What Happens Inside a Proton?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2022
- PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
If we ever want to simulate a universe, we should probably learn to simulate even a single atomic nucleus. But it’s taken some of the most incredible ingenuity of the past half-century to figure out how that out. All so that today I can teach you how to simulate a very very small universe.
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspacetime.com/
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Euan McLean & Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, Pedro Osinski, Adriano Leal & Stephanie Faria
GFX Visualizations: Ajay Manuel
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
Executives in Charge (PBS): Adam Dylewski, Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming (PBS): Gabrielle Ewing
Spacetime is produced by Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2022 PBS. All rights reserved.
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Special Thanks to Our Patreon Supporters
Big Bang Supporters
Steffen Bendel
Gautam Shine
NullBlox.ZachryWilsn
Adam Hillier
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
David Neumann
Charlie
Leo Koguan
Ahmad Jodeh
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Amy Hickman
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Fabrice Eap
Mark Rosenthal
David Nicklas
Quasar Supporters
Glenn Sugden
Dr. Sujasha Gupta Vaka
Dr. Vikram Reddy Vaka
Alex Kern
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Christina Oegren
xaexyz
Mark Heising
Hank S
Hypernova Supporters
john ibes
Vyce Ailour
Brandon Paddock
Oneamazinguy
Ken S
Gregory Forfa
Kirk Honour
Mark Evans
drollere
Joe Moreira
Marc Armstrong
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Russell Pope
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
John R. Slavik
Mathew
Donal Botkin
John Pollock
Edmund Fokschaner
Joseph Salomone
chuck zegar
Jordan Young
John Hofmann
Daniel Muzquiz
Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
Kane Holbrook
Bradley S. Isenbek
Jason Bowen
John Yaraee
Ross Story
teng guo
Mason Dillon
Harsh Khandhadia
Thomas Tarler
bsgbryan
Sean McCaul
Carsten Quinlan
Susan Albee
Frank Walker
Matt Q
WhizBangery
MHL SHS
Terje Vold
Anatoliy Nagornyy
comboy
Andre Stechert
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
jim bartosh
Nubble
Scott R Calkins
The Mad Mechanic
Ellis Hall
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S
Ben Campbell
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Alex Edwards
Ádám Kettinger
MD3
Endre Pech
Daniel Jennings
Cameron Sampson
Geoffrey Clarion
Darren Duncan
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
Eric Webster
David Johnston
Web Browser
Michael Barton
Mr T
Andrew Mann
Isaac Suttell
Devon Rosenthal
Oliver Flanagan
Bleys Goodson
Robert Walter
Bruce B
Mirik Gogri
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Robert Ilardi
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Graydon Goss
Frederic Simon
Tonyface
John Robinson
A G
David Neal
justahat
John Funai
Tristan
Bradley Jenkins
Kyle Hofer
Daniel Stříbrný
Luaan
Cody
Thomas Dougherty
King Zeckendorff
Dan Warren
Patrick Sutton
John Griffith
Daniel Lyons
DFaulk
Kevin Warne
I retired a few years ago from a career in experimental particle and nuclear physics... and now I'm watching these videos and getting insights that had eluded me all those years. Thanks!
Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface
A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
@@SpotterVideo
There was a band called the Tubes...
Is this the new string theory, except 3 or 4D?
Lots of questions, seems like you have them too.
@@SpotterVideo
The idea that particles are just bends/oscillations in one or more fabrics of spacetime seems to be the prevailing idea, Matt even says as much at 7:33 . With gravity itself being a bend in spacetime, this would by definition make gravity an extension of the bending in the oscillating fields, (unless each of the "fields" are somehow independent of spacetime).
P.S. Matt has talked about the possibilities of neutrinos being dark matter before.
Matt's talked about neutrinos and dark matter before, also that has nothing to do with the rest of your "question".
The idea that particles are just bends/oscillations in one or more fabrics of spacetime seems to be the prevailing idea, Matt even says as much at 7:33 . With gravity itself being a bend in spacetime, this would by definition make gravity an extension of the bending in the oscillating fields, unless each of the "fields" are somehow independent of spacetime.
That being said you are not going to win the Nobel Prize in physics without at least some math people haven't seen before, and some evidence to back it up. If visualizations and interpretations of reality where all that was needed to win, the prize would just go to whoever had the most weed.
I am trying to study and get career in it.
@@castonyoung7514 My degree is in Biology. However, I have an interest in Particle Physics. I have never expected to win a Nobel Prize in Physics. This concept is intended as a starting point for someone else who is mathematically gifted.
The fact that this quality of information is available to anybody for free is the biggest miracle of the universe.
We live in a golden age of information.
Some people say we are the universe trying to understand itself.
The Internet is like a primitive form of collective consciousness. Exciting times!
Humanity is advancing at a rapid rate, love it
I would say life would be it, but yeah
stays in a proton.
I was so blown away by looking at that linear regression technique to 0 pixel spacing. Literally haven't felt this amazed in a few years. So simple yet so beautiful.
Should be done to Planck Length. Remember the UV disaster.
Sorry - I don't think that is linear regression. They aren't trying to see if there is a relationship between degree of pixel spacing and mass prediction - there is a relationship in the data points by definition. What I think the are doing is simply using the data points to allow them extrapolate to "infinity". Defining zero as infinity makes it a bit easier and having control over the units of the x axis is also helpful in this endeavour.
O shut up deso
There are several other examples. One is the extrapolation of gas volume to 0 to estimate the 0 kelvin.
The same method is horribly imprecise when attempting to calculate nuclear magnetic moments. Also, chiral EFT diverges from experiment down near the low nuclear energies of normal matter.
This is why you hardly ever hear about low energy nuclear physics.
I'm so excited to see the channel starting to slowly dip into the world of Quantum Chromodynamics. It's always seemed fascinating to me that there is a whole other level of particles and interactions going on inside the atomic nucleus, but trying to read about it on my own has always been daunting.
@@clown134 Well, quantum theories themselves say that reality at that scale is indetermined. Maybe we're just measuring the wrong way, but probably not, based on what I've studied.
Quarks by Herald Fritsch is a great book for an introduction to QCD
😄a general audience will be more favorable
Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface
A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Smallest points with 6 directions could make a structure. In that case, the entire universe grows as a box, and makes a flat universe. There is a theory that can prove it.
I recently found this channel. It's absolutely brilliant. My background is in astrophysics and you definitely explain some of these concepts to the public far better than a lot of lecturers I had in the past.
I dropped out of college because it was far more efficient to find instructors & learning materials online which best suited my learning style - far easier & faster to absorb information. So much high quality & free educational resources, for autodidacts, here on the web.
You have so many videos to watch, I discovered the channel in 2020 and watch it since then. It wastly expanded my knowlegde about... spacetime.
You're in for a real treat!!
Best humbling channel ever 😂😂😂
That is how it should be done in the first place. i feel you.
I'm so happy you addressed my comment in the last episode! I've been watching this channel for a few months now and have been very impressed with the content and the Q&A segments at the end of each episode. You're making physics as a whole a tangible thing to understand for a very wide audience, and I hope it goes without saying this is a very difficult thing to do. Thanks for all that you do, and I sincerely look forward to new episodes each and every week.
i burst out laughing when your name came on screen in the video
I lol'd at your correction. Well played, I Booba, well played.👏
About your comment in the video, wouldn't it be enough to say that absolute zero being equal to no motion would violate uncertainty principle? Obviously your explanation is better and gives further explanation, but for a quick counter example would this be sufficient?
I have no clue what he is saying this entire time
@@social7921 99% of people dont either
I am not anything close to a scientist, but I enjoy hearing things like this...
It is so amazing to see how much human have observed the universe.
It is all very complex but my heart wants to hear more.
It makes me feel complete.
Human fee-fees are powerful.
@@woodypigeon it is quite possible we will never understand quantum mechanics since theres evidence the interactions are influenced in the 5th dimension or even higher
@@woodypigeon its not mysterious or fictional at all hidden dimensions that only exists in the quantum level is just as valid as any other theory on quantum mechanics
All which can be easily seen when you take psychedelics. Something about sensory-overload bring out the inferences between waves and particles so you see all as energy patterns and formations.
As non-scientist i confirm this
Kudos to the whole PBS Space Time team. It's information like this that keeps me coming back for more. I'm raising my 9 and 12 year old kids on your videos and despite most episodes being advanced for kids this age, it's sparked some great conversations with them about Quantum Mechanics and the nature of our reality.
What you could travel as fare back in time as time is moving forward
Your kids are going to be geniuses
Your kids are going to think that they know more than they really do.
Please teach them properly, without stooping down to this scientific popularism, that is more focused on intriguing people with complexity, rather than explainimg things to them with simplicity.
@@blinded6502 They are 9 and 12. I’d argue that it’s much more important to foster curiosity instead of actual understanding of quantum physics, which pbs spacetime does very well.
Don't allow yourself to believe you are learning something, simply because you are consuming internet content.
The speed at which you can access information when using the internet can make it really easy to waste time doing pseudo-productive information gathering that you will forget about next week.
It is very hard to discipline your attention enough to avoid the control of algorithmic recommendations that are constantly trying to "peek your interest", especially for children who are still learning what is important to pay attention to, and how to control their attention.
its best to limit the time you spend consuming internet content.
Remember, the internet only wants your attention and money. its not your friend.
Out of all of the topics Matt has taught on here... this has to be one of the most mind blowing .. 🤯 it's unbelievable how any human minds have ever found ways to simulate these tricks as he called them. Lattice QCD... Unreal. It's amazing he's explained this in an understandable way for those of us who have no background in physics at all.
@@hyperduality2838 czcams.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/video.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
Human has done many "impossible things"
I feel like everything in quantum physics is built on, "This is how it works, except its not how it works."
Got nothing to do with what it's built on; it's just how PBS has to simplify things to help the audience understand them
That's all of science, really. All models are mere approximations.
@@alienturtle1946Approximations completely dependent on foundational assumptions. The history of science shows that those foundational assumptions started off as wild speculative guesses.
@@stevenverrall4527 Eh. I mean you're right that you can question anything back to some foundational assumption/axiom. But you need those axioms to have any kind of working knowledge. Without them you can barely assert anything, a la Descartes. And the axioms that most of math and science are built on are relatively straightforward, as opposed to wild guesses. But some people do play around with alternate sets of axioms, and I'd agree it can lead to some interesting things, even if their applications are niche or not yet discovered.
@@alienturtle1946 Not only must scientists rely on fundamental axioms, but they need to keep imagining and devising new ways to test them.
In addition, every scientific theory has a realm of applicability. It is important to discover and probe the edges of each of these realms.
I'm pretty confident this was delivered in English, but that's the extent of my confidence. Thanks for this.
Those optimizations really seem like things that someone in the demoscene would've done for fun. I remember some hilarious hacks to get fluids working in realtime, or real time raytracing more than a decade ago. Quantization, caching, precomputation, and randomized sampling are pretty standard approaches to simplifying expensive problems.
But can in run on a gameboy?
Its more than likely, that some of the physicists working on said simulations have some affinity to the demoszene and cracking community from back then. The wizardry that is involved in this high performance c/c++ code seems unreal to me.
@@Turnoutburndown 13:40 way less than that :P
@@Turnoutburndown Gameboy, probably not, but one of the early "supercomputers" built specifically for the purpose of lattice QCD simulations was made by wiring thousands of PlayStations together.
You'd be surprised how much of an overlap there is between people who do Physics and demoscene types
That is a great explanation for being a Physicist "think of how the universe works, describe the theory with math, test the model with reality."
lol that's theoretical physicists, there's two more! experimental and computational!
And the emotional
basically the opposite of religion
And when it dosnt work..blag it for the funding.🤣🤣
@@mastershooter64 Experimental physics is the only trustworthy science. All others from medicine to climate are extremely dodgy indeed.
I can't think of anything more comforting to the undefinable chaos of the universe than PBS Space Time.
That half life 3 comment got me cackling out loud in my steel factory job. Thank you for all your fine work, detailed laymen explanations and humorous add-ons.
"If I tried to explain that too, we would be here all day"
That sounds great to me, no problem, please go on
love hand waving. it's a nice red flag. hahah
I’ve been watching your content for over a year now. My background is in pure mathematics and you are seriously convincing me to start studying physics .
The graph at 13:10 was really interesting! The linear relationship between pixel size and mass is surprising.
Kind of like the limit in calculus.
Doing a video with a Half-Life 3 joke was the last hurrah needed for this channel to reach geek-out perfection, and I’m happy to report we have reached that threshold. Bravo. 👏
I started watching PBS Spacetime in 2016 (to my best knowledge) with the dream of studying Physics one day. Now, I have been in University for 2 years, and this is the first time I see a new video released on a topic I already learned about and it feels weird... but in a good way ^^
I hope Spacetime never ends
I should clarify though, we did not yet learn about QFT, so I did not know the entire substance of the video :p
Bro had a dream and pursued it. I respect you and wish you the best of luck in university. I myself have been interested in chemistry and physics since my childhood and find looking at convoluted concepts like this very video described highly fascinating, yet I was never actually able to understand them on a deeper level.
Can't even get myself to read a book, and it has frustrated me for as long as I can think.
That's why I respect and look up to people like you who actually have the mental endurance to get up every day, motivated to learn. I wish I could, too.
nngh why am I writing this much about myself what am I even doing snymore its way too late im sorry lolll
@@moelr_ Thank you for your kind words!
It definitely can be hard getting up in the morning with a day full of work ahead, but you shouldn't feel down or unhappy about yourself because you might not always live up to some expectations you have for yourself. The last 2 years were very difficult for me as I realized for the first time I was at my very limit when it comes to... brain power. I just couldn't keep up with a lot of other people in Uni and to this day it stresses me out a lot. With every semester it's getting better though, talking with other people having similar issues, and always realizing you don't need to be the fastest with understanding stuff or get the best grades in every course. I know what you mean about reading books. I used to like reading, and now I can't even read books in my freetime which I know I would enjoy a lot, much less books I would be required to read for Uni (I'm just lucky our Professors don't really require us to read long texts or books). But I'm trying to battle it, I recently bought a book I will enjoy a lot and I also rediscovered a series of books I read (at least) 10 years ago and I am very much looking forward to experiencing again. I'm just reading a couple pages every now and then, baby steps now might just turn into fulfillment later, it's a chance I'm willing to take :)
@@Mystixor so before this video you learned that lattice qcd existed, but not how it's done?
Best wishes!
Love the particle physics episodes
yesssss me too
@@hyperduality2838 ooooooooookkkkaaaaayyyyy
I haven't touched anywhere near this subject in years, but you do a fantastic job making modern ideas accessible to us all. Love it!
Great video. Also thoroughly enjoyed the prospect of a PhD astrophysicist saying the word "Booba" because another PhD holder with that name asked a good question.
When talking about discrete elements of space -especially a regular structure of 3 or more dimensions-, I believe you should use the term "voxel" (a portmanteau of "volume" and "element"), rather than "pixel" ("picture" + "element"). It was once an obscure concept in computer graphics, but the popularization of voxel-based games like Minecraft has made this term rather common among young people, so you should not have any problem taking advantage of that.
In medical imaging they use the term voxel as well.
I see your voxel and I raise you eight pixels
I believe the concept of what Matt said was using pixels to achieve the voxel? At least that's how i pixeled it even though i'm an old voxel.
Since the model described in the video is 4 dimensional, wouldn't it be a hypervoxel?
czcams.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/video.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
Monte Carlo always seems like magic. I mean, they always say "learn the theory first" but that method is more like "just give it a try" (or few tries). And it works!
Suppose a big black box you can grab items from. To be certain about its contents, you'd need to inspect every single item. If you don't have time for that, you can just pick 10 or so at random (to avoid bias and hence the casino name) and make an educated guess.
This episode is so amazingly cool, and surely one of the most complicated ones. Thanks as always, it's been an incredible journey watching you all these years.
WoW I was asking for this video a ~year ago and here we go... thank you 🥰
Just wanted to say thanks for the effort/content, it's really appreciated. Learned a lot from this channel, most of which I didn't even know anything about to begin with. Pretty insane there's all this content for free, and still coming.
You guys did a great job with topic selection. It's above my redundancy threshold and I'm perpetually entertained. Stay creative!!!
As someone who uses MCMC in Bayesian computational modelling for the human brain, it's very cool to see it pop up in this video.
dangling modifier
Gold. That ending was pure gold.
This is what I (tried to) work on one summer as a high school student at SUNY Stony Brook! It was far beyond my meager understanding, but I had a lot of fun programming quaternion arithmetic in C 🙂
wow that's awesome!
I hope you continued in this field of education, you could be famous one day!
Quaternions are tight!
And for the kids out there that have never had to fiddle with programming ones own 3D-engine - they are at the core of all things "3D on your screen".
Don’t let those C++ and Java weirdos throw you off. C is the one true language.
@@rfichokeofdestiny The only true language out there is mathematics. C is only a decent language for a finite set of problems.
Absolutely masterful response to the half-life comment, bravo sir
The high-quality graphics you employ in your videos is probably one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Its potential is unlimited, it has the power to visually explain things I wouldn't understand otherwise.
Thank you for coming back, gives me comfort to watch these videos again
I love your videos, but I often find myself getting lost midway through...
However, I was absolutely gripped throughout this whole episode, and everything was explained exceptionally well!
Same, been watching for years, I’ve noticed I manage to average about the 9 minute mark then get completely lost haha
It makes me re-watch over and over and as I go I pause and Google, read about and absorb. Then watch the video yet again and stuff starts clicking in my brain and I can follow like 80% of the video, the last 20% I still don't get is the maths. I'm not sure I ever will, but I'm incredibly grateful the maths is included.
@@qdpqbp No thanks, I don't fancy watching a narcissistic loon tell me all the other physics is wrong and only he is the person you can trust.
@@hyperduality2838 Have you seen the film "The Number 23"?
I just nod and pretend to be understanding everything
When are we getting an episode on JWST?
With all the smaller updates and pictures we've been getting
I think they're working on it currently, but have to edit it when something new comes out, it might be contextually difficult to stick them together as they come out weeks apart
Unless something related to physics is discovered by JWST... I really don't see it happening. Because of the focus of the channel.
FACTSSSSS
@@recitationtohear this guy 🤦♂️
By that time it's mirror will look like sandpaper from micrometiorites. Isn't it logical that these are also hanging out in the Lagrange points?
The best episodes of PBS Spacetime are those episodes that give me an unexpected insight. It does not happen often. This episode gave me an insight re the fine structure constant and what was really meant when it is described as a coupling constant of the electron with the em field. I had never considered what that meant in a Feinman diagram.
I asked this question in your feedback form a while back!
Not sure how much those forms direct your content, but it’s great to see you making stuff in the direction my mind goes
I've always wanted a video on this topic! Super interesting
It's actually night here and I'm watching this amazing video! Special thanks for giving glimpse of every important video required to understand a certain topic everytime! I'm not a very old subscriber thus, this really means a lot to me! I've been watching old videos consistently tho! Excited for more upcoming videos!
I believe that the words "quantum" and "easy" have like linguistic charges. The closer they get in a sentence, the more difficult it is to make sense of the sentence.
Gosh, I love this channel. Thank you for the amazing content! The dig at Half-life 3 at the end was over-the-top amazing 😂
As a former physics student, I can't help but to be repeatedly blown away by the quality, precision, and relevance of the content on this channel.
I would postulate that in many respect, those 2 are somewhat equivalent:
- You could invest a full semester on a 3 credit undergrade (or event graduate) class on the content of any one or a few of those videos, so like 100 hours or something, and be able somewhat grasp the topics discussed here.
- You could watch a few related videos here while paying attention, making a mind map/taking notes and perhaps referring to outside content to clarify the bits & pieces that are glossed over a bit quickly/assumed to be understood. That's maybe 5-10 hours total.
Conclusion: PSB Spacetime feels about 10x more efficient at understanding those conceps than my post-secondary education. I was born a few years too early apparently.
* Of course, that's not entirely fair, no equations are solved here for the most part. But in terms of UNDERSTANDING the principles... I'd argue that many students can solve equation to pass an exam, but do not necessarlly understand the underlying idea.s
Well yes - understanding phenomena and their relation is a tiny part of studying physics, sometimes even left out for individual research or foreknowledge at the expense of being able to numerically grasp these relations and phenomena. If you're interested in learning about the workings of reality (and only that), studying physics has the chance to be a waste of your time as only phenomenology matters to answer these questions for you.
@@midnattsol6207 Part of my comment indeed (and somewhat disappointed wrt to some of my initial motivations in going into physics).
The other side of it also being that it's actually pretty hard to get to a distilled, concise and precise perspective on what those phenomenon actually mean just by studying them. Spacetime does this in a way that feels inaccessible about most topics, most of the time, for some random individiual
I didn't really begin to understand the fundamentals of Physics until at least a decade of teaching it at the college level.
@@logiconabstractions6596 czcams.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/video.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
So cool that you go in harder and harder topic! I can't wait to learn more!
The hl3 q&a is my favourite in the whole series and actually made me lol
Phenomenal explanation of a complex topic. Space Time's years of scientific communication are showing. I'm very glad to be on this trip to explain the roots of our reality, as best we know.
I absolutely love this channel and have been watching and learning for a few years now, but after all this time, I have to wonder... Will Matt ever come back to earth? I mean, space is amazing but man.
"That's not a proton, that's just three quarks in a trenchcoat."
this makes as much sense to me as explaining how ddr5 timings work..., i love it XD
Training my brain with this kind of stuff is truly the best kind of exercise. Thanks for the amazing job guys 😉
Matt: "Let's make sure we understand *exactly* what we are trying to do here."
Matt's next line: "We want the probability that some wiggly quantum field wiggles between one state and another."
Matt is god.
What happens inside a proton stays inside a proton.
I am interested and amazed by these videos even though they are way over my head.
"If I tried to explain that too, we would be here all day" don't you dare threaten me with a good time Matt!
Love the way this man breaks complex things down. I would’ve love to have him as my Physics instructors
Very good video, I love this computational physics stuff! I always wondered why we never did computations with fields as the fundamental elements instead of particles -- turns out it's just because it's wayyyyyy harder.
Dude got this figured out in '74. That's nuts
Easily one of the most fascinating episode, well done!
I am so happy this channel is starting to cover some QCD! It is one of the mist interesting areas of physics to me :)
If we can do this, could we simulate hydrogen / helium atoms "normally" and how they function when they fuse in stars as a potential means of learning how to create / finesse terrestrial viable fusion?
….are you saying we should make an artificial star? Because I wholeheartedly agree
We actually have no issues creating fusion, where fall short is not having it happen so fast.
@@MrWildbill in the current state of fusion energy we are unable to produce more energy than the energy required to generate it
I don't think how fusion occurs in stars can be emulated by us effectively. From what I understand the temperature in a star is far too low to cause fusion the way we create it on Earth. It occurs in stars via quantum tunnelling at an extremely infrequent rate, but because a star is so dense and has so many particles it still occurs frequently enough for it to shine.
@@halfnattyboomer354 are you saying that stars basically do operate by cold fusion already, and the only question regarding cold fusion is whether it can be replicated in terrestrial conditions that don't require the insane density at the heart of a star? Or rather, I suppose, whether we could reproduce such density on Earth with less energy input (to create the pressure needed to constrain the volume of the reaction chamber) than we'd get out of the reaction? Could exploiting naturally high-pressure terrestrial environments like the deep sea help in any way, or is that kind of pressure negligible compared to the stellar conditions we'd be looking to replicate?
Cool! Never knew about Latice QCD until this video
This was so well written and explained that I walked away understanding way more on this topic than I should have
This is going to be quite a crazy episode I bet EDIT : it was although I would've liked to have dug deeper into simulations, how they work and what we've accomplished so far in that domain.
Don't electron meet the definition of free will
It would be cool to have a collaboration with Computerphile to explain the simulation side
@@osmosisjones4912 how so?
I'm looking forward to the upcoming QCD episode(s)! This one was fascinating. It's astounding how clever dedicated mathematicians and physicists can be.
Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. ✝️ :)
I am far from someone who can understand it properly (becuase I am a 9th grader) but things like this make me excited for the future.
Excellent video, loved the info and graphics! Well done!
As a layman, my mind went 🤯 for the way you changed the calculation from particles to the fields themselves! It’s just genius.
Thanks for the upload.
I'm still trying to figure out what's inside Tontons.
this is good work...would you do a part 2 on colour superconductivity and other colour quantum phases of matter as we vary pressure and temperature
Hey Matt, fun fact about your name: in Brazilian Portuguese the phrase "mete o doido" translates literally to "put the crazy" and is used as a slang when someone is intentionally out of their mind. I can't unsee this everytime I open the channel and my mind is blowed with all this spacetime crazyness!
Thank you. Love your ability to simplify these theories.
Hi, I'm a long time viewer of PBS space time and it is an amazing show. How is Gabe doing these days. It's been a long time since we've seen him. Understandably recovering from a jedi lightsaber dual takes a while. But It would be an awesome episode seeing Gabe pop up like a virtual particle in spacetime
This episode made me think of him for some reason. Yes, it would be good to see him again.
Would you guys consider making a video about things outside of “space time” like geometric theories like the amplituhedron and ideas of guys like Nima Arkani-Hamed? You get pretty close to it in this video
This stuff is cutting edge and super interesting to me as an attempt to bridge the gap between GR and QM by reimagining the way we view the universe. Specifically relating to this video, the amplituhedron concepts allows theorists to completely side step Feynman diagrams and virtual particles entirely and still get the right answers for scattering amplitudes of particle collisions
Screw ole hamed
I’ve never heard of any of this before, but I’m definitely gonna check Nima out. Popped up on my recommended a couple times but I never knew what his ‘deal’ was all about. Thank you for sharing that!
Just remembered we used to have a whole PBS channel dedicated to pure maths. Unfortunately got the axe. Would be nice to see Space Time throw us some slightly off-topic bones here and there since this is really all we got besides Eons now.
@@HoldenRoss808 Nima is awesome. He has some really cool talks on CZcams from around 4 years ago. Him and his colleagues are working on some crazy stuff trying to reinvent the way we view and calculate particle collisions while getting the same answers.
His whole idea is that “space time is doomed” and we’ll never reconcile GR and QM without stepping outside of the rules of space time. A lot of it is crazy math that’s over my head, but the concept of the universe being more fundamental geometry from which spacetime itself emerges is super interesting to me
@@Jm-wt1fs czcams.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/video.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
Loved this one
Best summary of lattice QCD I’ve ever encountered
Whenever the Monte Carlo method gets brought up, you know you're dealing with some ridiculously complicated stuff.
If every proton is indistinguishable, how can any of their interiors be an ever shifting bubbling mess of quarks and gluons....they're all identical at all times?
good question, i dont know but i would guess that the time scales of the shifting bubbling mess is so small that the differences they may cause in the properties of protons like their mass is so so tiny that it we may as well think of them as being the exact same. again this is just my guess
since these are quantum properties, i would imagine they are statistically identical, but instantly different.
I think you are confusing them with electrons, or other fundamental particles.
@@alvarorodriguez1592 well, they're not fundamental particles, but that doesn't mean they aren't indistinguishable (other than spin....just like electrons). If I were wrong, there would be no nuclear shell model ruled by the Pauli-exlusion-pinciple.
This hinges on what we mean by 'identical'. For example, the electrons in helium atoms are 'identical' even if orbiting a He-4 or He-3 nucleus. They are not strictly identical but identical ENOUGH for things like Pauli exclusion to prevent helium atoms just phasing through one another.
Protons are identical in mass, charge, spin and other properties AT THE SCALE OF NUCLEI. But that doesn't mean their interiors must be identical. And on smaller scales we very much see different outcomes from repeatedly slamming two 'identical' particles together.
Indeed the Pauli exclusion principle exists because it's impossible for two fermions to be exactly identical, in everything including their position in spacetime. Some difference must be maintained.
Ive recently started thinking of fields and their particles as functioning somewhat like conways game of life. Stable oscilations are like particles, and unstable ones are like virtual particles. Theyre both made of fluctuations in the same pixel grid following the same rules, and the stable oscilations can generate unstable ones, which can influence other stable ones. These interactions can then lead to larger stable structures with new properties. Obviously the rules are very different so i dont mean its an accurate representation or anything, but its a concrete, visible, definable example of at least similar concepts, which to me forms a much better base for a mental image than saying "an electron spontaneously emits a virtual photon which is absorbed by another electron."
You'd like the Wolfram Physics Project
I like this perspective on qft. It helps wrap your mind around how an entire complex universe can unfold out of a few fields following relatively simple rules. All form arises based on which oscillations/patterns can sustainably exist and interact with each other to create greater complexity.
@@highimpactsexualviolence5512 you've read about this before?
@@GeoffryGifari I've done some basic research into Conway's Game of Life and cellular automata, watched some videos and messed around with some myself. The Primordial Particle System is especially fascinating because of how closely it seems to mirror real particle interactions/basic life forms. Cellular automata often model natural systems, from physics to chemistry and even biology. It seems that they demonstrate a universal principle of emergent complexity which is mirrored across all levels of existence.
interesting, but it is so classical that it implicitly introduces a gazillion quantum fallacies.
I would love all these videos organized into a playlist ordered by increasing complicity so new ppl can get started
Excellent video! I love that lattice computation trick for estimating the mass of the neutron!
Interesting explanation, your clarity of thought is good. Can you go on to describe heavy quarks in the proton.
Is that 1/137 probability related to the Fine Structure Constant?
*watches the next 10 seconds*
Oh.
I enjoy these videos. They help keep me grounded and stop me thinking that I'm even remotely intelligent
Your explanation of the spin axis and quantum entanglement at the 18:20 mark is excellent. That's the first time it finally "clicked" for me in regards to understanding it. Thanks for continuing to make such great content!
czcams.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/video.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
The most profound bit of this video is easy to miss: "If you just draw a straight trendline through your simulation results, you can find out your neutron mass in the case of zero spacing: a continuous spacetime." We're very much living in reality, the universe is not a simulation.
They could have just simulated two different universes with different spacings, then ran a third simulation using the 'straight trendline'.
This definitely does not disprove the Simulation Hypothesis, if that's what you were suggesting. The appearance of a continuous spacetime could very well be the result of some deeper underlying calculation we haven't found yet. All this fuzziness we perceive could be due to rounding errors or geometric anomalies from the source calculations that are impossible for us to fully reverse-engineer from this side. The simulation itself could even be tampering with our machines or feeding us data that gives the appearance of a continuous spacetime. Or the fabric of the simulation could be actually built out of true continuous fields using some kind of technology or math we can't comprehend, or that might even be impossible from within the simulation. The Simulation Hypothesis is literally impossible to disprove, which is precisely the problem with it.
@@DoctorT144 Not really. Simulation Hypotheses seem to downplay the role of reflexive self-consciousness. I am my own consciousness therefore I can't - by definition - be a simulation of myself. Functionally, the mechanics of reality are irrelevant to a consciousness which transcends it by being able to reflect on it. It makes no difference whether it's a simulation as long as it works. Philosophically, it's an interesting concept but not much else.
I grok what you are saying...you are suggesting that a simulated universe would be digital and "pixelated" at its most fundamental level, so mass values consistent with a continuous, analog fabric of spacetime suggest that we must live in a "real" universe. But what if there is nothing beyond math and information? Fields might ultimately only be mathematical constructs manipulated by operations running on an extra-universal computer. Numerical values can can be divided and multiplied infinitely. And anything with a discrete presence, such as particles and their associated properties, might only be informational bits manipulated by the ultimate game engine.
@@ubergroov Yea ok, and maybe the universe was magically spoken into being by an almighty God who exists transcendent of space and time in heaven. I just don't see the point of these appeals to simulation. In any case, even if the universe were simulated, my consciousness definitely is not because I can't be a simulation of myself, unless I were not myself, which is illogical.
Awesome to have virtual particles clarified. I heard they obeyed no conservation law and always had me greatly confused.
It would be very nice if you further delved into particles, because It seems everything can be regarded as a particle, which is a bit confusing. I'm thinking of phonons and excitons, for example. Or of gravitons, which is at the same time "not a force" and mediated through particles.
You heard wrong. Virtual particles do obey conservation laws. They always conserve energy and momentum. And via pair production they also conserve charge, spin, etc.
Actually there are no virtual particles, space is likely discreet, following rules we don't understand yet. ""Virtual particles"" are what have been made up as a placeholder for our best guess at what's going on.
It's like how we have "fluid dynamics", but really it's a bunch of atoms bumping into each other and we just can't calculate it...
Pretty sure virtual particles are the justification for why Hawkins radiation causes black holes to eventually “evaporate” mass
@@ryanbloom850 No, you can follow a lattice approach as well and still see Hawking radiation, which is nice since that means it's not an artifact of one mathematical approach.
@@garethdean6382 Yeah there are even other approaches which can arrive at hawking radiation and similar properties, at the very least it isn't hard to show based on the results of the "No big crunch theorem" derived via proof by self contradiction in "Inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology", cited as Matthew Kleban and Leonardo Senatore JCAP10(2016)022, that if we limit ourselves to the set of solutions of the Einstein field equations in a nontrivial flat or open universe that don't run into the issues with logical self contradiction identified above then information is always conserved, the arrow of time becomes fixed relative to whether the universe was initially expanding or contracting with the laws of thermodynamics automatically arising as universal constraints on allowable total variation within the metric curvature of the universe.
And as information naturally appears via the principals of propagating the initial conditions of the universe radially outwards in space over slices of time we can apply an integration of all possible(or impossible) paths and in this case the individual time slices should represent a cosmological event horizon which will have a definite entropy making it homologous to Hawking radiation mathematically aside from proportionality constants.
A black hole event horizon in this limit doesn't really work in the same way in this metamathematical limiting case for general validity of solutions to the Einstein field equations since they aren't cosmologically sized like the limiting case looked at, but it should provide some insights there as well.
For one thing by showing that off diagonal terms of the metric tensor can never match(i.e. the off diagonal terms must always be nonzero for any and all valid solutions to the Einstein field equations in any nontrivial flat or open universe) does potentially implicate that gravity is inherently symmetry breaking and thus in the quantum limit must be composed of purely asymmetric wavefunctions. As such wavefunctions in quantum mechanics can never share the same state i.e. all combinations are equally unique states also known as the Pauli exclusion principal. Though in this case the math might be best described in terms of wormholes in a complex space but I digress point is hawking radiation can be derived via other means too at least in the case of cosmological event horizons.
This channel deserves way more subs
Wow, this is so helpful!
Thank you, PBS Spacetime.
Isn’t the decay of particles usually caused by weak force interactions? How do you add the weak force into the lattice QCD calculations? is that even possible?
Right, particle decay is a weak interaction and can be simulated in lattice qcd. It’s complicated to explain but you can describe weak interactions using weak “currents”. So it depends on what you are interested in studying, for example if you want to study the energy spectrum (think tower of energy states ) that doesn’t involve any weak interactions. However, you will need to utilize weak currents for something like neutron beta decay because one of the down quarks will decay to an up quark. As for the leptons, their interactions can be added perturbatively into the calculations so you don’t need a full lattice calculation to describe its contribution.
it s weak so we assume it doesn t exist lol
Proton's don't decay, although neutrons do decay at a mysteriously slow rate.
Weak interactions should have a rather small effect in any hadron containing only light quarks. Adding weak interaction to QCD simulations would immediately increase already high computational requirements for negligible gains.
@@zackh1239 czcams.com/video/1qJ0o4U63aw/video.html @1:40 Is that blue colour what can be called as a gluon field?(AKA one of quantum field ) and red colour a gluon particle?? Or the lowest energy density which is not shown/render in this image (prf.derek said tht in this video) is what we can call as GLUON-FIELD? Or is that RED COLOR RECTANGLE @1:21 is what can be called as gluon-field(AKA one of quantum field)
I really must try and understand your videos properly. You have a great way of explaining this stuff but by the time I get the first bit, I am left behind by the next 🤣🤣👍
Most of the cosmological videos I get relatively well but yeah these ones get me quite a lot though I'm very fascinated.
I'm sure my biggest problem is I've never been very good with mathematics and that is a basically the core factor here.
I'm so excited about what this channel is diving into.
Love this show! I’m very excited to see QCD here.
A lot of this should probably be covered in an introductory quantum physics course. Not the math, just discussion of the concepts. It would go a long way toward dispelling some of the myths to pop up around quantum mechanics.
QED and QCD are way beyond intro QM.
@@michaelsommers2356 QED and QCD are way beyond an intro QM course, but not a youtube video ment for mass consumption.
@@Harkmagic QM courses, even intro courses, are not meant for "mass consumption". If the students in such a course want to consume popular science presentations of more advanced topics, they can do so, but such presentations don't belong in the classroom, because there is already too much to cover that time can't be wasted on the non-essentials.
@@michaelsommers2356 I've been through those QM courses. The stuff here is nearly essential concepts any student should know before getting to deep into a QM education simply to avoid misunderstandings that can arise from the limitations of a early QM education. You can move it around for the convince purposes, for example my university has a Modern Physics course that is pretty much a general overview of the developments of the early 20th century and serves as a pre-req to all higher physics courses. Sticking this discussion in the QM section might be a good fit.
Misunderstandings and even mysticism abound in the study of anything quantum and nobody will ever get me to budge from the position that topics that serve to clear up misunderstandings and drive away the mysticism should be an essential aspect early QM education.
@@Harkmagic I didn't get any mysticism in any of my modern physics or quantum mechanics courses.
I just want to say that's it's refreshing to see someone admit that virtual particles don't really exist.
I mean, it is right there in the name. I don't think physics ever thought they were real, just a few science spectators who never wondered why they're called that. And then all tried to teach each other the same dumb stuff on youtube.
@@torydavis10 Define "real" in this context
@@nmarbletoe8210 I think the best analogy is that virtual particles are exactly as real as feynman diagrams or spacetime diagrams, or more classically the comparison of a gas piston to an ideal spring. They are a conceptual tool which does a good job of representing reality from a certain perspective, not reality itself.
@@torydavis10 More or less. The problem is that some actual physicists think they're real, because the concepts were taught poorly. And then they write books...
16:33 I appreciate the super-determinism joke 👏👏👏👏
Wouldn't this be the perfect time to make an episode on the newly discovered "Antipodal Duality"?
You managed to get me interested in Lattice QCD, I hope to learn more in the future.
Anyway, doesn't the fact that the correct particle mass is found only for a strictly continuous space strongly suggest that there's no ultimate "quantization" of space-time and, thus, that ramming against General Relativity with the argument that it is "classical" (seamless, continuous) is probably a wrong approach?
Not really, the pixelation could be too small to be noticed with current experiment results
Something something Planck length
@@JRush374 100! It's 10^20 times smaller than a proton, while a proton is 10^20 x smaller than 100 km. It's just small af.
That's a very good intro to lattice QCD! It's not my field of expertise, but closely related. Nice to see it explained to the larger public.
Just a note, g-2 is "gee minus two" not "gee two"
I watched a video about free will a while back that had me seeing the perspective of free will being an affect of having hind sight.
Then I thought to myself:
Because the past only really exists as information we hold (as memory), sentiments like “if only I’d done that” reaches for change in something we didn’t think about in the moment. There are things we definitely choose to do, but then the nuance of psychology creeps into view, “free will” isn’t something I worry about but it’s always a blast getting existential.
Another episode that just way over my head but all these ones give me lots re watchabilty. Slowly I understand it more the more I relisten to it