The Standard Model

What is matter made up of? What about the entire universe ? Where do the forces that govern the cosmos come from ? What is the standard model ? All these answers in 5 minutes!
For more videos, subscribe to the KZbin channel : / scienceclicen
And if you liked this video, you can share it on social networks !
To support me on Patreon : / scienceclic
or on Tipeee : tipeee.com/ScienceClic
Facebook Page : / scienceclic
Twitter : / scienceclic
Instagram : / scienceclic
Alessandro Roussel,
For more info: www.alessandroroussel.com/en
_
To learn more :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...
• Quantum Field Theory v...

[@ScienceClicEN]

This video is a small summary of the Standard Model of particles I hope you'll like it ! Don't worry if you find this too short, another longer video is coming up in a few minutes ;)

[@UKtownsendj]

Your videos are awesome, really informative! The visual representations make it incredibly easy for the information to stick with me! I especially like your descriptions of general relativity! Keep it up!

[@DialecticRed]

How do you have so few subscribers and comments? This looks like something I'd find from one of the KZbin channels with teams of people, like Kurzgesagt or something, but IMO you do even a better job then them, because it's in depth explanations and not just "clickbait science". Awesome job, for real. You deserve recognition for this. May I ask what you use to make the diagrams/animations? I'm considering starting something like this at some point in time.

[@ScienceClicEN]

Thank you very much 🙏 I use After Effects for all my animations. I honestly recommend trying it, creating this KZbin channel has been one of the best experiences. Good luck !

[@DialecticRed]

@@ScienceClicEN I'll have to decide on a subject to talk about - probably multiple - and also probably get a better understanding of that field, especially if it's physics, because the last thing I'd want to do is mislead people, which just from watching your videos I've realized I would've done had I made a video explaining general relativity, for example, to an audience. But thanks for the encouragement, I really appreciate it!

[@ScienceClicEN]

If you need any advice or if you think I could help in any way don't hesitate to send me a message I'll be glad to help (and to check out your videos)

[@davidmurphy563]

I've just discovered this channel. Only the 2nd video I've seen but it really does seem very good. Thanks!

[@SClerckx]

It's awesome. I've been binge watching since I discovered it and have learnt an incredible amount!

[@thenitekid]

Literally the same for me too... Lol Great videos!

[@robjohnston1433]

Me too! Where has it been all my life?!?!

[@wulphstein]

What is spacetime made of?

[@davidmurphy563]

@@wulphstein Time and space. :) It's a geometric model. Asking what it's made of is like asking what "spherical" is made of. It's a mathematical abstraction of reality that fits the data and allows us to make accurate predictions. Look at it this way, if two people were walking parallel to one another on a flat surface then they would maintain the same distance. If they did it on the surface of a sphere then, while still walking in a straight line, they would approach. You can test that and know which type of surface you're on. Years ago Galileo said that if you're on a train going 100kph and you throw a rock backwards at 20kph then the rock is travelling at 80kph with respect to the ground. It seemed self-evident. We know experimentally that if you are moving at some fraction of the speed of light and you shine light backwards, then it is still moving at the speed of light. So Galileo's transform was false and we need another. So to solve this, to translate between one frame of reference and another, we adjust the components - distance and time - to keep the velocity the same. This geometric system is called spacetime, it doesn't exist physically but it does allow us to make incredibly accurate predictions. Famously, the orbit of Venus was explained using this. The evidence is now beyond overwhelming. It's like energy, there isn't actually such a thing. Like inflation in economics, you can't pick it up, it's just a useful abstraction.

[@HarhaMedia]

I really like how well you structure these videos. You start from the very bottom and build up to the whole picture in a very concise way.

[@warrenngombela7790]

It is very attractive as à concept

[@AURAXKIRA]

@@warrenngombela7790 quarks and leptons are not concepts but ok

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@AURAXKIRA They are concepts which describe physical reality.

[@AURAXKIRA]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 yes but this guy is saying they are concepts such as time which is a concept it doesn’t really exists our brains just make it up to fill in gaps it exists but not the way we think

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@AURAXKIRA Time is more than just a concept made up by our brains. Time is part of spacetime, which is a very real physical thing.

[@realityenthusiasm1484]

This channel deserves millions of subscribers - Fabulous voice, superb background music, fantastic illustrations - more important : crisp and clear explanation

[@dcanbazlar]

Can you make video about Higgs boson, graviton etc..

[@johnm.v709]

Smallest Particle kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk

[@princetyagii]

Don't skip the ads that come before the video, this is the least we can help the most underrated channel on KZbin

[@phumgwatenagala6606]

I agree, but my thumb finds this very hard to get onboard with

[@MultiSciGeek]

Very clear and basic. Never seen an explanation so clear thus far... Can you make more videos on this so we can even better understand how these work/interact? I'm learning so much from this channel.

[@josemanueld5413]

Best and more simple and comprehensible explanation of the standard model I have seen so far

[@Knatrick]

That moment when you're describing A-Level physics but 1 trillion isn't in your script (1:58).

[@particleonazock2246]

Haha, underrated and well spotted

[@johnimusic12]

This is a great video explaining a summary of these particles in an easy to visualize compartmentalized manner.

[@bzaruk]

I am addicted to your channel mate!

[@alekseyholub6905]

great explanations of the complicated things. Thank you! Would love to see a deep dive into each category like quarks, leptons, bosons to know what common proterties they share, how different they are and etc. Thanks once again for the great content!

[@martyn5416]

Excellent visuals again, thoroughly enjoyed!

[@markpats290]

You're unbelievable at this ... Excellent job explaining difficult staff.

[@ScienceClicEN]

Thanks !

[@tornadospin9]

This video is phenomenally well done. It’s structure makes it easy to understand while keeping it short and concise. Great job!

[@061banyon]

I continue to be impressed by the clarity and excellence of your videos!

[@alexdimopoulos769]

Welcome guys, to youtube. Your videos are amazing, you are going to have a great future as a channel. Keep it up !

[@manalsottouti5917]

Very interesting, simple to understand, perfect 👌

[@pinboru_]

Your videos are amazing!

[@NikHem343]

As someone who’s just interested in physics and never studied it, these videos obviously always lose me at some point, but it’s quite remarkable to which degree it is made possible for me to follow them

[@sherlock2694]

Extremely high quality video!! Keep making good stuff!!

[@naderchmait5543]

I wonder what I like most about this channel: the science it nicely presents and visualises or this guy's tone and accent.

[@ScarletEdge]

So if Higgs Boson is responsible for a mass, and is representative of the field, wouldn't that field be the spacetime itself and particles are just bending that field on macroscale giving the effect of gravity? I am sorry for my stupidity and please explain why I am wrong.

[@naso3179]

I was thinking the same thing. if the higgs field get distorted by particles , wouldn't that bend the space time?

[@ozzymandius666]

No. Energy distorts spacetime as well, even massless particles.

[@cinepo]

I also need this answer. But I think that Higgs Boson is not spacetime itself. I think spacetime is just the board and higgs bosson is a field layer "on top", the interaction is within matter and the field, and the board may then react as a consequence.... What I fail to understand is how the boson work. Also don't take any of my word, Im just another guy trying to make sense of this

[@thedeemon]

If you look at the equations regarding the Higgs field and gravity description in general relativity via spacetime curvature, they are completely different. Gravitational field in GR is the metric tensor field, assigning a 4x4 matrix of values to every point in spacetime and participating in all things related to geometry of spacetime. Higgs is a scalar quantum field, meaning if it was a classical field it would assign just a single complex number to every point in space. A quantum version is a bit more complicated. But anyway it's just one of the basic quantum fields just like the electron field, photon field, quark field and others. They interact with each other via Yukawa interaction that doesn't really resemble gravity.

[@cinepo]

@@thedeemon I like you, you have answers and seem smart, if you don't mind, can I ask you if Im wrong with this? and sorry because i'm gonna say a lot of stupid things for sure: There are different fields one for each type of particle. Each field is a collection of infinite mathematical points. A particle appears to us as a probability cloud because of quantum propiertis, but the thing is that it alters the values of some mathematical-points in that field(because particles are information) and behave wave-like. Each particle is constantly emiting bosons or spliting into other particles, for it to reabsorbe or join again instantly. Now, when a particle is near another, it can emit a boson that instead of reabsorbed is absorbed by the other particle, thus creating an interation between particles or (between fields if are different types) So can we picture reality as diferent layers of information (fields), with waves going around (particles) and constantly emiting bosons or changing layers by spliting (interactions)?? Thank you in advance!

[@pavangaonkardonigadde]

I have never seen such an explanation anywhere else.thank you so much

[@Gali80f]

Great video and simple explanation. Thank you

[@lukedare-white3131]

Sweet! Excited to watch this one

[@GreatRetro]

Duuude, this is an AMAZING channel!

[@mnada72]

Thank you for much, excellent demonstration

[@madhu619]

Wonderful visualisation

[@volotat]

Another brilliant video. As usual.

[@emanuelnovak8552]

These videos are a lot of fun and educational.

[@inuka6969]

This is the best video I had ever seen.

[@ScienceClicEN]

Thanks :)

[@Sttuey]

Given General Relativity already offers a compelling explanation for the mechanism behind gravity, why is there a need for a Graviton particle or even a theory there might be one - how would it work in the framework of GR?

[@tokajileo5928]

in GR you can calculate exactly the curvature of spacetime caused by a mass. But according to the Heisenberg uncertainity principle this is not possible

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

The general theory of relativity assumes matter behaves the way it is described by classical field theory, and this is inaccurate. Also, the graviton is just supposed to be quantum for the spacetime curvature field, in the same the photon is just the quantum of the electromagnetic field.

[@sha-hu]

Perfect explanation.

[@JGS2295]

Great video, good stuff!

[@gg-ci5gb]

Keep up your good jobs!

[@johnrivera922]

Perfection. Thank you.

[@uri_ocallaghan]

Amazing video!😍

[@Gali80f]

Plainly explained. Thank you!

[@rodsaco3154]

What a wonderful video!

[@fatprincess8319]

awesome quality content! keep it up

[@juderyangeguera552]

I love this channel

[@hassanalupao9314]

Please make a video too, explaining the four fundamental interaction in detailed. 🙏😄

[@manojhegdemanoj2288]

I discovered today and this my 10th video , the way you explain is fantastic ,love from 🇮🇳🇮🇳

[@dcanbazlar]

Great channel

[@TheRedbeardpirate]

If gravity is the manifestation of spacetime curvature as described by G.R. Why do we need gravitons? Could I infer that their purpose is to create the interaction between matter and spacetime rather than directly between gravitationaly bound objects?

[@DrDeuteron]

a graviton would just be a quantum of spacetime curvature, so it's not necessarily a new particle, it's just a quantum of a field we already know exists (the metric field that measures distance in spacetime). If gravity is quantized, then the GW the moved LIGO's mirrors a fraction of a proton diameter had on the order of 10^30 gravitons (meaning it behaved like a very classical wave), and one can be confident that we will never detect nor manipulate a single graviton, as we do with the quantum of the electromagentic field, the photon.

[@rhinoturk910]

@ScienceClic English. Hi, do you think you will ever make an in depth video on quantum coherence/entanglement? Great videos btw

[@yurikolovsky]

Why does the narrator and the music sound like I'm watching some conspiracy video?

[@john23242526]

Cause it makes thinks more interesting hahaha Also doubtfull, wich moves you on searching more about then. Such a very good tecnique, isn't it?

[@lowenzahn3976]

Because gravity is not real, it's a hoax.

[@AverageAlien]

@@lowenzahn3976 you're not wrong at all, gravity is an illusion

[@neveragainlilhomie]

@@AverageAlieny’all dumb or something?

[@The-Negative-Commentator]

@@AverageAlien💀

[@nobodynowhere8061]

I was looking for a video that would explain what the difference between different these different particles were and this helped a lot. But i’m still a little lost on the Z0, W+, and W- bosons

[@trilocicero4062]

Amazing video. Why did people dislike this?

[@steved.1698]

What software do you use to animate your videos? I would like to make similar videos for computer science and engineering. The quality of these is wonderful.

[@ScienceClicEN]

Glad you like them ! I am using After Effects for all the animations, and Photoshop to draw the pictures before animating

[@steved.1698]

@@ScienceClicEN Thank you very much! I will learn it.

[@Trotototo]

Wow, I really enjoy the novel approach these videos take conceptually regarding the visualization; showing that new ideas are still available. A very small, almost an "non" issue really, yet important imo when explanations/visualizations are that fascinating and "convincing" would be the use of language in regard of "factuality" of the models versus true true true true ;) reality of nature. All those explanations are *the best* or *least problematic* in most cases we have *currently*. There is a major difference in "education", even more so in unsupervised education imo, between "The universe is like this." vs "This is *currently* our best/most succesful *model* of the Universe." Only the second one encourages further scientific investigation and progress. Eventually, with time some/all of those explanations/models will fall, regardless how fascinating and convincing they appear to us today. This does not diminish their todays value in any way. Anyways, thanks for those great new visualization ideas and explanations!

[@yiyan9896]

excellent！

[@_abdul]

Wow! Just Wow!

[@redpower6956]

Amazing channel! Keep up the good work

[@sinistergeek]

i like to see more video ...Regarding particale

[@ffrreeddyy123456]

Some of these episodes are real cliffhangers and leave me thinking💛

[@_tasneem7378]

many thanks

[@roblo2526]

Please make a video about the weak interaction some day!🙏

[@rickharold7884]

Cool. Thx

[@jasonokoro8061]

I love ur channel. one more sub :)

[@Silent_300]

The first generation of fermions "almost entirely" makes up the matter of the universe, except for neutrinos which oscillate between generations constantly?

[@ozzymandius666]

Yes, and there are probably a few strange quarks in the center of neutron stars, especially when they are born in the middle of a supernova.

[@1mpact594]

This is very basic interepretation to comprehend. Especially the music is attributed to my interest of this video.

[@andrewpotapenkoff7723]

These videos expands the consciousness.

[@kaulickmitra6898]

Man, how can you explain things like these in such a simple way..😵

[@neildutoit5177]

Are you going to do a series on mass?

[@NOTTHEMUTANTMOBo]

I love learn about the world, let alone the universe 💯🤗

[@shipshrekt2156]

Could gravity be explained in this model as matter clumping the highs boson field? This clumping or concentration of the field act as a sink for other matter?

[@scptime1188]

The "clumping", or more accurately disturbance, is actually the higgs boson itself, not gravity. If it was gravity all that would do is increase the mass of the object.

[@Nukestarmaster]

Can you make a video on the weak nuclear force, there are a lot of videos on the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity, but almost nothing on weak force. I would like to know why it has two gauge bosons (unlike EM and strong force) among other things.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

The weak interaction has three gauge bosons. The strong force has eight. When we talk about gluons, we are talking about eight different bosons, not one boson.

[@brianpj5860]

How does the Gravaton differ from the Higgs Boson?? Is the HB supposed to interact with other particles by shooting Gravitons at it??

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

The Higgs field is completely different from spacetime curvature.

[@mistersinister5768]

I wish this channel would teach math as well, you are better at teaching than anyone else on the internet

[@ayo9344]

Is there anyway to show more words at a time with subtitles? It's so short, only showing like max 20 words at a time. Anyone know a way to increase subtitle length?

[@phumgwatenagala6606]

You could change the playback speed to 0.5 or something

[@ayo9344]

@@phumgwatenagala6606 I usually watch at around 2.5x-3x speed. But this has made me think...maybe their is an extension I can download that can increase it.

[@ayo9344]

@@phumgwatenagala6606 I actually just figured out there is a little ellipsis icon below the video that provides an option to view the videos transcript!!! With timestamps too! So I could even search the whole video with ctrl+f for a specific word!

[@phumgwatenagala6606]

@@ayo9344 awesome, thanks for the info, every day is a school day!

[@cinepo]

I have even more questions now... 1.when you talk about second and third generation particles, that is because they appeared in that order after the big bang? or it is just because they are less abundant? 2. Are Bossons emited randomly in random directions? I think here Im getting confused because of how you animated and how did you explained it in the video "Are forces real?". I pictured bossons like a field, that can be "activated" one way or another by the influence (pressence) of particles. But if you say bossons are particles, then i dont understand electromagnetic fields... EDIT: Ok I have an answer for this one, so basically yes, bosons are emited randomly and constantly by particles but are reaboserbed inmediatly, unless two particles get near enough for the bosson emited by one particle to be absorbed by the other, thus causing an interaction. 3. Also, why gravity needs a bosson? If we assume that gravity is just the consequence of spacetime curvature, why we need a bosson to explain a gravity interaction between matter? Is because the interaction of gravity is between the matter and the spacetime and that is what this bosson would explain? or is it to try to debunk Einstein?

[@thedeemon]

1.We don't know in which order different kinds of particles appeared. The 3 generations are grouped this way because due to their similarity in terms of charges they fit in a table nicely, and the generations are sorted by the rest mass of the particles. 2. In all directions, but not every possibility has the same weight in the total calculation. A scenario where two electrons exchange one photon has higher probability amplitude than a scenario with two photons, while a scenario where a photon is emitted sidewise and an electron suddenly changes its velocity, without other particles around, has pretty much zero probability. It's all about the Feynman diagrams and their rules, what terms they represent and in what equations. 3. Graviton comes up if we try to quantize gravitational field from Einstein's GR directly. Quantum particles don't have precise positions, they are usually in superpositions, like a "cloud of probability". So we ask: what spacetime curvature does one quantum particle create? If that particle is in superposition of being here and there, is the space bent towards this point or that point? How does it change when the wavefunction of a particle changes? In order to describe this all quantum mechanically we need to make the gravitational field of spacetime curvature also quantum, allow superpositions and operators that change that field, these operators in QFT are operators of particle creation and annihilation, all fields change by creating one particles and annihilating others. This way we naturally come to the quanta of change in spacetime curvature, those quanta are gravitons. Except this all approach didn't really work, even theoretically, so we still don't have a good theory about it, and maybe there are no gravitons at all.

[@cinepo]

@@thedeemon man, I can't thank you enough for this, you took your time to explain this to a stupid stranger on the internet, and I tell you, i'm very thankful for that. This always bothered me and I didn't have the oportunity to study physics, so my only way to understand this is watching youtube videos and hoping for the best. I know i am very far away from understanding General Realtivity or Quantum physics but one step closer is a huge thing for me. (Not only in this thread, I also saw your answer in the other comment, thank you for that too!)

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@cinepo It is never too late to study physics professionally. There is no age limit to study at a university.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

*When you talk about second and third generation particles, that is because they appeared in that order after the Big Bang, or is it just because they are less abundant?* It is neither. A generation 2 particle is identical in almost every way to a generation 1 particle. The only two differences are (a) mass, (b) lifetime/stability. A muon has more mass than an electron, a shorter half-life than an electron, and so, a muon will decay into an electron. However, in all other properties, a muon is identical to an electron. *Also, why does gravity need a boson? If we just assume that gravity is just the consequence of spacetime curvature, why we need a boson to explain a gravity interaction between matter?* We need to quantize the general theory of relativity and the curvature of spacetime, because if we do not, then we are dealing with particles, which have no well-defined position, momentum, or energy, somehow causing a well-defined curvature in spacetime, and this is nonsensical. If one is not well-defined, then neither can the other one be.

[@6Twisted]

The more I learn about quantum mechanics the more it seems like we could be part of a simulation.

[@pacotaco1246]

Look up how hard it is to store irrational numbers

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Uh...

[@jameswalker199]

Part of me wants to know: if there are anti fermions, are there also anti bosons (as per supersymmetry)? Also, why are there three bosons for the weak nuclear force, but only one for the other two? And finally, if the higgs field causes mass, why is there a need for a graviton? Would the higgs boson not mediate the gravitational force, or am I not understanding it?

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Antibosons are not a prediction of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry predicts something far more exotic. Antibosons do exist. The antiparticle of the W+ boson is the W- boson, for example. You said there is only type of boson for electromagnetic interaction and strong interaction, but this is false. The strong interaction has 8 bosons mediating: there are 8 distinct types of gluon, not just 1. The Higgs boson causes elementary particles to have mass. This has nothing to do with the gravitational interaction, which has little to do mass itself. The gravitational interaction has to do with stress-energy causing spacetime to have a curvature. This curvature being created is not due to the Higgs boson, but for reasons unknown. The graviton is the hypothetical boson which mediates the curvature of spacetime between all other particles.

[@GilesMcRiker]

The presentation of the standard model in this encyclopedic manner way is quite common, but in my opinion, suboptimal. It frontloads the viewer with an over-emphasis of jargon/terminology-- itself is not important-- and therefore not the most helpful pedagogic or heuristic method. You'll note that for this reason, Feynman specifically never listed the names of particles when he introduced the standard model to lay audiences (consistent with his anecdote about the lessons he learned from his father on nature walks , i.e. the value of terminology vs substantive knowledge). Nima Arkani-Hamed has also espoused a similar view; Anyways, I appreciate the effort and definitely appreciate the bulk of your work.

[@johnm.v709]

Universe = Only two things 1 - Space 2 - Huge numbers of indivisible particles in that space. For indivisible particle : kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ_Op6J_fd-nhtk For Basic state of universe : IJSR vol.7, issue 3 Pages 273 - 275

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

The terminology is very important. That is why it exists. And I would not take Feynman as being the golden standard of science communication, because he was not great at it. He was an amazing physicist, but a subpar communicator.

[@hikuro14]

What is a "Spin Quantum Number?" Like what is it and how does it apply to these particles and their interactions? I've tried to wrap my head around it, but I just can't seem to understand it.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

He explained this in the previous video.

[@generalscience5788]

Anybody know the soundtrack name?

[@siddeshwarmaharajz6810]

Such wonderful work you are doing. highly appreciate your outstanding work. would like to say that at 3:48 what if we use a nanoscopic scale rather than a microscopic scale?

[@Deepakyadav-vp8xx]

Every particle has matter and anti matter property but which dominate, in quantum mechanics results different for same experiment is above

[@informing_]

Aren't particles just a manifestation of concentrated field (field of something?)?

[@dankuchar6821]

Yes, particles can be thought of as localized disturbances in a field.

[@informing_]

@@dankuchar6821 It's so crazy, we are made of field? So the field talks?

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@informing_ Ultimately, we are made of fields, yes, but emergent properties are a real concept that exists, so it really is more complicated.

[@reypolice5231]

I appreciate that you made an effort to state that this stuff: are only theories and not facts. To often science and other subjects try to claim things as laws. Then things change. Such as Darwin's theories passed off as fact, But no proof. Then the proofs get debunked.

[@HannesSwanepoel]

Does it need the graviton if spacetime curves?

[@scptime1188]

Spacetime curvature doesn't correalte with quantum physics because quantum mechanical equations are only compeltely solvable in minowski space (flat space).

[@user-zc2ek1sq2h]

Why do you need two different particles for the gravitation? The higgs boson and the graviton?

[@Jack__________]

Were the colors used representative of quantum chromodynamics?

[@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174]

From what I remember, unlike photons, gluons actually interact with each other so there is a force between them, which makes the triangle representation of quarks joined together inaccurate and it should be in the shape of a Y instead. Can you comment on that?

[@ozzymandius666]

Both are inaccurate. Gluons form flux tubes.

[@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174]

@@ozzymandius666 Yeah, but it's still in the shape of a Y as that's geometrically the shortest distance, and considering that it takes energy to clear out the fluctuations, I'd imagine they would take the shortest path. Also, I don't exactly imagine another way to symbolically represent them in a simple way without overloading graphics.

[@ozzymandius666]

@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 I'm not sure graphics are up to the job. Strong force calculations are not easy. I imagine that both images play a role in a superposition, but people seem to insist that "this is the way it is" all the time.

[@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174]

@@ozzymandius666 I don't think it should be a completely realistic representation as the point of those graphics is to immensely simplify it and allow easy drawing. Something you could easily draw on a board in seconds. I mean, particles aren't colourful balls, it's a simplification. But quarks are traditionally drawn as a triangle because of lack of information, if I remember correctly. It was eventually replaced by the Y model but many people still draw them as triangles.

[@ozzymandius666]

@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 I don't think it matters how they are drawn, as people who don't know the math will fail to understand anyway.

[@alchemy1]

What particle exchanges to cause the warping spacetime since force is viewed as particle exchange. Other particle exchanges happen in spacetime itself while we look for an exchange particle for the very thing that things happen in..... it is all bewildering....

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

*What particle exchanges to cause the warping spacetime since force is viewed as particle exchange.* No one knows, but the leading hypothesis is that the graviton is responsible.

[@ozzymandius666]

1. I wonder if there are more positrons or muons in the universe? I lean towards the latter. 2. Do not neutrinos exist in a superposition of states? Even the neutrinos from the sun are high enough in energy to be Tau neutrinos for a bit. 3. Gravitons may be impossible to detect as single particles, even in principle.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Question 1 is malformed, since the amounts for these particle types is constantly changing even at the largest scales. Neutrinos do indeed exist in a superposition of states, and they oscillate between the states. This is called neutrino oscillation. No one knows whether gravitons are detectable in principle or not. We only know they are not detectable with foreseen technology as of yet. Besides, these calculations are based on assumptions.

[@ozzymandius666]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 I think it was Dyson who did a simple proof that a detector capable of detecting a single gravition would collapse into a black hole.

[@SaebaRyo21]

As Gravitational waves have discovered almost 100 years after Einstein's Theory of Relativities and similarly, 1st M87 Black Hole pic had captured back in 2019; hope that one day in upcoming future may be Graviton would be discovered... One day. May be it would be a Quantum Gravity "particle"? ( though a vague assumption, but who knows...)

[@divyanshugreninja6692]

Sir if neutrino doesn't interacts with matter then how did we detected it ?

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Neutrinos do interact with matter. I think you are misconstruing what he said in the video.

[@the_smart_waterbear1234]

* Graviton has left the standard model but still came in *

[@das_it_mane]

Does the graviton only work under string theory? Or can it exist without it?

[@scptime1188]

Technically the graviton could just be a quantum particle, but string theory explicitly suggests gravitons would exist. But it also suggests (via supersymmetry) lots of particles that don't exist. So who knows?

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

The graviton is a prerequisite hypothesis under any quantization of a gravitational field theory. String theory is merely the most popular candidate.

[@tupaicindjeke275]

I just want to know. In Engineering, the expression F=ma = I*alpha, is that a force or force field? Help guys?

[@pacotaco1246]

A force field is just a tool or an idea that has a Force at every point in rhe universe. For ease of use, places where there is no force simply have a force of zero.

[@jamescollier3]

Before :41 seconds you say the standard model makes up all the particles in the universe. Is that true, or just the 5% of the universe we understand?

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Just the 5%.

[@alexram5267]

Neutrinos do interact with matter, through the weak force, and therefore not so often

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

He didn't say they don't interact.

[@Blate1]

It’s quite annoying that the one force our model can’t account for is the one that we are most familiar with in our daily lives

[@kirill2525]

Moreeeeeee

[@sanjuansteve]

I think all photons, electrons, etc are in orbit with a dark matter particle pulling them into apparent wave packets as they travel. This would explain the double slit, light polarization, uncertainty, etc.

[@ozzymandius666]

It would do no such thing.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Can you elaborate, or are you just saying stuff?

[@user-ew7qo9jk1l]

What is the kind of music behind the video?

[@Benoit-Pierre]

🙂