Absolutely, when I was taking physics in highschool all we were ever doing was answering questions with a dabble of explanation. I've been learning magnitudes more from Anton than my entire school life ever did. Now I'm in uni, and going to eventually get astronomical physics and mechanical engineering degrees all because of Anton and a few others on RUclips and in the field inspired me to go down this path I love.
SaB3R10, Good for you! You've found your passion and are pursuing it. You will never regret it! While I could pass my science exams, I knew they would never be my passion, but they are interesting to me, nonetheless. Glad Anton is inspiring you to durther study!
I've been watching him since his universe sandbox days. He's the best friend that a science oriented person can have. I've re learned and updated so much of my knowledge base through him it's not even fair to him. That this is all free and daily is the best 😂 I wish I could send him 💰😊
Since you've recently started going into big detail on hard science, this has become my favorite channel for physics and astronomy. You are up there with PBS Space Time for me. Keep it up!
I agree, Anton and Sabine are great to watch but have you heard of Ray Fleming? Physics is an interesting subject especially nuclear physics. But just like quantum mechanics there are so many gaps and outright manipulation of data long ago by those that began this science. Things such as how the inverse square law is used to not only calibrate geiger Muller tubes and various other radiation detection monitors but also how we take measurements, set exclusion zones with perfect circles around a reactor thats in meltdown, isotropically, exposure measurements and even things as simple as turning on a lightbulb....but what most do not know and most that do know don't like to speak about it but the inverse square law has a stipulation of its use. There is a specific type of source that the inverse square law does not apply to and it's an extended source of radiation. The inverse square law does not apply to extended sources of radiation (Bureau of Standards volume 3 pages 81-82 1907). Planks law for black body radiation also has the same stipulation and it states that to use Planks law there shall be no flow of matter or energy from the source to the environment. Yet no one questions our daily use of geiger counters around extended sources of radiation, or saturation of the tube or gamma attenuation or Townsend electron avalanche and quenching gas....we just blindly accept the narrative of a science born out of war and a military and government that's controlled all the information. I have debated physicists, nuclear engineers, biologists, etc... and none of them can argue against the inverse square law stipulation.
@@paulmobleyscience Well Paul based on the reply here and that you do some interesting titled videos I clicked subscribe to ya. Hope to see some good stuff from your uploaded videos and looking forward to any new uploads you might do. Thanks for the interesting details in your reply!
@@paulmobleyscience Ray Fleming has a fundamental misunderstanding of theoretical physics. We didn't find quantum particles by accident, symmetries in nature corresponding to conservation laws predicted they exist. This is a consequence of Noether's theorem. The quantum zoo was discovered in high altitude balloons with cloud chambers. You can see their paths with the naked eye. You can calculate their momentum, charge, and spin from the spirals they make in the cloud chamber. These measurements can be done with a ruler that you'd find in any school. We know so much now that I can teach the basics of quantum mechanics to children like I might heat, or light. It's not that mysterious anymore.
@@miked0602 HI Mike, great news and glad to meet you. As you can see I have many questions that have no answers of which clearly should have definitive answers and I search everywhere I can and speaking with people. What's your take on quantum mechanics and how it's represented in the world today? Most of my videos on my channel you'll find something to learn and take from it but I do have several on the rigors of youtube and controlling the trolls so ignore those please. I show the information more than I speak on most of my videos to allow the viewer to discern for themselves and use that as a stepping stone to find every source possible instead of just one or a few.
I don't understand -- and I praise -- how you're able to do this so reliably every single day. I can't even manage to take care of myself every day, but here you are doing this difficult and thoughtful thing for us at an astonishing cadence. You are the wonderful person, Anton.
You are the only science and space related youtuber I watch, almost everyone else is clickbait, sensationalism and text to speech crap. Keep up the good work!
Anton not only has the ability to understand impossibly complex phenomenon, he has an ability to explain them so a layperson can (at least have a chance to) understand them also
... it's called science literacy, and believe it or not it's not that difficult to achieve. Just spend 5 or more years essentially "immersed" in the scientific field(s) of your choice (i.e. reading multiple journals frequently and some textbooks occasionally as needed, attending lectures/talks and conference presentations, carrying out and documenting/presenting research, and regularly interacting with a fair number of peers in the field) -- just like learning and mastering a new language! Astronomy, astrophysics and biochemistry would be the primarily relevant fields here along with a healthy interest and curiosity for geology, evolutionary biology, fundamental physics, climate science, and of course math and statistics (without which nothing can really be done in any of the previous fields...excepting some aspects of biology, perhaps)
Great illusion isn't it, Think he caught that off his Cousin, the deluded Zelensky... But keep donating, so he can pull science news stories off the web, to then not credit the source...Reminds me of Einstein in the Patient office for 7 years, ripping everyones ideas. He was as racist as Zelensky too, must be something in the genes.
One of my the last exam questions in particle physics in 2012 was proving pentaquarks can't exist. My professor of particle physics wrote his thesis proving they can't exist. He spent a whole lecture mocking any attempt to find them. I failed that exam, even tho I think I figured out for the first time how to prove it didn't exist during the exam. Too bad we were not allowed to check the papers after they've been corrected.
There is a whole Wikipedia article about pentaquarks, including three reports of detecting them on 2003, 2015, and 2019. Do you think all that is wrong somehow?
Any professor who actively mocks a student is a shitty teacher. Did he have anything to back up his vicious mockery or was he just pushing a personal theory?
It’s always good to hear science books have to be rewritten - keeps us humble and curious, and let’s us tell our parents that they were wrong (at least about some things).
Lol. I like this video, Anton. I’m just a blue collar Native American…but I like learning. I’ll have to watch it again. And learn MORE. Once again. I love this. It’s not that knowledge CHANGES what we know. Just widens and deepens the perspective…by adding new understanding?
Anton, I have been watching you for years. You are fantastic at relaying scientific news in a factual manner. You show us the links and sources as well, which is absolutely amazing. I hope you are proud of what you have done, you have helped enrich and inspire the minds of countless individuals. PS: Please don't overwork yourself!
Anton is possibly the only person that can say "hello wonderful person" at the start of every video and continue to sound sincere and welcoming. With the possible exception of Joe Scott's closing statements.
Not really. Physics has been stuck in a rut for 50 years. Same thing with human s space flight. The pace of change for the first 50 years of the 20th century was exponentially faster than now. It is sad but now is not a time of exponential change.
@@johnfyten3392 "it's an amazing time to be alive" No. The exact same thing was said by people at the beginning of the 20th century. Those people didn't even have airplanes. Cmon...
Great video! One of the best things about science is that it is self correcting. I was looking at an old science book the other day and it described how atoms were made of protons and two types of electrons, orbital electrons and nuclear electrons. I checked the copyright date and it was 1930, just before the discovery of the neutron. Science is always evolving.
I think the paper is actually saying something slightly different from what you describe. It's not saying that the proton is a pentaquark state. It's actually saying that the proton's wavefunction doesn't appear to be purely two ups and a down quark, but rather contains a very small admixture of other stuff that is consistent with including some charm-anti-charm pairs. They estimate the charm component to be something on the order of 1% of the wavefunction. So, it's more accurate to say that sometimes there are charm quarks in the proton, very rarely, but sometimes. But most of the time it's still two ups and a down. None of this is actually revolutionary, though. We always knew that there were other states mixed into the proton wavefunction. There is also a strange quark component, and presumably top and bottom components should be there as well, but in extremely small amounts. The cool part of the paper is that they've managed to tease out a number for this amount. This was often thought to be nearly impossible to measure because whenever you hit a proton with a high energy particle, you create lots of other subatomic particles. So, if you happen to see charm quarks in the collision products, you can't really tell whether they were part of the original proton or if they were just something that was created in the collision. But in this paper, they managed to separate those two sources of charm quarks, and give an estimate of what was present in the original proton. Very cool! And, as you said, they used some extremely cool methods! And, as you noted in your discussion, the number they have pulled out of this analysis only has 3 sigma statistical significance. So it could change a lot (or go away completely) on further analysis. Thanks for telling us about this study. I hadn't heard of it before you mentioned it.
yeah, not a pentaquark. it seems like the charm pair is sorta in-between virtual and real... the paper doesn't go into that in those terms so idk. it uses the terms "intrinsic" "non perturbative" vs "radiative QCD" which I take to be something roughly like real vs virtual... am I even close?
@@nmarbletoe8210 virtual particles are still particles, if they have their effects... quantum effects etc. But I think that this disclosure may be on the brink of new physics.
When they talk about the "intrinsic" proton wavefunction, they mean the way it behaves all by itself before any interactions. Non-pertubative vs radiative QCD refers to how the calculations are done. The biggest problem with QCD calculations is that the coupling strength is so large that standard perturbation theory requires a huge number of terms for things like the interactions within a proton. So non-pertubative methods are required. The best methods involve numerical methods like lattice QCD, which is very computationally intensive.
Machine learning is really cool and really good at uncovering things that were previously unforseen, but they should only be trusted if they can be validated with another method. Machines that "learn" also have a tendency to "dream". They can come up with answers that seem right intuitively but are wrong.
I agree with external validation, but I think those computers could just as easily see something our monkey brains missed. Also this is different than tasking an AI to come up with something new or improving. What I assume is probably doing is computing a whole bunch of data sets and comparing them, then using that data to create a models and see how well they match the observations. Of course I could be completely wrong with that, and they could have something next generation at their disposal, but I kind of doubt it.
Thing is that Machine Learning is just good at recognizing patterns (its main fortè). This is not a bad thing but pattern matching is also determined on how one defines 'patterns' - and this includes the type and format of the data input used to teach it (weight the neural network) and the criteria for 'teaching' it (determine the output as correct or not) - both of these are integrally tied together. There is definitely an important use for ML in finding these patterns that we cannot see easily but it must be backed up with validation, as you say, mainly because ML is not a generalized system - it is a system trained specifically on inputs to extract particular outputs. That, to me, is the current weakness of ML in reaching the more esoteric AI status.
That's a quirk of the human brain. As a composer (of classical music) I can give you a simple example: You can create music that sounds great in your head, but if it's not rooted in reality (corresponds to acoustic properties of sound and musical structure), once committed to paper and realised acoustically, can sound like an absolute mess. Computers, after all, are a reflection of ourselves.
I am cheering from the sidelines. A simple minded question generates 100+ responses. A ground ball to short brings in 4 runs. It is fascinating and humbling though to see the limits of language and conceptualization in our macro world.
Zooming out you suddenly become aware that all of this is happening on a TV screen - an epic space opera playing out for someone’s entertainment. But the actors don’t know they’re actors. To them, this orgy is as real as real gets.
I have a basic question about particle physics: Are there particles that do not exist until they are produced in the accelerators? Or, is there an inharent bias due to the high energies, e.g., two protons colloding a near th speed of light? Or, what is inside a proton under "normal" circumstances i.e., something different than we posit from the results of high energy collisions?
my humble understanding may be wrong, but i'll try to convey it the best i can. particle colliders are essentially accelerators that boost the particles to speeds near the speed of light, generating high energy collisions where the energy released can come out in the form of particles. the collisions are done with just the right particles and speeds to generate fixed energy levels and see if the outcome follows model predictions or if there's an inconsistency or hole in what we know
I think it may be arrogant to think that something wouldn't have been created anywhere else within the entire universe, only to have it occur because we decided to try out a possibility within the LHC.
Considering that particles from space have been observed with orders of magnitude more energy than anything particle accelerators here on Earth can replicate, I'd highly doubt that.
They truly don't know if what are are producing is just a product of the accelerator. That said, if there were an natural environment where particles where flying around with such energy, these sub particles would be normal observations.
While there are so many amazing space and physics educational channels on youtube, for me, Anton takes the cake for quantity over quality (Not to say his videos aren't extremely clear and educational). Anton covers so many more obscure or less popular discoveries that are made by hard working scientists. Just so grateful for your channel man :)
Anton is always at the forefront of new discoveries and essentially eclipes the government and other formal orgsnizations in delivering new knowledge to us. Thank you soooo muchbfor your sophisticated professional efforts! And for this I'm now gong to participate in your patreon group.
What I want is discoveries that focus on the ridiculous stability of the proton. Anything that can assemble out of the Bang with a lifetime longer than the universe itself is fascinating.
As I understand, the main reason it doesn't decay much is that there is nothing lighter it can easily decay into while still following conservation laws. That said, they do decay in certain atomic nuclei, because by changing into a neutron they gain mass themselves but reduce the total mass of the nucleus. This is how Positron Emission Tomography works.
@@SimonClarkstone There is an non zero chance for protons to undergo fusion with other protons. If an proton was to fuse with virtual protons and then the resulting α particle gets stripped of it's protons by the virtual antiprotons from the proton-antiproton pairs involved it could potentially result in a decay into antitritium if the surplus antiproton decides to stick with the neutrons. It's likely that I am wrong about something here, so take it with a grain of salt. The energy would have to be forced into existence by very unlikely coincidences. Maybe it could come from photons? Given enough time the right amount and frequencies of photons might align around a proton to make it into something else in this weird way. I have possibly written up some BS here.
The proton visualization really did waken my mind, with the protons dancing together, it's so beautiful. And to know that humans were able to drill this far into the deep of things is really chilling, with things only appearing to be rather complexe than simple.
Anton, you are the wonderful person because you let us peek inside the universe and let us know about what is happening in science. I’m so glad I discovered your channel.
This is one of my biggest issues with modern schooling. When I went to school and learned about atoms, I was told they were the smallest things in the universe. I had heard of “quarks” but thought they were just unproven theories at the time. Now that I’ve watched a bunch of videos, I know that quarks have been confirmed for a while now, meaning I was either misinformed in school, or I was just lied to. I get that a 3rd grade kid won’t understand quarks… but say there is almost nothing smaller than atoms, instead of hammering in the idea that they are the smallest things. I really wish that there was an ability to take “modern physics” “modern earth and space science” or “modern biology” in high school. Difference being that these classes would be more focused on these things, and even the potential theories at the time. I feel like being in highschool and having that as an optional class would be fitting. Anyone else get upset over this concept. I feel like everything I’ve learned was just a easy way of explaining things, but in doing so they had to cover up holes with lies.
The way the schooling system fundamentally works kills curiousity and critical thinking. Your physics teacher's thought process probably was 'Yes, i know its long proven that atoms aren't the smallest thing but our tests are based around this assumption and explaining things deeper would just be confusing while I am only assessed by how many of my students pass the tests".
I was taught Bohr’s model in school (late 1980s) with the clear caveat “we know it’s wrong but it’s still important to learn to better understand why it is wrong”. Probably also because teachers weren’t really familiar with quantum physics.
The way you explain gluons makes me think of rubberband, the more you stretch it the more the force you feel, where stretching represents the movement of the gluons and the force represents the mass it creates.
It makes sense when it's explained correct. That model of the proton, despite not having the 5 quarks and only 3 potentially, makes so much more sense than that little drawing
I had a very good science teacher he had us build all of the different models of an atom from history (there’s a shit load of them) to make the point that our current understanding is likely going to continue to change. The rest of school was mostly a waste of time but biology, geology, and zoology were so interesting because he was very passionate. He ended up teaching us more about economics social studies ect in his biology class then we learned in the rest of school. Everyone needs a teacher like that sadly there aren’t enough of them. Anton always reminds me of him lol.
I wonder if this pentaquark proton model might explain why, despite many deep and long lasting experiments, proton decay has never been observed, despite many theoretical models that predict that it should happen.
Mayby some of the quarks appear and disapear in a proton and otherś keep more in their "shape " , depending to what forces the proton it self is affected . Similar to bubbles bubbling , but so that some bubbles are more solid then others .
Yeah there seems to be a theme that it's easy to assume the particles are like little weird grains of sand when they seem like ephemeral bubbles of energy.
The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel. And given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, we can imagine that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
This makes it even harder to explain why all protons have the same mass/charge/spin... and may also have an impact on the lifetime of the proton which has already falsified several Great Unification scenarios before. Interesting, if the algorithm has taken into account this old data.
The implications for the first instances of the universe are pretty profound. That era in which protons and neutrons first coalesced could have been much different if there were a lot of charm and strange quarks.
This is beginning to remind me more and more of fractal harmonic partials in sound technology. All wave forms can be broken down into something like 137 bits that, when assembled, make sound, but on their own do nothing, aka are virtual. Perhaps there are no subatomic particles, but rather a table of partials that can be assembled to make them.
@@JeremyKolassa I think someone should go over all the old data with new eyeballs with a mind to searching for an unspecified number of fractal partials of subatomic detritus just to see if anything pops up. The number might be both huge and strange because you might be dealing with very odd shapes in multiple dimensions. Because nature seems to be fractal, it seems plausible, even probable, that there are a limited number of shapes- even a specific number. Such a task would be multidisciplinary because you're dealing with areas which might include the study of the behaviour of fluids in 3 dimensional space, plus partials, plus fractals, plus the possible number of shapes they can make in 3 dimensions. I'm guessing that collider findings would necessarily need to be enhanced in order to search for more details at a much smaller scale. Tracing the path of a particle, for instance, doesn't tell you what it's doing in 3-dimensional space as it travels.
@@jaimeduncan6167 ooh! similarly to the graphs for the electroweak force's stability based on the (t) quark and Higgs boson? That'd be very interesting to see even if this is is all new hypotheticals.
I only remember years ago a video on TV describing quarks that sounded as if it contained a mirror or gauging device. Either that or it is reacting to something outside of itself? Ever since the quark was it for me only because I really don't know that much about physics again my Dad though was one.
you know I was reading about this in an article the other day - glad you're talking about it. Seems when I do my research - Anton's doing the same at the same time! pretty cool
Love you Anton! Absolutely fascinating, as always, in terms I can understand. I remember watching Nova in the 70s when they were pretty certain of about only 4 sub atomic particles. Then again, plate tectonics was a new theory. The KT event was a theory. And on and on..,.
I will freely admit that much of what I'm hearing here is way over my head. I remember, decades ago, that the names applied to Strange and Charm quarks were decided because of characteristics detected, not just names plucked out of the air. What if all quarks are actually the same and the nature of their behaviour and interaction is governed by the energy to which they are exposed? This might explain why unexpected results come from the manipulations applied to them.
What does this mean for proton decay? I don't know anything about the subject, but would adding two new quarks make proton decay different, or not real?
Id actually imagine this possibly means the proton is not as stable as we once thought. Its very possible our models describe a certain point much later on in the universe, when things try to settle into more stable forms.
It has implications for proton-decay, but more immediate relevance to neutron-decay. The former has never been observed, whereas the latter happens all the time, and results in 'new' protons. Since the same fundamental particles are involved (quarks and gluons), the theory is that one down-quark becomes an up-quark, and Houston, we have a proton (more stable). If there are 4 or 5 quarks involved, it may be more complex...
Anton, since the last video about gluons being most responsible for mass, you made an important observation: they themselves have little mass, like the quarks. What gives them mass is their rapid movement (oscillations), and you begin this video reminding us of that fact. This should not be counterintuitive, however. When we take Einstein's special relativity and combine it with Planck's relation, the first equates energy and mass and the second energy and frequency, thus mass and frequency are equivalent. Such equivalency has been used to create "atomic clocks" where we count mass oscillations to determine linear time, not what time really is but that's not the point. However, viewed from another angle, it is oscillations which cause mass, as you pointed out then. I agree with other comments in that your channel has become a source of true state of the art knowledge, and your ability to stay within the facts is truly commendable. Thanks.
Very interesting. Does the "penta-quark" model of a proton allow for the quarks to exist in a lower combined energy state than is possible with just three quarks (uud)?
I think the answer to your question is no one knows just yet. This new paper proposes a new theory for which there is already some evidence but by no means convincing (for the broader community of physicists.) Since it's such a different perspective to what was previously accepted as true (aka the way nature works) it will be some time before it's better understood and/or accepted. Someone famous once said (I forget who) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I've been watching this channel quite a while and its very good at what it does, but i want to especially compliment this episode. This is breaking news in science, and i can get a little bit of background on what was done and what it means, and what its history is. On top of that, the images selected for this episode were beautiful and appropriate. I'm charmed!
Quark names aren't unfortunate. The names express that each generation has a quark pair with opposite names associated with the sign of their electrical charge. Nonetheless, unique things' names don't mean anything generally (except maybe in ideograms), and quarks were never an intuitive concept that could be understood by analogy. Furthermore, the researchers didn't know a lot about them, except that the force they called "strangeness" because it was very different from electromagnetism, so there wasn't a lot to describe--and this force of "strangeness" does get a mention in the negative charge quark of the 2nd generation.
Like, how does the name "table" describe what a table is? Even in Mandarin, as I said, you have 'zhuō' 桌, which contains the character for wood, 'mù' 木, and it's still not clear. Characters for words like rain, or yǔ 雨, supposedly look like rain, but, still, you can only really tell it in hindsight. It could be hail, or birds, for how it looks.
I don't know how "charm" is the opposite of "strange" in any sense other than quarks, so your assertion fails for the second generation. The third generation was also kind of a retrofit with the original names being "truth" and "beauty", two more words that aren't opposites in any way aside from their usage within the realm of quarks (the switch to "top" and "bottom" was done specifically to correct that.. I guess one generation of semi-random quark names was confusing enough). But that's science for you. There's a lot of things in practically all fields of science that have what we now consider to be unusual names that were only chosen because we didn't understand the full context when they were originally coined. And I'm sure there's names we're making up today that will provide no end to headaches for students 150 years in the future :D. There's also the interesting fact that in the 2nd and 3rd generation, the positive quark is more massive while in the first generation (up and down), the down quark is the more massive one. That's obviously not something we get to choose (unlike the names) but it certainly doesn't help the confusion much.
@@altrag The old names for the third generation (truth and beauty) would not be considered opposites by laymen, but there's actually a pretty heated discussion in physics regarding whether there's an argument for a beautiful theory to be more likely to be correct. Famously, when Einstein criticized Herman Weyl's attempt to explain electromagnetism by imposing the Weyl symmetry on general relativity, Weyl replied that his theory should be true because it was beautiful, adding that if he had to choose between truth and beauty, he'd choose beauty. Which is kind of ironic, because Weyl symmetry went on to be a foundation of string theory, which was widely considered proof that truth and beauty are related. Well, at least it did in the 00s, because in another twist, string theory's failure to make testable predicions, along with the LHC's failure to find supersymmetric particles have made string theory basically a cautionary tale for the beauty argument. So that's why it would be an inside joke to have truth and beauty as opposites. As for the second generation names, given that the name strange was decided because of the "strangeness" thing, if you had to pick an opposite, charm is not a bad pick, so I actually do think that charm is supposed to be the opposite of strange.
This is a supercool channel. Always fun and interesting. really well put together videos and lectures. Great job. best of luck to you and your team. Y'all rock!👍
Hello Anton! So when the Higgs Boson was actually detected, the problem it posed for physicists was that it behaved exactly as predicted. That meant there was nothing new to probe and no way to fix our Standard Model, and we know something is wrong with the SM. Will this, if confirmed, actually allow us to change the Standard Model?
Not that I'm aware of. This potentially new discovery shows that a proton is sometimes better thought of as a pentaquark (with 5 quarks, u/u/d/c/anti-c) rather than an ordinary baryon (with three quarks, u/u/d), which is not necessarily in conflict with the Standard Model. The fundamental equations governing the inside of a proton are from quantum chromodynamics, which is part of the Standard Model. However, they can't be solved exactly at the energy scales relevant for the proton, leaving huge theoretical uncertainties. Inserting a charm quark/anti-charm quark by hand wouldn't break anything. However, one could wonder if the proton has also intrinsic "strangeness" in the form of a strange-quark/anti-strange quark (the strange quark is lighter than the charm quark), which would make the proton a heptaquark (with seven quarks). Maybe the experimental signature of an instrinsic charm-quark is easier to detect than the one of a strange-quark.
@@NeedsEvidence Why doesn't this change the mass of a proton, thus changing the SM? Or does the mass of a proton come from the interactions between gluons and quarks?
@@basbas1228 Good point. That's why my (and Anton's) comparison with a pentaquark is actually inaccurate, because in a pentaquark scenario, the charm quark would considerably contribute to the proton's total mass as a _valence quark_ (like the three u- and d-quarks). However, the situation is different for _instrinsic quarks_ and _sea quarks_ . As you pointed out, by far most of the mass of a proton comes from the energy of the gluon field between the valence quarks. If you probe the proton closely enough with higher resolution (using highly energetic photons or gluons provided by an accelerator), some gluons appear to form "short-lived" _virtual_ quark-antiquark pairs, including virtual charm/anti-charm pairs. Quarks originating from such gluonic radiation are called _sea quarks_ , and they have been established in collider experiments since decades. The masses of those sea quarks are far off their nominal masses as real particles, which is the reason that in a proton you can have loops of virtual particles whose masses as real particles are far higher than the mass of the proton itself. (I know, this is difficult to digest, but this is putting words to somehow describe the maths of the gluon-mediated interactions between the valence quarks of a proton.) However, the new discovery talked about here is not about sea charm quarks but _intrinsic_ charm quarks. They appear as quark-anti quark pairs *not* originating from gluonic radiation but are manifestations of another type of mathematical solutions in the same underlying theory (quantum chromodyamics). Like the sea quarks, those intrinsic quarks require high energies to be resolved in a proton, and their masses differ from the masses of their counterparts as real particles as well.
@@NeedsEvidence I think the problem is also a little bit that I (and with me, a lot of people I guess) try to understand it as simple as just little dots, connected by strings, while in reality its just quantum fluctuations, interacting with eachother and in that way they get their mass. When you accept that last point, its not THAT exotic to also accept that these tiny particles behave very strangely sometimes and that we need stuff like anti particles and all that shit to explain the things we see. It's all just a model, its our way of explaining everything around us, nothing more. The quark itself couldn't give two shits about what we think it looks like and how it creates a proton.. Thanks for the explanation. I'm very interested in this kind of stuff, but since I don't have any real education in these fields, I kind of have to form my own theory based on all the things I've read and watched and hope that I didn't misinterpret what is being explained (by people who are unimaginably smarter than I am).
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. There is an ever so slight discrepancy between the mass of protons and neutrons and it's conceivable that the difference may be attributable in part to extra quarks and energy associated with the extra gluons involved.
Yes, they can and regularly do. A proton is two ups and a down (well, give or take this latest discovery) while a neutron is two downs and an up. Its very common for a down to change to an up (which converts a neutron into a proton) and release an electron (and a neutrino and a photon) in the process to balance out the charge difference. So common that we have a name for it: Beta decay. Its a very important part of nuclear physics (reactors, bombs, radiometric dating, etc). Going the other direction is also possible, but its (comparatively) very rare as it requires increasing the mass of the particle and that energy has to come from somewhere. So pretty much only happens in the extreme coincidence of a high-energy neutrino (or antineutrino) happening to hit a proton dead on. It happens enough that we can use the effect to build neutrino detectors, but there's a reason those are enormous! Need a whole lot of protons (and a whole lot of cross-section against your expected neutrino source) to have much chance of detecting even a single such collision. Apparently direct electron capture (ie: exact opposite of beta decay) is expected to happen in the cores of neutron stars where protons and neutrons are squeezed hard enough to force them together through degeneracy pressure, but not too likely we'll be directly observing that one. Aren't a whole lot of neutron stars within our reach (and probably a good thing, as a nearby neutron star would probably render life impossible).
It seems so bizarre that as we forge ahead with exciting new discoveries that the world is simultaneously suffering from science and climate change deniers. How can humanity be on such a big teeter totter?
Climate "science" is anything but. Get off your high horse and find some good info on the topic that is highly skeptical of it - try and steelman those who don't think Co2 is some slow-acting doomsday device. It's fear-mongering used as a tool of control, moreso than its a problem - if its even a problem.
@Nuclear cloud . My children want to know whey you're trashing their world? I told them I cannot account for the ignorance. Can you offer up anything besides your politics?
The exponential growth of machine learning is proving miraculous. Solving seemingly unsolvable problems at a furious pace. The protein folding problem has been solved to an extreme amount of accuracy...nearly perfect. And, amazingly the problem of containing plasma in a fusion reaction has also just been accomplished. We are about to witness a paradigm shift. AI and machine learning are beyond the knee of the exponential curve, and will soon be more intelligent than all humans combined. It's not IF it's going to happen...it's when. Hold on to your hat. Daily scientific miracles are about to be commonplace.
What a thought provoking video. I enjoyed every second. Anton, you provide meaning to this world, and I would like to thank you for that. Keep on keeping on my friend.
It wasn't that long ago when the atom was considered the smallest thing in the universe. Then we learned about protons, neutrons and electrons. Then a multitude of quarks. That said we know (think?) that the movement of electrons is the essence of what we call electricity. However, when I was a teen I was told by an electrical engineer that we really don't know or understand what electricity actually is, only that Ben Franklin determined that lightening and electricity were related. Of course Tesla and Edison had a major feud over which was better, AC or DC. Science continues to be fascinating with new revelations every day. Thank you for trying to explain all of this to us.
Best explanation is that protons and neutrons a single structure of energy, that can transform into multiple structures of energy when colliding. They are not a "collection" of smaller structures of energy
Hello Anton and If this is true then... then we might actually have to rewrite physics. This could change our model completely and this might even destroy the standard model of particle physics. This could prove string theory and loop quantum gravity wrong. If this discovery is this big then...
"we might actually have to rewrite physics"... So... just a normal day in the Physics department then 🙂 It seems to be the case of late - as John Fyten (comment elsewhere here) - says "Between the JWST and the particle physics discoveries, it's an amazing time to be alive" WOW! keep up the good work Anton (and all scientist everywhere and everywhen! Stay Curious!
Anto - many thanks for this great video. I'm sure that in the last few days you have completely changed many people's understanding of what goes on in a proton or neutron! FYI - I'm finding it easier to visualise all these findings as interferences in the relevant quantum fields rather than as particles appearing and disappearing.
Anton. You are genuinely one of the most trustworthy and unbiased science communicators out there. In my book, you rival the RI channel, as I take away so much from your content. Thank you, fine denizen.
You have a pretty good channel here. Very informative and not full of click bait bs. Keep bringing us the most up to date science that's out there and the facts. Nice picture work too it goes with the content being spoke about.
It is so much better to listen to explanations. I like that you are not overbearing. I am still unsure about the quark model. Are there neutrino beams? I am unsure of the way they measure neutrinos by using a box volume instead of a surface. I wonder if the Sun product neutrinos between the photosphere and the corona would solve the neutrino count issue.
Most excellent. If this proves out, it will really shake up particle physics. I wonder if this would change Sabine Hossenfelder's position on the utility of particle colliders.
Very interesting. I love that beautiful picture/ illustration of the Proton. We will just go on and on discovering more about subatomic particles and because we only more or less understand about 5 percent of the Universe we still have a long way to go. What an exciting future we have before us !
Anton is my science teacher at this point, and I love coming to class
Absolutely, when I was taking physics in highschool all we were ever doing was answering questions with a dabble of explanation.
I've been learning magnitudes more from Anton than my entire school life ever did.
Now I'm in uni, and going to eventually get astronomical physics and mechanical engineering degrees all because of Anton and a few others on RUclips and in the field inspired me to go down this path I love.
yes! ✨✨✨✨
SaB3R10, Good for you! You've found your passion and are pursuing it. You will never regret it!
While I could pass my science exams, I knew they would never be my passion, but they are interesting to me, nonetheless.
Glad Anton is inspiring you to durther study!
Seriously!
Same!
I always used to like the proton, but now it has become evern more charming.
Oh that’s good.
😂it also has downs
Upvote this one!
I find that strange
You are one of the best science communicators I’ve ever seen. It’s genuinely impressive that you can explain science to effectively.
Strong agree. Its amazing how he can outperform virtually every other science communicator on this platform with such a simple format
I've been watching him since his universe sandbox days. He's the best friend that a science oriented person can have. I've re learned and updated so much of my knowledge base through him it's not even fair to him. That this is all free and daily is the best 😂 I wish I could send him 💰😊
Since you've recently started going into big detail on hard science, this has become my favorite channel for physics and astronomy. You are up there with PBS Space Time for me. Keep it up!
@@G3Kappa yeah, basically I think pbs space time + Sabine + Anton are the holy trinity of physics youtube.
I agree, Anton and Sabine are great to watch but have you heard of Ray Fleming? Physics is an interesting subject especially nuclear physics. But just like quantum mechanics there are so many gaps and outright manipulation of data long ago by those that began this science. Things such as how the inverse square law is used to not only calibrate geiger Muller tubes and various other radiation detection monitors but also how we take measurements, set exclusion zones with perfect circles around a reactor thats in meltdown, isotropically, exposure measurements and even things as simple as turning on a lightbulb....but what most do not know and most that do know don't like to speak about it but the inverse square law has a stipulation of its use. There is a specific type of source that the inverse square law does not apply to and it's an extended source of radiation. The inverse square law does not apply to extended sources of radiation (Bureau of Standards volume 3 pages 81-82 1907). Planks law for black body radiation also has the same stipulation and it states that to use Planks law there shall be no flow of matter or energy from the source to the environment. Yet no one questions our daily use of geiger counters around extended sources of radiation, or saturation of the tube or gamma attenuation or Townsend electron avalanche and quenching gas....we just blindly accept the narrative of a science born out of war and a military and government that's controlled all the information. I have debated physicists, nuclear engineers, biologists, etc... and none of them can argue against the inverse square law stipulation.
@@paulmobleyscience Well Paul based on the reply here and that you do some interesting titled videos I clicked subscribe to ya. Hope to see some good stuff from your uploaded videos and looking forward to any new uploads you might do. Thanks for the interesting details in your reply!
@@paulmobleyscience Ray Fleming has a fundamental misunderstanding of theoretical physics. We didn't find quantum particles by accident, symmetries in nature corresponding to conservation laws predicted they exist. This is a consequence of Noether's theorem. The quantum zoo was discovered in high altitude balloons with cloud chambers. You can see their paths with the naked eye. You can calculate their momentum, charge, and spin from the spirals they make in the cloud chamber. These measurements can be done with a ruler that you'd find in any school. We know so much now that I can teach the basics of quantum mechanics to children like I might heat, or light. It's not that mysterious anymore.
@@miked0602 HI Mike, great news and glad to meet you. As you can see I have many questions that have no answers of which clearly should have definitive answers and I search everywhere I can and speaking with people. What's your take on quantum mechanics and how it's represented in the world today? Most of my videos on my channel you'll find something to learn and take from it but I do have several on the rigors of youtube and controlling the trolls so ignore those please. I show the information more than I speak on most of my videos to allow the viewer to discern for themselves and use that as a stepping stone to find every source possible instead of just one or a few.
I don't understand -- and I praise -- how you're able to do this so reliably every single day. I can't even manage to take care of myself every day, but here you are doing this difficult and thoughtful thing for us at an astonishing cadence. You are the wonderful person, Anton.
You are the only science and space related youtuber I watch, almost everyone else is clickbait, sensationalism and text to speech crap. Keep up the good work!
There are some good ones but Anton is at the top.
I wish there were a way to clearly classify things as what level of discovery something is. From "not a big deal" to "utterly game changing"
Isn't like charges meeting negative Mass
True, but a mold growing on cantaloupes was not really a big deal. And then it was.
Someone should come up with a scale. Tho jornalists would just be like "This New Discovery Might Just Be a 10 on the ___ Scale!"
We do it's the sigma system, or sigma value.
@@jion7242 Reminds me of the scale used to assess the impact of SETI-related incidents
Thanks for all your hard work in bringing us the latest scientific news.
With ya all day on that!! 👌
Lets call it philosophy, thanks
@@oreziopancrazio3685 wym???? 🤨🤨🤨🤨
Anton not only has the ability to understand impossibly complex phenomenon, he has an ability to explain them so a layperson can (at least have a chance to) understand them also
... it's called science literacy, and believe it or not it's not that difficult to achieve. Just spend 5 or more years essentially "immersed" in the scientific field(s) of your choice (i.e. reading multiple journals frequently and some textbooks occasionally as needed, attending lectures/talks and conference presentations, carrying out and documenting/presenting research, and regularly interacting with a fair number of peers in the field) -- just like learning and mastering a new language! Astronomy, astrophysics and biochemistry would be the primarily relevant fields here along with a healthy interest and curiosity for geology, evolutionary biology, fundamental physics, climate science, and of course math and statistics (without which nothing can really be done in any of the previous fields...excepting some aspects of biology, perhaps)
ok thanks for that bro, now smash like
As a lay person I can honestly and emphatically say,"EXACTLY"!
Anton made science much more interesting to me. People like him should be teachers in schools. This would definitely create much more scientists.
Great illusion isn't it, Think he caught that off his Cousin, the deluded Zelensky... But keep donating, so he can pull science news stories off the web, to then not credit the source...Reminds me of Einstein in the Patient office for 7 years, ripping everyones ideas. He was as racist as Zelensky too, must be something in the genes.
One of my the last exam questions in particle physics in 2012 was proving pentaquarks can't exist. My professor of particle physics wrote his thesis proving they can't exist. He spent a whole lecture mocking any attempt to find them.
I failed that exam, even tho I think I figured out for the first time how to prove it didn't exist during the exam. Too bad we were not allowed to check the papers after they've been corrected.
There is a whole Wikipedia article about pentaquarks, including three reports of detecting them on 2003, 2015, and 2019. Do you think all that is wrong somehow?
Any professor who actively mocks a student is a shitty teacher. Did he have anything to back up his vicious mockery or was he just pushing a personal theory?
Professors like that are a good reason to move university.
It’s always good to hear science books have to be rewritten - keeps us humble and curious, and let’s us tell our parents that they were wrong (at least about some things).
Did you review the numbers? there is an issue with this model, in particular, because of the mass of the Charm quark
Often not "wrong" but rather "incomplete"
Yep and one day our kids and grandkids will be telling us stuff we never even dreamed of
I agree. Just not on the Covid vaccine. Or global warming. That science is settled.
@@jwlafferty then it isn't science. Lol
Lol. I like this video, Anton. I’m just a blue collar Native American…but I like learning. I’ll have to watch it again. And learn MORE. Once again. I love this. It’s not that knowledge CHANGES what we know. Just widens and deepens the perspective…by adding new understanding?
Anton, I have been watching you for years.
You are fantastic at relaying scientific news in a factual manner.
You show us the links and sources as well, which is absolutely amazing.
I hope you are proud of what you have done, you have helped enrich and inspire the minds of countless individuals.
PS: Please don't overwork yourself!
cannot emphasize and upvote this enough ; ditto
Indeed💙
Anton is possibly the only person that can say "hello wonderful person" at the start of every video and continue to sound sincere and welcoming.
With the possible exception of Joe Scott's closing statements.
Between the JWST and the particle physics discoveries, it's an amazing time to be alive
Is it really?
@@dt5072 I like to think so. Interesting if nothing else
Not really. Physics has been stuck in a rut for 50 years. Same thing with human s space flight. The pace of change for the first 50 years of the 20th century was exponentially faster than now. It is sad but now is not a time of exponential change.
@@johnfyten3392 "it's an amazing time to be alive"
No. The exact same thing was said by people at the beginning of the 20th century. Those people didn't even have airplanes. Cmon...
@@iu2 Just trying to stay positive
I think that last graphic of a proton would be fantastic on a black shirt.
Thanks for all you do, Anton.
Proton, neuron, electron, and most importantly Anton!!
He hasn't discovered it yet
Anton, I am so so very sorry for your loss sir. As a parent I can not imagine what you are going through. Condolences.
Great video! One of the best things about science is that it is self correcting. I was looking at an old science book the other day and it described how atoms were made of protons and two types of electrons, orbital electrons and nuclear electrons. I checked the copyright date and it was 1930, just before the discovery of the neutron. Science is always evolving.
Did they think ther were nuclear electrons in the nucleus, due to observing β- radiation?
Bro is doing the real work for us to understand the universe. You truly are the guardian of the Galaxy!!
I think the paper is actually saying something slightly different from what you describe. It's not saying that the proton is a pentaquark state. It's actually saying that the proton's wavefunction doesn't appear to be purely two ups and a down quark, but rather contains a very small admixture of other stuff that is consistent with including some charm-anti-charm pairs. They estimate the charm component to be something on the order of 1% of the wavefunction. So, it's more accurate to say that sometimes there are charm quarks in the proton, very rarely, but sometimes. But most of the time it's still two ups and a down.
None of this is actually revolutionary, though. We always knew that there were other states mixed into the proton wavefunction. There is also a strange quark component, and presumably top and bottom components should be there as well, but in extremely small amounts.
The cool part of the paper is that they've managed to tease out a number for this amount. This was often thought to be nearly impossible to measure because whenever you hit a proton with a high energy particle, you create lots of other subatomic particles. So, if you happen to see charm quarks in the collision products, you can't really tell whether they were part of the original proton or if they were just something that was created in the collision. But in this paper, they managed to separate those two sources of charm quarks, and give an estimate of what was present in the original proton. Very cool! And, as you said, they used some extremely cool methods!
And, as you noted in your discussion, the number they have pulled out of this analysis only has 3 sigma statistical significance. So it could change a lot (or go away completely) on further analysis.
Thanks for telling us about this study. I hadn't heard of it before you mentioned it.
yeah, not a pentaquark. it seems like the charm pair is sorta in-between virtual and real... the paper doesn't go into that in those terms so idk.
it uses the terms "intrinsic" "non perturbative" vs "radiative QCD" which I take to be something roughly like real vs virtual... am I even close?
@@nmarbletoe8210 virtual particles are still particles, if they have their effects... quantum effects etc. But I think that this disclosure may be on the brink of new physics.
@@vencdee yes I am a fan of the virtuals, and sometimes the virtual/ real divide seems like just a matter of perspective. cool stuff!!
When they talk about the "intrinsic" proton wavefunction, they mean the way it behaves all by itself before any interactions.
Non-pertubative vs radiative QCD refers to how the calculations are done. The biggest problem with QCD calculations is that the coupling strength is so large that standard perturbation theory requires a huge number of terms for things like the interactions within a proton. So non-pertubative methods are required. The best methods involve numerical methods like lattice QCD, which is very computationally intensive.
@@kevindooley5934 thank you! That helps.
Thanks for the videos, Anton! 🤓👍
Machine learning is really cool and really good at uncovering things that were previously unforseen, but they should only be trusted if they can be validated with another method. Machines that "learn" also have a tendency to "dream". They can come up with answers that seem right intuitively but are wrong.
"Machines that "learn" also have a tendency to "dream""
I really like that. That's very quotable and true.
_only_ if they can be validated with another method...
I agree with external validation, but I think those computers could just as easily see something our monkey brains missed. Also this is different than tasking an AI to come up with something new or improving. What I assume is probably doing is computing a whole bunch of data sets and comparing them, then using that data to create a models and see how well they match the observations. Of course I could be completely wrong with that, and they could have something next generation at their disposal, but I kind of doubt it.
Thing is that Machine Learning is just good at recognizing patterns (its main fortè). This is not a bad thing but pattern matching is also determined on how one defines 'patterns' - and this includes the type and format of the data input used to teach it (weight the neural network) and the criteria for 'teaching' it (determine the output as correct or not) - both of these are integrally tied together. There is definitely an important use for ML in finding these patterns that we cannot see easily but it must be backed up with validation, as you say, mainly because ML is not a generalized system - it is a system trained specifically on inputs to extract particular outputs. That, to me, is the current weakness of ML in reaching the more esoteric AI status.
That's a quirk of the human brain. As a composer (of classical music) I can give you a simple example: You can create music that sounds great in your head, but if it's not rooted in reality (corresponds to acoustic properties of sound and musical structure), once committed to paper and realised acoustically, can sound like an absolute mess. Computers, after all, are a reflection of ourselves.
I am cheering from the sidelines. A simple minded question generates 100+ responses. A ground ball to short brings in 4 runs. It is fascinating and humbling though to see the limits of language and conceptualization in our macro world.
I need to understand everything about the universe. Thanks for helping Anton.
How about just being a punk rocker?
You better pack a fuckin lunch then because there's a LOT going on
You'll have the hardest time understanding me. 😂
Hope you plan to live to eternity and beyond j/k
How could one not 'need' to know WTF is going on. Love it. We live in an amazing time.
Zooming out you suddenly become aware that all of this is happening on a TV screen - an epic space opera playing out for someone’s entertainment. But the actors don’t know they’re actors. To them, this orgy is as real as real gets.
The awesome beauty of science is a welcome respite from the dispiriting developments in human politics and economics.
I have a basic question about particle physics: Are there particles that do not exist until they are produced in the accelerators? Or, is there an inharent bias due to the high energies, e.g., two protons colloding a near th speed of light? Or, what is inside a proton under "normal" circumstances i.e., something different than we posit from the results of high energy collisions?
my humble understanding may be wrong, but i'll try to convey it the best i can.
particle colliders are essentially accelerators that boost the particles to speeds near the speed of light, generating high energy collisions where the energy released can come out in the form of particles. the collisions are done with just the right particles and speeds to generate fixed energy levels and see if the outcome follows model predictions or if there's an inconsistency or hole in what we know
I think it may be arrogant to think that something wouldn't have been created anywhere else within the entire universe, only to have it occur because we decided to try out a possibility within the LHC.
Considering that particles from space have been observed with orders of magnitude more energy than anything particle accelerators here on Earth can replicate, I'd highly doubt that.
They truly don't know if what are are producing is just a product of the accelerator. That said, if there were an natural environment where particles where flying around with such energy, these sub particles would be normal observations.
@@jonathanbatista6581 Hence my use of "normal"
While there are so many amazing space and physics educational channels on youtube, for me, Anton takes the cake for quantity over quality (Not to say his videos aren't extremely clear and educational). Anton covers so many more obscure or less popular discoveries that are made by hard working scientists. Just so grateful for your channel man :)
💯
Anton is always at the forefront of new discoveries and essentially eclipes the government and other formal orgsnizations in delivering new knowledge to us. Thank you soooo muchbfor your sophisticated professional efforts! And for this I'm now gong to participate in your patreon group.
What I want is discoveries that focus on the ridiculous stability of the proton. Anything that can assemble out of the Bang with a lifetime longer than the universe itself is fascinating.
As I understand, the main reason it doesn't decay much is that there is nothing lighter it can easily decay into while still following conservation laws.
That said, they do decay in certain atomic nuclei, because by changing into a neutron they gain mass themselves but reduce the total mass of the nucleus. This is how Positron Emission Tomography works.
@@SimonClarkstone There is an non zero chance for protons to undergo fusion with other protons.
If an proton was to fuse with virtual protons and then the resulting α particle gets stripped of it's protons by the virtual antiprotons from the proton-antiproton pairs involved it could potentially result in a decay into antitritium if the surplus antiproton decides to stick with the neutrons.
It's likely that I am wrong about something here, so take it with a grain of salt.
The energy would have to be forced into existence by very unlikely coincidences. Maybe it could come from photons? Given enough time the right amount and frequencies of photons might align around a proton to make it into something else in this weird way.
I have possibly written up some BS here.
Probably because the current age of the universe is a ridiculously small fraction of its projected lifetime.
Thanks Anton. I will revisit this when I am familiar with the quark chart.
The proton visualization really did waken my mind, with the protons dancing together, it's so beautiful. And to know that humans were able to drill this far into the deep of things is really chilling, with things only appearing to be rather complexe than simple.
not really "dancin"g, those quarks were more "uncannilly jiggling"
@@DiggyPT dancing as in being connected and influencing each other motions 😀
@@the_real_vdegenne oh yea, i understand its hard to dance when youre a quantum particle while being conjoined with two other quantum particles
@@DiggyPT And still they have more skills than me trying to dance with a girl
@@the_real_vdegenne 🤣
Anton, you are the wonderful person because you let us peek inside the universe and let us know about what is happening in science. I’m so glad I discovered your channel.
This is one of my biggest issues with modern schooling. When I went to school and learned about atoms, I was told they were the smallest things in the universe. I had heard of “quarks” but thought they were just unproven theories at the time. Now that I’ve watched a bunch of videos, I know that quarks have been confirmed for a while now, meaning I was either misinformed in school, or I was just lied to. I get that a 3rd grade kid won’t understand quarks… but say there is almost nothing smaller than atoms, instead of hammering in the idea that they are the smallest things. I really wish that there was an ability to take “modern physics” “modern earth and space science” or “modern biology” in high school. Difference being that these classes would be more focused on these things, and even the potential theories at the time. I feel like being in highschool and having that as an optional class would be fitting.
Anyone else get upset over this concept. I feel like everything I’ve learned was just a easy way of explaining things, but in doing so they had to cover up holes with lies.
The way the schooling system fundamentally works kills curiousity and critical thinking.
Your physics teacher's thought process probably was 'Yes, i know its long proven that atoms aren't the smallest thing but our tests are based around this assumption and explaining things deeper would just be confusing while I am only assessed by how many of my students pass the tests".
I was taught Bohr’s model in school (late 1980s) with the clear caveat “we know it’s wrong but it’s still important to learn to better understand why it is wrong”. Probably also because teachers weren’t really familiar with quantum physics.
The biggest problem is measuring these smallest things…
The way you explain gluons makes me think of rubberband, the more you stretch it the more the force you feel, where stretching represents the movement of the gluons and the force represents the mass it creates.
It makes sense when it's explained correct. That model of the proton, despite not having the 5 quarks and only 3 potentially, makes so much more sense than that little drawing
Agreed
Just love that picture of a Proton!
Hope you and the family are doing well mate
I had a very good science teacher he had us build all of the different models of an atom from history (there’s a shit load of them) to make the point that our current understanding is likely going to continue to change. The rest of school was mostly a waste of time but biology, geology, and zoology were so interesting because he was very passionate. He ended up teaching us more about economics social studies ect in his biology class then we learned in the rest of school.
Everyone needs a teacher like that sadly there aren’t enough of them. Anton always reminds me of him lol.
I wonder if this pentaquark proton model might explain why, despite many deep and long lasting experiments, proton decay has never been observed, despite many theoretical models that predict that it should happen.
This channel is why I love the internet! Thanks Anton
Mayby some of the quarks appear and disapear in a proton and otherś keep more in their "shape " , depending to what forces the proton it self is affected .
Similar to bubbles bubbling , but so that some bubbles are more solid then others .
Yeah there seems to be a theme that it's easy to assume the particles are like little weird grains of sand when they seem like ephemeral bubbles of energy.
@@wasabij thats a good way of describe the possible actions habbening.
The most intuitive way to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel.
And given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, we can imagine that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
This makes it even harder to explain why all protons have the same mass/charge/spin... and may also have an impact on the lifetime of the proton which has already falsified several Great Unification scenarios before. Interesting, if the algorithm has taken into account this old data.
I live in karachi Pakistan I like your communication
The smile at the end was really adorable 🥰
The implications for the first instances of the universe are pretty profound. That era in which protons and neutrons first coalesced could have been much different if there were a lot of charm and strange quarks.
I feel like Anton is the "Bill Nye the Science Guy" of RUclips.
I mean that in the highest regard.
This is beginning to remind me more and more of fractal harmonic partials in sound technology. All wave forms can be broken down into something like 137 bits that, when assembled, make sound, but on their own do nothing, aka are virtual. Perhaps there are no subatomic particles, but rather a table of partials that can be assembled to make them.
I think I've read that quarks cannot exist independently, outside of larger particles. So in that case, you're not wrong.
@@JeremyKolassa I think someone should go over all the old data with new eyeballs with a mind to searching for an unspecified number of fractal partials of subatomic detritus just to see if anything pops up. The number might be both huge and strange because you might be dealing with very odd shapes in multiple dimensions. Because nature seems to be fractal, it seems plausible, even probable, that there are a limited number of shapes- even a specific number. Such a task would be multidisciplinary because you're dealing with areas which might include the study of the behaviour of fluids in 3 dimensional space, plus partials, plus fractals, plus the possible number of shapes they can make in 3 dimensions. I'm guessing that collider findings would necessarily need to be enhanced in order to search for more details at a much smaller scale. Tracing the path of a particle, for instance, doesn't tell you what it's doing in 3-dimensional space as it travels.
Can't look up that term up.
@@blinded6502 Which one?
@@gregmonks9708 fractal harmonic partials
TY Anton for explaining something wth it's ups and downs, but still strangely charming.
Really interesting! thanks @Anton!
Yes, this has implications for the neutron as well. Cheers and thanks from Northern Ontario.
Would this have implications for the lifespan of protons in the universe? Maybe they will decay at a different rate than previously understood?
If you want to start down that path, you can start by comparing the masses of the proton and the charm quark in Mev
@@jaimeduncan6167 I will let the physics majors explore that one. Its over my head.
I'd also think it would change the ratio of baryonic matter creation after inflation.
@@jaimeduncan6167 ooh! similarly to the graphs for the electroweak force's stability based on the (t) quark and Higgs boson? That'd be very interesting to see even if this is is all new hypotheticals.
@@mintysingularity the big bang will be debunked soon. JWT is already seeing thing that go against the big bang.
I love how you made me wait 1:40 for my' hello wonderful person' greeting :)
Hi Anton! You are unique! Always the most reliable and The clearest! This is extraordinary! Thank you so much!
Whenever I see a title like this I'm thinking "clickbait".
Then I saw it was Anton, abs i knew it was not a clickbait👍
I only remember years ago a video on TV describing quarks that sounded as if it contained a mirror or gauging device. Either that or it is reacting to something outside of itself? Ever since the quark was it for me only because I really don't know that much about physics again my Dad though was one.
Thank you. Best illustration of a proton I've seen so far.
So glad that you passed 1M subs! Now, even more people will get to see your content!
you know I was reading about this in an article the other day - glad you're talking about it. Seems when I do my research - Anton's doing the same at the same time! pretty cool
Love you Anton! Absolutely fascinating, as always, in terms I can understand. I remember watching Nova in the 70s when they were pretty certain of about only 4 sub atomic particles. Then again, plate tectonics was a new theory. The KT event was a theory. And on and on..,.
I love your content. Been following since 200k subscribers. Well done Anton
I will freely admit that much of what I'm hearing here is way over my head. I remember, decades ago, that the names applied to Strange and Charm quarks were decided because of characteristics detected, not just names plucked out of the air. What if all quarks are actually the same and the nature of their behaviour and interaction is governed by the energy to which they are exposed? This might explain why unexpected results come from the manipulations applied to them.
well, you will always need at least one kind of quark to be + or -
Fascinating, as usual. You never fail to impress. TY.
Thanks for explaining things I would not otherwise have the time or energy to study myself Anton🙏🏼
Bitesize but with flowing detail. Love your work. Wonderful person ❤️
What does this mean for proton decay? I don't know anything about the subject, but would adding two new quarks make proton decay different, or not real?
That's not even proven for the 3-quark proton, let alone the pentaquark...
@@KerbalHub i know, I just want to know if this proves or disproves it, or just adds some new information
Id actually imagine this possibly means the proton is not as stable as we once thought. Its very possible our models describe a certain point much later on in the universe, when things try to settle into more stable forms.
It has implications for proton-decay, but more immediate relevance to neutron-decay. The former has never been observed, whereas the latter happens all the time, and results in 'new' protons. Since the same fundamental particles are involved (quarks and gluons), the theory is that one down-quark becomes an up-quark, and Houston, we have a proton (more stable). If there are 4 or 5 quarks involved, it may be more complex...
@@velnz5475 The lower-limit for the proton's lifetime has been established experimentally.
Anton, since the last video about gluons being most responsible for mass, you made an important observation: they themselves have little mass, like the quarks. What gives them mass is their rapid movement (oscillations), and you begin this video reminding us of that fact.
This should not be counterintuitive, however. When we take Einstein's special relativity and combine it with Planck's relation, the first equates energy and mass and the second energy and frequency, thus mass and frequency are equivalent. Such equivalency has been used to create "atomic clocks" where we count mass oscillations to determine linear time, not what time really is but that's not the point. However, viewed from another angle, it is oscillations which cause mass, as you pointed out then.
I agree with other comments in that your channel has become a source of true state of the art knowledge, and your ability to stay within the facts is truly commendable. Thanks.
Very interesting. Does the "penta-quark" model of a proton allow for the quarks to exist in a lower combined energy state than is possible with just three quarks (uud)?
I think the answer to your question is no one knows just yet. This new paper proposes a new theory for which there is already some evidence but by no means convincing (for the broader community of physicists.) Since it's such a different perspective to what was previously accepted as true (aka the way nature works) it will be some time before it's better understood and/or accepted. Someone famous once said (I forget who) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I've been watching this channel quite a while and its very good at what it does, but i want to especially compliment this episode. This is breaking news in science, and i can get a little bit of background on what was done and what it means, and what its history is. On top of that, the images selected for this episode were beautiful and appropriate. I'm charmed!
Quark names aren't unfortunate. The names express that each generation has a quark pair with opposite names associated with the sign of their electrical charge. Nonetheless, unique things' names don't mean anything generally (except maybe in ideograms), and quarks were never an intuitive concept that could be understood by analogy. Furthermore, the researchers didn't know a lot about them, except that the force they called "strangeness" because it was very different from electromagnetism, so there wasn't a lot to describe--and this force of "strangeness" does get a mention in the negative charge quark of the 2nd generation.
Like, how does the name "table" describe what a table is? Even in Mandarin, as I said, you have 'zhuō' 桌, which contains the character for wood, 'mù' 木, and it's still not clear. Characters for words like rain, or yǔ 雨, supposedly look like rain, but, still, you can only really tell it in hindsight. It could be hail, or birds, for how it looks.
I don't know how "charm" is the opposite of "strange" in any sense other than quarks, so your assertion fails for the second generation. The third generation was also kind of a retrofit with the original names being "truth" and "beauty", two more words that aren't opposites in any way aside from their usage within the realm of quarks (the switch to "top" and "bottom" was done specifically to correct that.. I guess one generation of semi-random quark names was confusing enough).
But that's science for you. There's a lot of things in practically all fields of science that have what we now consider to be unusual names that were only chosen because we didn't understand the full context when they were originally coined. And I'm sure there's names we're making up today that will provide no end to headaches for students 150 years in the future :D.
There's also the interesting fact that in the 2nd and 3rd generation, the positive quark is more massive while in the first generation (up and down), the down quark is the more massive one. That's obviously not something we get to choose (unlike the names) but it certainly doesn't help the confusion much.
@@altrag The old names for the third generation (truth and beauty) would not be considered opposites by laymen, but there's actually a pretty heated discussion in physics regarding whether there's an argument for a beautiful theory to be more likely to be correct. Famously, when Einstein criticized Herman Weyl's attempt to explain electromagnetism by imposing the Weyl symmetry on general relativity, Weyl replied that his theory should be true because it was beautiful, adding that if he had to choose between truth and beauty, he'd choose beauty. Which is kind of ironic, because Weyl symmetry went on to be a foundation of string theory, which was widely considered proof that truth and beauty are related. Well, at least it did in the 00s, because in another twist, string theory's failure to make testable predicions, along with the LHC's failure to find supersymmetric particles have made string theory basically a cautionary tale for the beauty argument. So that's why it would be an inside joke to have truth and beauty as opposites.
As for the second generation names, given that the name strange was decided because of the "strangeness" thing, if you had to pick an opposite, charm is not a bad pick, so I actually do think that charm is supposed to be the opposite of strange.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos three quarks for muster mark!
This is a supercool channel. Always fun and interesting. really well put together videos and lectures. Great job.
best of luck to you and your team. Y'all rock!👍
Hello Anton! So when the Higgs Boson was actually detected, the problem it posed for physicists was that it behaved exactly as predicted. That meant there was nothing new to probe and no way to fix our Standard Model, and we know something is wrong with the SM. Will this, if confirmed, actually allow us to change the Standard Model?
Not that I'm aware of. This potentially new discovery shows that a proton is sometimes better thought of as a pentaquark (with 5 quarks, u/u/d/c/anti-c) rather than an ordinary baryon (with three quarks, u/u/d), which is not necessarily in conflict with the Standard Model. The fundamental equations governing the inside of a proton are from quantum chromodynamics, which is part of the Standard Model. However, they can't be solved exactly at the energy scales relevant for the proton, leaving huge theoretical uncertainties. Inserting a charm quark/anti-charm quark by hand wouldn't break anything. However, one could wonder if the proton has also intrinsic "strangeness" in the form of a strange-quark/anti-strange quark (the strange quark is lighter than the charm quark), which would make the proton a heptaquark (with seven quarks). Maybe the experimental signature of an instrinsic charm-quark is easier to detect than the one of a strange-quark.
@@NeedsEvidence Hey, thanks for the reply... and just when I thought it was safe to ask such a question! My head is now spinning.
@@NeedsEvidence Why doesn't this change the mass of a proton, thus changing the SM? Or does the mass of a proton come from the interactions between gluons and quarks?
@@basbas1228 Good point. That's why my (and Anton's) comparison with a pentaquark is actually inaccurate, because in a pentaquark scenario, the charm quark would considerably contribute to the proton's total mass as a _valence quark_ (like the three u- and d-quarks). However, the situation is different for _instrinsic quarks_ and _sea quarks_ .
As you pointed out, by far most of the mass of a proton comes from the energy of the gluon field between the valence quarks. If you probe the proton closely enough with higher resolution (using highly energetic photons or gluons provided by an accelerator), some gluons appear to form "short-lived" _virtual_ quark-antiquark pairs, including virtual charm/anti-charm pairs. Quarks originating from such gluonic radiation are called _sea quarks_ , and they have been established in collider experiments since decades. The masses of those sea quarks are far off their nominal masses as real particles, which is the reason that in a proton you can have loops of virtual particles whose masses as real particles are far higher than the mass of the proton itself. (I know, this is difficult to digest, but this is putting words to somehow describe the maths of the gluon-mediated interactions between the valence quarks of a proton.)
However, the new discovery talked about here is not about sea charm quarks but _intrinsic_ charm quarks. They appear as quark-anti quark pairs *not* originating from gluonic radiation but are manifestations of another type of mathematical solutions in the same underlying theory (quantum chromodyamics). Like the sea quarks, those intrinsic quarks require high energies to be resolved in a proton, and their masses differ from the masses of their counterparts as real particles as well.
@@NeedsEvidence I think the problem is also a little bit that I (and with me, a lot of people I guess) try to understand it as simple as just little dots, connected by strings, while in reality its just quantum fluctuations, interacting with eachother and in that way they get their mass.
When you accept that last point, its not THAT exotic to also accept that these tiny particles behave very strangely sometimes and that we need stuff like anti particles and all that shit to explain the things we see.
It's all just a model, its our way of explaining everything around us, nothing more. The quark itself couldn't give two shits about what we think it looks like and how it creates a proton..
Thanks for the explanation. I'm very interested in this kind of stuff, but since I don't have any real education in these fields, I kind of have to form my own theory based on all the things I've read and watched and hope that I didn't misinterpret what is being explained (by people who are unimaginably smarter than I am).
Used to drive by the Jefferson lab everyday. Amazing.
Physics is not the hunt for the truth about the universe, but rather the accuracy of measuring it.
Just stumbled across Anton, but likely to return. Always like learning new stuff.
Could protons and neutrons differ by only a few quarks and could they change from proton to neutron and vice versa inside the nucleas?
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. There is an ever so slight discrepancy between the mass of protons and neutrons and it's conceivable that the difference may be attributable in part to extra quarks and energy associated with the extra gluons involved.
Yes, they can and regularly do. A proton is two ups and a down (well, give or take this latest discovery) while a neutron is two downs and an up. Its very common for a down to change to an up (which converts a neutron into a proton) and release an electron (and a neutrino and a photon) in the process to balance out the charge difference. So common that we have a name for it: Beta decay. Its a very important part of nuclear physics (reactors, bombs, radiometric dating, etc).
Going the other direction is also possible, but its (comparatively) very rare as it requires increasing the mass of the particle and that energy has to come from somewhere. So pretty much only happens in the extreme coincidence of a high-energy neutrino (or antineutrino) happening to hit a proton dead on. It happens enough that we can use the effect to build neutrino detectors, but there's a reason those are enormous! Need a whole lot of protons (and a whole lot of cross-section against your expected neutrino source) to have much chance of detecting even a single such collision.
Apparently direct electron capture (ie: exact opposite of beta decay) is expected to happen in the cores of neutron stars where protons and neutrons are squeezed hard enough to force them together through degeneracy pressure, but not too likely we'll be directly observing that one. Aren't a whole lot of neutron stars within our reach (and probably a good thing, as a nearby neutron star would probably render life impossible).
Thank you Anton for keeping us up to date on new discoveries.
It seems so bizarre that as we forge ahead with exciting new discoveries that the world is simultaneously suffering from science and climate change deniers. How can humanity be on such a big teeter totter?
Climate "science" is anything but. Get off your high horse and find some good info on the topic that is highly skeptical of it - try and steelman those who don't think Co2 is some slow-acting doomsday device.
It's fear-mongering used as a tool of control, moreso than its a problem - if its even a problem.
@@NukeCloudstalker There's the denier. You're not alone. Your name speaks volumes.
@Nuclear cloud . My children want to know whey you're trashing their world? I told them I cannot account for the ignorance. Can you offer up anything besides your politics?
Because people are dense, lazy, careless, ignorant, greedy, and selfish.
More of a dogsled setup than a teeter-totter
I love the proton depiction, need to get that for a wall in my study!
The exponential growth of machine learning is proving miraculous. Solving seemingly unsolvable problems at a furious pace. The protein folding problem has been solved to an extreme amount of accuracy...nearly perfect. And, amazingly the problem of containing plasma in a fusion reaction has also just been accomplished. We are about to witness a paradigm shift. AI and machine learning are beyond the knee of the exponential curve, and will soon be more intelligent than all humans combined. It's not IF it's going to happen...it's when. Hold on to your hat. Daily scientific miracles are about to be commonplace.
just two more weeks
Yeah, and then the world will end.
What a thought provoking video. I enjoyed every second. Anton, you provide meaning to this world, and I would like to thank you for that. Keep on keeping on my friend.
It wasn't that long ago when the atom was considered the smallest thing in the universe. Then we learned about protons, neutrons and electrons. Then a multitude of quarks. That said we know (think?) that the movement of electrons is the essence of what we call electricity. However, when I was a teen I was told by an electrical engineer that we really don't know or understand what electricity actually is, only that Ben Franklin determined that lightening and electricity were related. Of course Tesla and Edison had a major feud over which was better, AC or DC. Science continues to be fascinating with new revelations every day. Thank you for trying to explain all of this to us.
I split the difference and just listen to AC/DC. Best Regards!
Anton you are doing a fantastic job , you deserve more support 👏.
Obvious question: what implications does this have on dark matter?
Best explanation is that protons and neutrons a single structure of energy, that can transform into multiple structures of energy when colliding. They are not a "collection" of smaller structures of energy
Hello Anton and If this is true then... then we might actually have to rewrite physics. This could change our model completely and this might even destroy the standard model of particle physics. This could prove string theory and loop quantum gravity wrong. If this discovery is this big then...
"we might actually have to rewrite physics"... So... just a normal day in the Physics department then 🙂 It seems to be the case of late - as John Fyten (comment elsewhere here) - says "Between the JWST and the particle physics discoveries, it's an amazing time to be alive" WOW! keep up the good work Anton (and all scientist everywhere and everywhen! Stay Curious!
@@TheStevewhelan Agreed and thanks!
Anto - many thanks for this great video. I'm sure that in the last few days you have completely changed many people's understanding of what goes on in a proton or neutron! FYI - I'm finding it easier to visualise all these findings as interferences in the relevant quantum fields rather than as particles appearing and disappearing.
Protons have ink? (How else would they re-write science textbooks?)
Yeah, they have ink. Electrons gave them an infinite supply of ink, 'kay?
Well ink definitely has protons…
Anton. You are genuinely one of the most trustworthy and unbiased science communicators out there. In my book, you rival the RI channel, as I take away so much from your content. Thank you, fine denizen.
You have a pretty good channel here. Very informative and not full of click bait bs. Keep bringing us the most up to date science that's out there and the facts. Nice picture work too it goes with the content being spoke about.
It is so much better to listen to explanations. I like that you are not overbearing. I am still unsure about the quark model. Are there neutrino beams? I am unsure of the way they measure neutrinos by using a box volume instead of a surface. I wonder if the Sun product neutrinos between the photosphere and the corona would solve the neutrino count issue.
Man.. wish I knew about this channel sooner. Very well explained.
Thanks as always, your work is very much appreciated.
Most excellent. If this proves out, it will really shake up particle physics. I wonder if this would change Sabine Hossenfelder's position on the utility of particle colliders.
Very interesting. I love that beautiful picture/ illustration of the Proton. We will just go on and on discovering more about subatomic particles and because we only more or less understand about 5 percent of the Universe we still have a long way to go. What an exciting future we have before us !
read this the other day but again great video always watch what you do!
Wonderful Anton with another wonderful video!
This is absolutely fascinating.
I love your videos! Very well done and very well laid out. Thank you!
Wonderful as always anton. Thank you. 😊