Video

10 electrons in same energy level? NEVER more than 8 in any atom.

First of all, no mention of why you think the claim (supported by high level witnesses) that the US has crashed UFOs is wrong. If you haven't got the memo yet, we are way past making fun of this subject.

That button is loud.

The measurement is made via an INTERACTION. Throw a photon at an atom, see how it responds. By doing this, the wave function (a math function) that describes it changes.

Thank God!

THANK YOU... PRO. DR. LINCOLN...!!!

Modern physics is like listening to a more detailed version of Greek Mythology.

Yes gravity still exists at the tiniest scales, but at subatomic scales the other forces become significantly stronger than gravity. This is partly due to mass and distance.

Neutrino oscillations unique ... am I misremembering, or don't quarks do something similar?

This is simply not true. The Standard Model makes no prediction whatsoever regarding the vacuum energy, for it is not calculable. I am shocked to see such a false statement being made in public. Maybe it's due to the fact that the speaker is not a theoretical physicists and so he does not do this for his living as say I and many others do, but then he should not speak of what he is not an expert of.

5:50 Could somebody PLEASE answer my question: EVERY time I see or hear applications of HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) INCLUDING this video, it seems to ME that the lecturer conflates the UNCERTAINTY in a value with the VALUE ITSELF. So, why couldn't a particle whose energy we know lies somewhere between SUPER BIG value minus delta-E and SUPER BIG value plus delta-E for a VERY LONG TIME whose value we know to be SUPER BIG value minus delta-t and SUPER BIG value plus delta-t pop into existence, as long as delta-E*delta-t > small number>0, and not violate HUP?

what is the significance of the higgs boson in the standard model?

General relativity does not predict a value for the cosmological constant. It is a free parameter of the theory that has to be measured. The standard model does not predict the cosmological constant all by itself either. That is because you have to introduce a regularization or renormalization procedure to reduce the formally infinite zero-point energy density to something finite and there are no techniques for Feynman diagrams that describe vacuum (bubble diagrams), because they are not needed in the renormalization of expressions for cross sections or non-vacuum energies. So the culprit for the large error is the cutoff procedure for regularization (which is not part of the standard model). If you calculate both the vacuum energy density and the vacuum pressure with the cutoff at the Planck scale, you find that the equation of state is not that of a vacuum (which is known from the requirement of Lorentz invariance of the vacuum). If you use dimensional regularization instead, the equation of state takes the correct form, and the error of the prediction reduces (from a factor of 10¹²⁰) to a factor of 10⁵⁰. Which is of course still very bad...

8:08 Any photos showing a galaxy visible one year, and gone the next? Or distant galaxies appearing to shrink from year to year as they accelerate away?

So if a photon can travel faster that SoF then can we say that it goes backwards in time?

What scares me is the fact that the next step will require a change so big to current beliefs that may destabilise the understanding of physicists. The next step may require philosophers to be first in line. The entire meaning of the word "Space" could well be subverted, and our perception of the reality of dealing with separate and countable objects or entities may lose any meaning. I want to see how the edifice of the Universal constants is implicated in the cycles of the Universe, and how the concept of symmetry is changed by it...

The answer to this question is 2 to the nth-1. (Couldn't get the superscript working) Where N is the number of entangled qubits. There is technically no limit however once you get around 50 or 60 you pretty much can calculate the universe however the problem is keeping them from decoherence. Dr Don..vid pls 😊

The real Schrodinger's cat.

THANK YOU... PROF. DR. LINCOLN...!!!

THANK YOU... PROF. DR. LINCOLN...!!!

So: all we need to do is travel at lightspeed and we have basically a wormhole, a doorway to ever single place in the (visible) universe, instantly. However going back to the same 'door' means landing in a completely different timezone and all you knew to exist there has changed dramatically.

Deep dives!

THANK YOU... PROF. DR. LINCOLN...!!!

if E=MC2 and photons have no mass does that mean they're related to their quantum field differently than particles with mass are?

So Dr Don, You are saying that Sir Rodger Penrose may have killed Max Plank?😮

They're imaginary particles that physicists use to make their equations work. Don't believe me? Ask a physicist to show you one.

Well lets see if you have no mass, mass and no energy and no space thus & no time. How then do you have a wave. A wave is only a wave inside time. Kind of makes me think there is some logic issues with that one. General relativity is easily explained with photons that drop below the power to raise the state of an electron. But not just that consider the number of photons that left stars that will never reach another object. Consider how much mass a star converts to light and energy daily. Then think about how much of that is just traveling through space never reaching any point.

Although with some concepts we do not now accept, 2500 years ago Parmenides spotted this problem (and came up with a radical block universe proposition!). A brief shout out to Xenocrates, with similar caveats, for the indivisible line (a foreshadowing of Planck and possibly string theory?). Just thinking outside the physics 'cave' (sorry Plato) and into the wonderful world of pre-socratic philosophy.

8:55 this is wrong. The basketball will **not** appear/look flat. In fact it will pretty much stay somewhat round but with some additional weird effects. Google Penrose-Terrell effect. This is the problem when we speak of "what an observer sees" because "seeing" in SRT does not translate well into what we mean with this word in everyday life (camera/eye).

how did they "discover" these subatomic particles? you certainly can't see them. what exactly are you using to analyze the impact of protons or neutrons or electrons in your particle accelerators?

A relevant YT discussion: czcams.com/video/vqwLKLc4gMg/video.html

If gravity is just deformation of space time what would happen to a fixed mass (not moving) put next to an other fixed mass? From the descriptions of relativity If gravity is not a force then the two masses should stay fixed and not attract each other. They can behave like attracting each other only if they have a certain impulsion (they are moving). Did I get this right? everyone trying to explain gravity only talk about moving bodies and none talks about fixed bodies.????

If a set of virtual particles, eg electron/positron occurred very near a real electron, then.. could the positron annihilate with the real electron and leave the virtual electron to become real?

I thought this would be about global warming from CO2.

Albert thinks its mass hysteria 🐶🤔🥴

Please help, "the weak force is weak because it's rare, from the range of the mass distribution, a straight up consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" Does this apply to all particles, like short lived electrons with different mass as we know of? and why? Thanks

If the mass comes from energy, why we say that photons dont have any mass. Since they also have kinetic energy, wouldnt it give them mass?

"universe is most probably finite, but lets say it was infinite, then you should not thing about big bang as a firecracker" that's the way scientists work? i doubt

NO, just simply no. Light, gravity and all other forces do not have a speed. There is no physical ball of substance (a Boson) moving through space transferring that force. That was just more Victorian nonsense. Forces are direct and INSTANT. If light and gravity APPEAR to have a delay, but that is Impossible due to physics. then EXPLAIN the apparent delay! Einstein made up a fake-invisible-magical moderator instead of solving it properly. Time is local, there is no signal delay, there is a difference in the local appearance of the present.

The CBM isn't cosmic and can't possibly be from a Big Bang, which wouldn't be a black body. Instead of all these magical ad hoc stories to explain how it could totes violate all laws of physics we promise why don't you address the evidence that contradicts it?

you really shouldn’t call it an “antigravity” machine. Gravity is caused by the mass of an object in space. The only way you could even really come up with that name is if you don’t even understand the machine you are trying to make. If you want to make a machine that can make its own gravitational field, that would be a gravity machine. An ANTIgravity machine would be a machine able to ignore gravity altogether and not be affected by the gravity of other objects no matter their mass. Making it practically weightless, THAT is antigravity.

So basically yeah, and no, depends on definitions of particle.

So has it been beneficial to exploring the Solar System to better understand Space, a silly question. But ok, whats what? It supports factory life here as a foundation. {Cosmos logic?}

THANK YOU... PROF. DR. LINCOLN...!!!

Also gravity's reach for participation of instant exchange of adjustment, is much faster then the speed of light, only needing to be turned to energy as Einstein was searching for!

So MC sq is taking the individual atoms as being build on energy, electrons and protons.

What I always was puzzled by is: the heisenberg uncertainty principle is a limit of how precisely we can measure a subatomic particle. But if there's no particle in tre first place why are we getting measurement other than zero? How does nothing become a something, even a self canceling something?

THANK YOU... PROF.DR. LINCOLN...!!!

is there a specific vibration that makes an anti-electron and not a electron and doesn't make both a virtual electron and a virtual anti-electron? because if there's not then isn't that why there's asymmetry

if I had a dollar for every time one of my professors said "but that's for another time" I could have paid for my undergraduate. And also I cannot think of the time where it was that time and we went back and said hey let's close that loop