What Holds the Universe Together? The Fundamental Forces

[@ReVox77a]

This is the first time I've actually heard a decent explanation of what the weak force is!

[@davidsmith800]

Yes! It’s the main reason I found this channel. It’s great, I sure hope he keeps going.

[@Ruundas]

I'm impressed by the explanation of the repulsive force of magnetism. I was curious to see the explanation of the attractive force. As expected, no real explanation. To be honest, we know that magnetism still cannot be explained.

[@QuantumDynamics]

17:00 one explanation could be that the virtual particle waves are oriented in the opposite way (up or down) thus when they make contact they cancel each other out, preventing them from being reabsorbed. This causes a surplus of virtual particles on the opposite sides, propelling the real particles toward each other.

[@brianpj5860]

This answer is definitely a-lot easier to comprehend and picture inside my head. Especially if you are even somewhat familiar with The Casimir Effect.

[@kevinpotts123]

What an elegant explanation. Thank you.

[@mihailmilev9909]

​@@brianpj5860right

[@mihailmilev9909]

​@@kevinpotts123exactly

[@mihailmilev9909]

​@blankvision2771dude, frequency just means something that repeats regularly over time.......

[@scottwilson4149]

This Episode has given me some insight regarding the weak nuclear force. I have had at least a layman's understanding of the other 3 forces for a long time. It is great to at last grasp this. I really like this channel.

[@ReflectiveLayerFilm]

Awesome video. Good to see that you're still making . For some reason I missed the past few videos. This channel starting to grow. Soon you'll hit 100k. Great Work.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thanks very much. Good to see you again. I need to catch up on a few of your videos too. I'll get on that, I always enjoyed your videos.

[@raphaelflores9496]

​@@LearningCurveScience is there a Soul particles exist?

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

@@raphaelflores9496no. The magic of life is that the chemistry creates the magic, we are chemical reactions and a soul isn’t something that has or ever will be a scientific fact as it literally is faith which by definition is the absence of knowledge

[@educatedguest1510]

Actually time (by Einstein) holds it, read in "Unrealistic Einstein and Dogmatic Modern Physics".

[@jonathandaflon1769]

Omg I just got back to the channel after a while and saw the video. Then I thought "wow he made the video" just to see my name on the screen. You made me really happy sir ❤

[@joz6683]

Welcome back you have been missed and so has the channel.

[@hcellix]

Thanks for taking your time to make a surprisingly good informative video on our universe. I plan to watch another one.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@jonathanford9354]

I never get tired of just how bizarre particle physics is.

[@tongpoo8985]

Probably the most confusing and abstract part of science to me

[@OvalTBandit]

Please continue to keep making these videos!!!!!!!!!!!

[@OvalTBandit]

also i found that Physics videos by Eugene Khutoryansky help to explain the wave function duality as well 🙂

[@PasiFourmyle]

I think the section about opposite charges attracting could've been better explained in the field visual that you had started with. My mind's eye saw it this way as you explained it: The "P" particle is radiating these virtual waves; however, the waves would then be realized as a "dip" by the "e" particle, thus giving it momentum toward the "P" particle. The same visual is how I thought about the "e" to "e" interaction that you described: The "e" particle is constantly emitting these tiny waves as well, but in the "e" field these waves will be seen as "peaks" that grow the closer the "e" particles get to each other and drive them apart. I realize this still doesn't really explain the "why" about why each particle would experience these waves differently, but I think the field visual does make a lot of sense. Especially if you maybe had a little visual of the particles "surfing" on the waves.

[@xBINARYGODx]

yup, thought the same thing - negative charge created valley's, positives give peaks. similar will always add and repel - different will cancel each other out, meaning there is a lack between but not in any other direction - this would push the particles together.

[@prernabhatt1952]

your work is absolutely great so informative and explained well .

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much!

[@dominicbriske4020]

Do you think you could do a video covering the Schrödinger Equation in relation to polar spherical harmonics and why the quantum numbers make the funky beautiful shapes of the electron orbitals (s,p,d, etc.) I heard there’s a lot of history behind it but haven’t yet heard a simplified, cohesive, and understandable explanation. Love the content as always!

[@sstrick500]

It drives me insane thinking about how large the universe is; and its all made up of the tiniest of things! I'm sure we'll soon discover even tinier things!

[@tedrex8959]

Do you mind terribly if I ask, do we have a theoretical energy value for the detection of gravitons and if so how far off reaching it are we, say compared to the LHC? I am dreadfully sorry if this is a stoopid question, I am afriad I am rather thick, even more so when it comes down to things related to maths and physics. I always think of the gravitational fields as colours altering their hues in my head, silly I know but it seemed most natural to me. Unfortunately I fear this doesn't help your display problem, I am sorry I couldn't think of a better way.

[@LearningCurveScience]

There are no stupid questions. It isn't necessarily about energy though, gravitons just might not interact with matter much, a bit like neutrinos. To be honest, some parts of physics require them to exist (string theory I think). Other parts don't have them existing (Relativity If I remember correctly), so they might just be very elusive and even physics doesn't agree about them.

[@tedrex8959]

@LearningCurveScience Thank you for replying I think I understand a little more. Would you be open to doing a video on the electroweak force if possible. I wondered what effects it would have compared to the separate weak and electromagnetic force. Thank you again for answering, I do enjoy your videos. I might not UNDERSTAND them but that's a problem at my end! ;-)

[@teodelfuego]

This was excellent! Thank you!

[@nomann5244]

You are genius. Soon you will be recognized throughout the world.

[@comb-t]

The Stable Nuclide N-Z Graph has got to be one of my favourite graphs in Physics tbh.

[@davidwilliamson8502]

17:08 think that you’re on a kayak in the middle of a complete still lake and a friend is in another kayak nearby. Scenario 1 (Same Charge): If both you and your friend threw a heavy ball to each other at the same time and caught it - the moment would push you away. Same charge particles are pushed away the same way. Scenario 2 (Opposite Charge): This time, you and your friend throw heavy boomerangs to each other. To do this, you’d have to throw the boomerang away from your friend, it’d go around to the opposite side of your friend, and if thrown at the same time, the moment would push the kayaks together. (Easier to explain with pictures)

[@Ruundas]

Subscribed, and absolutly impressed by the accuracy and good explenations on this Channel. Here you can learn new things. Im so glad about your channel

[@jaysonp9426]

That was the best demonstration of electromagnetism ever

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you.

[@MichaelBrendzap]

This channel is criminally underrated....How you don't have more subs is a mystery to me. Love the channel. Please keep making great videoe

[@stephanieparker1250]

Great idea for a video! Happy to see you still creating, 🎉❤

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you!! 😊 It's good to be back.

[@viniciusnoyoutube]

Fantastic video, great job.

[@rezamalihi7120]

Excellent explanation, thank you! ... Also, must say your presentation skills (combination of graphics and logical ordering of the info) are exceptionally clear! 👏👏

[@Rayne-jx6sl]

Hey, as the down quark transforms into the up quark through the weak interaction, does it transfer its negative electric charge to the outside via the w boson? How does it gain a positive electrical charge after becoming an up quark? Where does this positive charge come from?

[@stephanieparker1250]

I thought of an interesting video idea. Maybe someone has done something similar but I think you could do a great version. To help people appreciate how amazing it when we find fossil, or some ancient historical artifact.. start off with how long a tin can will last buried in the dirt. It’s incredible what we have been able to find and learn from that’s thousands and even millions of years old.

[@nigelcnash]

Firstly thank you for your work on this. Excellent explanations and graphics. However, I have a silly question. What is Space? I can go along with an expanding universe, quantum fields, time dilation, black holes , dark energy and matter etc. But I am still confused as to what space is. If I have a box, 1m x 1m x 1m I have a cubic meter of space. If I remove all of the stuff in the box; molecules, atoms, particles I have a box of quantum fields. There are particles appearing and disappearing back into the fields. There is energy in the box. Energy and mass are interchangeable. Paul Davis* has calculated that in a much bigger empty box, 100,000kM3 space would weigh 1 gram. So far so good. The problem starts with the expansion of the Universe. Did the universe expand into my cubic meter of space that is located in coordinates outside of the expanding Universe or did the expansion create my cubic meter? If the expansion of the Universe created my cubic meter, then it was a much smaller box in the past and will be a much bigger in the future. What is the effect of changing the size of the space in which the quantum fields operate? Alternatively; did the quantum fields exist before the Big Bang? Was the Big Bang an injection of energy into existing quantum fields that were at a zero energy state (including perhaps the Higgs field) and the expansion of the Universe is the dissipation of that energy across the pre-existing quantum fields. There has been speculation of a ‘multiverse’ such that outside our Universe there are other universes - bubble universes (Paul Davis suggested that the ‘cold spot Eridanus” in the cosmic microwave background radiation could suggest and interaction with another universe.) That suggests that there is distance ie some measurable geometry that is present outside of our Universe that it is expanding into. Is this plausible or simply whimsical? Space is deformed by gravity. Could it be that the gravitational field is separate from space? A build up of mass in the Higgs field disturbs particles in other quantum fields and would affect passage of particles travelling through my box. But is it the geometry of the fields that is affected by mass or space? Is what we call space simply quantum fields? Apologies if this makes no sense and is just a muddle of terms. Equally "we don't know" would be an acceptable answer! *What's eating the universe? - with Paul Davies KZbin RI lecture

[@LearningCurveScience]

That got really deep and fascinating. Thanks for such an interesting comment. As far as I understand it, the expansion of the universe is happening everywhere so your 1m of space is now 1.000000001 m of space. At distances less than universal scales the changes are irrelevant. I also like to believe in the idea of the multiverse even if I don't understand the physics.

[@juliavixen176]

Space (and time) don't exist as distinct separate things... well, let me back up a bit... At the moment, there are two big theories which, separately, describe almost everything we can measure in the universe. Quantum Field Theory with the Standard Model Lagrangian, and General Relativity. The standard model is written in terms of energy, and general relativity (gravity) is written in terms of geometry! Literally, the only thing that GR ultimately tells you about is the distance between two points. That's the only thing we're sure about when it comes to gravity. There are at least a hundred other theories of gravity, and most of them have been experimentally disproven, or give the exact same results as we get from GR in every experiment and astronomical observation made so far. You know how people say that "gravity isn't a force"? GR literally says that when something falls down, the amount of space between the center of mass of one object and another object shrinks. The objects are standing still, but there is less and less space between them. It's geometry, not a "force". Anyway, at the moment, there's no experimentally verified quantum theory of gravity. (But there are a lot of different theories... and nobody is sure if any of them are correct.) All that pre-big-bang stuff and parallel universe stuff kinda falls into this category. Anyway, so, technically, space is not a real thing. 4D Spacetime is a thing, but which parts of it that you choose to call "space" and which part you choose to call "time" is arbitrary. For example, your one meter cube only appears to have that size from your arbitrarily chosen point of view. For someone moving at any velocity in any direction, relative to you, that one meter cube of "space" will not be one meter in length along all of its sides... because the sides of your box exist at different points in time. Using terms like "space" is a historical accident going back to Newton et al. We can not directly measure space or time; we can only measure the movement of objects relative to other objects. When people say: speed is distance divided by time, or v=dx/dt, it makes it sound like there separate things called "distance" (space), and "time"... but we can only measure velocity, and velocity is the only thing that exists. We work backwards from measured velocities to calculate "space", and "time", not the other way around! And since velocities are relative, so are space and time. Four numbers are enough to describe any and all velocities, everywhere in the universe, so that's why spacetime is four dimensional. Energy (and linear momentum) are functions of velocity. (And yes, also relative) The standard model is entirely written in terms of kinetic and potential energy. Sticking gravity in there is not very easy. So... that whole "curvature of space (or spacetime)" thing... it's literally that two points in space and time will have one particular distance apart, and two other points will have a different distance apart... that's it... that's basically the theory. The more mass-energy you have in an arbitrary volume of spacetime, the closer together space (and further apart in time) nearby locations will be. I forgot to mention, there is no universal clock. Even without movement, every point in space is located in the past of every other location in space. (And moving around makes it even worse, you can't synchronize moving clocks.) Everyone likes to attempt to describe spacetime like a bunch of movie frames stacked on top of each other, but those planar slices through spacetime are completely arbitrary, and anyone moving at any other velocity will have their movie frame slices dividing up the block of spacetime at a different angle. So things in the past and the future of the stack of frames in the first construction, will appear at the same time in a single frame for the moving observer. Length contraction will actually make 3D objects appear to rotate, because the front and back ends of an object are located at different points in time, just like how they are located at different points in space. So at high (really any) speed, the light coming from the back of the object can be seen, because the front of the object moved out of the way before the light would have been blocked by itself. Lookup Terrell Rotation. I'm rushing because I need to go right now.

[@nigelcnash]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and informed reply. This stuff is hard! If I give up my 1m cube of 'space' (and I am willing to go along with the notion of it being a bit arbitrary and an outmoded concept) I am still puzzled about what is actually expanding. The relativistic distances between objects is growing, perhaps driven by the velocity of the initial expansion from the Big Bang and inflation. We have data to suggest that the expansion is accelerating. Equally we have a theory of quantum fields that give rise to the forces (electromagnetic, nuclear, Higgs). So I guess the question is: How are these quantum fields affected by the expansion of the Universe, or are they a constant and the Universe expanded into the quantum fields? "What came first, the Universe or quantum fields?" As I understand it one theory is that the fields distilled out of the initial inflationary phase of the Universe; but that would seem to cancel out the possibility of anything outside of the Universe.@@juliavixen176

[@nigelcnash]

Thank you for your reply. My box is getting bigger! I guess the question is: How are these quantum fields affected by the expansion of the Universe, or are they a constant and the Universe expanded into the quantum fields? "What came first, the Universe or quantum fields?" As I understand it one theory is that the fields distilled out of the initial inflationary phase of the Universe; but that would seem to cancel out the possibility of anything outside of the Universe.

[@X1Hate]

Where’s the next video? I’ve been checking every day for months!

[@irithel-qy7db]

Hello , when the universe first formed, did subatomic particles interact with the Higgs field and change Z bosons, gaining excess charge and mass? Does this change occur in the form of absorption and release? and how does it turn out? If it results in absorption, since the mass of the Z boson is high, shouldn't the masses of the quarks and electrons that absorb the Z boson also be high?

[@davidwilliamson8502]

Love holds the Universe all together💜

[@rocktopuss9279]

I enjoyed this video!

[@duran9664]

Question 🙋‍♀️ If time inside a black hole is nearly frozen, does that mean the time in early universe was extremely slow too, which means the true age of the universe should be much bigger! 🤔

[@Toonrick12]

Time itself is a man made construction. Or at least our version of time. But since the universe can't say what time it runs on, we humans just assume it lines up with our idea of time.

[@Cookiekopter]

if all of the universe was slowed down then was really anything slowed down?

[@maskddingo1779]

@@Cookiekopter Great comment! I'm going to add on that, but a little less succinctly. 😁 To know if time itself was "slower" or "faster" accross the entire universe at a given point in time one would need to have an external frame of reference to compare that to. When taking the whole universe into account, there is no external frame of reference other than "outside the frame of the entire universe". To put it another way, in order to even notice this effect, one would need to have a clock to compare to that exists outside the universe. And it would only be in that frame that anyone could know if things ran "faster" or "slower" in the universe relative to their extra-universal clock. It would only be in this external frame that the relative speed of time in the entire universe has any meaning.

[@mdavid1955]

Well done!..easy to follow.

[@OmsSmart]

ATTRACTION OF UNLIKE CHARGES : For opposite charges, look at them like their virtual photons particles neutralise each other's in between charges. So absence(reduced number) of virtual particles creates some momentum(pressure) of charge particles towards each other. Thus attraction works.

[@Oliveir51]

Because of huge distance electromagntism was neglected because of huge distance. But is it a correct approach ? For instance photon charge interaction measured in labs is neglected although it leads to a small red shift. Of course this makes the picture more complicated but may explain much of what we do not understand

[@Shonade_Malik]

11:10 Does the down quark change into an up quark due to QCD?

[@DeltaCodeGames]

Wow! It just hit me. "W" is short for "Weak" 🤯 Also, "Z" is short for "Zero" (for those who don't know)

[@danielduarte5073]

Most excellent information I enjoyed your video Well done!

[@LearningCurveScience]

Many thanks!

[@Gauzzly]

I love your channel! Just a suggestion but I’d love to see a video on quasars and their immense brightness compared to other stellar objects or the friction created by the disc or the heat that they give off due to the friction etc. just noticed you didn’t have a video on quasars and thought it’d be cool :).

[@Iearnwithme]

At 20:30 you speculate about the graviton, but it has been detected with LIGO. I am confused this didn't come up in the research though? Saying that I do love the videos and especially in this video with the weak and electromagnetic [first haha] explanations !

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you. You make an excellent point. I sometimes gloss over things if I can't find explanations that are easy to use. Apologies.

[@chadb9270]

The graviton has not been detected. The warping of space time due to massive objects has been detected. There is absolutely no particle associated with any LIGO detection.

[@PhoticSneezeOne]

The force of course. It surrounds us it penetrates us it binds the galaxy together.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Correct answer this is.

[@วาสนาสรวง]

Thank your for knowledge.

[@paulbloemen7256]

I just got offered the video, very interesting, thank you. I watched it because I thought the title was misleading: if there only is one universe (great name), what then is there to hold together? It is the only thing there is, it’s big enough, so what’s the point mentioning that “holding together”? But the explanation about those forces was quite interesting, also for me, being a layman on the subject.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Good I'm glad you enjoyed the video.

[@agnelomascarenhas8990]

This video is useful because the principle of conservation that is applied repeatedly. Conservation of lepton number, charge, momentum of virtual particles ...

[@Siderite]

Are there more videos coming?

[@jota55581]

Is it not the same thing that holds protons togerher in radium for example

[@Kinze02]

Amazing video!

[@LearningCurveScience]

You are so kind, thank you

[@andyharris3084]

Gravity is an emergent property of the warping of spacetime which is why I believe the Graviton will never be found (because they don't exist).

[@LearningCurveScience]

I'm kind of with you on that one, however I think that for some parts of quantum physics to work they need to exist. It all gets very strange

[@spaceinyourface]

Effective quantum field theory 👌

[@Barqop]

Electron fields are one of the few things that legitimately break my brain. They are everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

[@Shonade_Malik]

For me, a 14 year old, you make this WAY easier to understand. This shit is so interesting.

[@Yabuddy53]

Hello mate, I hope you keep making videos in the future !

[@haloblivion]

Come back! I need more!!!!

[@robotaholic]

Every time I try out a new channel as soon as they start talking if they have a British accent I'm so pleased.🤩🤘

[@LearningCurveScience]

I'm glad you approve.

[@sokjeong-ho7033]

Why is it the case that electromagnetic force and the weak force are the same just because they unify at high temperatures? How does that make it possible to derive one from the other?

[@domenicobarillari2046]

That the host had the integrity to admit his problem at 17:00 is something I admire about this presentation. In fact, QuantumDynamics' recent answer is about as good a one as quantum field theory makes available. The same mundane issue is brought up every year in every introductory university course on QFT by a brave soul in the audience. The "books" actually do say NOTHING to assuage the curiosity here, and the prof in-charge generally provides either a sly or "are you dumb" stare that ends the query right then and there. I can only answer myself (practicing physicist) by saying that the host IS technically correct in his allusion to the Heisenberg principle, but this is handwaving over the fact that the problem arises at the start, unfortunately, by insisting that a newtonian picture of momentum exchange works at the quantum scale. The only accurate "picture" is the non-intuitive one that allows exchange particles like the photon to provide momentum changes at the interaction vertex to charged particles that appear to us like an attractive effect. The virtual photon quantum "wave" has no problem changing the electron wavefunction to one that looks to us as possessing a reversed momentum. Remember that, at the end of the day, the Feynman diagrams are but visual icons for purely (relativistic) quantum calculation terms ( parts of a perturbative expansion), and never had the built-in newtonian interpretation of "pushes".

[@duran9664]

Question 🙋‍♀️ How come the light slows in water, even though it has constant speed?! 🙄

[@Toonrick12]

The speed of light is usually measured if it was in a vacuum. It's just easier to do the math that way. Plus the difference between the two speeds is very minor, so why bother?

[@Cookiekopter]

I think that is because of all the particles that are in the way

[@justdave9610]

Because the atoms in the water are absorbing and re-emitting the photons an innumerable amount of times as the light passes through

[@richardthelong]

it's been too long. when's the next video dropping? can you make a video about the missing baryon problem we have in our universe!

[@familyshare3724]

Do particles empirically exist or are they discrete mathematical artifacts?

[@familyshare3724]

Supposing up and down quartks are observed, is an atomic nucleus just a large sum of up and down quartks, or are there individual discrete neutrons and protons? Or both or neither?

[@LearningCurveScience]

Such a good question. My next video is about quarks, hopefully you'll find some answers then.

[@lewis7515]

Superb. 👍

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@longcastle4863]

Thank you you for no annoying background music.

[@JisforJenius]

Why dont nuclei with just neutrons exist? Shouldnt the strong redidual force mean that some neutrons could hang together withoit issue? No protons, no electron orbiting?

[@brianm6923]

Great video

[@MuffinMan87]

What force is the Higgs' boson the force carrier of? Shouldn't it be gravity considering it deals with mass of the particle in relation to its distance from another mass? This can give us the values of distance, total mass, total density, total volume. These all factor in when calculating Newton's gravitation formula. What do you expect the "graviton" to actually do that the Higgs' boson isn't already doing? Google's answers for the charges of neutrons and the Higgs' boson is that they both have 0 charge, but the neutron is described as having a "neutral or 0 charge" whereas the Higgs' boson is simply described as having 0 charge. If you think of a 45 degree angle as being neutral or your neutron, then anything below it is your electron with negative charge, and above would be your proton with a positive charge and 90 would be your Higgs' boson and represents a black hole. Now you have a space/time graph where you are able to travel anywhere above the 45 degree null line because anything below that has a speed faster than c^2. The Guy In A Box scenario just tells me that we measure the force of gravity in velocity. In other videos I've seen, they use it to claim gravity doesn't exist.

[@mycount64]

A) space time curvature. gravity B) carrier particles (real and virtual) . That is it. I'm a quantum field guy actually. I think the particle model is a description of the experimental results not an explanation of what is going on. Like QM experiments.

[@chadb9270]

There is the strong force, and there is the strong nuclear force. The strong force is between quarks in the particle, this holds protons and neutrons together. The strong nuclear force is between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus, this holds atoms together.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Very nice!

[@bonelesscommunism4031]

when are you uploading new videos?

[@stillwaterbuilders3714]

Unrelated stupid question: how many magnatars would it take to generate enough gauss to compress matter to its Schwarzschild radius?

[@tiberiusgracchus4222]

Thank you for that explanation of virtual particles. Seems to me like it's problematic to describe those interactions as particles at all. Although, I guess they are just fluctuations in the corresponding field, which is what regular particles are. They just don't last long.

[@OvalTBandit]

i find that thinking of virtual particles as "static" really helps. The closer 2 same charges get, the more "static" is produced that keeps them apart; and in turn, when 2 opposite charges are coming together, it "creates" more of a vacuum of virtual particles that "draw" them together

[@tiberiusgracchus4222]

Ah, yes, I like that. Very good analogy! @@OvalTBandit

[@postsurrealfish]

Well that's an easy one to answer, its the charge nature of matter and not weird guesswork. After all and by their very existence, all atoms are made from protons (positive charge) and electrons (negative charge) and so, have created electrical fields within themselves, due to the separation of charge. With the atoms that make up the molecules that make up the cells that make up our bodies, each having a voltage of 25 millivolts, when in a healthy condition. And between 50 and 200 Millivolts when in healing mode. We think and our central nervous systems work by way of electrical impulses. The environment in which we live (unless an astronaut) has a charge differential between the negatively charged earth and the positively charged ionosphere rising by about 100 Volts per metre up through the atmosphere. Magnetic fields are seen throughout deep space and there is only one thing that creates magnetic fields and that is electricity. Plus, the force of electromagnetism is 10^39 or 1000 billion billion billion billion times stronger than Newtonian Gravity, or even how the Einsteins (man and wife) fantasied about it back in the days of gaslight, the bending of the Electromagnetic Spectrum in the presence of matter on a flat bit of rubber-like cloth. So, as we are obviously electromagnet beings living in a totally electric environment and it is the 21st century, there is absolutely no need to guess- kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3nUm6eQmpaCZ6c

[@danielfraga5756]

Very good

[@simo9445tsns]

Great video, thanks

[@LearningCurveScience]

Glad you liked it!

[@TheDailyStarmer]

What "is" electric charge? What quality of an electron "makes it" negatively charged?

[@Seiffouri]

I'm still wondering about the elevator in space example. The feeling of gravity on earth is constant. But that elevator will reach the speed of light; gradually but eventually. I am sure the force the person in the elevator feels is not the same as the gravity force on earth. Just a thought, prove me wrong!

[@slehar]

6:51 “residual strong for e”? No. It’s a global resonance stand wave emerges holistically when all its parts align. It is a 3D spatiotemporal pattern not reducible to “residual strong force”

[@YunxiaoChu]

???

[@stevoplex]

If Gravity can be modeled by a mass on a rubber sheet, has anyone thought to look Under the rubber sheet in order to find the opposite of Gravity (sometimes called Levity)? Let's have someone look into that. Thanks.

[@cantram8734]

What would happen if we put something in the true center of the solar system. I know it shifts into the surface of the sun sometimes but while it's not it would be interesting to see what kind of effects it had. Everything in the solar system pulling on the probe would make for interesting data.

[@gravity_cow]

Dumb question: If the four fundamental forces were formed from one unified force splitting apart during the universe's formation, does that mean the current forces could be split down even further? After all, why stop at 4?

[@Cjnw]

The Moon! Hold is Hungarian for moon

[@bunkosquad2000]

Actually, there art FIVE fundamental forces: Electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravity and whatever holds two Home Depot buckets together when they are nested. The latter is the strongest force.

[@xtieburn]

I feel the electroweak force was a little downplayed. No, we cant get up to the unification energy, but the theory did make predictions like neutral current reactions which were empirically proven afterwards. I.e. its not just a hypothesis like the other stages of unification. Technically speaking there are only 3 proven truly fundamental forces at this point... Even if it takes quite a lot more effort to see than say the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Another nitpick: The universe wasnt necessarily tiny at its start. The observable universe would have been, but there is no reason to assume where we can directly see is also a hard boundary in every other sense. I.e. The universe in its entirety could be anything from comparatively tiny to infinite and always has been.

[@LearningCurveScience]

Yes you're quite right. I did downplay the electroweak force, and I wanted to put in more detail, but the video was getting quite long as it was, so I truncated that bit a little. Also yes I maybe should have spoken about the observable universe. I'm making these videos for non-scientists, and sometimes I just use shortened forms for ease. You have a valid point though.

[@michaelrae9599]

Are Neutrons just packing material for the nucleus?

[@jhe9521]

am assuming gravity splits from unified force first because 'big bang' kicked its butt, and your explanation for weak force and electromagnetism remaining an electroweak interaction for the given length of time totally makes sense, but why isn't strong force the most resistant to expansion? ...after asking google 101 related questions, i finally found out that people working on grand unification theory believe electroweak interaction split from strong nuclear force, not the other way round nb: if a singularity (initial or otherwise) simultaneously has mass but no space/time, it must be utterly unstable ~ for primeval atom to exist, something has to stabilize that otherwise contradictory stuff & something has to give it room... maybe dark matter, said to be as old as the universe, is both created by the interactions of such unstable stuff, & is what allows it to become stable ...albeit briefly; dark energy may have been nature's response to a too-cramped 'stability', hence the 'big bang' (& coalescence being enough to trigger a second bout of dark expansion ?) a unified theory would then need to include space/time and electroweak interaction, and the ensuing dark matter, gravity, and strong nuclear force, plus the resultant dark energy if it wants to explain both the big bang and the expanding universe i think 😉 (yay or nay, we're gonna need to grab us a bit of s/t !)

[@stephanieparker1250]

Yeesss wave functions! 🎉🎉

[@tohmarcus8364]

wow very cool video I wish you get 1 million subscribers😊

[@LearningCurveScience]

Thank you very much.

[@jonathanlatouche7013]

11:06

[@MommyMakesMilky]

Yaaaay! Bed time story!!

[@tongpoo8985]

What exact accent is this? Like what part of England. I love this accent, idky but I can absorb more information from people with this particular accent.

[@LearningCurveScience]

My accent is kind of a Lancashire accent, not quite but pretty close mixed with a bit of warrington. Glad you like my accent, thank you for the lovely comment.

[@mander40101]

They say gravity may not actually be one of the fundamental forces. I personally think gravity is a result of something else, maybe because of the interaction between the strong and weak force. There is no such thing as absolutely nothing. Nothing in of itself is something. If something exists, it has to be made of something, wheather we can identify that something or not.

[@LearningCurveScience]

I think they call it fundamental because it can't be explained by a simpler force.

[@PowerIsEverything-gp2zp]

Particles with the same charge have helicity and chirality work normally, particles with opposite charges have helicity and chirality work in opposite ways. The negative charge particle will have the virtual particle work the way you said in the video. However particles with opposites charge will still slam into each other the same exact way, except the force causes the force to work in the opposite direction. Similar to how reversing the spin of normal matter will cause gravity to repel it instead of attracting it, because even though gravity is affecting both normal matter the reverse spin of one normal matter causes its properties to be reverse except charge resulting in one particle running and the other one chasing it - Quantum mechanics is very simple and flows into physics very easily, I think you and most other people get confusing with the sheer amount of calculation required when multiple quantum ‘things’ act as one or physics.

[@chillphil967]

i don’t believe this is quite accurate.. yes, there is “handedness” or chirality in physics, medicine, biology, etc. (weak force is handed & neutrinos are handed, for some reason). however it’s not at all because of gravity(?) 1). the standard model does not typically include info about gravity, since it is ~10^43 times weaker than EM. ok , so what? well, let’s see, how big is that number? for perspective, that’s the difference between the size of the proton compared to the size of the observable universe. aka some wiggle room for error 😮 But if there were a “graviton” it would be a spin 2 particle, as yet to be observed experimentally. 2). the reason you have neutrino ( or anti neutrino, specially) is yes bc of lepton number, but that whole mess is just a way to say “ conservation of momentum”. The electron and proton didn’t add up, either the math was wrong or there needed to be a small, neutral, very hard to detect particle still missing from experiment. fermi called it neutrino, cute italian phrase he coined for “little neutral particle”. was discovered shortly after. why anti neutrino? from dirac 4D momentum solutions, which included einstein SR with QM. basically you have Mass x Charge x Time, and one had to be negative. he knew mass was the same & backwards time was a bit silly (until feynman) so he picked opposite charge. that’s a positron, or anti-electron. anyway you might be on to something overall, but i think here you’ve just taken too many buzzwords and scrambled into word salad.

[@PowerIsEverything-gp2zp]

@@chillphil967 Gravity does not exist with what I said, although I used the world to help you understand what I said. Point is ‘handedness’ determines how particle act, and ‘handedness’ plays a role in these virtual particles. Too much info to just type out in my phone. Point is I am going by a grand unified that most of you, if not all of you are in unaware of. No I am not saying it as bluffed as I sound , because on the infinitesimal small chance it actually does gain momentum amount the common people our species is done.

[@drasiella]

I do. I hold it all together.

[@hogg4229]

Quantum Theory is absolutely mind numbing. Some of the shit, such as “virtual particles” seems to me a way of explaining what they cannot explain (just like inflation in the cosmological model), but a lot of these concepts have been tested, and much of this is objectively true; provided there can be anything objectively true in quantum physics.

[@luminousfractal420]

Quantum pressure. Its all relative. We only assume theres a vacuum outside of our known universe, there could be an ocean. I like to think of the big bang as something massive opening a pop bottle, our entire universe is perhaps just one of the bubbles.

[@MrClickity]

"We all assume there's a vacuum outside the universe" Nah, a vacuum is still a region of spacetime, which is inside the universe. It's debatable whether "what's outside the universe?" and "what came before the universe?" are even valid questions, since "outside" and "before" both involve spacetime.

[@DeltaCodeGames]

Everything's just holding back from exploding! 😱

[@slowpnir]

Gravity is not mass-based interaction, it is _energy_-based. E=mc^2 is a lie, the formula is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2. So, non-virtual photons pull stuff towards them as well. There's a term "kugelblitz" for black holes made out of light.

[@10thmountainsoldier90]

Love it ❤

[@paulinefox5381]

still waiting on the quark video :)

[@alphaomega1351]

Answer: glue 😶

[@JKDVIPER]

Well, considering that anything that expands cools. I’d say, matter is causing the expansion, and gravity and temperature or ENERGY holds it together. The empty black vacuum is expanding at nearly light speed from billions of SUPER MASSIVE BLACK HOLE cores are locking out EMPTY SPACE in the atom itself, causing a DISPLACEMENT process. Adding to the overall volume. A beach ball, to which matter cannot escape is the perfect example. Put it in a pool and sink it, watching the pools overall volume go up. DISPLACEMENT. Each planet, each star, each black hole LOCKS OUT EMPTY SPACE at different amounts. This is why we have gravity. A MASS is a HOLE TO SPACE. It sends you DOWN A SLIDE when you get near them. Anything we know that we’ve tested for gravity is moving at 500,000,000 miles an hour towards the great attractor. Because as we live around in our galaxy. Our galaxy is still a car on the highway so to speak. We are in the car.