The Standard Model - with Harry Cliff

What is the standard model and how is it put together? Find out in this talk highlight from Harry Cliff.
Watch the full talk: • Beyond the Higgs: What...
---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Alessandro Mecca, Ashok Bommisetti, avraham chein, bestape, Elizabeth Greasley, Greg Nagel, Lester Su, Rebecca Pan, Robert D Finfrock and Will Knott.
---
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter

[@takefivepaullucido]

This guy is an awesome speaker. Keeps it in understandable terminology. Love the royal institution lectures.

[@juliaconnell]

This is by far the most clear, concise and eloquent description of a very confusing, complex & counter intuitive model

[@dash3995]

this is the single most interesting and informative video I've ever seen

[@the_mobkiller]

That woman, sleeping in the background, cracks me up every time i see her :D

[@jarleriksson8934]

7:15 i cannot ahahahahaha

[@totalrecall1358]

@@jarleriksson8934 😭

[@nomoregoodlife1255]

11:24 i think he's looking & walking at her xD

[@williamhansen9456]

@@nomoregoodlife1255 Agreed! He seems displeased.. :D

[@orionunivers710]

Note to self: When you feel sleepy, never sit in the front row.

[@bagoquarks]

Unfortunately it looks like a spouse got dragged to this lecture after dinner.

[@AirborneAnt]

Wow This Video is SUPERB!!!!! There are SO MANY pearls of WISDOM that get dropped in this Video it’s AMAZING!!!! 10/10 STARS MATE!!!!! He really knows his stuff!!!!!

[@eternal9971]

The explanation is very clear and I can even understand it! I love your speech. Learned a lot

[@carryon2197]

This gas been the clearest to understand to someone like me. Thank you. Will search for the continuation of the talk!

[@musicalsaber6433]

If the muon decays into a electron and neutrinos, how is it fundamental. Just curious, I want to go into particle and quantum physics so knowing these things are helpful.

[@user-dl5xm6su3n]

That's a good question! When a particle decays into another particle it doesn't mean that it is made of smaller ones. For example when a muon decays into an electron and neutrinos it doesn't mean that the electrons and neutrinos were inside the muon before the decay. The answer (unfortunately) is much more complicated. You have to understand that what we see as particles are really excitations of a quantum field. When the muon decays the electron and the neutrino fields get excited creating the decaying particles. That's a quantum field theory, and you can learn more on this in a physics masters degree. If you study physics you will definetely learn more on this! Hope that helps for the time being!

[@vikramheble9972]

A very lucid lecture. Excellent!

[@pierretruchon6523]

Well done!

[@suyogghosh380]

7:15 me (in the background) when the most important part of lecture comes which would've built my basic understanding of the topic

[@lance9755]

This is very helpful. I am reading “Galileo’s Finger” by Peter Atkins where he talked about fundamental particles and this vid really helped me to understand the condept

[@ricowilko]

An excellent explanation.

[@radhakrishnamohanty3807]

Classy presentation quality...

[@user-no1cc5gc9q]

I'm studying this at school and even my teacher couldn't explain it properly eh.. I haven't find any material in my language so this video really helped me

[@nguyenhoanglong420]

BECAUSE THIS PHYSICS GO AGAINST CLASSICAL MECHANIC THAT YOU HAVE LEARNT IN SCHOOL AND IT WAS NOT CONDUCTED BY A REAL EXPERIMENTS SO THIS PHYSICS ARE DUMB FOR SCHOOL

[@esajpsasipes2822]

@@nguyenhoanglong420 wtf? First of all, why caps lock, and second, how are they not conducted by real experiments? All of the particles were observed. It propably doesn't belong to elementary schools, but saying that it's dumb for school is dumb. Classical mechanic are a approximation of "this physics".

[@davidwilkie9551]

Good talk

[@EduardodaSilva00]

O wish Mr Faraday could see this lecture

[@youtubeusername1489]

I needed a refresher for standard model after the announcement from Fermilab

[@hey_hey4394]

he missed a couple things like: every fermions has anti-fermions, there are positive and negative W gauge bosons and the fact that quantum electrodynamics also includes positrons that react as the electromagnetic force with electrons that exchange photons.

[@srinidhikannan3566]

Really good

[@innertubez]

Cool video! So does the Higgs field not interact at all with photons and other massless particles? How is that explained?

[@aleksandersuur9475]

Exactly like so. Just like electromagnetic field does not interact with neutral particles.

[@jasonw.4751]

Wow I finally understand

[@TomHendricksMusea]

The PARTICLE TRAIN! Previously I suggested that eternal photons made electron positron pairs, (as well as all standard model particles). Here's how. Start with a PARTICLE TRAIN, each time you add an electron or positron car to the train, you get a new particle. The only rule is the cars have to alternate from electron to positron. Think of a wave with trough always alternating with crest. Photons as electron positron pairs could make the main parts of an atom in the brief time after the Big Bang under those extreme and never repeated conditions. Charges are the cars on our particle train. Positive positron (+), Negative electron (-). Positron (+) Electron (-) Photon (+) (-) Proton (+) (-) (+) Anti Proton (-) (+) (-) Neutron (+) (-) (+) (-) Anti Neutron (-) (+) (-)(+) . The PROTONS and NEUTRONS are made from ELECTRONS and POSITRONS! When this production of particles was over, most anti particles with charge; positrons, and anti protons, didn't exist on their own. They were LOCKED INTO PROTONS OR NEUTRONS. That way conservation of charge was maintained. That also explains the MISSING ANTI MATTER PROBLEM! This from Wikipedia article Matter Creation: It is possible to create all fundamental particles in the standard model, including quarks, leptons and bosons using photons of varying energies above some minimum threshold, whether directly (by pair production), or by decay of the intermediate particle (such as a W− boson decaying to form an electron and an electron-antineutrino).

[@ganeshchidambaram5586]

the women near the exit have learnt alot that day :D

[@juvenwang1]

Have a look at Ultra Unification: Quantum Fields Beyond the Standard Model (Unified model beyond grand unification) PhysRevD.103.105024

[@johndoepker7126]

So my TShirt that I got to support The R.I. came in the mail today, courtesy of the Royal Postal Service.(keeping the packet because it's my first packet from the U.K.) but any how....I was so pleased with it! It's the short that has the print out of "The Standard Model" when I put it on to show my wife, knowing she'd jus roll her eyes an say, " Oh, got yourself another 'nerd' shirt."...she didn't say anything. She actually stared at it for a minute. Just a blank stare. Then she looked up, into my eyes, an said, "I don't like it." ...I asked why, it's the standard model of everything the universe is made of, all the fundamental particles....she said...."somethings missing......I don't know what, but it's wrong....." So....how right is she? What is missing from the standard model that we are still looking for? Cause I can't wear my new t-shirt thinking it's incomplete, let alone in front of her, without being judged as an incomplete fool....please help R.I. !

[@islamicstuff133]

How to Get full lecture ?

[@waltertansini8603]

A muon decays into "an electron and some neutrino's", but a muon is about 200 times the mass of an electron. Then either the neutrino's are very heavy (which I thought they absolutely weren't), or there must be an awful lot of light neutrino's being produced (which contradicts the "some"), or quite some energy is being released (E=mc2 where m would be 199*the mass of an electron). Right?

[@cloudpoint0]

Usually a muon decays to an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino. That’s it. Mass is not a conserved quantity during decay (and other types of nuclear interactions). Energy is conserved, and mass is one component of overall energy. Most of the original mass energy ends up as kinetic energy and the three particles fly apart.

[@Bignic2008]

It's the latter option. There's energy released in the form of kinetic energy, although it's not as much as the c^2 term might make it seem like.

[@okithdesilva7644]

Great

[@ribs2635]

You've heard of Harry Hill now get ready for Harry Cliff.

[@SahanTheMighty]

Harry Cliff is gorgeous 😍 Love the way he explains.

[@jeromevuarand3768]

The original video was fine, no need to cut it out in pieces, we can hold our attention for an hour...

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

We'd never replace a talk with a snippet, but we've been asked to provide more short form content and we though this bit of Harry explaining what the Standard Model is was succinct and just kind of brilliant enough to stand alone. As mentioned in another comment, these snippets are very much extra content, and not designed to replace any actual videos. They're also a good way for someone who is not sure if they're interested in a subject to watch for a few minutes and then decide whether they'd like the full thing. We've only made a couple but we're liking them - kzbin.info/aero/PLbnrZHfNEDZyb7kAjifH_mqceTeDsoyJz (Also, if you can think of a better title than 'Ri Talk Highlights' then please let us know! We could brand them better so you wouldn't get duped into thinking it's something else.

[@farvision]

I would agree, but it seems I missed the original - so now I can go back to that.

[@jeromevuarand3768]

If you have people asking for that, who am I to argue. But I definitely don't understand the rationale. You can watch a few minutes of any hour long video on KZbin. If you don't like it stop watching it and skip to something else. As for the naming, it only appears when you go to the playlist, which a subscribed person wouldn't do. So either put something very obvious in the video title (like a [Extract] tag at the beginning), or simply don't push them in the subscribers feed. I came to this channel because I like keeping track of the latest advances in science that mass media ignores, and don't necessarily have time to read journals. But by publishing old videos from the 90s and these extracts you're diluting the interesting content. You're probably getting more views, but you risk losing subscriptions.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback!

[@mennnzz]

@@TheRoyalInstitution For short uploads, it can have a title like "Ri Highlights: The Standard Model - with Harry Cliff". And the Playlist could be called "Key Concepts from Ri Talks". I love your talks, thank you!

[@victorsubbiah6077]

are quarks really indivisible ? or, some century later, somebody will say they are made of further more physical things ?

[@nanakwakudadeyakrofi2977]

I wonder

[@physicskipaathshala9708]

Should have told the names of the all the blocks.. like top,charm,strange, bottom, tau neutrino etc.. It would have been more beneficial to the students.

[@vichupb]

I wish he was my physics teacher😎

[@Holobrine]

So the 4th of July is Independence Day and Higgs day?

[@frankreiserm.s.8039]

great overview but too, too short.

[@themanofiron785]

How do we know there aren't extra columns? Like a 4th generation?

[@clb4947]

we don't and there very well might be

[@user-sv9eh5zb2t]

in 12 minutes you explained 2 weeks of lecture material at my university for free... Really makes you wonder why university is still a thing. I could argue that the youth pay for the countries research like child labour to make clothes. Hopefully education changes with the times...

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, you can be given 12 minutes of explanation that make you believe that you understand the topic... but you couldn't pass even the most simple test with that "knowledge" nor could you calculate anything with it. That takes months and years of learning and the study of thousands of textbook pages.

[@NavajoNinja]

The more learn, the more we yearn.

[@sanjuansteve]

If the 2nd generation particles can be broken down to electrons and neutrinos, are they fundamental particles?

[@KittyBoom360]

Good catch! I'm with you on this one.

[@philipstuckey4922]

I had an answer for you, but then I realized I didn't know enough, so here's a link I found when googling for it physics.stackexchange.com/questions/274858/why-are-muons-considered-to-be-elementary-particles-in-the-standard-model

[@sanjuansteve]

Philip Stuckey Nice link my friend. Thx

[@philipstuckey4922]

@@sanjuansteve my pleasure!

[@BrevardCountyFloridox]

No it decays like how uranium decays into lead its a particle that is like an electron but with more mass thats all

[@brainstormingsharing1309]

👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@nini1957]

Question, please: What is the smallest, most elemental thing in the universe?

[@VolodymyrLisivka]

Nanomicron. :-) There is no bottom, because Pi is irrational number, so it's impossible to pack 3D universe tightly with round objects of various sizes.

[@ameerhamza4816]

Quarks

[@nini1957]

And, what's a quark made out of?!

[@VolodymyrLisivka]

@@nini1957 quarks are bubbles/holes/vacant places, so they are just empty space and their properties are determined by what is missed from vacuum in their place.

[@nini1957]

Volodymyr Lisivka Their properties are determined by what is missed from vacuum in their space?! How do you measure how much “empty space” is missing?!!

[@LangThoughts]

So just by being, I'm a great disturbance in the field?

[@srinivasanr5157]

5:13 she's sleeping...

[@rkpetry]

*_[_**_10:32_**_] 'hokum'-electrons have mass because they are energy convolved on itself, and, the momentum equation shows force imparts energy as a statistic-integration of wave-shifting (there's no Higgs impartation in that-unless rather, the Higgs, assigns, the mass-values, to particles... or the vacuum speed of light to photons... or else converts potential to kinetic)..._*

[@vk274]

If the Higgs field is not responsible for the mass of the electron then what is the role of the Higgs field at all? I thought I got the most succinct definition of the Higgs field (it gives mass to the other fundamental fields) in this lecture but your statement means that is not what is the Higgs field. Could you please clarify?

[@michaelelbert5798]

Here it is gravity doesn't exist it's neutrinos counteracting the electromagnetism

[@Present4]

Imagine that all us had the capability of accessing that cosmic field with our own particles and thereby manipulate space and time. 🤔😎

[@RJL738]

I would say that the particles of The Standard Model are about a Gaggoogol times smaller in diameter than The Planck Length. A field is just a probabilistic description of a particle. There is still a particle there. I never though of these particles as hard spheres but rather fuzzy, sphere-like things.

[@nothing9220]

Even Albert Einstein was sceptic about the quantum theory... But its convincing.. I mean you may be genius but there are a lot more to know... To understand

[@michaelelbert5798]

No it's not particles bumping off fields it's particles moving through fields that consists of more dimensions that we can't conceive and so on.

[@theoelliott6032]

Michael Elbert do you speak from theory or practice

[@michaelelbert5798]

@@theoelliott6032 tweaking and geeking theoretical tizen.

[@theoelliott6032]

Michael Elbert can you elaborate or show me a video?

[@michaelelbert5798]

@@theoelliott6032 sorry not now,.....

[@Namuchat]

I wonder to which degree Mendeleev felt like a Victorian.

[@lawrencehalsey4149]

I love how the numbers on the standard model aren't explained at all....

[@coolplanet2050]

Wait, there are *numbers* ?

[@blacked2987]

2 58 8 12

[@rursus8354]

The correct pronunciation of 'quark' is actually ... [imagine the sound of a duck here] ... Because Murray Gell-Mann said so.

[@cloudpoint0]

I don’t think so. Murray Gell-Mann says he adopted the word quark from an Irish poem within “Finnegan's Wake” by James Joyce. Joyce clearly meant quark to rhyme with Mark, bark, park, and so forth. Gell-Mann imagined that Joyce meant quart (a beer measure) in the first line but Joyce was referring to a diary product, also used colloquially to mean “trivial nonsense”. Gell-Mann preferred “quork”, not “quack” like a duck. Three quarks for Muster Mark! Sure he has not got much of a bark And sure any he has it's all beside the mark. But O, Wreneagle Almighty, wouldn't un be a sky of a lark To see that old buzzard whooping about for uns shirt in the dark And he hunting round for uns speckled trousers around by Palmerstown Park? Hohohoho, moulty Mark! You're the rummest old rooster ever flopped out of a Noah's ark And you think you're cock of the wark. Fowls, up! Tristy's the spry young spark That'll tread her and wed her and bed her and red her Without ever winking the tail of a feather And that's how that chap's going to make his money and mark! … -- James Joyce, Finnegan's Wake. _I employed the sound ''quork'' for several weeks in 1963 before noticing ''quark'' in ''Finnegans Wake'', which I had perused from time to time since it appeared in 1939. The allusion to three quarks seemed perfect. I needed an excuse for retaining the pronunciation quork despite the occurrence of ''Mark'', ''bark'', ''mark'', and so forth in Finnegans Wake. I found that excuse by supposing that one ingredient of the line ''Three quarks for Muster Mark'' was a cry of ''Three quarts for Mister...'' heard in H. C. Earwicker's pub._ -- M. Gell-Mann, private letter to Ed., 27 June 1978.

[@coldcreation6676]

4 33 9 45

[@sourclout4693]

Hocus pocus I take pills to focus

[@eyebee-sea4444]

There are 3 particles you are all made of, that's it! And they explain everything! ... ok, except of gravity. ... and then there are Myons ... ... and then there are 3 generations of all of them ... ... and then there are force particles ... ... and then there are ...

[@lepidoptera9337]

Gravity is not a force, so why would it be in here? The muon is the second generation of the electron, so you clearly missed that bit. And, no, you are not made of just three particles. The standard model does not separate. You can't get one piece of it and none of the rest.

[@eyebee-sea4444]

Lepi Doptera: "And, no, you are not made of just 3 particles." Harry Cliff: "And that's it. So that basically says that all of matter, every atom in the universe, everything that we know about is made up actually of just three different elementary particles." :-D But then: "The only thing that it (the standard model) doesn't include is gravity (yet)." Yet, because physicists are looking for a particle they already named "Graviton" for years. But the journey goes on: "So you've got this 3 particles that make up all the matter that we are made of ... then there is something else that gets added to this table ... called neutrino ..." And so on... I don't criticize the science behind this, I criticize the logical inconsistency of this talk, as the logical inconsistency of your reply.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@eyebee-sea4444 Dude, this is the internet, not a class for physics grad students. If you think that you are going to learn real science here, then you aren't thinking. :-)

[@cronistamundano8189]

I did not know that Sebbastian Vettel had a phisyscist brother

[@ianmungwadzi8444]

Physicist

[@ianmungwadzi8444]

You're right though. They do look incredibly similar.

[@himanshujha6910]

I think Harry Cliff is in hurry to end the lecture...

[@VoodooD0g]

i allready saw this, why are you making short video snippets of old videos i dont want to watch? :(

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

We're not replacing any of our output with talk highlights, don't worry! A lot of people were asking us for short summaries or important points highlighted from so every few weeks we release a look back at an older video. Our current schedule is: new talks or short films on Wednesday, Christmas Lecture clips on Fridays and then other stuff on random days dotted around. Maybe we should tell you guys that this is the schedule we're working to...

[@VoodooD0g]

thanks for the answer. still, i wish i could subscribe only to your actuall lectures. all the other videos create so much noise.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Yeah, it's annoying you can't subscribe to playlists. The closest we could find is saving them. All our talks are tagged here - kzbin.info/aero/PLbnrZHfNEDZz256ho3Q4gt7YrF2xApo5g Maybe it's a stopgap solution?

[@VoodooD0g]

Indeed, it is. Saving your playlist is a really good idea. thank you for that :)

[@user-xl8uo9gp9p]

why do the background people look like cgi double.....

[@vysakh1997]

Soo if every particle is jst an excitation of fields , and these particles make matter does than mean nothing is real 😄😄😄.

[@zertilus]

Uploaded on the same day as the Boston Dynamics video of AI using a physical body to parkour.

[@innertubez]

Brenden Carr lol

[@havocspree]

That woman in the front is in the wrong lecture room.

[@AdamIngs-rc4zu]

I am eager for someone to debunk this theory as I don't believe myself worthy to have such insights: I don't think the force we term "gravity" is a separate entity to either relativity or quantum mechanics, I think it is a result of the contraction effect that mass has on it, mass given to up and down quarks by the higgs field. The "matter", "forces" and "energy" we are created from and experience are merely errors and fluctuations in the unfathomable scale (therefore infinitely likely probability) of the fields that in turn cause them to "cross" and "intersect" (I'm imagining the images of something similar to the plasma filled magnetic loops that occur and cross on the surface of our sun), resulting in a phenomena we call "matter". My hypothesis on the reason we don't immediately fly back apart due to natural correction of these errors in the field, is because we exist in an elongated perception of the time phenomena of the space-time fields. I also think that neutrinos are the ultimate form of high-entropy for the universe to create a uniform low-energy state, all quarks eventually ceasing to be created by the soothing effect neutrinos have on all "fields". I believe a conclusion could also be drawn that black holes are, in fact, areas where all fields premating the "universe" are synchronised and uniform, therefore unknown and incomprehensible. Maybe...….

[@cloudpoint0]

It’s not a theory since it predicts nothing testable. It’s imaginative poetry.

[@TheGargalon]

cool story, you have a big imagination.

[@loren-emmerich]

Listen you all to Current Value's uncertainty principal and learn you can be dump ;)

[@jerbib9598]

It sounds like he's talking on a grade school level.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Consider the following: The heart in a human supposedly takes the place of one of the lobes of one of the lungs. Now, if we can come up with a device, (via natural DNA or man-made technology), that could convert CO2 into C and O2, and put it in place of one of the lobes of the other lung, or find somewhere else in the body to put it and leave the other lung alone, and maybe the C gets routed to the stomach and the O2 back into the bloodstream, would it be possible to create an entity that could never be suffocated or be drowned? Sure, quarks, electrons and energy would still be needed to the entity to grow and to replace those items that left the body, but would it be possible to do? And then consider also, if astronauts had this done, they would be better able to survive in outer space and on planets and moons with little or no oxygen. Of which, if species do not get off of this Earth and out of this solar system, we are all going to die one day from something and go extinct. Life itself would all be ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. So, why not at least try it? Think also of the Earthly applications for the military, fire fighters, etc. A hybrid next generation human.

[@maan7715]

What? There is no CO2 in space? You need energy to make oxygen from CO2, we use oxygen to make energy.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Ma An CO2 is a waste product of the human body which exchanges that CO2 with O2 in the lungs. Create an organ or device that gets implanted inside a human body so that the exchange occurs entirely within the body. That way, the human could 'hold their breath' for a lot longer time.

[@KittyBoom360]

@@charlesbrightman4237 Yeah, as I see it, humans currently 'outsource' that process because we live in an environment of plants and green algae that already do this process for us. So, on Earth, it's less work for us. But without those sources, we'd need to do the process 'in house'. So, maybe, yeah. One side note, CO2 is not entirely a waste product tho. It's actually vital for some bodily functions. The oxygen is really the more dangerous element to be handled with care, as in; we've already got the hardest part kinda down.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

The Sapien Agreed. I am just looking at how to keep humans alive in outer space so that at least some species from Earth could continue to consciously survive. Otherwise, they all die and go extinct.

[@tor1302]

dont speedtalk.

[@RebeccaCampbell1969]

Mendeleev, Russian scientist, you prof. Hairy He was the one who made the predictions and the incomplete table

[@kuboteusz]

Nice lecture but you sir completely failed to explain what a field is. "A field is like a magnetic field of a gravitational field"... Really?

[@MegaRooikat]

Seems like you know so why don’t you explain?

[@pierretruchon6523]

A field in physics is a space were where some values for a specific force or phenomeneon is assigned. I gave the exemples of magnetiic fiel or gravitational field. So whenever you know where a particule is in a field, you know what effect of the field will be, exemple your weight. This is also why with any force particule they associate with it a field. If it's not clear for you, it is worse for me!

[@cloudpoint0]

A field is a value or set of values assigned to every point in space (often vectors at each point). These values represent a force or other effect that an appropriate particle placed at that point would feel because of the presence of another object having mass, charge or whatever is of interest. A field is an abstract notion but the forces felt are real. (basically what Pierre said)

[@kuboteusz]

@@cloudpoint0 and that's a nice answer. Thank you. But what do you mean when you say that a particle "feels" a field?

[@cloudpoint0]

Jakub, a particle does not _feel_ a field. A field abstractly represents the strength of the _feel_ by an imagined particle at each spatial point. The source of that _feel_ is the other object of interest. More plainly, by "would feel" I mean the imagined particle would be able to be influenced by a force or an effect in some way. Usually it would be attracted or it would be repelled, but other influences are possible too. Typically a particle would lock itself into an endlessly repeating action if multiple effects are in play, as happens in a bound system. Perhaps a practical example will help here. Just absorb the gist of what follows if it’s over your head. For example, electrostatic attraction is an effect related to the electromagnetic force. It arises from having opposite changes in a nucleus (or a proton) and an electron. I will treat electrons here as if they are point particles for simplicity. Each spatial point around a nucleus could abstractly describe the electrostatic attraction and the direction of attraction that an electron “would feel” if an electron was at that spatial point. Spatial points nearer to the nucleus will have larger attraction values than spatial points that are farther away. All spatial points around the nucleus will be directed inwards towards the nucleus. Picture arrows at each spatial point, all directed towards the nucleus, where the attraction values determine the arrow lengths, if this helps. Spatial points nearer to the nucleus will also have less electrostatic potential energy. This is an implied energy that could have been reduced but wasn’t, it’s considered to be stored in the field, and it needs to be accounted for in the larger system view [fine point: it’s a negative number because it reduces total energy so it’s most negative near to the nucleus and it is added to total energy, this is just a physics convention]. Ideally, any actual electron will want to be attracted (pulled) inwards towards the nucleus, which also reduces its electrostatic potential energy. If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or the Pauli Exclusion Principle prevent inward movement, an actual electron will find a stable energy minimum between all the effects and go around forever in that energy well (energy _trench_ might be a better word visually). Note: HUP drives up momentum energy if the electron gets too close to the nucleus defeating overall energy minimization which the electron won’t like, and PEP blocks the sharing of general positions (states) necessitating distinct electron potential energy levels. By the way, quantum fields are thought to be the most fundamental objects that exist. They are not made of anything. That makes them hard to define. You just need to accept that all the points in space have interrelated values that represent how particles (waves actually) play out.

[@arpit8495]

so mass is not real anymore

[@DonaldSleightholme]

how could you weigh something and say that it’s heavy when it would be weightless in space? 🤔🤷‍♂️

[@DonaldSleightholme]

would the higgs boson weigh less if it was on mars 🤔

[@bluenoise5807]

@@DonaldSleightholme It's not about weight; it's about mass. These are two different things.

[@pierretruchon6523]

Yes exactly, and most of the things have a tangent speed that makes them always falling past the attrating object so they orbit around it. But since they don't fight against gravity they dont feel there weight at all, neither there mass wich is the quantity of matter regrdless of gravity.

[@lawrencehalsey4149]

Does particle physics explain where all these forces come from? What makes all these forces different? Can someone explain where spin comes from? Particle physics is a joke... It doesn't explain anything.

[@JoeSmith-ol5kp]

Am I the only 11 year old here

[@kaleplante]

nope

[@malharvaishampayan8147]

2nd !!!

[@kellypearson9463]

Its striking how similar science and religion are Good evil Dark light Heaven hell Matter antimatter Ect

[@MrDzoni955]

Pretty much every culture has dichotomies like that, that's clearly how we tend to understand the world around us.

[@user-rd6lb1ov6n]

Darkness and light aren't even opposites. Matter and antimatter have exactly same mass, spins, except for the charge. It doesn't actually make them 2 opposites. What makes 2 things oppose each other?

[@kaislandnoodle8603]

One of the worst video productions for an education presentation. You get half a second to see the slides then the camera focuses on the speaker for who knows why. I've haven't seen these atomic models before. Show the face in the beginning and end, and leave the rest to the slides.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Here is a copy and paste of my latest TOE idea along with a test for what I believe 'gravity' truly is: Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. __________________________________________________________ Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.

[@boggo3848]

No.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Bogdan Vera The gravity test would show whether it's true or not, not you. The gravity test would speak for itself.

[@Ni999]

I don't understand how you could get so far off track, right from the basics of a horseshoe magnet. No one meaningful is going to try your experiment or support your position. It would be great if we could all take big shortcuts using made-up physics explained with word salad but unfortunately, we already learned in the dark ages that that doesn't end well. Don't waste any more of your time. If you are interested in the subject, go to school. Put your energy where it could do some good. Leave everything you wrote and everything like it behind. Forget it.

[@Ni999]

Charles Brightman You haven't described a gravity test. You lack the vocabulary on the subject for me to explain why your experiment description is anything more than word salad - and a complete waste of time. Nothing you've suggested will advance science in any way.

[@KittyBoom360]

@@Ni999 Who is wasting whose time with non productive comments and word salads? If you can't engage, then why are you here?

[@bkshobhadongare2923]

Hey you copied tedshow

[@spacemodulated]

Very smart people, yet still can’t manage their own audio. This is ear assault.

[@aaronh920]

Could you have provided more evidence please. Your insights are indistinguishable from parroting your favourite deep thinkers.

[@josemariodelapiedra611]

Great

[@JoeSmith-ol5kp]

Am I the only 11 year old here