One of the Joys of my life, was getting in to see Rutherford s Den. A very small sub road level basement where Rutherford did some of his early experimens.
I am constantly amazed at the brilliance of these men. They discovered the amazing structure of the atom with striking accuracy, but had virtually no advanced technology. It is breathtaking.
No advanced technology.. The bottom line!! Today's scientists want every advanced assistance possible, but the scientists of those days who discovered/invented the very foundations of the modern world were school dropouts & didn't even have a lab to work in..
"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains a problem in chapter 2 "Electrostatic Fields in a Vacuum" (2-19) on J.J. Thomson's "Plum Pudding" model of the atom. It asks to (A) find the force on an electron; (B) describe its motion; (C) the frequency for a 1 Angstrom-sized atom; and (D) compare this frequency to that of visible light. A rather thought-provoking question in an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
J.J. Thompson said before he passed on: An electron is not a particle, It is 1 unit of electrical induction ' A measurement! But everyone refuses to believe that! 🤨
Physics seemed so solved near the end of the 1800s with seemingly only a few fringe/exotic inconsistencies left. It is those inconsistencies though that when rigorously tested, showed there was still much more we didn't understand, and opened the way for the explosion in the modern physics like quantum physics and relativity, in the early 1900s.
I was 3 years old when I discovered electrons. I was with my friend when he stuck two keys into an electrical outlet (USA). It lit him up, and due to my inquisitive, scientific nature, I also felt the need to touch the keys to see what made him cry. I found out.
I'm told that when I was less than two years old I stuck a metal poker into an electric fire. It killed the element, but it didn't kill me. Of course, some say that incident accounts for a lot of things.
This question has always bugged me ever since I came to know of this experiment : How would Sir Thomson know about *cathodes* , *anodes* , and *electrically charged plates* , if the electron wasn't know about at the time? *Excess and deficit of electrons are what cause negative and positive charges respectively* ......... So if the electron was discovered only during this experiment, how did people come up with the concept of positive and negative charges in the first place?
Positive and negative charges were long known to exist before Thomson. Infact Maxwells famous equations were published when Thomson was 9 years old. People already knew anode and cathode because one was randomly assigned negative charge and one was randomly assigned positive charge. This is purely a convention... And with the voltaic pile and magnetic experiments etc. you could easily identify which of your electrodes was positive and which was negative. What Thomson discovered that these so called "negatively charged" electrodes (cathodes) actually consisted of smaller negatively charged things... That he called corpuscles (later electrons). Hope this helps.
@@upholdjustice372Positive and negative were defined by a coin toss (and gotten wrong). Positive was supposed to represent an excess of “charge” and negative a deficit of “charge” when the reverse is true.
Great video! Covered Thompson very well. I especially appreciate your covering how many different ways he repeated his experiment. That's how real science is done: Trying to find the one piece of "gold" (fact / wisdom) in an immense mass chaff (noise, incorrect assumptions). Thompson was especially admirable in his continued effort to check all possibilities, and abandon those that were incorrect. Although incorrect, his Plum Pudding Model was an excellent first start in understanding the structure of the atom.
1:19 Interesting that the scientific community thought about an ‘ether’ that exists everywhere at that time. While they were specifically wrong about CRTs, after 100 years of particle physics, with the Higgs field, most scientists again agree on a field permeating even “empty” space. This is similar to Democritus in preSocratic Greece theorizing that everything is made from atoms. Sure, he got some things wrong, but his basic idea of everything being made of fundamental particles was very insightful. The more we learn, the closer we come to the limits of what we can learn, based on our (instruments) size. We can only observe something (or its effects) down to the particles discovered in the large hadron collider (LHC), or as far away as the JWST (currently) can see and the realization that our ‘observable universe’ is only a portion of the actual universe. All these discoveries that further extend our knowledge of our physical universe are so cool. Thanks!
The step to the currant bun model shows that when Pauli decried a proposition as 'not even wrong', you have some theories that are wrong but a step on the road to a better theory, such as the currant bun model, wrong, but when alpha particles were deflected backwards, pointed to improving the model by going to a nucleus-based model.
Nice video! I wonder if you should add that determination of the mass of the electron also required the measurement of the charge of the electron by Robert A Millikan in 1909?
I'm currently listening to a book "Particle Physics for Non Physicists" by Steven Pollock right now. He just talked about J.J. Thompson and Ernest Rutherford (alpha rays) today. I love hearing the history of classical and modern physics. So much more fun to learn it.
I agree with the comment about your machine gun pace when it comes to your voice over. Try replaying the Video at 75% and it’s an improvement over playing it at normal speed.
"The electron: may it never be of any use to anybody!" - Joseph John Thomson Use, May, Electrons Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Volume 35, (p. 251), 1951.
That would be Philo Farnsworth. Yes a picture tube is basically a cathode ray tube. Farnsworth is the guy who figured out how to control the electrons with an analog signal. And that’s what makes it television.
I don’t think electron was “discovered”. This implies its existence was unexpected. In reality, existence of electrons was postulated and then experimentally demonstrated.
THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA: Revised TOE: 1/24/2024a: TOE Idea: Short version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test): The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe. The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter. TOE Idea: Longer version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test): THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Quarks, protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between quarks and electrons. In the case of the alpha particle (Helium nucleus), the electro-magnetic field interactions between the quarks themselves are what keeps them together in that specific structural format. 10. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. (The neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) 11. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 12. At this time, I personally believe that what is called 'gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is the force which allows a photon to travel across the vast universe without that swirling photon being flung apart or ripped apart by other photons and/or matter interactions. Gravity being a part of the 'em' photon could also possibly be how numbers exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence (the internal oscillations of the 3 different parts of the 'gem' photon, each modality having a maximum in one direction, a neutral, and a maximum in the other direction.) 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter. 13. I also believe that the 'gem' photon is the energy unit in this universe that makes up everything else in this universe, including eternally existent space and time. ('Space' being eternally existent energy itself, the eternally existent 'gem' photon, 'Time' being the eternally existent flow of energy, 'Space Time' being eternally existent energy and it's eternally existent flow). 14. When these vibrating 'gem' photons interact with other vibrating 'gem' photons, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 15. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 16. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 17. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 18. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 19. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 20. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 21. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 22. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 24. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. 25. 'God' does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons. The CMBR from the supposed 'bang' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. Red Shift observations have a more 'normal' already known physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning and will most probably never have an end. Galaxies collapse in upon themselves, 'bang', eventually generating new galaxies. Galaxies and 'life' just come and go in this eternally existent existence. DISCLAIMER: 26. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Currently, my gravity test has to be accomplished to prove or disprove that portion of the TOE idea. But, if not this way, then what exactly is the TOE of this existence?
PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS: Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements: I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2). Chemical Element #119 (8s1): #119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell. Chemical Element #120 (8s2): #120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars. When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way. In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically). If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better. (Except of course for those who might be in the way of a periodic nova or supernova. They might have a no good, very bad, horrible day.)
Nice video and presentation. Remember 1. that electron was found carrying negative charge in vacuum AFTER it was parted off from its atom. 2. Later assumed it was born with a negative charge in associate with its atom - which was never verified so. 3. Moving charge on a conductor doesn’t require electron. Is however required in electrolyte and vacuum. Electrolyte? Yes, battery chemistry. Vacuum? Yes, JJ Thomson’s Cathode Ray tube.
interresting, more people today need to realise that Science is an ongoing story, plumb pudding model was not wrong, it is what the evidence of the time showed, as what I learnt at Uni was not wrong, just what the evidence of the time showed, I looked forward to the models of tomorrow - without laughing at preivious models
Why do so many American science programmes have gabbling commentaries. Too fast, no pauses between sentences, no time to absorb what’s being said, monotone, no hint of the commentary reader being interested by what is being spoken, probably often automatically read ?
Hmm... first time I've gotten a comment like this.. I will slow it down and change up audio editing and see how it goes. But to actually answer your question, sentences are spliced together because of audience retention. If you leave gaps then you risk people becoming disinterested, whereas if someone missed a sentence then they can go back a few seconds and watch it again, increasing watch time. It's not really something I like doing, but more so have to do for the algorithm. However... I care about audience feedback more so I will make some changes and experiment. Not sure how you could think that was monotone though. There were pitch changes everywhere. As for not being interested, well... it's a narration. I'm not going to shout at you.
You probably don't know, but electron was discovered by russianan. They are claiming all the scientific discoveries as done by them, but due to the top secret status of the research the resalts were newer published.
Hi from sunny Troon, I think your narration is absolutely fine,the complaints are from someone who thinks BBC English is THE English,carry on as you are sir and cheers for making a great vid😊@@RationalThinker118
"A perfect conductor is the perfect obstructor." Oliver Heaviside Electrons do not exist and things do not flow through solid objects. Pipes filled with concrete...
great work! fellow rational thinker, could you please provide some resources to seek more knowledge in the field of metaphysics, epistemology, sciences, mathematics and computer science.
How rational is it to declare the electron's charge a constant, then when the nucleus was discovered to "apparently" have positive charges clump together, they invented the Strong force rather than question that long standing constant? If charge changes when crammed into a nucleus, a lot of physics must change. This is the scientific method: Declare constants, don't question the constants, and invent new physics rather than change "established" constants.
Your material is good, if too short on detail for my liking. I mean, what have you got to add to what I can already read in wikipedia in half the time? Diagrams perhaps. But your delivery is awful: gabble gabble gabble, allsentencesruntogetherlikethiswithouttakingabreathbetweenthem. And maybe you'd like to correct the misspelling of "gases" at 3:50.
I'm still completely befuddled about electrons, being both a wave and a particle. The whole idea of entangled spin defies logic and intuition. Does anyone have views on conservation of momentum vis a vis electron spin?
The intuitiveness of such measures is the same as tp why millions of American kids in 3rd grade 1960s ,70s,80s would ask where Is the code of life measures and why are we doing this in health long before mrna or dna was known. 2nd question was why are we doing this in biology? Orientation and direction of the classical beliefs down stream of Newton made 3rd grade American kids predict more than Darwin .lol
The ether was weightless, but for a better reason, "MASSLESS". Concepts that belonged to mass were used in reasoning for ether such as drift velocity. There are infinite definitions for every velocity, which is exactly like saying NO definition. I don't think nature even knows what a velocity is. It is like a potential energy that you can see. The INSTANT that something changes, there is acceleration, and acceleration is absolute and all observers agree, yet acceleration is NOT our scientific hinge pin. The reliance upon velocity is bringing Relative BS to the forefront. Math can be analogous AND wrong. The NON-transformed reality did not just disappear because you used transform equations on your numbers. It's still there, ignored.
Absolutely insane how we discover electrons in 1897, and then just 7 years later, Einstein gives us special relativity 🤯
1905 is 8 years later
@@O_Lee69 it could be 7 years in another frame of reference
One of the Joys of my life, was getting in to see Rutherford s Den. A very small sub road level basement where Rutherford did some of his early experimens.
It's so incredible to me that humanity went from the plum pudding model to the atom bomb inside 40 years.
It really is!
I am constantly amazed at the brilliance of these men. They discovered the amazing structure of the atom with striking accuracy, but had virtually no advanced technology. It is breathtaking.
No advanced technology.. The bottom line!! Today's scientists want every advanced assistance possible, but the scientists of those days who discovered/invented the very foundations of the modern world were school dropouts & didn't even have a lab to work in..
what constitutes advanced technology? Advanced compared to whose technology?
Gtfooh! This Is Jewish Propaganda, Full Of "rabbi holes" & Stolen Knowledge ffs!
It was advanced for the time.
@@aperinich* WHOSE
imagine how many things came from this single discovery
"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains a problem in chapter 2 "Electrostatic Fields in a Vacuum" (2-19) on J.J. Thomson's "Plum Pudding" model of the atom. It asks to (A) find the force on an electron; (B) describe its motion; (C) the frequency for a 1 Angstrom-sized atom; and (D) compare this frequency to that of visible light.
A rather thought-provoking question in an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
J.J. Thompson said before he passed on: An electron is not a particle, It is 1 unit of electrical induction ' A measurement! But everyone refuses to believe that! 🤨
Physics seemed so solved near the end of the 1800s with seemingly only a few fringe/exotic inconsistencies left. It is those inconsistencies though that when rigorously tested, showed there was still much more we didn't understand, and opened the way for the explosion in the modern physics like quantum physics and relativity, in the early 1900s.
science.. stand for science.. live for science .. SirJJ is inspiring..
I was 3 years old when I discovered electrons. I was with my friend when he stuck two keys into an electrical outlet (USA). It lit him up, and due to my inquisitive, scientific nature, I also felt the need to touch the keys to see what made him cry. I found out.
😂! You had a shocking revelation, for sure.
I'm told that when I was less than two years old I stuck a metal poker into an electric fire.
It killed the element, but it didn't kill me.
Of course, some say that incident accounts for a lot of things.
This question has always bugged me ever since I came to know of this experiment : How would Sir Thomson know about *cathodes* , *anodes* , and *electrically charged plates* , if the electron wasn't know about at the time?
*Excess and deficit of electrons are what cause negative and positive charges respectively* .........
So if the electron was discovered only during this experiment, how did people come up with the concept of positive and negative charges in the first place?
Some guy name Ben Franklin or something, in the 1700s.
Positive and negative charges were long known to exist before Thomson. Infact Maxwells famous equations were published when Thomson was 9 years old. People already knew anode and cathode because one was randomly assigned negative charge and one was randomly assigned positive charge. This is purely a convention... And with the voltaic pile and magnetic experiments etc. you could easily identify which of your electrodes was positive and which was negative. What Thomson discovered that these so called "negatively charged" electrodes (cathodes) actually consisted of smaller negatively charged things... That he called corpuscles (later electrons). Hope this helps.
@@_killedbydrones_ So how would people define *negatively charged things* during the pre-electron era (Using magnetism which you've stated about) ?
@@upholdjustice372Positive and negative were defined by a coin toss (and gotten wrong). Positive was supposed to represent an excess of “charge” and negative a deficit of “charge” when the reverse is true.
For those that don't recognize it, the Crookes tube became the cathode ray tube, which eventually became television.
So blame him..
Another joyful delve into the history of Physics!
Great video! Covered Thompson very well. I especially appreciate your covering how many different ways he repeated his experiment. That's how real science is done: Trying to find the one piece of "gold" (fact / wisdom) in an immense mass chaff (noise, incorrect assumptions). Thompson was especially admirable in his continued effort to check all possibilities, and abandon those that were incorrect. Although incorrect, his Plum Pudding Model was an excellent first start in understanding the structure of the atom.
1:19 Interesting that the scientific community thought about an ‘ether’ that exists everywhere at that time. While they were specifically wrong about CRTs, after 100 years of particle physics, with the Higgs field, most scientists again agree on a field permeating even “empty” space.
This is similar to Democritus in preSocratic Greece theorizing that everything is made from atoms. Sure, he got some things wrong, but his basic idea of everything being made of fundamental particles was very insightful.
The more we learn, the closer we come to the limits of what we can learn, based on our (instruments) size. We can only observe something (or its effects) down to the particles discovered in the large hadron collider (LHC), or as far away as the JWST (currently) can see and the realization that our ‘observable universe’ is only a portion of the actual universe.
All these discoveries that further extend our knowledge of our physical universe are so cool. Thanks!
Superb!
Great video looking forward to more!!!
Thank you very much, trying to do a new video every Friday
great vid man ! keep up the hard work :)
Thanks appreciate it bud 🙏
The step to the currant bun model shows that when Pauli decried a proposition as 'not even wrong', you have some theories that are wrong but a step on the road to a better theory, such as the currant bun model, wrong, but when alpha particles were deflected backwards, pointed to improving the model by going to a nucleus-based model.
Thank you! Good video 😊
Yes,I really apreciate the history.
how did he calculate the mass?
I don't think JJ Thompson did - his results needed to be combined with Robert A Millikan's measurement of the charge of the electron in 1909
Great job! Keep at it.
Nice video thanks 😊😊
Your narration is fine.
The brain power is beyond amazing 😮
Nice video! I wonder if you should add that determination of the mass of the electron also required the measurement of the charge of the electron by Robert A Millikan in 1909?
Ok but His voice
Oh nice an other new science channel to binge
I'm currently listening to a book "Particle Physics for Non Physicists" by Steven Pollock right now. He just talked about J.J. Thompson and Ernest Rutherford (alpha rays) today. I love hearing the history of classical and modern physics. So much more fun to learn it.
I agree with the comment about your machine gun pace when it comes to your voice over. Try replaying the Video at 75% and it’s an improvement over playing it at normal speed.
Good video. Also, electrons can be in two different places at the same time. This phenomenon is known as super position.😊
Can you mention some sources for such niche scientific stock image and videos like the ones used in the video? And also good vid!
Most images are from Wikimedia Commons and the videos are from Pixabay
@@RationalThinker118thanks
I would expect a video like this to have come from a much larger channel. Keep it up, youll grow!
By the way great video
Thank you very much 🙏
Great 👍
Thank you 👍
Technically, by his definition, Dalton is still correct
Sweet, short and informative.
I know nothing about this area. I found this video interesting and informative.
So the rays had to be particles because that was easier to explain the magnetic deflection?
"The electron: may it never be of any use to anybody!" - Joseph John Thomson Use, May, Electrons Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Volume 35, (p. 251), 1951.
Wish I could thumb up more than once.
You are everywhere 😂 thanks for the comments!
@@RationalThinker118 You deserve to be recognized, keep up the good work, Your channel has to blow up eventually!
Is it only me or Max plank resembled J J Thompson
OMG I thought the same thing!!
lol i thought it was planck from the thumbnail i got confused
It looks like creation of the phosphorus screen television using an electron gun. Does Thompson get credit for the invention of TV? :-)
That would be Philo Farnsworth. Yes a picture tube is basically a cathode ray tube. Farnsworth is the guy who figured out how to control the electrons with an analog signal. And that’s what makes it television.
I don’t think electron was “discovered”. This implies its existence was unexpected. In reality, existence of electrons was postulated and then experimentally demonstrated.
So electrons were indeed discovered as particles not wave.
Can anyone identify for me some of the scientists in the group photo??
Grahame bill.
The foundation of science and philosooy.. Is in the word of God in genisis..
👍🏻
THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA: Revised TOE: 1/24/2024a:
TOE Idea: Short version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test):
The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
TOE Idea: Longer version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test):
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Quarks, protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between quarks and electrons. In the case of the alpha particle (Helium nucleus), the electro-magnetic field interactions between the quarks themselves are what keeps them together in that specific structural format.
10. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. (The neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
11. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
12. At this time, I personally believe that what is called 'gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is the force which allows a photon to travel across the vast universe without that swirling photon being flung apart or ripped apart by other photons and/or matter interactions. Gravity being a part of the 'em' photon could also possibly be how numbers exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence (the internal oscillations of the 3 different parts of the 'gem' photon, each modality having a maximum in one direction, a neutral, and a maximum in the other direction.) 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
13. I also believe that the 'gem' photon is the energy unit in this universe that makes up everything else in this universe, including eternally existent space and time. ('Space' being eternally existent energy itself, the eternally existent 'gem' photon, 'Time' being the eternally existent flow of energy, 'Space Time' being eternally existent energy and it's eternally existent flow).
14. When these vibrating 'gem' photons interact with other vibrating 'gem' photons, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
15. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
16. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
17. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
18. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
19. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
20. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
21. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
22. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
24. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now.
25. 'God' does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons. The CMBR from the supposed 'bang' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. Red Shift observations have a more 'normal' already known physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning and will most probably never have an end. Galaxies collapse in upon themselves, 'bang', eventually generating new galaxies. Galaxies and 'life' just come and go in this eternally existent existence.
DISCLAIMER:
26. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Currently, my gravity test has to be accomplished to prove or disprove that portion of the TOE idea. But, if not this way, then what exactly is the TOE of this existence?
Philosophy will prevail forever. Or maybe it won't.
PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS:
Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements:
I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2).
Chemical Element #119 (8s1):
#119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell.
Chemical Element #120 (8s2):
#120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars.
When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way.
In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically).
If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better. (Except of course for those who might be in the way of a periodic nova or supernova. They might have a no good, very bad, horrible day.)
Nice video and presentation.
Remember
1. that electron was found carrying negative charge in vacuum AFTER it was parted off from its atom.
2. Later assumed it was born with a negative charge in associate with its atom - which was never verified so.
3. Moving charge on a conductor doesn’t require electron. Is however required in electrolyte and vacuum.
Electrolyte? Yes, battery chemistry.
Vacuum? Yes, JJ Thomson’s Cathode Ray tube.
interresting, more people today need to realise that Science is an ongoing story, plumb pudding model was not wrong, it is what the evidence of the time showed, as what I learnt at Uni was not wrong, just what the evidence of the time showed, I looked forward to the models of tomorrow - without laughing at preivious models
Love form nepal bro !!
Where are u form?
Thank you! I'm from USA 😁
Why do so many American science programmes have gabbling commentaries. Too fast, no pauses between sentences, no time to absorb what’s being said, monotone, no hint of the commentary reader being interested by what is being spoken, probably often automatically read ?
You just answered your own question.
Hmm... first time I've gotten a comment like this.. I will slow it down and change up audio editing and see how it goes. But to actually answer your question, sentences are spliced together because of audience retention. If you leave gaps then you risk people becoming disinterested, whereas if someone missed a sentence then they can go back a few seconds and watch it again, increasing watch time. It's not really something I like doing, but more so have to do for the algorithm.
However... I care about audience feedback more so I will make some changes and experiment. Not sure how you could think that was monotone though. There were pitch changes everywhere. As for not being interested, well... it's a narration. I'm not going to shout at you.
You have some nerve. I don't give a shit what country you're from
You probably don't know, but electron was discovered by russianan. They are claiming all the scientific discoveries as done by them, but due to the top secret status of the research the resalts were newer published.
Hi from sunny Troon, I think your narration is absolutely fine,the complaints are from someone who thinks BBC English is THE English,carry on as you are sir and cheers for making a great vid😊@@RationalThinker118
"A perfect conductor is the perfect obstructor." Oliver Heaviside
Electrons do not exist and things do not flow through solid objects. Pipes filled with concrete...
great work! fellow rational thinker, could you please provide some resources to seek more knowledge in the field of metaphysics, epistemology, sciences, mathematics and computer science.
Thank you! Mostly for physics I like HyperPhysics, but I also follow a few educators on RUclips as well like Arvin Ash and PBS SpaceTime
thank you@@RationalThinker118
The CRT
Dang! He done invented the TeeVee!
If you ever need script writer you can anytime find me
Bravo........u should pay me........do one on noble prize for tranistor.........chemistry not phyics......first time .....cheers
He was wrong
How rational is it to declare the electron's charge a constant, then when the nucleus was discovered to "apparently" have positive charges clump together, they invented the Strong force rather than question that long standing constant? If charge changes when crammed into a nucleus, a lot of physics must change. This is the scientific method: Declare constants, don't question the constants, and invent new physics rather than change "established" constants.
Your material is good, if too short on detail for my liking. I mean, what have you got to add to what I can already read in wikipedia in half the time? Diagrams perhaps. But your delivery is awful: gabble gabble gabble, allsentencesruntogetherlikethiswithouttakingabreathbetweenthem. And maybe you'd like to correct the misspelling of "gases" at 3:50.
I'm still completely befuddled about electrons, being both a wave and a particle. The whole idea of entangled spin defies logic and intuition. Does anyone have views on conservation of momentum vis a vis electron spin?
The intuitiveness of such measures is the same as tp why millions of American kids in 3rd grade 1960s ,70s,80s would ask where Is the code of life measures and why are we doing this in health long before mrna or dna was known. 2nd question was why are we doing this in biology?
Orientation and direction of the classical beliefs down stream of Newton made 3rd grade American kids predict more than Darwin .lol
Interesting, but the chatbot talks fast rather than slow and soft, and the video is too short to fall asleep to so I'll skip this channel for now.
Robot reading script
Is this a human speaking ? I’m not sure. Whichever,speaking somewhat slower would help….its not a race !
Maybe it's like Bluegrass music and why it is played so fast. They play it fast in order to get it over with quickly.
The ether was weightless, but for a better reason, "MASSLESS". Concepts that belonged to mass were used in reasoning for ether such as drift velocity. There are infinite definitions for every velocity, which is exactly like saying NO definition. I don't think nature even knows what a velocity is. It is like a potential energy that you can see. The INSTANT that something changes, there is acceleration, and acceleration is absolute and all observers agree, yet acceleration is NOT our scientific hinge pin. The reliance upon velocity is bringing Relative BS to the forefront. Math can be analogous AND wrong. The NON-transformed reality did not just disappear because you used transform equations on your numbers. It's still there, ignored.
Bro slow Down.. Use some AI tool.
What A Croce Of Shiiiiite! Gtfooh You Decietful Jew Kunsts!