]

Nice job putting this in Lehman's terms.

[@DerekFullerWhoIsGovt]

LOL!!!

[@petitio_principii]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4ll%C3%A9n%E2%80%93Lehmann_spectral_representation

[@deusexaethera]

(rimshot)

[@HolyMotherofGrid]

In the immortal words of Piccolo... NEEEEEERRRRRRRDDDDD!!!! Nice one though!

[@rochr4]

Was this Avengers 3 script He talked about? ..

[@vacuumdiagrams652]

Hi, I'm back. I just want to point out that spin really is a rotation, just a slightly strange one: it can be tracked to a rotating energy flow in solutions of Dirac's equation, so, if you like, you can think of it as a rotating energy flow in the electron wavefunction. This makes it analogous to linear momentum, which also must be looked for in the wavefunction (it's the inverse of the wavelength!), which I personally find immensely satisfying. This picture is explained very clearly in an article by Hans Ohanian entitled "What is Spin?", but the idea itself is much older.

[@vacuumdiagrams652]

Every rotation is an oscillation in a sense -- imagine looking at the solar system on its side: you'd see the Earth just bobbing up and down. So, in that sense, yes, but I'm not sure that's what you mean by oscillation. What are you thinking of?

[@Rubbergnome]

Hey there! Just yesterday I looked your channel up to see if there were any new videos. Still waiting ;) hope you're doing good! Also great comment. I also like the way spin arises as part of a Noether current whenever rotational symmetry is present. It solidifies its (already strong) relation with rotations.

[@alicewyan]

What we call the spin of a particle s relates to the expectation value of the square of the angular momentum operator acting on a particle state with no orbital angular momentum, L |s> ∝ s(s+1) |s>. Then, measuring a component of this spin over each axis yields possible values in the range {-s, -s+1, ..., 0, 1, ..., s}. If you have an electron, s=1/2 means the possible values are ±1/2

[@SoultalkOG]

Vacuum Diagrams what is energy?

[@danilooliveira6580]

that is actually a pretty cool picture of a spin. though I still have a question, what is the difference between a negative spin and a opposite spin ? isn't spin down measured as a negative spin from a spin up point of reference ?

[@Evghenios79]

The first 7 minutes are excellent (more of that in your videos please). If only back when we were at school (a long long time ago, in a classroom far far away) teachers were just as clear (and brief)

[@beire1569]

your videos are insanely difficult and powerful for the world to grasp, thank you

[@thethoughtemporium]

So my only criticism of this is how closely it remind me of epicycles. Before we understood astornomy and the geometry of orbits properly, in order to calculate orbits we kept having to add epicycles, orbits ontop of orbits to gently adjust the orbits path to fit the experiment. This strikes me as the same issue. Perhaps we just aren't looking at this form the right angle. For newton it was conic sections that fixed orbit. Could it not be that we're just looking at this wrong and these virtual states are the modern epicycle?

[@garethdean6382]

In the case of pertubation theories the problem arises because you have a system where two things affect each other back-and-forth. If A changes B then the change in B will also change A. And the change in A will change B a second time.. The end result is a single, overall change, bu predicting that from the interaction of A->B requires working through the steps. The theory is simple enough and the step is as well, it just needs to be repeated in the same way you get to 1/3 by adding 0.3, 0.03, 0.003... (Or doing a stepwise calculation.) Epicycles were largely based on a need for perfection, in that case the circle. For some time people knew elipses would work, but they weren't godlike circles. It required custom-adjusted values for each planet and each epicycle. It's the difference between calculating pi place-by-place on a computer and measuring a big circle and going 'And one tenth, and four hundredths...' One approach is exact and simple, follow the simple rule long enough and you get an answer as exact as you want. The other requires you to measure first then come up with an additional rule for no real reason. Episcycles would have been much more interesting if there'd been a simple rule behind them, 'Each cycle is 1/100th the size and twice as fast' say. Instead they were a disorganized mess.

[@qwadratix]

The issue is one of using the correct mathematical tools. Is it 'wrong' to use the summation of an infinite series to calculate something, rather than an exact analytical function? Neither are absolutely correct because nothing in nature is pure and simple. Everything in the universe is affected by everything else to diminishing degree. We don't have a mathematical tool that can encompass everything so we settle for approximations. We fit the nearest analytical function we can and call it a day - or we take the pertubations from sort of initial approximation (a circle or straight line) and work outwards to the desired accuracy. Given our current mathematical tools. Each method is as good as the other. It's a matter of which is more practical.

[@jensstolpmann7275]

No, this is not what the old astronomers did with the Ptolemaic Worldview. This was just some kind of overfitting the data. What Feynman did with QED is more comparable to what Kepler did, with his three laws. It's a completely descriptive theory that fits the data nearly perfectly, with very few assumptions. The problem lies within, that we don't really understand, what we are calculating. Later Netwton was able to derive Kepler's laws from more general principles, but he still didn't understand, what was going on. Einstein made great progress with his General Theory of Relativity, but we still don't understand the underlying principles. Einstein understood how gravity works, but not why. The QED is a theory like Kepler's Laws. Don't think, just calculate...

[@redoberon]

@@jensstolpmann7275 this is a really good insight.

[@T0mat0S0up]

Indubitably.

[@AndrewKimmey]

Matt, I just want you to know how much I appreciate everything you do on this channel - I understand the torturous amount of work it takes to condense and bring such detailed knowledge to such a public place. I've been watching for a bit over a year now, and I only get more and more excited every time you upload. Something that I love that you're proving here is how little we truly understand what the hell is going on here exactly, in every sense of the phrase. But I do have one question that I want to know your opinion of that I hope we can answer someday - why does any of this exist at all? Why isn't there just nothing? If there were nothing, then there would still be some quantum uncertainty at play, some tiny chance that something could theoretically exist, therefore it does because it was only a matter of time?

[@TheGodlessGuitarist]

Anomalous Magnetic Dipole Moment is going in my quick fire answer list along side 'Reconfiguring the matrix'.

[@fanforever100]

Thanks. Got the fun lecture from Mat Parker about 4th dimension and the riddle of knots. Then got the lecture about Bob and Alice and that blackhole event horizon. Then that professor who hopes to create a small time travel field. A brief lecture in the classic theory. Now after your video presentation I finally get it. Thank you very much.

[@nicolaiveliki1409]

07:59 regularly watching PBS Spacetime has given me a considerable headache tolerance. Thanks, Matt!

[@erichodge567]

Physics just makes you feel clean. Thanks, Space Time!

[@jonathanpoole1293]

I remember measuring G (for gravity) using a pendulum for a school experiment. I guess that's what G-2 is effectively doing but their pendulum is a muon in a magnetic field. Crazy how fundamental stuff like harmonic motion is and how it comes up at all scales of reality.

[@tomasgoes]

It takes a smart man to understand complex things. But it takes an even smarter man to make complex things understandable. That's why I appreciate this channel so much. I certainly am not smart and/or knowledgeable enough to understand most at first, but if I think and rewatch from the very first videos... And that is the only dark hole I recommend you jumping in... It starts to make sense and honestly wonders me... Yes, I mean it in the 'Neil Degrasse approved' manner. TL;DR absolutely fantastic content, thank you very much, and please keep making it.

[@ets9191]

Rip Tamagotchi, never to be forgotten

[@JohnAlbertRigali]

4:28: “Electrons in atoms feel the magnetic fields produced by their own orbits around the atom.” WHAAAT...!? 🤯 I mean, it makes sense in retrospect, but I still need therapy for this.

[@kevinmael3862]

Same as the earth and moon pulling on each other.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

THE THEORETICAL, TOP DOWN, CLEAR, AND UNIVERSAL BALANCING OF E=MC2 AS F=MA: Ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, time DILATION proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) I have mathematically unified and BALANCED physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 is necessarily AND CLEARLY F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. INDEED, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. Great. It is CLEARLY AND FULLY proven in what is a BALANCED fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. In fact, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEARLY proven. It is a very great truth in physics that the ability of thought to DESCRIBE OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) INDEED, E=mc2 IS DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS time dilation proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Look UP at what is the BLUE SKY. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Therefore, the PLANETS (including what is THE MOON) are understood to move away very, very, very, very slightly. Stellar clustering proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, HALF of the galaxies are "dead" or inert; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AND BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand !!!! Great !!!! By Frank DiMeglio

[@aniruddhdeshpande7319]

@@frankdimeglio8216 no

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@kevinmael3862 UNDERSTANDING TIME AND THE CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity: ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS “mass”/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Therefore, the planets will move away very, very, very slightly in BALANCED relation to what is THE SUN. (Also, carefully consider what is THE EARTH.) Great !!! This explains the cosmological redshift AND the “black hole(s)”. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. SO, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AND objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course) !!! Time dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! GREAT. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. By Frank DiMeglio

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@aniruddhdeshpande7319 UNDERSTANDING TIME AND THE CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity: ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS “mass”/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Therefore, the planets will move away very, very, very slightly in BALANCED relation to what is THE SUN. (Also, carefully consider what is THE EARTH.) Great !!! This explains the cosmological redshift AND the “black hole(s)”. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. SO, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AND objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course) !!! Time dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! GREAT. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. By Frank DiMeglio

[@seanmortazyt]

These lectures are so so so well written and presented… Bravo

[@howarddelovitch1451]

Bravo! And your concepts are imaginable . That's what I enjoy!

[@fitnesspoint2006]

Would not the quantum world find the macroscopic world just as bizarre with objects in fixed location/position and not be able to tunnel through walls?

[@karellen00]

If objects in the quantum world can be so complex that they can even think, that means that the immense number of subatomic particles we discovered was just scratching the surface, and that we need bigger and bigger particle (sub-particle?) accelerators to build models of what compose each subatomic particle...

[@mikakorhonen5715]

fitnesspoint2006 Those are called bullets.

[@vaderetro264]

Marco Toselli You missed the light irony of the original comment. There's a reason why he started with 'would'.

[@xExitReality]

Well, just look at the macro-macro world for your answer. As above, so below, man... Those living in the subatomic world experience newtonian laws just like we do. Everything is relative.

[@scottferguson866]

quantum object ask, "what's a wall?"

[@jonmkl]

F***ing magnets, how do they work?

[@MrSuperSobersteve]

Whoop whoop

[@charliesims7302]

And dont tell me to talk to a sci-en-tist because they all lyin to me and makin' me pissed!

[@2serveand2protect]

You have to fill their tanks with "magnet-gasoline"! ...if you want I can sell it to you - I don't have much, but for YOU I'l make an exception and won't even charge you. ...much! (It'll be always cheaper than buying it at the gas-station!).

[@thersten]

R.I.P. Ass Dan

[@justindean7326]

!!!

[@John_Weiss]

Wow, this takes me back. (I learned much of this back in grad school. (I changed careers after getting my doctorate.))

[@JB-gi5ph]

This is the greatest channel on the internet. Please never stop making these!!!

[@charlesphillips1468]

"Can I play with madness?" - Iron Maiden. In quantum electromagnetic theory you can. :-)

[@HexLabz]

This man's strong jaw threw words that hurt my brain, and made me excited at the same time.

[@phillipkennedy3444]

I love your sense of humour man. I always get a chuckle out of your videos

[@scooby990]

Wow! I played this back again and again understanding more and more of what you say, but there are still questions for me but that's just me not your presentation. Thanks

[@Gynra]

I completely understood "Let's talk about the....", then I lost it.

[@morrisse0_088]

A year ago I visited my friend who studies at the federal institute of technology in zurich, switzerland. I was allowed to attend one of his physics classes and the professor dropped one hillarious but probably very true line: “If you claim to thoroughly understand quantum physics you are either Albert Einstein or lying”

[@augustinelopez1508]

I really appreciate tone of voice clarity and complmentive movement to the statement. And the art work rocks too ... there in the back ground. Cool video 🎩😎☕☕ Later

[@tomclark6271]

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

[@robynhighart2026]

You are uncomfortably well built

[@recipoldinasty]

Wtf does that means

[@NaumRusomarov]

@@recipoldinasty he's good looking

[@recipoldinasty]

Naum Rusomarov yeah hes kind lf good looking, but uncomfortably well built, wtf

[@naughtyadventuresofmcbrouh5410]

IS THIS HOW TURBOVIRGINS FLIRT? THAT IS REALLY CUTE AND SWEET

[@MagnumPU]

Yes I am!

[@bkrharold]

I was thinking about the opening statement:- "could it be that the underlying rules that govern reality are really so far from human intuition, or are physicists just showing off". I was wondering the same thing, but then I asked myself, how did we arrive at the equations which express the rules? Generations of mathematicians and physicists have compiled a language of mathematics and physics with a dictionary of names and symbols defining the fundamental building blocks, their relationships to each other, and their properties. Could it be that if we started with a different set fundamental building blocks, and properties, and relationships, the equations would be less complicated and more intuitive? The way we think about our reality is necessarily governed by how we perceive our macro world, but when applying our intuitive knowledge of the macro world, to a much smaller scale, by many orders of magnitude, our intuitive understanding may not apply Richard Feynman once said. "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you"

[@JoshPillault]

Yep.....what if the foundation of our math is completely wrong, a base 10 system isn't the answer... I've heard some theories of base 3 math as opposed to base 10 but I have no idea what that concept really means. But just because ours "works" doesn't mean it's perfect - perhaps a completely different approach to math would resolve the issues between Einstein's relativity and Newton's gravitational theory. In our math its almost like 2=1 but what if our math was different, and it wasn't an issue? Math itself is universal...which number divisions we start with are not..

[@Deedee-ee1sg]

He was certainly on to something with that perceptive comment!!

[@carmelo665]

In QED, Feynman (1985) adds: "It took two 'independent groups of physicists two years to calculate this next term, and then another year to find out there was a mistake - experimenters had measured the value to be slightly different, and it looked for awhile that the theory didn’t agree with experiment for the first time, but no: it was a mistake in arithmetic. How could two groups make the same mistake?' It turns out that near the end of the calculation the two groups compared notes and ironed out the differences between their calculations, so they were not really independent (page 117)."

[@connorseunninga2324]

Good lurd, I wish you had constantly growing material. Live streams, interviews, ECT.

[@phil3038]

Technically he has just explained constantly growing material.

[@damianranger6910]

It's hard to understand but I love listening about it - Thank you!

[@TauAspire]

“Outside election cycles”... touche’! Good to hear your voice return, btw! Sublime sense of humor.

[@lonestaronestar1845]

What happened to the latest video. There was one added today but I can't find it anymore. Was it removed?

[@manaoharsam4211]

Did great job. Excellent Teacher. Keep it up. You taught me a lot.

[@johnnafunkhouser5999]

One of your best ones. Thank you

[@kevind814]

Waiting for the day I can plug into the Matrix, run a program, and say "I know Quantum Field Theory"

[@danielradford5452]

just get a book on it?

[@danielradford5452]

start with quantum photonics

[@Jack-ur4in]

Yeh man... that’s what we need... no other way when it’s this hard to learn🤝

[@anarchyantz1564]

But to know Quantum Field Theory you must first not understand Quantum Field Theory. Therefore, to not understand this you are halfway there to understanding.

[@truezulu]

Good job! You successfully managed to to explain the physics, in everyday language. That's no easy feat! Keep em coming ;)

[@anarchyantz1564]

Well............I heard taking, and words, so I am partway to understanding!

[@Roust7]

The electron diagram thought in high school confused me for one year in university when I was studying chemistry.

[@ralphsammis7330]

Wonderful! Your speaking voice has greatly improved. Thank you!

[@Fascistbeast]

Reality is everything we know and things we don’t know yet Richard Dawkins Everytime I learn about Quantum physics I realise my five senses definitely wasn’t built for this reality 🤔

[@Mark73]

Your five senses were built for running away from predators on the African savanna.

[@frankboase7724]

@@Mark73 , Five? your forgetting the most important one CONSCIOUSNESS

[@Mark73]

@@frankboase7724 Consciousness isn't a sense. Senses are how you bring outside information to your brain.

[@frankboase7724]

@@Mark73 And you "bring outside information to your brain." because of consciousness

[@Mark73]

@@frankboase7724 Which does not make consciousness a sense.

[@STriderFIN77]

Wow, anomalous magnetic dipole moment I just had, Its amazingk!

[@Accu53Mation]

I LOVE #SPACETIMEchannelOnKZbin!!! The narrator/astronomer, is very precise and direct. What takes many hours or days, Mr. O' Dowd, explains in twelve minutes. Of Course, that doesn't make ya an expert. Not by far. Very often after viewing a segment of Space-Time, I will continue doing more research on the subject, until the next exciting, informative video is released. By far, one of the Top Ten# channels, KZbin, currently has. Awesome job, Mr. O' Dowd & Gossel.

[@cazzone]

"if your head doesn't hurt after this, try thinking about it again" 😂😂😂

[@ScrewDriverxxx]

Ouch! Wow your last comment dude. That was COLD. Brilliant delivery, remind me never to annoy you with pointless commentary. Awesome series, many thanks.

[@SteveHit1]

To be pedantic, the quinolone antibiotic shown at around 1:24 is not quite correct: it’s missing a positive charge on the tetravalent nitrogen! (Alternatively, deprotonate it!)

[@Shenron557]

I was wondering what that molecule was. Thanks :-). Do you know what specific quinolone is this?

[@SteveHit1]

Hi - it appears to be sparfloxacin an antibiotic that seems to have such serious potential side effects that it’s been withdrawn in the US...

[@seamusholland]

And to think we let these physicists play with black hole machines! For shame...

[@nathanafisher]

This. Thank you lol

[@ThisDJ808]

I have a short term vacancy for someone with your skills working from my small RV in the desert. Excellent pay. NDA applies. Hit me up.

[@spiraldude]

Great video once again. Could you do a video commenting on the fact that QED is not an exact theory by its nature, but and approximation theory, being a perturbation theory and whatnot?

[@adam_collinsteele2913]

Matt when you were talking about the electron buzz thing, saying the any and all interaction the can happen to the electron, do happen. Sounded to me a lot like you were talking about multiverse or many worlds theory. Where all possible out come happen, kinda thing.

[@dianagibbs3550]

OMG I caught up...I finally caught up to Space Time's current episodes...except for the fact that I really need to watch the last 5 again, of course. I love this show. Nothing like somebody sticking a wedge in your brain and prying it a bit more O P E N.

[@zoltankurti]

Circular current is not a perfect dipole moment :O It has higher order multipole moments too. Sorry, I had to be that person. :'(

[@Gabriel360LIVE]

Someone had to be that person. :)

[@damienw4958]

It is not bad to 'be that person' since it opens up more avenues for learning which is objectively good

[@zoltankurti]

Damien W yeah. I meant that in such a great content I point out the only little error I found. :D

[@tehyonglip9203]

This is the guy who read to much Griffith’s books

[@Gabriel360LIVE]

Damien W Yes. Discussion is good. That's how we get to the truth.

[@GiggityGretsch]

Just wanted to say, thanks. Thanks for putting an ad at 15 seconds into the video.

[@4pharaoh]

Beautiful Video. First time I've heard the electron described as "a weird four component object..."

[@Scam_Likely.]

This channel inspired me (30) to go to college for the first time, for physics!

[@85481]

The best response to these videos I've ever seen. It makes me sad how many people react by thinking they are too dumb to get it. Anyone reasonably intelligent can get science if they put in the time and work. Good for you, I hope you have a blast.

[@freedapeeple4049]

My head just exploded. Now, who's gonna clean that up?

[@Mp57navy]

Take a picture of it, and make it a Black Metal album cover. *shrug*

[@kitkakitteh]

Maxwell’s demon. It’s his job.

[@dnomyarnostaw]

Great presentation on a difficult topic.

[@deborahduthie4519]

Thank-you for supplying the calculable figures for applications and names of Theorem in your talk. Is this the same for a horseshoe magnet? I believe yes but would love to know if this make a smidge of difference.

[@epsilonjay4123]

Why exactly are electrons thought of as infinitesimal points? is it because we cannot get accurate measurements of their size, or is it because the predicted size would be equal to or shorter than the planck length, or some other quantum principle which causes them to be thought of this way?

[@vaderetro264]

Epsilon Jay ɛɈ I think he's jus talking lazy, nothing which belongs to the material world can be sizeless.

[@frankschneider6156]

Because "pointlike" is a first good approximation. Nobody knows how small electrons (or quarks) really are, but they must be damn small, smaller than anything we can (currently) measure ... on the other side does no physicist believe in infinities, so also not in truly pointlike (size of 0) particles. Thus pointlike is an abbreviation for: "really really small, but we don't know exactly how small".

[@anthonywarwick]

You're mixing up mathematics with how we think about the everyday world. You may think of it like: An electron is more like a collection of behaviours than a ball. It's more like an area with slightly blurry edges than a "dot". The area is a space/spacetime depending if you're thinking pure math or physics, and when you're getting to that level... the thing you're looking at isn't a "thing in spacetime" it is "a bit of spacetime". Also, since every equation and bit of math we do on this level is comparative so the numbers are scalar representations anyway. They include the differences between energy levels and frequencies etc etc so there is an answer to what the size of an electron is, it is 1.60217662 × 10-19 coulombs. That's not in metres, but really, metres aren't relevant down there. Particularly when we're considering QFT, or even QED. Talking about an electron's "size" doesn't really mean anything. It's smaller than that concept. We broke "size" when we stepped into the realm of Quantum Mechanics and found out that there are things that behave like both waves and particles simultaneously. The Planck Length is really more of an energy scalar anyway, not a "distance". It's made up of other things itself. Very abstract things. You should look up Hilbert Spaces. Your question relies on concepts of how we consider discrete objects in mathematics, it's beyond physics to properly answer on its own.

[@DrunkenUFOPilot]

Going back to Rutherford - he tossed charged particles at atoms and found they bounced off in a way that didn't involve any characteristic length. Just a simple dependence on angle and speed of the projectiles, similar to Raleigh scattering (why the sky is blue). This is true for any projectile tossed at any target, when the projectile's quantum wavelength is much longer than the size of the target. A few years later, with bigger particle flingers and higher voltages, physicists found that the scattering departed from the simple no-scale-involved formula. Faster particles = shorter quantum wavelength = more diffraction due to reaching a size similar to an atomic nucleus. We've gone way past that scale years ago. So how big are electrons? Physicists have been throwing electrons at electrons for many decades. They find adherence to the simple no-scale-involved formula. We've built Fermilab, and SLAC (I worked there!), and CERN. We've given electrons some very swift kicks, to make their quantum wavelengths so small, way smaller than single protons or neutrons, and still, we find no departure from the simple formula. No scale, or range of sizes, has been seen to characterize any departures from the formula. We haven't seen such departures at all! But who is to say, after the next upgrade to CERN, or maybe with the new International Linear Collider (there aren't enough videos about that, hint, hint) we will shoot beams of electrons so swift, so short of wavelength, that we finally do see a departure from the formula, and can say electrons have some sort of structure on a scale of (mumble mumble). Maybe something like 1/100,000th the diameter of a proton? We can only wait and see - or earn a PhD in high energy physics and help!

[@ponytailjones]

Vade Retro, except there is no 'material world'. It's energy, orbiting energy, creating the functional illusion of something being physically there. You've never actually touched anything that was physically there in your life. The energy of the atoms of your finger get as close as they can to the energy of the atoms of another surface before they can't go any further, and you interpret that as having 'touched' something. But you haven't. To answer Epsilon Jay's question, I would assume it is because scale itself is infinite, the electron must be omnipresent at all scales, hence it would have no finite dimensions. Even though we can't physically view something that small, we can still keep dividing the scale of the universe infinitely, which means an elementary particle can't have a finite size.

[@rayoflight62]

Explaining physics while knowing it brings to astounding results. This is the first explanation of G that is actually understandable. What I had seen before were mostly dry statements compared to your explanation. Have my compliments...

[@tentedalex]

Love these videos still re watching all of them

[@gamereditor59ner22]

Interesting topic you presented.😎👍

[@Azzarinne]

When it starts sounding like the first time you tried to follow Star Trek science, it's time to go to bed. The fact that it's 5am is probably also a good indicator...

[@KilledKenny01]

Me after last QFT video from PBS: yeah.... finally understanding a glimpse of quantum theory. Me also after this video: I know that I know nothing 😟

[@KingWill333]

Explained in terms easy to digest. Well done. One caveat; though, a dipole can also rotate to compensate for gravitional momentum; thus electrons are capable of mass disposition in magnifified fields. It can be expressed in G/path× d3rd@ full ejection. Thank about it.

[@Evdog001]

Dont understand any of it, but enjoyed nonetheless.

[@chips_vis8387]

😿👍

[@MP-wg8pd]

Usually I can follow along without understanding the maths but this episode is all over my head. :\

[@gandymancan3460]

I knew there was an easier way to explain how the Flux Capacitor works... thanks pbs!

[@JamesSarantidis]

Finally, It makes sense to me what info these arrow diagrams contain and where they can be used. Feels like current science tries to patch the holes of older models. That precision though... Thanks for all these tiny brain-arcs that lead to this, PBS. You are truly making my -space- time

[@ernaXmeier]

wtf.. that tamagotchi comment was so accurate.. how did he know?

[@ablebaker8664]

"When you can take the pebble from my hand, you will understand quantum field theory..."

[@dilaudid1]

Said Grasshopper, "But why master?"

[@crackeronspeed]

There is no pebble

[@lellyparker]

When you can quantum tunnel the pebble from my hand, you will be the master.

[@toratora9994]

These make my head hurt but I love it. I wonder if a art and music inclined person could go back and learn physics?

[@RaivoltG]

I found your explanation of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment. It's the regular magnetic dipole moment, just more anomalous. It finally makes sense to me! Can you please explain more theories to me, in just a few. words! Thank you very much for your space/time!

[@AspenEmrys]

"How Will the Universe End?" Well, now we'll never know since the upload was deleted...

[@wolvenar]

trefrog Well, lets take guesses. A. posted out of scheduled time. B. A MASSIVE discrepency was found. C. KZbin demonitized it because something triggered a takedown. Either by report (false or not) or a bot did it, or bot went stupid... yet again.

[@craigcrawford6595]

Well, if we assume the laws of thermodynamics are true, and everything breaks down, I would assume the universe would end by conflagration...

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

I don't think that the Universe can end because it doesn't have a beginning but it may be that it's just eternal to the beginning but could have an end but since the Universe appears to consist of nothing at it's most fundamental level, it seems that it could only be superimposed by something but why would there be something, where would something come from? 🤔

[@daviddelaney2407]

... Gerard, as far as we can tell, the Universe quite definitely had a beginning. --Dave, and something plus anti-something would come out of nothing at all

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

I should have said, existence has no beginning, Creation has a beginning and is made in the imagination of the Creator/existence. It seems to me that nothing is consciousness and Creation began with it's awareness.

[@TheExoplanetsChannel]

*Videos about Quantum Physics.. I don't even understand their titles*

[@klyanadkmorr]

*hmm, uh uh.....okay got it all what Matt says......Quantum weirdness equals MAJIKS* lol, actually my META is basic 'consciousness' started with the big bang energy particles But also can explain how 'random' DNA and Genetic changes happen in biochemistry between molecules as it goes next step macro changes from inert chemicals to biochemicals in the enclosed energy system of solar systems and properly situated planets. The work in fractal math demonstrates how random numbers into equations recursively create complex repetitive patterns that demonstrated into physical forms can handle distribute larger and larger amounts of contained energy in an organized=organism matrix ERGO called LIFE.

[@massimookissed1023]

The Exoplanets Channel , I was a little disappointed by a previous episode which I understood completely. I don't come here to understand things. It just doesn't feel right if I go away unconfused.

[@i_notold8500]

Most people don't. Watch the video and if you don't understand a word used then look it up and, most important, memorize that word. Keep at it, keep watching , looking up/memorizing, rinse-repeat. One day in the not so distant future you'll realize you hardly ever have to look up a word.

[@ariochiv]

Keep trying!

[@mikejohnstonbob935]

Let's break this one down: Quantum Theory's Most Incredible Prediction | Space Time Quantum Theory: theories dealing with behaviors of things at a scale so small that going below that scale would yield meaninglessness Most Incredible: the attribute of being more unbelievable than the other unbelievable videos on this channel Prediction: a model of events based on some observation Space Time: title of the channel. it's also a geometric model of the universe by combining the space and time coordinates

[@sicknastyflipmaster7]

Been following this channel since 40,000 subscribers, now has 1.3 million. So proud

[@vishalmishra4408]

QFTs (both QED and QCD) may be complex but they are so successful in making super accurate predictions because they do not ignore special relativity. Not very clear why GR is so hard to integrate into QFT given that SR is already and successfully integrated into it. Perhaps an episode on those challenges would be amazing !!

[@chrisholdread174]

The last time I was this early I broke causality.

[@IncipientClinic]

Chris Holdread quite a Tachy thing to say...

[@TheChurchHistoryChannel]

Last time I was this early saying "Last time I was this early..." was witty and funny.

[@dailydoseofolepetrovic2589]

@@IncipientClinic tachyons gravitons all fiction....

[@IncipientClinic]

Gordana Nenkov as is your sense of humor.

[@fordid42]

The punchline arrives before the joke. How do you know you're hearing a joke about time travel?