9 Subatomic Stories: The crazy world of quantum foam
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- One of the most bizarre predictions of modern physics is that at the quantum level, subatomic particles are constantly flickering in and out of existence. In episode 9 of subatomic stories, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains the key idea and briefly describes some compelling experiments that show that this weird phenomenon is really happening.
Subatomic Stories episode 5: Forces the Feynman Way
• 5 Subatomic Stories: F...
Quantum electrodynamics: theory
• Quantum electrodynamic...
QCD: Quantum Chromodynamics
• QCD: Quantum Chromodyn...
Quantum Field Theory
• Quantum Field Theory
The Physics of g-2
• The physics of g-2
Why is the weak force weak?
• Why is the Weak Force ...
Fermilab physics 101
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page
fnal.gov - Věda a technologie
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Don: "Hi there physics fans"
Me, a 31 year old adult, shouting at my laptop: "HI DON!"
WE ARE NOT BLACK PEOPLE!!! We are [Dark Skin] NATIVE Citizens of our Countries being played by [Light Skin] CITIZENS calling us WHITE PEOPLE when all people TAN!!!! #QANON /_\
hi Dr. ,what ties up different quantum fields together, and how they effect each other? and continue your series plz
Quantum rope?
@@jonahansen strings ;p.
lest in penrose gemoetry they need that 5th dimension to make string/loops work at all and they do seem to play some role.
they were all unified at some point also. one energy splitting into different balanced as self sustaining fields is how i imagine it.
and what it might resemble i imagine is like a magnetic field being flipped on and stabilizing but on a galactic scale wth ever that would look like ;p.
turtles all the way down.
WE ARE NOT BLACK PEOPLE!!! We are [Dark Skin] NATIVE Citizens of our Countries being played by [Light Skin] CITIZENS calling us WHITE PEOPLE when all people TAN!!!! #QANON /_\
@@thewriteinpresident What the hell are you talking about?
5:10 „it‘s hard to make predictions, especially about the future“ ... a classic! 😀👌
That's because the best chemistry jokes ar gon.
he just sat thre CONSERVING ENERGY !!
oh my god
This is a joke to slap my ne on
Psh. Your joke is elementary.
@@not2tired This and the first joke are indeed noble!
i love this guy, highly knowledgeable (thats even an understatement) and humble as well, not afraid to say he doesn't know. Has all the ingredients of a legend.
PBS SpaceTime just did a video about this and they said the quantum "foam" is most likely NOT an actual cloud of virtual particles, but instead a mathematical representation of the potential vibrational modes of the fields. I find that explanation much better since the quantum foam explanation breaks all kinds of physical rules.
*Is it just me or did anyone else find the chemistry joke too funny*
he DEADPANNED right thru it ...
by the way, I didn't understand that chemistry joke. it appeared and disappeared.
There's nothing like getting castigated for a typo - lol.
Just don't over-react to chemistry jokes.
@@andyiswonderful aren't we all a pathetic bunch, I smiled at your joke too 🤣🤣🤣
When all space even empty space is chaotic with appearing and disappearing particles, what makes the particles we experience in normal life to be special? Not chaotic and not disappearing and appearing? Is it just the huge number of them which middles the chaotic behavior out or is there something in them that makes them special?
I guess it is because virtual particles borrow energy from somewhere (an electron or the vacuum for example) and have a short time to deposit that energy somewhere else before disappearing (giving the energy back to where it was). Real particles hold their energy in a more stable form and are more likely to continue existing. I think you could say that a virtual particle only “existed” in a meaningful sense after it has managed to interact with something, like a W or Z boson that interacts in time to cause an instance of nuclear decay, before it has to give back its energy to where it came from.
the particles we observed are persistent over long times, they are real not virtual
Scale.
A lot of this chaos is simply to small for us to see unless we used instruments to detect it.
If you asking why dont I just phase through the floor... well that is possible... but quantum mechanics is probabilistic and since there are sooooooo many atoms in your body etc the chance of having a noticeable portion act chaotically. quantum tunnelling and the like, is extremely low.
TL;DR the ones we experience they arent special, hey are chaotic, theres just a lot of them.
And both of the other comments above are way off XD
@@LeeAtkinson98 So you mean atoms are not measurable and continuously flip in and out of existence ?
5:10 The famous ‘future predictions’ problem! Anterior predictions are so much more forthcoming
Predictions about the past tend to be much more accurate.
I'm loving your channel so much, dear Dr. Don Lincoln.
Dr. Lincoln I enjoy your videos, thank you for taking the time to educate us in a way that anyone can understand.
and...thank you for your comment😏.
Find this subject totally absorbing and this fella with these videos really helps.
Please keep up the 100% great work.
loving these, dr. d. and the question time,too.
Mind-blowing indeed! Thank you.
I am thoroughly enjoying these videos. Thanks, Dr Lincoln! 👍
Amazing. You make the subject very interesting.
So much discipline to figure all this out. My respects to all who did all this.
Thanks for these videos, the're the exercise my brain needs during these home bound times. I think that your background is mostly particle physics, but do you think you could tie up some loose ends with a video about superstrings?
All forces bend spacetime!!!! Great to know. I didn't even know to ask, so it solves so many other questions I had. ☮ FermiLab Rocks
Best episode yet!
Thanks so much Don. You're awesome. I even understood a little of what you said. ¡Stay safe!
Why do we treat gravity as a force in quantum mechanics but as the curvature of spacetime in relativity. (Is it because curved spacetime doesn't fit well with quantum mechanics and so we treat it as a force to make things work?)
Actually, there is no quantum treatment of gravity. We have some ideas, none of them have been proven, and no experimental evidence exists.
@@ozzymandius666 But it seems like everybody just assumes there's a quantum theory of gravity that just hasn't been discovered yet.
Exactly. Like, how does the theoretical graviton bend spacetime? Is spacetime a field like the electromagnetic and Higgs fields? Do they curve along with the gravitational field?
@@philochristos People selling books and making the TV circuit (including CZcams) include a vocal contingent that are more than happy to oversell the assumption but it's not really everybody.
By themselves, quantum field theory and general relativity are highly successful (because they work really well at describing and predicting a lot of what we observe and measure) but they have known, serious shortcomings. They can't be all there is to what we've already learned about the universe. And they really do not agree with each other at the quantum level.
Can we try to use existing techniques that have been successful before to reconcile the two? Yes. One model suggests that the two will agree if some unknown underlying stuff exists and spacetime is not discrete (not quantized) and that's basically string theory. Another model suggests that the two will agree if some unknown underlying stuff exists and spacetime is discrete, basically quantum loop gravity. (Both of those have come and gone over the years but each time a new one appears, it tends to retain the name.) And then there is the collection that rejects both and focuses on the possibility that gravity is just a property of spacetime, not a force, and will never be explained by the other approaches.
Imagine each idea is a horse in a race and various bets are being made based on each one's past performance and how the track looks today. Anyone metaphorically betting is liable to be able to make a convincing argument for their horse.
This is just a metaphor but it's not far wrong and it leaves you with three important takeaways.
First, it's foggy and we don't really know how many horses are in the race that we haven't noticed yet.
Second, the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not. Science is the discipline of observing and explaining. No one gets to vote on reality, regardless of how convincing they are or how many people believe something.
Third, and this is the biggest thing, we don't have any idea if getting the answer to the questions about quantum theory and general relativity is going to matter. It's true that we've discovered an amazing, mind-boggling amount about the universe and it's true that we've been trying for millennia with more rapid development the closer we get to today but the reality about our understanding of the universe is that we are still trying to discover what the right questions are.
This seems like an important problem. It seems like the answer is going to be really important. It might be. With what we know so far, it probably will be important. But we don't know that.
I think that the overwhelming majority of physicists understand that.
PS - Don Lincoln certainly does. 👍
@@andie_pants As David Tong so aptly put it when discussing the possibility of the existence of the graviton and quantum field theory - _If gravity is a force, spacetime is its field._
So far, the other fields conform to spacetime while at the same time influencing its shape. That best matches our observations and predictions so far - except where it's broken for reasons unknown.
Great stuff! 👍
Can moving object feel friction in empty space because of virtual particles?
intresting question!
i wouldn't call it "friction", but interaction, but yes and exactlythat's why the calculations without virtual particles deliver wrong values, while those with virtual particles are spot on.
Interesting question. Hope dr Lincoln will answer it.
No. Motion is relative to objects, not space. Accelerating objects do experience a bath of radiation called Unru radiation, however.
Not exactly, but the GZK limit affects ultra relativistic cosmic rays limiting their maximum speed (energy). Real photons of the cosmic microware background cause that.
Hi Don. Quantum foam intrigues me. In terms of the Casimir effect we are dealing with extremely small forces. How are these determined at what is such a high degree of precision?
Hello Sir, Great to learn new things from your videos
How virtual particle's comes into existence?
5:09 that is low key one of the best dad jokes I've heard in a while
Don, congratulations for another nice video! The words "quantum foam" reminded me Loop Quantum Gravity...... What's your opinion about LQG?
Love this channel!
Doesn't the casimir effect violate the law of conservation of energy the virtual particles should immediately annhilate each others but they did some work before annhilating by pushing the casimir plates
I think it's ok as long as the overall amount of energy is conserved
@Dr Deuteron An infinite number of possible wavelengthts/virtual particles outside of the gap between the plates is (quite obviously) stronger than the finite number that can exist between the plates.
@Dr Deuteron Same as burning gas pushing cylinders in a car does work.
@Dr Deuteron The plates in Casimir effect also move.
@@thedeemon Right, the plates move because of the force in the Casimir effect = work is done. From where does the energy come? Does the vacuum lose energy? Or can we use it to build a Perpetuum mobile?
I have two questions for you, but first I would like to say I really enjoy your video series. I think I have listened to all of them. I studied physics in university many years ago and wish there had been something like you have produced back then. At that time I found quantum mechanics was taught in a rather incoherent fashion that totally put me off further pursuit of the theoretical aspects of physics. I became an engineer, which still worked out as a generally interesting career and I frequently took advantage of a good knowledge of classical physics.
My questions are:
Can the virtual particles that are created in ‘empty space’ be anything other than the basic building blocks of the standard model? For instance, can you have proton/anit-proton pairs created given that a proton has three quarks.
Is the Higgs field everywhere in the universe, or is it somehow concentrated around the particles it interacts with? If it is everywhere, it would appear to be a fundamental property (or feature) of the universe. Also, if it is everywhere, how does it change as the universe expands?
The Higgs field is a QFT field, this means it permeates the entire universe. Thus, where 2 fields interact (eg an electron field and the higgs field) these materialize as excitation of the electron and the higgs field.
Only SM virtual particles can be created directly from empty space. Virtual particles are just energy manifestations, the energy of empty space being organized into a separate pair. Anything else is a combination of particles locked into some kind of dance.
Proton/anti-proton pairs won’t normally arise from the virtual particles appearing in empty space. The existence of empty space virtual particles is too short for them to get together and party as protons or anti-protons, or as any other kind of composite matter or anti-matter. This doesn’t seem totally impossible just very improbable so maybe composite matter and anti-matter randomly appears in tiny quantities a very few times across the universe before immediately disappearing into the vacuum again, not sure. It must have happened a lot just after the big bang. However, a collider can create particle pairs and physically separate them to make antimatter protons that last for a short time.
Great video! Could you please do a new video on Quantum Field Theory as well!! And how and who discovered it? By the way your videos are really great!!
czcams.com/play/PLCfRa7MXBEsoJuAM8s6D8oKDPyBepBosS.html
Search this URL for that title.
awesome! more more!
I am enjoying this series of videos. I do like, subscribe and share. Please keep them coming. Thanks.
Cant wait for G -2 experiment results!
Excellent illustration of the physical, e-Pi-i Observable real landscape of Timing-spacing in Quantum Chemistry perspective positioning probabilities.
"It's hard to make predictions especially about the future".., because WYSIWYG is probabilistic truth in the wave-particle positioning duration timing modulation interference and binding resonance degree of synchronization, so leading probabilities of future positioning are doubly uncertain about the lagging past integration of Temporal Superposition-point Singularity Holographic Image projection positioning.
I like trying to grasp what you are teaching. I would like to see you had guest that you talk with and a little more information on a lower learning level. Thank you for your videos.
Could the result of the g-2 experiment have implications for the efficient production of muons by direct excitation of the Muon Field rather than relying on decay pathways of heavier particles?
I've always wondered why we focus on the "foam" described by all the orders of Feynman diagrams, but we don't use the same language in other cases where perturbation theory is used. For example, if we use second-order perturbation theory to approximate some system, we don't talk about the sum over states as virtual excitations. The expansion of the propagator is no more or less real in either case.
Brilliant!
The crazy world of quantum foam with Dr. Lincoln; Bless you🔙
Nice t-shirt, I happen to have one like that. :) Maybe one day you can explain that formula. I remember from the leaflet that it represents the four forces in a single equation, but it would be nice if you could explain a bit more about it.
The Casimir Effect is pretty wild.
Thanks for the vídeo! =)
I do have PhD in theoretical physics, although I do not work in science anymore. Quantum optics was my field of research, so I'm quite familiar with QED. Probably one of the things which impressed me most in all physics was how all that renormalization stuff leads to such a precise theory (QED). You have a huge (in fact it's infinite) value in your equations, then you claim it has no physical meaning (bare electron interacting with himself) so you drop it. What is left is small small adjustments which exactly describe corrections for magnetic moment of electron.
How does quantum foam fit in with the theories of quantitative gravity like String theory or loop quantum gravity?
I have always wondered, in the two plate experiment to test for the quantum foam, how do we remove the effect of gravity and electromagnetism from the results?
What decides amount of electric charge a particle have and how we calculates it
For fundamental particles it's just a parameter, some constant you can measure in experiment. It's not derived or predicted. There are like 20-30 such parameters in the Standard Model.
Love this channel and series! Dr. Lincoln do the quarks that make us up fluctuate or have they been together ever since the big bang?
Quarks don’t really exist, not physically. They are excitations (actions) in several fields that dance together as protons, neutrons and some rarer combos. The dance combos are very persistent if not disturbed by outside factors like fusion, fission, decay and black holes. Quark excitations continuously fluctuate or shift inside the combos they arise within, changing “colors” for example.
cloudpoint ahhh makes sense. So this is why we say protons won’t decay?
@@astrophotographyenthusiast5273
I don’t think the behavior of the proton’s components says anything about why protons won’t decay. Neutrons have similar components and decay easily. Decay entails changing a subatomic combo so that it is less energetic, so that it releases some its energy back to the universe. A proton happens to be the least energetic configuration for the specific components it is made of so it has nothing it can decay to. Loose quarks would need a lot of energy to exist.
@@cloudpoint0 I think I understand what you are saying. So color persist because it is the least energetic configuration?
@@astrophotographyenthusiast5273
I think you don’t understand what I’m saying. Neutrons have the same color charges as protons but neutrons don’t persist, they decay quickly. Color isn’t even a constant since a given quark’s color changes constantly. Forget about color and think in energy terms instead. The energy of interest here is binding energy. A color has no energy just like an electric charge has no energy. Color and electric charge are just numeric properties of particles that tell us how they behave.
How did they isolate the other variables like gravitational attraction, EM attraction, etc for the casimir effect experiment?
would love to listen about your view about multiverse thoery of quantum mechanics. and how schodinger wave collapsed.
the multiverse hypothesis is inherently non-scientific, as it's per-definition impossible to falsify. It's a nice idea, that solves several issues, but it's not scientific.
The Wave function also doesn't "collapse", that's just something Bohr made up. There's nothing in the mathematics saying "collapse". This means it's not a scientific fact, but part of the Kopenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and should thus be treated with care. It can be quite useful to explain certain things, but one should always be aware, that it's not a scientific fact, but part of an interpretation.
Dr. Lincoln I just watched your video titled, "Why can't you go faster than Light?" where you simplified relativity by using an X , Y axis as Space & Time. You indicated that it is possible to go more through space or more through time. I was curious if that would explain something like the double slit experiment where light is demonstrated as acting as both a particle and wave. The single photon appearing to go through both slits. My thoughts were that the particle is moving through space and not time so rapidly that it can simultaneously go through both slits to form the wave pattern on the other side.
Or would that move through space and not time be relative to the particle and thus to us the stationary observer would appear different?
Is there any way to test if the kasimir effect is actually from quantum foam, or from an alteration in the strength of gravity at quantum scales & very close proximity?
Hi Dr. Don
Does Topological Defect play any role in how things decay or combine in the subatomic world?
Yes they do, but it is highly theoretical at the moment
Hi Dr., great videos. If the result of the interaction between a particle and its antiparticle pair is a release of energy, what happens when a particle interacts with a different antiparticle (for example a proton and a positron)
In this case, they would not annihilate. They would repel each other via em force and go their separate ways. Even if you somehow stuck them together they’d coexist if I am not mistaken.
Another answer to why beta decay can occur if the W boson is so massive is interestingly that they are virtual particles, which you only just introduced to the viewers in this episode. So the question would have actually been a great way to lead into this episode! :)
Hey dr. Lincoln. Do you expect there to be a force carrying particle for gravity, or could it happen without it? For instance, is it possible that the curvature of spacetime depends simply on the total sum of particles and interactions in a certain area?
To measure how fast a particle decays, do you use an analog or a digital stopwatch?
Hello Dr Don. A question on the G-2 measurement and discrepancy. The virtual particles contribute to the calculation. Ok. That is based on the standard model particles being used. However, there are proposed super-symmetric particles. Could the discrepancy be used to infer bounds on the masses of the Sparticle?
*QUESTION!* Hi Dr. Lincoln. If _antimatter_ moves back in time (according Feynman), may it all _exists_ in the "past" from the Big Bang at timeline in our point of view?
It's an interesting conjecture that matter is preferentially oriented positive wrt time and antimatter preferentially oriented negative wrt time. (Whether anything "moves" through time is a different topic.)
Dr. Lincoln is the ability to wring gauge blocks together due to the Casimir effect?
Hey Don - what do we think QFT fields and virtual particles do near black holes ? What are the fields like at the event horizon ?
@Don Is that book on your left, Universo Alien, a translation to the Portuguese or Spanish?
Portuguese.
hello thanks for your instructive and funny videos. i have a question for you and thx for answering me. my question concerns the 4 forces, from what i know the 3 forces described by the quantum theory have a force carrier particle that we know exist in contrast to the gravity we didn't dectect its carrier particle graviton and also it's so weak in comparison to other forces. on the other hand general relative stipulates that gravity is not a force but just curvture of space-time. my question is why physicts are still considering gravity as a force and trying to implement it with the 3 other forces? may it be just an emergent phenomena due to the interaction between the mass, the 3 forces and space-time. and how do physicts define a fundamental force ? thanks so much for your answer :)
ps: im not a native speaker
I can see how you can detect charge on a particular quanta from collider tracks; but how do you determine it's spin?
I’m guessing from subtraction based on what went into creating the particle, since spin is conserved.
Spin is really magnetic moment.
Per Wikipedia
“The existence of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron has been detected experimentally by magnetic resonance method. This allows the determination of hyperfine splitting of electron shell energy levels in atoms of protium and deuterium using the measured resonance frequency for several transitions.[6][7]
The magnetic moment of the electron has been measured using a one-electron quantum cyclotron and quantum nondemolition spectroscopy. The spin frequency of the electron is determined by the g-factor.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment#Measurement
Now you know :)
Charge is detected by curvature of path in a constant magnetic field; spin can be detected by curvature of path in a divergent (nonconstant) magnetic field. At least, that is how the Stern-Gerlach apparatus works.
@@david203 Cool. Thanks
Hi Don.. if matter and anti matter is constantly anihilated in the foam why we dont see huge amount of energy being released in the empty space (and everywhere)?
HI,Dr.Don.I tried an experiment just recently by using two wet sheets of paper and moved them close together and this amazing thing just happen.The two wet sheets of papers just moved closely together and they stick together and so,I am just asking if this explains the Casimir Effect
Hi Don. If we could somehow observe the Quantum Foam would it look the same regardless of our velocity? I guess what I mean is could we use it as a stationary reference?
I have a question about the casimir effect - I read that describing it didn't necessarily require weird quantum foam, that you could just describe it using the quantum behavior of the plates themselves? (As long as you take relativity into account)
I'm kinda confused on that - which one is it, is it the quantum weirdness of the space inside and outside the plates or is it the plates themselves?
Keep it up Professor Dr! I'm enjoying listening to you!
I would love to see you in the CZcams Channel Event Horizon, maybe you can do something about it? :)
Having mentioned any energy bending spacetime, Is there a mathematical similarity in the way mass bends spacetime to the way electromagnetism bends the field lines that charged particles tend to follow?
Have never been so early :) love your videos!!!
I have a question. If we use energy to create a particle with mass, there is something happening between energy and higgs field and field starting to give particle its mass. Where does it start and any details how higgs field changing it's behavior of new concentrated energy ball.
Hello Dr. and thanks for the wonderful series. Since all matter (and other energy) bends spacetime which means time slows down in the presence of matter does that mean that nothing can experience a theoretical maximum rate of time? I.e. Time of one true second per second is just as unachievable as matter moving at the speed of light?
Time is relative. There is no "true" second per second. Every inertial observer sees his own time as one second per second. And they are allowed to disagree.
@@narfwhals7843 That is over simplistic. Just because something is relative does not mean there is not a maximum and minimum limit. Motion has the limits of no motion and the speed of light. Time can stop as it does at the speed of light which is it's minimum limit, I have no doubt that there is a maximum limit as well and I suspect that nothing can experience time at that maximum limit which one might be tempted to posit creates a slight asymmetry between time and space since the speed of light is achieved by light but I can't think of anything that would achieve the maximum rate of time.
Also, if I remember correctly you can through GR consider everything moving at the speed of light, it's just a matter of how much of that speed is in the form of time and how much is in the form of motion. If I do remember that correctly then there must be a maximum rate of time even if it is only theoretical but not ever practically achievable .
BTW, don't be fooled by the name of GR. Some suggest that a more accurate name would a theory of Invariance because the relativities that come out of GR are necessary because of the invariance of the speed of light from all frames of reference.
In any case, with a little bit of luck, our esteemed host and physicist will say a few words on the matter.
Hi dr don I have a small doubt, is the heisenberg's uncertainty principle applicable to a proton because a proton is at rest , so we know both its velocity and position right ??????????
Does the theoretical calculation of the magnetic moment of the muon include contributions from the weak and Higgs interactions?
Yes, it does. The electromagnetic corrections are calculated more accuratelly because they are dominant but electoweak ones are also included where they are relevant.
Physics related questions from the 60''s These questions were posed by Lonnie Donegan in his break through papre entitled Does Your Chewing Gum Lose it's Flavour?
Can other particles have different masses, too? Like can there be 1MeV electrons and 2MeV electrons?
As I understand, a 2MeV electron means it is an electron thats moving faster than a 1MeV electron. I don't think they can have different rest masses. I don't know whether Higgs boson can have an energy other than the rest energy.
Mostly just commenting to be notified, if someone posts a definitive answer. But I thought of the same question and asked it, mostly about bosons. Hopefully we can get yours pushed up.
As for something like the electron, wouldn't it's "normal" rest mass be it lowest energy state. So anything higher would decay to it. Anything lower would basically be virtual and unstable as well.
If by "mass" you mean rest mass, this is more or less a fixed measurable numeric property of every particle that has mass. An electron always has 0.511 MeV of (rest) mass. If you find a second Higgs particle with a different mass, you will probably want to give it a different name (Higgs-a, Higgs-b, for example). Other meanings for "mass" are obsolete now.
Caveat: I’m not sure if W± and Z bosons have only approximately fixed masses. I should read up on them someday.
@Dr Deuteron
Yes, masses are always stated as averages for elementary particles, which is the topic of the thread. Any given measurement can vary randomly to some extent. But if a particle is persistently measured to deviate too much from its nominal mass then we would no longer consider it to be the same particle. Nature reins in these random deviations to make the average work out.
OK thanks to the replies in this, I think I understand better. So trying avoid some of the math. Would this be a roughly acceptable series of statements
1) This rest mass of particle is an average.
2) This range of values is distributed in a bell curve like shape.
3) The probability of finding a particle of that mass goes down the farther your are from the center of the curve. Obviously over simplifying.
4) The nominal mass, or what we call it's rest mass is the center of that curve. Since the left and the right sides of the curve effectively cancel each other out on average.
5) The width of that curve varies per particle(see equation Dr. Deuteron linked above). Shorter means an effectively more defined mass. Wider means a larger variation in mass can occur. Keeping in mind, this is a probabilistic.
Am I even in the ballpark?
Hi Dr. Franklin, I was wondering if colors in the visible light spectrum are quantized. If so, does it mean there’s no _in between_ colors, or in another way, that each color wavelength is scaled by precise steps?
Many thanks
The light spectrum is not quantized into discrete frequencies (energies). Any frequency you can imagine is allowed.
Dear Dr. Lincoln why do we think of fundamental particles like electrons and quarks as 1 Dimensional dots, while the planck is way smaller then any particle we know of?
wait since all form of energy bend space time does that mean all of them cause a gravitational effect? Or some have a repulsive effects?
*The COMPASS Experiment* PLEASE
Sir what is the chirality of these paired particles during creation and annihilation?
Professor Lincoln..I dont expect an answer but 1) Could all these virtual positrons be the Antimatter we seek in the universe? and 2) Could the Casimir effect be what we call gravity?
Is it possible to count virtual particles in time and space for given frequency ?
Are virtual particles more likely to appear nearer or further away from the actual particles? Is the likelihood related to particle energy? Is the energy and likelihood relative to some other particle so that a stationary particle A sees more virtual particles from moving particle B but another moving particle C moving with particle B is less likely to see virtual particles?
How do you reconcile quantization with waves? For example if light is quantized why can we find it at almost any frequency (and thus energy)?
You don't have to reconcile it. It's built in from the beginning. The frequency isn't quantized, the energy for any given frequency is. At any frequency you will only every find the same energy packets. That is a photon. And its behavior is modeled by wave mechanics of waves with those frequencies. What you do somehow have to reconcile is why and how those photons appear at localized points in space when they move as continuous waves. And that reconciliation is done in the "Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics". The wave function collapse, the many worlds theory, and so on. So really, you can pick your favorite way.
Hi Don. In this video you state that the mass of the W boson is not a single value but a bell curve. How then is it possible to track the decay process into fundamental particles with known masses without knowing the energy that you started with? Is this the uncertainty principle at work again?
Never mind, answered in episode 11. Thank you past Don!
Do the virtual particles come into existence due to "friction" or collisions of the main particle with other quantum fields, or spacetime or is each particle sort of unstable?
Hi Dr., could the quantum foam be a piece of explanation for the invisible dark matter ??
But 1 question: Is the world from the point of view of a tardigrade exactly what was potrayed in the movie? I don't think that they belong to the quantum world because they are about a 10th of a millimeter or so. Was that in the movie to scale?
As I understand it, the probability distributions for particle locations, caused by their wave-functions, extend more or less infinitely in every direction. Thus, there should be some finite probability that a quark or electron would end up ten feet away from the rest of it's atom when its wave-function collapesed (and a much higher probability that it would just end up on the opposite side of a neighboring molecule). What would happen in this situation?
Yes, the math says it may happen, just very rarely. This is quantum tunneling for you. It makes the Sun work. czcams.com/video/lQapfUcf4Do/video.html Nothing too radical would happen, just a decay of an atom.
@@thedeemon Thanks for reminding me about quantum tunneling, but I'm still wondering how energy is conserved. For example, what becomes of a quark that tunnels out of an atom? It seems like there would be a powerful chain of strong force connecting it to its original baryon no matter how far away it got, and it would either fall back and impact at very high energy or destroy quarks to remove the color imbalance.
@@Mr.Nichan Regarding energy conservation. If we imagine an electron with a certain energy in an atom, it means the wavefunction Ψ of this electron is an eigenstate of the energy operator H, i.e. if we act with this operator on this state, we get the same state multiplied by a constant which in this case would be the measured energy e: HΨ = eΨ. Such wavefunction evolves in a manner that keeps this value unchanged, conserved. But at any point of such evolution the wavefunction remains a superposition of different states in regards to position operator, i.e. the position of the particle is not certain, it's "spread out". Such electron kinda remains in all places (including ones far away from the atom) until you measure its position. But once you do measure its position, once the electron interacts with environment or measurement device such that we know for sure it's at this particular place away from the atom, this measurement changes its state, its wavefunction, so after this measurement it's not in the energy eigenstate with certain energy e, it's now in a superposition of many other energy eigenstates. Once you know its position you don't know its energy, it doesn't have a certain energy anymore. We can calculate expectation value of its energy in its new state, but it's just a statistical number, it won't predict what energy you would measure if you acted with energy operator on it again. In other words, energy is conserved while the electron's position remains unmeasured, while it remains isolated, but once a measurement/interaction happens, it collapses the wavefunction and the particle's energy changes, it's affected by the interaction.
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4047/energy-conservation-and-quantum-measurement
With quarks the strong force makes it trickier. Usually if you try to knock off a quark from its friends, at some point the energy of strong interaction that connects this quark to its friends becomes so high that it's enough to create more particles, more quarks, such that the quark you're pulling makes friends with the newly created quarks, while its old friends get another newly created quark as their new friend instead of the old one.
o-o
o---o
o------o
o-o o-o
I'm not sure how that works with tunneling though.
@@thedeemon I'm slowly studying the math and physics required to understand your comment. Is that "energy operator H" related to Hamiltonians in some way?
@@Mr.Nichan It is the Hamiltonian, yes.
Hello Dr.
Q1. In Casimir effect, doesn't the virtual photons show tunneling at such small scales. If yes then how the walls get shifted ?
Q2. Does this quantum chaos explain zero point energy? How ?
And thank you for this amazing series!!!!
I'm not Dr.Don, but I can answer that.
To 1, yes, there is quantum tunneling, but it's a probable event, as in, it doesn't always happen, and particles that didn't tunnel are what exerts the pressure.
To 2, this quantum chaos is a part of what constitutes zero point energy, not its source.
Does these virtual particles have forces like electrostatic or magnetic?
In the previous video your explanation of there not being antimatter galaxies was we don't see them annihilating other galaxies. But them being all antimatter instead of all matter sounds like an equally valid explanation. How do we know we're not the only matter galaxy?
The same reason. Galaxies don't have sharp edges. Gas spreads out very far and we'd see interactions in the outer reaches. And it would be _really_ weird if we were in the only special galaxy out of all the ones we can see.
@@narfwhals7843 I guess my point/source of confusion is that I only see the annihilation argument as simply demonstrating that there is an asymmetry and that it remains agnostic as to what is dominating. Are there studies that show our gas cloud overlaps with other's, or part of a chain of galaxies so to speak? If a galaxy that was shown to not be a part of this chain proceeds to collide with it and nothing special happens, then I see that as evidence for matter domination.
It's also "really weird" to live in a matter dominated universe. If there's truly nothing special about us, then we must accept that we have as equal chance as any to be the special, dominated, type of matter.
@@S.R.400 the space between galaxies is filled by the intergalactic medium. It consists mainly of hydrogen plasma, so loose protons and electrons. So basically yes, galaxies are linked on a chain. If we are in a 'matter bubble', it's a very strange one.
Does the wavelength of the (virtual) photons being exchanged by two electrically charged particles depends on their distance from each other?
They exchange virtual particles of all possible wavelengths. What happens between interacting particles does not follow the usual rules.
Hi Don! Where is the energy coming from to create virtual particles, and where does their go when they disappear?
I think it's to do with the uncertainty principle. You can't say energy is zero in vacuum because that's an exact value. There is a trade-off between energy and time, so that for a short enough time, energy could have a range of values. That means that enough energy might very briefly exist for the particles to come into existence and then annihilate each other.
So to answer your question, the energy doesn't "come from" or "go" anywhere. It's just that when you are talking about very short time periods, there is enough uncertainty in the amount of energy present in space to have enough for particles to pop in and out of existence.
To quote myself on a comment i made in earlier episode of the series:
You can spend energy and create particles well over your energy credit cards limit if you pay everything back before the great universal accountant checks your energy account and blocks the transaction. Just don't get caught overspending.
So it basically comes from nothing (being the vacuum energy potential) and goes back to nothing
Ms. Electron was slowly working her way through a dull boring dinner party, then she ran into mr. Positron and suddenly the room was filled with energy.
Is the casimir effekt not simple gravity? The plates are close and attract each.
GREAT series, but highly distracting from what I *should* be doing ;) Wish I could watch them on CZcams TV.
Thanks! My question, do virtual particles in space contribute to the mass of the universe?
Virtual particles in space likely contribute to the (dark) energy of the universe but probably not to the mass. They don’t have definite mass properties.