Deep dive into the known forces
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 02. 2024
- Popular science explanations of the standard model usually describe four forces (strong nuclear, electromagnetism, weak nuclear, and gravity). They also claim that some of the forces are stronger than others. What they don’t tell you is that all of those claims are only valid for distances comparable to the radius of a proton. For different size scales, the order of the strength of the forces can be wildly different.
In this video, Dr. Don does a much deeper dive into the topic. Prepare to be amazed.
Is the weak nuclear force really a force?:
• Is the weak nuclear fo...
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov - Věda a technologie
More deep dives please. CZcams is saturated with surface level treatments of science, so these are gold!
i would actually argue that the sheer amount of surface-level scientific content is actively very harmful to science literacy. it’s the IFLS-ification of science content.
@@slipperynickels It is indeed. Kurzgezacht, my nemesis XD
@@nikkan3810They are actually better than everything else out there.
@@foolishball9155 not by a lot. Making tons of claims that just have no experimental basis as if it's totally true and real. Too much confidence in things that we don't even have tools to comprehend, not to mention research.
@@foolishball9155
Kurzgesagt is one of the most surface-level, IMO. ScienceClic and Science Asylum are better for physics. You've got PBS Eons for paleontology. Myron Cook for geology. Professor Dave Explains is better for just about anything.
CZcams is full of videos which are ankle-deep into particle physics, but the ones which go into intricate details and describe smaller topics in detail are rare. I would opt for having these kind of videos every once in a while, they are greatly appreciated!
As a theoretical physicist I've always been fascinated with cutting-edge particle physics because it's difficult to explain in simple terms without adding something irrelevant.
I'd say this videw was at least knee deep. Maybe even waist deep.
PBS space time does it well too
this is ankle deep. There's no math
@@sakesaurus1706 There are graphs of field intensity versus distance, arguably a math.
This is a really nice balance of, "whooboy, it's actually a lot more complicated than you've realized" and "let's explain what's going in a simple, approachable way." Solid programming, would love to see more like it.
Scientist: Yo, gravity. You the weakest force!
Gravity: Come say that to my event horizon.
Scientist: Make me, I'm over here, and you're allll the way over there!
Einstein: Gravity is not a force.
When a force cannot withstand a non-force
that's a hoax. Gravity isn't actually a force. That's the plot twist. And the weak force is probably a pilot wave interaction rather than a massless temporary particle.
@@ZennExile No forces are actually forces. By QFT, they are all exited vibration of respective field. Taken this way, Gravity is just the large scale bending of its field, the space-time itself. Large-scale bending and short-distance vibrations seems to be fundamentally the same object.
More deep-dives please. I never even realized that the top quark doesn't live long enough to feel the strong force.
Agreed, and I don't even know what that means: the strong force operates at a speed slower than the rate of causality? Is there a strong force equivalent of a sonic boom or of cherenkov radiation?
@@ChristopherCurtisit takes non-neglibble time for the strong force to take hold and bind quarks, and the top quark decays before that happens.
Think of it like the egg yolk disappearing before you get a chance to fully scramble your eggs in a bowl.
Thanks, but a disappearing egg yolk doesn't help. Gravity and EM move at the speed of light. How fast does the strong force go? And how far does it go to get there? Where is it coming from to get to this apparently-free top quark?@@glowerworm
@@ChristopherCurtis It's not slower than the rate of causality. The strong force simply isn't strong until a certain amount of time has passed because the particle needs to travel a certain distance before the force actually becomes strong. The weak force deals with that particle before it can get that far.
@@glowerworm not so bad of an analogy
The demand for more deep dives clearly restores our faith in humanity and physics. The deeper the better.
Deeper dives! You guys are one of the few channels with talent qualified to explain these concepts in more detail. Almost any science journalism channel can cover the broad concepts, and I feel it would be a waste of your expertise to rehash it.
In particular this video was excellent in clarifying my understanding of forces, and I've watched countless videos on the subject (as well as read several texts on it). For example, I had no idea that to escape the strong force, particles actually change into others which aren't affected by its influence. That is a concept I've not encountered before, and I appreciate it!
The changing into other particles behavior is at the heart of the LHC collision experiments. They smash protons together, and when Quarks get ripped apart from each other the energy is converted into a "zoo" of new particles which hit the detectors.
That's how I understand it, at least, as a layman.
@@onnastick Physicist here, your explanation is correct. It's simplified, but that goes without saying for this topic
When I saw "deep dive" in the title, I was expecting an hour long video! Shocked and confused the "deep dive" was only 10 minutes! Give us deeper dives!
Deep dives! It helps to satisfy the 'but why' questions we have been asking from childhood. Also it's great to understand the limits of what we know, why we have reached those limits, and what's next.
Couldn't agree with this more! "But why?" is the question I always want answered when I'm looking for educational content; why are things the way they are?
The shallow videos are a great introduction, but the deep dive ones are much more thought provoking. If possible, keep producing both, as both are valuable to different audiences.
Bump. #FeedTheAlgorithm
This.
More deep dives, please. Your delivery makes it so I can follow further down the rabbit hole than I otherwise could.
I don't know anywhere else on CZcams where I can hear advanced level physics topics explained in such an easy to understand style.
It's what keeps me coming back to this channel.
There are plenty of other channels that offer surface level overviews.
Yes, please Dr. Lincoln, a deeper dive into the weak and strong forces would be great! Keep up the great work!
Finally a video where there's no BS about "universe borrowing energy for a shortest period of time" but the (slightly) more accurate description of the force carrier having a small enough mass. Kudos!
What’s wrong with the idea of borrowing/returning energy? I would like to know if/why this is a mistake, because if it is, I’ve been making it.
Yes but you only probe a tiny bit more into this strange world. If you want to do it properly you need a mathematical treatment of the subject.
@@LeTtRrZbecause it's obviously a neat accounting tool and shouldn't be mistaken for reality.
@@Zamicol So, how should I think about the concept of energy uncertainty? How would you describe the idea of intrinsic charm of protons if not borrowing or returning mass?
@@Zamicolif it has predictive power it's valid physics, all of quantum physics is a series of elaborate accounting tools.
Absolutely more deep dives, please. How about a deep(er) drive into asymptotic freedom, which you briefly touch on here. Good stuff!
4:50 One should mention that for _macroscopic_ objects, the negative and positive charges are usually almost exactly balanced, leaving only a _very_ small net charge in total. Hence for macroscopic objects, the ratio of charge to mass is ___much___ smaller than for electrons or protons, and hence the force of gravity is usually more important than the electrostatic force. (That's the point which all proponents of the "electric universe" conveniently ignore.)
> Electric Universe (EU) is an umbrella term that covers various pseudo-scientific cosmological ideas built around the claim that the formation and existence of various features of the Universe can be better explained by electricity and magnetism than by gravity alone. As a rule, EU is usually touted as an aether-based theory with numerous references to tall tales from mythology. However, the exact details and claims are ambiguous, lack mathematical formalism, and often vary from one delusional crank to the next.
why are you bringing this into the discussion out of nowhere?
yeah, but that's exactly *because* the electromagnetic force is so strong
you don't really see big charge differences in nature because that would require a lot of energy, whereas pulling two masses apart is much easier
your argument is like saying that the law prohibiting speeding is more important than the law prohibiting murder because a lot of people get speeding tickets but only a small number go to jail for committing murder
@@Mmmm1ch43l The only reason there _can_ be charge cancellation is that the universe 'happens to' have a very close to equal (if not actually truly equal) amount of positive and negative charge.
Deep dives please! Deeper and crazy deep helps me to know what I need to study next.
More deep dives! Thank you!
Love deep dives like this. As you allude to, CZcams is awash with general primers on physics. Deep dives give us something rarer (though not as relatively rare as weak force interactions).
Your intuitive exploration of uncharted territory provides a fresh and exciting perspective on quantum physics. Bring it! 💥
I love your dives into the "actual" causes everyday phenomenon (light bending, light slowing down, magnetism, etc.)!
More deep dives - loved the explanation for the weak force
More deep dives. Love this host. Great explanations. Good energy.
I love the deep dive! More of these, please!!
More deep dives, please! These videos are presented very well.
I don't hold any qualifications in QM or any in maths and physics, but I find most CZcams videos to be too basic; a little more depth is excellent! Your videos are at the perfect level for me, simple enough to (usually) grasp but complex enough to make me think. Thank you!
Great video, and YES PLEASE to more deep dives - there are already plenty of other videos without this level of depth. Thank you for doing these - the channel is terrific.
Deep dive is fantastic, please do more! Love actually gettiing to *LOOK* at a topic instead of just glossing over it.
This format was great!
More please 🙂
Keep the deep dives coming! Your CZcams platform is unique. You cover a given topic first at higher level then more deeply in subsequent episodes. That maximizes your audience reach and allows users to customize their 'curriculum'. Really enjoy your books and Teaching Company DVDs.
More deep dives please! : )
This is one of my the most favorite channels! Please, more deep dives!
Yes Jedi Don, please do so, more deep observations! Many thanks!
Yes, more deep dives are very welcome!!! Thank you for your great work.
Excellent video. Deep dives at this level of detail are just what I need. Thanks and keep 'em coming.
Thank you for the vid! That was as clear as it can get. Would very much appreciate more of that level.
Appreciate the deep dives, and it's helpful to list the more basic videos on the same topic, for background information.
Loving the deep dives! This finally answers a handful of questions I had about the fundamental forces.
I really think many more of these deep dive videos are great and needed. Truthfully I would do a mix of videos that give a general overview and then a follow up deep dive video on the subject in question. Just my thoughts. Great job as always!
Ah, another channel i can watch at 3am about physics while understanding absolutely nothing.
Best way to fall asleep.
You will make a fine addition to my collection
Yes, thoroughly enjoyed this. I think deep dives into narrow topics are a good idea. You've done, and there are plenty out there, broader videos and there's only so many of them worth making
yes please, love the deeper dives. You're a talented communicator Don, very enjoyable.
Love the deep dives. Keep them coming please. Thanks!
More deep dives, please. You provide so much insight.
Wonderful as always, Dr. Lincoln!
I love this video style! Getting into nuance in any capacity makes these types of videos more interesting
Deep dives are great! It’s not often I find like a 2 hour long lecture on some scientific topic but it’s always a pleasure to watch them
More deep dive for sure. I've heard the same videos about QM a dozen of times. It is this type of content that gets me curious to do my own research on the topic
Dive deeper - that’s why I follow this great channel - keep up the good work 😊
Don presents the absolute best videos on physics. More deep dives to stretch my mind even further, please! So far beyond what I can understand but I typically get a nugget from each. Not unlike my reading and re-reading A Brief History of Time probably 50 or 60 times in the last 15 years. I gain more understanding with each reading as time goes on.
Just do it all. Initial broad strokes video and then circle around to the deep dive.
Love the vids!
Thanks for this brilliant video! I’d love to see more deep dives!
More deep dive! thanks for sharing!
More deep dives please! Thank you this video was great
Loved the video, would love to see a longer form with more info and comparisons.
That was a great video which enlightened this topic. More deep dives please!
thank you for the deep dive, the level of detail was just enough for me to understand easily with some thought put into it
Great format, and subject matter.
I would love to see more content, in a similar format.
Both are good. Mix deep and shallow dives man! You are great doing any! Thanks
More deep dives please!! They are not that hard when you explain them so well 👍
We love you Dr Don ❤, your expert explanations and style! Because phisic's everything...
I really liked this take on the relative strength of forces - I had never heard this before! Would love to hear more explanations like this. Thanks!
This may be my favorite video! I would love more of the in depth videos. CZcams already has a lot of surface level videos. Deep dive as deep as possible! Thanks!
Please! Please! Please! More and more of these in-depht videos! Greeeeeeatly appreviated.
Details are fun and you do a great job of explaining them
Easyly one of the best videos you ever made! Thank you very much!!!
More deep dives please! This was an awesome video!
I enjoyed the level of detail in this one, I like deeper dives for sure!
Loved this one, more deep dives please!
Please more dive deep! We really are capable of handle them, you're a fantastic teacher! 😊
Love the deep dives, sir.
Great work! More deep dives please!
This video was incredibly interesting. I would definitely love to watch more deep dive videos.
Because, physics is everything
Please please do like a series of videos on this rabbit hole! You are one of the more knowledgeable persons in this topic on youtube, and basically everyone else only touches surface level stuff. I would adore if you delved in the rabbit hole mentioned at the end. This video was kinda mind blowing and now I wanna learn more about the four forces
Loved this deep dive. Please make more
This answered questions that I've had for quite a while. Thanks - deep dives get my vote!
Definitely a deeper dive. That was awesome!
deep dives are greatly appreciated, thanks!
I agree, more deep dives. Understanding what’s going on at a deeper level is what differentiates this channel from the majority of the others.
Great stuff, Dr. Don! ❤❤
Deep dives, please. Thanks for your great work.
Brilliant. Thank you. More deep dives please
The deep dive broadens understanding. More, please!
Deep dives are great, especially when you can link back to broader concept videos upon which one can construct a foundation for understanding. You’ve established quite a library for such development. Go for it!
Thank you, Don, Kirsty and Fermilab for making these videos! I’ve watched them all over the last year and am left with many questions for your consideration:
1) What would happen if the slits of the double slit experiment were solid matter, but transparent, like glass? The photon interacts with the wave of the electrons in the glass, slowing the photon down, but is that enough to collapse the wavefunction of the photon?
2) Light is observed to move at the same speed regardless of the speed of the observer. Does this still apply when light slows down in a medium? Can light have a proper time if it is not going the speed of light when it moves through a medium like glass or water?
3) Since space contains virtual particles (quantum foam), does this act like a medium (like water) so that light never actually moves at quite exactly the speed of light?
4) Light can have a mass if it is a force carrier of QED (from an episode called “Quantum Foam”). Do photons still travel at c if they have mass?
5) Do gluons squeeze quarks together from the outside rather than pull quarks together from in between?
6) Are gluons everywhere in the vacuum or just inside of atomic nuclei?
7) How do we know that the two orthogonal wave components of a photon are associated with the electrical force and the magnetic force respectively?
8) When a force carrier is exchanged between electrons, how does the force carrier know where the target is? Does this rely on the principle of least action?
9) If force carriers must be exchanged for particles to be directed around the loop of a particle accelerator, does this mean that the path of the particles is rather geometric like a Feynman diagram (straight lines and sharp angles that average to the curvature of the accelerator)?
10) Can force carrier photons be absorbed by our retina and register as light in our brains?
11) What happens when the quantum foam (a virtual particle) interacts with something real? How do virtual particles disappear after getting intimately involved with real matter and energy?
12) How does the universe know which particles are virtual and which ones are real so that it can erase the virtual ones?
13) Just as virtual particles can pop into existence and then disappear, can real particles disappear, so long as they return?
14) When particles are entangled, could they be connected in a higher dimension so that there is really no distance in the “spooky action at a distance”?
15) If electromagnetism has no range limit, and electromagnetism acts by exchange of photons, is every electron in every galaxy pushing on every other electron in every galaxy and all are constantly exchanging photons?
16) Why is it that when kinetic and potential energy (like quarks swirling around each other at near the speed of light or quarks/protons stuck together by the strong force) are confined to a small space, it acts like mass (attracted to other mass by gravity and has inertia)? Since relativistic mass is not real, why would concentrated energy exhibit the characteristics of mass?
17) I’ve heard that a hot cup of coffee weighs more than the same cup of coffee when it is cold. How could this be true without relativistic mass?
18) What is the pion condensate and what role does it play in the mass of the atomic nucleus?
19) If one extra matter particle is created for every billion or so matter/antimatter pairs, and matter/antimatter pairs can annihilate back into energy, could this back and forth between matter/antimatter and energy be a filtering process until there is only matter?
20) Does the Higgs field impart mass to antimatter?
21) Once we know if antimatter falls up or down, will we be able to say confidently if antimatter is attracted to antimatter via gravity in the same way that matter is attracted to matter?
22) When a top quark (172 billion eV) decays to a bottom quark (4.2 billion eV) and a W boson (80 billion eV), where does the rest of the mass (eV) go? Photon?
23) Is the number of neutrinos in the universe increasing dramatically over time?
24) Why does it follow that the ability of neutrinos to change their identity means they have mass?
25) Why is neutrino oscillation regular over distance? Is this process effected by relativity (length contraction)?
26) If gravity information (which moves at the same speed as light) takes 8 minutes to get to earth, shouldn’t earth be attracted to where the sun was (as it moves around the galaxy) 8 minutes ago?
27) If gravitons exist, would a -2 spin antigraviton be responsible for antigravity (accelerating expansion of the universe)?
28) If the universe is expanding only at the scale of superclusters of galaxies, does that mean that each supercluster or maybe smaller groupings will eventually collapse? In other words, what is preventing many small “big crunches” from occurring under the force of gravity? For example, expansion is not sufficient to prevent the Milky Way from colliding with Andromeda.
29) What is the longest possible wavelength of light? If the universe continues to expand, the CMB will redshift theoretically forever?
30) The universe is ~5% regular matter, 27% dark matter, 68% dark energy, but what about regular energy? Is it less than 1%?
31) What is the relationship (if any) between dark energy and quantum foam/virtual particles?
32) How do we know that dark energy became important only 5 billion years ago and what happened around 5 billion years ago that made it important?
33) We can use limits to see if light experiences time. Do we trust the use of limits to give us the correct answer to this question?
34) In episode “Relativity's key concept: Lorentz gamma”, the flashlight emits many photons in an arc of many angles around the business end of the flashlight. Which photons hit the mirror: the ones that leave the flashlight along the axis of the length of the flashlight, or the ones that leave the flashlight at some angle to the axis of the length of the flashlight? It seems like the answer would be different depending on the observer.
35) Regarding episode “Relativity's key concept: Lorentz gamma”, can we derive the Lorentz factor if the flashlight is turned in the same direction as the motion of the train?
36) Why is the speed of causality one particular speed and no other. Would the universe be very different if the speed of causality was 300000000 as opposed to 299792458 m/s?
37) Spacetime is curved near mass, but why does that make mass want to move? We can think of curved space time as a slope that things roll down, but the reason that things roll down a slope is gravity! The logic is circular. Why does mass care if spacetime is curved? Why can mass be at a lower potential energy by moving into a gravity well?
38) Are orbitals (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, etc.) able to overlap without violating the Pauli exclusion principle because the electrons have different energies and are therefore not identical?
39) Why can’t an electron emit a photon, losing all kinetic energy, and fall into the nucleus just as it can emit a photon and fall from an exited state to the ground state?
40) In the double slit experiment the light goes through both slits because “it is a wave in addition to being a particle”, but the EM wavelength of light is always shown as being parallel to the direction that the photon is traveling. When talking about wave/particle duality in this case, does the wave refer to position of the photon as opposed to the EM wave?
41) Is there an uncertainty in the direction of a particle (like a photon) at t=0 when it is created, or does its position only become more uncertain the further it travels. Maybe both?
42) Can a photon be described as a particle, and two waves (energy and position), whereas an electron would be described as a particle and 4 waves (mass, charge, position, energy)?
This is a lot of questions, and I don't have time to even read this whole list, but I know the answers for the first few...
1. This is a lens... like camera lenses need to be designed, at great effort, to try to minimize diffraction.
2. In a transparent medium, the molecules of the medium are absorbing and re-radiating the incoming light. At the atomic scale the light is still propagating at the speed of light, but the sum total of all the waves in the medium produces a macroscopic effect that *looks like* the light slowed down, but it didn't actually slow down. There are some good videos on CZcams about how this process works.
3. Quantum field are Lorentz invariant... so the speed of light is still the same speed of light as always. (And also... the speed of light is what defines the measurement of other things... and those other things *don't* change independently.)
4. Light doesn't have "mass", it has *_momentum_* this is a very important distinction.
These deep dives are really cool. Definitely more of them. I would love a more in depth discussion on the electroweak force, for example
Deep dive is awesome! Please do it more 🎉
Loved this. Deep dives are great!
More please! I feel like I actually learned something for the first time in a long time. Or, at least seriously challenged my rudimentary understanding. I didn’t understand weak force before, still don’t, but now it feels like there is something more I can learn.
More deep dives please.
Your explanation methods are great for my mathematically challenged brain!
Thanks
Love the deep dives!
Love the deep dives, more please
Please do more of these!
Deep dives are great; I'd enjoy seeing even deeper ones.
Thanks for the clarifications!
Amazing explanation. We want more deep dives please!
I love those deep dive's. It tells me more than i can expect from the common videos.
As a child and teen I read the equvalent of the popular mechanics and popular science magazines in my country every opportunity I had. A large thanks goes out to public libraries.
These videos are the natural progression of these magazines and more. Thanks Don and his team. I love the deep dives. More please.
I vote for more deep dives! This was a helpful level of detail
Love the deep dive. More please
Really enjoyed this deep dive!