Atoms are 99% empty space. Inherently making humanity void walkers. Atoms behave differently while under observation. Atoms can have multiple super positions at a single moment. The atoms in your body are quantum entangled to inanimate matter. Where do I end and the universe begins? Am I the dream or the dreamer. Is this freewill or fate? Nothing matters, everything matters, neither do, and so do all other possibilities. Man believes the world is built on order. But this is a falsehood. The natural state of the universe is chaos and entropy.
Hey Parth! I really enjoyed your video about properties of rotating black holes! I would love to see a video specifically about the Kerr metric in the future. Keep up the amazing videos!
There’s a good lesson here. You need to factor in time and effort when planning self education. It’s tempting to just say “I’ll learn it all!“ but an optimal strategy heavily considered the extremely finite resource that is time and attention.
Hey Parth. I just finished my final undergrad Physics course which dealt with Relativity/Particle Physics/Nuclear Physics and I was able to succeed in the course because of your videos. I only found out about your channel a few weeks ago when studying for finals but it totally saved me. Just wanted to show my appreciation towards all you do.
Grad school particle physicist here. This video is very good as an introductory, you touch on the basics of both experimental and theoretical particle physics (i.e. Feynman diagrams and detector analysis). Another interesting fact about how the detector work is how we find unmeasurable particles, which is mainly neutrinos. We build the detector in such a way that at the beginning of the interaction there is only momentum in the Z-axis and through conservation of momentum in the XY plane, we know that the final state particles' momentum should sum up to zero in the XY plane. This does not occur and we can assign the missing momentum to be a neutrino, or even neutrinos according to what we assume the interactions were in this event.
Say Parth, in a solo learner, but without your grounding in academia. This series is one I'll be following extremely closely. Maybe a video about how your sessions work would be fabulous. It's a bit meta, but hella interesting to me, and hopefully others too
Thanks for your video! I have a PhD in nuclear engineering, also love physics, and took several classes in atomic physics, quantum mechanics, etc., but never a course dedicated to elementary particle physics (because usually much of it isn't particularly useful to engineers). But I want to do the same: buying a book and studying it myself. I also considered Griffiths' book as it has good reviews.
As always, great videos parth. You’re one of the best channels out there on physics. A textbook I’d recommend for particle physics for anyone that wants to learn is particle physics by larkoski.
1:38 is very relatable. once i get to a concept that i do not understand right away, i tend to stop studying and just come back for it later, hoping i would understand it right away the next time.
"...Didn't put any pressure on myself to do all the problems in the book..." I feel the same way... I just enjoy reading the text of any Physics book but when it comes to the questions/problems I feel the stress and pressure and it kills the joy of learning...
You don't really "learn" physics unless you do the problems though. You run a big risk of becoming a walking Dunning-Kruger if you just absorb whole textbooks without doing any of the physics on your own.
Hey Parth ! It was fabulous and I loved the way you introduced feynman's diagrams. I hope you'll cover the whole book and present on RUclips. B b b b bye
2:06 For me when I come across something that doesn't make sense to me I literally loose every sense of time and can't get into real life until I understand it. 40 Different Chrome tabs open, 3 Videos and hours later, when I think I get it, I'm so tired that I cant continue. But it's very satisfying and kinda addicting
I have met people on the internet who became concert pianists in a week. In their second week they were giving a Chopin recital in Royal Albert Hall. Sure... why not... snicker. ;-)
you know you could always just livestream i think a lot of people would actually watch that similar to how andrew dotson livestreamed him learning string theory, it'll also focus more cause who want's to procrastinate livestreaming?
Awesome concept of video. (It's not very important because it wasn't the subject but you showed the hydrogène atome with 2 électron instead of one (at 4:00) )
Please do more of these. Can’t wait for more topics like Global Gauge and Local Gauge Symmetry, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Standard Model and so on. It’s always useful watching your videos. 👍😊
I like this idea, makes me want to do it myself and see how far I get. What software are you using to make the animations, the motion is so smooth :O Keep it up! :)
Thank you! I create the visuals separately on a tablet and then edit it into the video using the basic motion tools in either Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve!
Learning for yourself as opposed to for a class makes such a difference in enjoyment and learning retention. When I was a senior in college and about to get my math degree, I took the complex analysis series. These two classes were taught by a professor who didn't require us to do homework assignments. We could still do them, but they didn't count towards our grade. While not the same as simply studying for your own enjoyment, it did remove the energy drain of having to work on weekly homeworks, and because of that I felt I was more prepared for the midterm and final exams because I was putting more time into understanding what I was learning versus working through five pages of problems the day before the homework was due. I remember that series as the most interesting math classes I took while in undergrad, and I attribute it to the unique structure of the class that the professor used.
Im going into my last semester for my physics BS. Which textbook would you recommend to learn more about particles physics? I currently own Kane's Modern Elementary Particles Physics but the material is getting quite complicated. I also have Perkins Intro to High Energy Physics but have not read it yet. Do you think Griffith's will be a better text to learn from?
Dude, the material is complicated. No book can make it easier. The reason we have multiple books is so that people who can master the material in one book can find something fresh in another. Different books are not meant to pull those out of the mud who simply can't master the topic.
Hello parth great video motivates me to learn particle physics, but I have a question, can I learn it without learning QFT beforehand? or I can take them together?
This Was My first day lecture at University in Particle and Theoretical Physics . But things are messy when it comes to Renormalization ,non-abelian broken gauge so things aren't as easy as the creator shows in this video.
Hey Parth (or anyone reading this) Would you recommend the book to a person with less mathematical knowledge? I kind of am interested in particle physics but complicated math equations without any reasoning scare me
There is plenty of reasoning in QFT and particle physics books... that won't be your problem, but the math will always be. It's just irreducibly complex because the physics is complex. Personally I find Gordon Kane's "Modern Elementary Particle Physics" slightly easier to read than Griffiths' book, but nothing is "really easy", I am afraid.
Sir Knight, pretty much yes, but with qualifiers. As Feynman himself noted -- I think it was in his delightful QED book? -- at sufficiently small scales, getting the right mathematical result requires adding a small-but-not-zero probability for _instantaneous_ photon exchanges to the Feynman sum. The qualifier is that by the time you add up all the possible paths needed to predict real events using classical equipment, the odds of an actual instantaneous photon exchange drop effectively to zero. More importantly,, if you look at the instantaneous photon exchange component in terms of _information_ exchange, its impact always falls exactly to zero. That is, you can never use it to send signals faster than light speed. This same "no signals allowed" constraint is seen in quantum entanglement, where one can never send signals faster than light despite how the Bell inequality messes with our usual idea of what's local and what isn't.
Hi Parth, I nearly saw all your vidios related to quantum mechaniks. Being with chemistry background please tell me how to get progress in quantum chemistry in my PhD spesially due to the fact that I have moved from chemistry of natural products to computational chemistry., what is your advice.
I generally drift on congruant tangents and less attentive after 20 minutes. Like now just thinking about photon exchange between electrons and how that applies in topological spin liquids
I've been trying to figure out how particle physics assigns any given particle as matter or antimatter. I'm concerned it's just a historical artifact. Clearly the asignment of positivie vs negative overall is arbitrary but, for the other signed properties, like charge, there's an obvious and testable consistency across the full particle zoo. I've been unable to determine if or how the matter/antimatter sign is consistent across different particles -- e.g. how you know that you have the electron sign the same way around as the up quark or if it the electron should be in the same category as the antiup quark. I feel it's an important question because, if you flip the assignment of one row of quarks (swap up/charm/top with antiup/anticharm/antitop in the chart and rename them), it seems to rather neatly simplify multiple conservation laws (lepton, baryon, quark numbers) down to just charge conservation (I went through a lot of the weirder experimental decay results to check that) and devolves the matter/antimatter assignment to simply charge sign. I can't believe I'm not missing something, however. This would also impact calculations on the possibility that antimatter could have negative mass but absolute inertial mass. Most think not but if you swap those quarks, it changes the expectations for a number hadrons. The absolute inertial mass avoids a problem with infinite acceleration with negative mass and can be justified by analogy with the electromagnetic equivalent of inertia, self-inductance. An accelerating charged particle, regardless of charge sign, will experience a resistance to acceleration (in addition to any due to its inertial mass) from its induced magnetic field. GEM has the same feature on the gravitational side which should actually be inertia. That kind of thing (self-interaction) is what particle physicists like to throw out with renormalization, I believe. Yes, I know that some definitions of inertia can cover both of those things but you have to make some odd assumptions about classical particle size to convert charge to energy in a way that matches the observed contribution to inertia.
Great question. It requires some quantum field theory. The distinction between which ones we call particle vs antiparticle like you implied is just convention. A nice example is the complex scalar field. The complex scalar field has components a(k) and b(k). When each of these acts on a state, they output particle and antiparticle states respectively. So that’s a brief explanation of how it works.
@@FermionPhysics Thanks for the pointer. I'll look into that some more. That changes the question to, could you swap things such that the matter-antimatter distinction matches the charge sign without breaking QFT. I expect as formulated, no, but it'd take some checking to see if such a change could be propagated with related changes so things still work in an altered but mostly equivalent form.
Anirudh, take a pen and balance it on end in the middle of a map. A fraction of a second later it falls, but which way? The balanced pen was _symmetric_ with respect to all possible map directions, making no distinctions between them. However, the fallen pen _breaks_ that symmetry by randomly ("spontaneously") picking out a specific map direction. No matter how complicated the math may look, all versions of "spontaneous symmetry breaking" include some version of the pencil-drop scenario. You begin with a state that shows no preferences: the balanced pencil. You then add an energy "incentive" that destabilizes the symmetric state: gravity, in the case of the pencil. Finally -- and usually the most mysteriously -- you add a "perturbation" that upsets the balance and is amplified by the energy incentive. That final point about "amplification" is worth noting, since it's always part of a symmetry-breaking process. Even if the initial "signal" is completely random and incredibly small, it is still drives the specifics for how the final break turns out. The energy incentive merely amplifies that signal enough to make it visible.
@@TerryBollinger Hi Terry thanks for explaining the concept. I was trying to understand spontaneous symmetry breaking and your explanation greatly helped.
Excuse me friend but did you really self taught yourself about particle physics from basic to the Advanced level with some math in ONE WEEK?!! If yes then please give the names of ALL of those books .
Larkoski is a good one. And like mentioned in the video griffiths. I’ll (sort of) warn you though that it’s best to learn things like relativity and quantum mechanics before particle physics (if you haven’t done those already).
Without the thought experiment imagery Stephen and myself and our peers over the last 40+ years could not have walked Quantum Theories at all. Even if you draw them on a blackboard it will help, it's hard to invent physics when you have to draw it happening. You can describe any hyper dimensional space using standard 3d spacial paradigms, The particles are no longer visible in our space, but one of the fundamentals of all our work is, even a hyper dimensional space still adheres to all the fundmental rules that our visible space adheres to. Watch out for great God of plus thinking, the + and - describe a special relativity connection between two particles, we call this behaviour the symmetry of our Universe, but it describes a two way tensor between two particles through space, and is the fundamental tensor that creates said symmetry. A hydrogen atom de-ionises in one second, also describes that two way spacial tensor. We call this the Higgs mechanism, or "Skin Theory", this is a brand new field we have been working on describing for the last 30 odd years, and it is hard to describe because we are no longer calling space a non contributing parameter, or in other words space no longer equals zero, which breaks our symmtery equations, obviously it does not break symmtery in reality though, so we have new math to find to describe these boundaries. It all comes back to compressed space physics, which is the fundamental rule of General Realtivity ... "If a particle takes 10 seconds to cross a space, it will still take 10 seconds if the space is compressed" This is time-dilation to the outside observer. "Time-Dilation" and "Compressed Space" are synonymouse statements and if they can't be transposed in any sentence using them then you don't understand General Relativity and Time-Dilation physics. The fact a photon can persist in space for 13.85 billion years when it has an expressed weight of +1 degree Celsius, implies particle temperatures inside that photon that are high enough to give that particle a 13.85 billion year and counting year life span. Temperature time dilation is a very well proven calc and is calculated as TD = (Temp in Celsius/5)^2 seconds to the observed one second.
Physics is failing so hard right now. "Point particle" is a contradiction. An Angstrom of a particle is still an Angstrom of a composite substance; 2 points. The irony of the symbol of physics ('representative' dot in a theoretical circle) being the symbol of metaphysics is pretty hilarious. What is less than a line (2 points)? 0D = (point; non-composite; exact location only; zero size). The 1st four dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D. 4D quaternion algebra is identical to consciousness. Time is an illusion. What were doing here in this contingent universe is "turning" time. Versors "to turn". Turning to what? 5D, the center. The whole.
Hi Parth, I nearly saw all your vidios related to quantum mechaniks. Being with chemistry background please tell me how to get progress in quantum chemistry in my PhD spesially due to the fact that I have moved from chemistry of natural products to computational chemistry., what is your advice.
Hi friends, thanks for watching this slightly different video! Hope you enjoyed it, please let me know what else to cover in future :)
if u discuss about postulates of quantum mechanics on next vedio it may helpfull for me
Atoms are 99% empty space. Inherently making humanity void walkers. Atoms behave differently while under observation. Atoms can have multiple super positions at a single moment. The atoms in your body are quantum entangled to inanimate matter. Where do I end and the universe begins? Am I the dream or the dreamer. Is this freewill or fate? Nothing matters, everything matters, neither do, and so do all other possibilities. Man believes the world is built on order. But this is a falsehood. The natural state of the universe is chaos and entropy.
hi! I was wondering how difficult it would be to learn Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in comparison to Quantum tunnelling or Quantum entanglement.
Hey Parth! I really enjoyed your video about properties of rotating black holes! I would love to see a video specifically about the Kerr metric in the future. Keep up the amazing videos!
Discuss mostly asked Interview questions
There’s a good lesson here. You need to factor in time and effort when planning self education. It’s tempting to just say “I’ll learn it all!“ but an optimal strategy heavily considered the extremely finite resource that is time and attention.
Hey Parth. I just finished my final undergrad Physics course which dealt with Relativity/Particle Physics/Nuclear Physics and I was able to succeed in the course because of your videos. I only found out about your channel a few weeks ago when studying for finals but it totally saved me. Just wanted to show my appreciation towards all you do.
Grad school particle physicist here. This video is very good as an introductory, you touch on the basics of both experimental and theoretical particle physics (i.e. Feynman diagrams and detector analysis).
Another interesting fact about how the detector work is how we find unmeasurable particles, which is mainly neutrinos. We build the detector in such a way that at the beginning of the interaction there is only momentum in the Z-axis and through conservation of momentum in the XY plane, we know that the final state particles' momentum should sum up to zero in the XY plane.
This does not occur and we can assign the missing momentum to be a neutrino, or even neutrinos according to what we assume the interactions were in this event.
Detector physics is fasinating. finding most of the stuff and assigning the MET to be neutrinos is unfortunatly the best we can do for them.
they used this to detect weak neutral currents in the Gargamelle bubble chamber
Loved your little video. Reminds me of why I find physics so exciting
Say Parth, in a solo learner, but without your grounding in academia. This series is one I'll be following extremely closely. Maybe a video about how your sessions work would be fabulous. It's a bit meta, but hella interesting to me, and hopefully others too
Thanks for your video! I have a PhD in nuclear engineering, also love physics, and took several classes in atomic physics, quantum mechanics, etc., but never a course dedicated to elementary particle physics (because usually much of it isn't particularly useful to engineers). But I want to do the same: buying a book and studying it myself. I also considered Griffiths' book as it has good reviews.
As always, great videos parth. You’re one of the best channels out there on physics. A textbook I’d recommend for particle physics for anyone that wants to learn is particle physics by larkoski.
Thanks for book recommendation, guess i'll read after few weeks.
I also taught myself particle physics in a week for my final 💀
I enjoyed your tips about time management... from a fellow physicist. Nice content, thank you!!
1:38 is very relatable. once i get to a concept that i do not understand right away, i tend to stop studying and just come back for it later, hoping i would understand it right away the next time.
Happy learning! 🎉
"...Didn't put any pressure on myself to do all the problems in the book..."
I feel the same way... I just enjoy reading the text of any Physics book but when it comes to the questions/problems I feel the stress and pressure and it kills the joy of learning...
You don't really "learn" physics unless you do the problems though. You run a big risk of becoming a walking Dunning-Kruger if you just absorb whole textbooks without doing any of the physics on your own.
Parth, good learning advice! This falls in the category of not just giving folks some tasty fish but also teaching them how to catch their own fish.
Awesome video Parth - a really fun idea and super interesting to see how you learn! Next up, astrophysics? 👀
Hey Parth ! It was fabulous and I loved the way you introduced feynman's diagrams. I hope you'll cover the whole book and present on RUclips.
B b b b bye
2:06 For me when I come across something that doesn't make sense to me I literally loose every sense of time and can't get into real life until I understand it. 40 Different Chrome tabs open, 3 Videos and hours later, when I think I get it, I'm so tired that I cant continue. But it's very satisfying and kinda addicting
I have met people on the internet who became concert pianists in a week. In their second week they were giving a Chopin recital in Royal Albert Hall. Sure... why not... snicker. ;-)
Well done!
you know you could always just livestream i think a lot of people would actually watch that similar to how andrew dotson livestreamed him learning string theory, it'll also focus more cause who want's to procrastinate livestreaming?
We can also create specific particle mass with Photon Interference and temperature, the LIGO prototype experiment proved this 30+ years ago.
Good work lenskart👍
Parth should one day explain “External Inflation”..
Please do a video on the Dirac equation. I've been waiting on this for a while
For another particle physics intro book I recommend intro to elementary particle physics by Alessandro Bettini
Awesome concept of video. (It's not very important because it wasn't the subject but you showed the hydrogène atome with 2 électron instead of one (at 4:00) )
Please do more of these. Can’t wait for more topics like Global Gauge and Local Gauge Symmetry, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Standard Model and so on. It’s always useful watching your videos. 👍😊
I like this idea, makes me want to do it myself and see how far I get.
What software are you using to make the animations, the motion is so smooth :O
Keep it up! :)
Thank you! I create the visuals separately on a tablet and then edit it into the video using the basic motion tools in either Premiere Pro or DaVinci Resolve!
@@ParthGChannel Ah I see, thank you for sharing :)
Learning for yourself as opposed to for a class makes such a difference in enjoyment and learning retention. When I was a senior in college and about to get my math degree, I took the complex analysis series. These two classes were taught by a professor who didn't require us to do homework assignments. We could still do them, but they didn't count towards our grade. While not the same as simply studying for your own enjoyment, it did remove the energy drain of having to work on weekly homeworks, and because of that I felt I was more prepared for the midterm and final exams because I was putting more time into understanding what I was learning versus working through five pages of problems the day before the homework was due. I remember that series as the most interesting math classes I took while in undergrad, and I attribute it to the unique structure of the class that the professor used.
Im going into my last semester for my physics BS. Which textbook would you recommend to learn more about particles physics? I currently own Kane's Modern Elementary Particles Physics but the material is getting quite complicated. I also have Perkins Intro to High Energy Physics but have not read it yet. Do you think Griffith's will be a better text to learn from?
Dude, the material is complicated. No book can make it easier. The reason we have multiple books is so that people who can master the material in one book can find something fresh in another. Different books are not meant to pull those out of the mud who simply can't master the topic.
Hello parth great video motivates me to learn particle physics, but I have a question, can I learn it without learning QFT beforehand? or I can take them together?
Particle physics is quantum field theory...
@@schmetterling4477 Great, thank you.
You don't always need a teacher. You can learn everything by working on your own.
The internet and books are a boon for that.
Yeah, good luck with QFT...
This Was My first day lecture at University in Particle and Theoretical Physics . But things are messy when it comes to Renormalization ,non-abelian broken gauge so things aren't as easy as the creator shows in this video.
40 mins of reading and adding a few things from the introduction yeah good job lol super hard to do
Hey Parth (or anyone reading this)
Would you recommend the book to a person with less mathematical knowledge? I kind of am interested in particle physics but complicated math equations without any reasoning scare me
There is plenty of reasoning in QFT and particle physics books... that won't be your problem, but the math will always be. It's just irreducibly complex because the physics is complex. Personally I find Gordon Kane's "Modern Elementary Particle Physics" slightly easier to read than Griffiths' book, but nothing is "really easy", I am afraid.
Hai parth, i always am confused about the path of the virtual photon, coz it seems consuming no time to be exchanged? Is that really the case?
Sir Knight, pretty much yes, but with qualifiers. As Feynman himself noted -- I think it was in his delightful QED book? -- at sufficiently small scales, getting the right mathematical result requires adding a small-but-not-zero probability for _instantaneous_ photon exchanges to the Feynman sum. The qualifier is that by the time you add up all the possible paths needed to predict real events using classical equipment, the odds of an actual instantaneous photon exchange drop effectively to zero.
More importantly,, if you look at the instantaneous photon exchange component in terms of _information_ exchange, its impact always falls exactly to zero. That is, you can never use it to send signals faster than light speed. This same "no signals allowed" constraint is seen in quantum entanglement, where one can never send signals faster than light despite how the Bell inequality messes with our usual idea of what's local and what isn't.
Perhaps you can un-scramble my brain on Ohanian's interpretation of QM-spin (and Dirac spinors) then. PLEASE!
Please make a video to the hardest pully problem in easiest way.pls pls
Hi Parth, I nearly saw all your vidios related to quantum mechaniks. Being with chemistry background please tell me how to get progress in quantum chemistry in my PhD spesially due to the fact that I have moved from chemistry of natural products to computational chemistry., what is your advice.
hi! I was wondering how difficult it would be to learn Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in comparison to quantum tunnelling or quantum entanglement.
Dada, make a explanation video on , specific which problem does Feynman Diagram solve.
Does Fermion has intrinsic potential energy and angular momentum when boson kenetic energy and linear monet,
Bro can i know what do u work as??
I generally drift on congruant tangents and less attentive after 20 minutes. Like now just thinking about photon exchange between electrons and how that applies in topological spin liquids
Hey ! Parth , please give suggestions on Particle Physics books. Which books are best for Particle Physics. ?
I've been trying to figure out how particle physics assigns any given particle as matter or antimatter. I'm concerned it's just a historical artifact. Clearly the asignment of positivie vs negative overall is arbitrary but, for the other signed properties, like charge, there's an obvious and testable consistency across the full particle zoo. I've been unable to determine if or how the matter/antimatter sign is consistent across different particles -- e.g. how you know that you have the electron sign the same way around as the up quark or if it the electron should be in the same category as the antiup quark. I feel it's an important question because, if you flip the assignment of one row of quarks (swap up/charm/top with antiup/anticharm/antitop in the chart and rename them), it seems to rather neatly simplify multiple conservation laws (lepton, baryon, quark numbers) down to just charge conservation (I went through a lot of the weirder experimental decay results to check that) and devolves the matter/antimatter assignment to simply charge sign. I can't believe I'm not missing something, however.
This would also impact calculations on the possibility that antimatter could have negative mass but absolute inertial mass. Most think not but if you swap those quarks, it changes the expectations for a number hadrons. The absolute inertial mass avoids a problem with infinite acceleration with negative mass and can be justified by analogy with the electromagnetic equivalent of inertia, self-inductance. An accelerating charged particle, regardless of charge sign, will experience a resistance to acceleration (in addition to any due to its inertial mass) from its induced magnetic field. GEM has the same feature on the gravitational side which should actually be inertia. That kind of thing (self-interaction) is what particle physicists like to throw out with renormalization, I believe. Yes, I know that some definitions of inertia can cover both of those things but you have to make some odd assumptions about classical particle size to convert charge to energy in a way that matches the observed contribution to inertia.
Great question. It requires some quantum field theory. The distinction between which ones we call particle vs antiparticle like you implied is just convention. A nice example is the complex scalar field. The complex scalar field has components a(k) and b(k). When each of these acts on a state, they output particle and antiparticle states respectively. So that’s a brief explanation of how it works.
@@FermionPhysics Thanks for the pointer. I'll look into that some more. That changes the question to, could you swap things such that the matter-antimatter distinction matches the charge sign without breaking QFT. I expect as formulated, no, but it'd take some checking to see if such a change could be propagated with related changes so things still work in an altered but mostly equivalent form.
Hello parth
Space is empty then
Why space permitivity?
Plz ans sooon
Free space also polarize?
Hey Man! If it's possible, could you please do a video on spontaneous symmetry breaking?
Anirudh, take a pen and balance it on end in the middle of a map. A fraction of a second later it falls, but which way? The balanced pen was _symmetric_ with respect to all possible map directions, making no distinctions between them. However, the fallen pen _breaks_ that symmetry by randomly ("spontaneously") picking out a specific map direction.
No matter how complicated the math may look, all versions of "spontaneous symmetry breaking" include some version of the pencil-drop scenario. You begin with a state that shows no preferences: the balanced pencil. You then add an energy "incentive" that destabilizes the symmetric state: gravity, in the case of the pencil. Finally -- and usually the most mysteriously -- you add a "perturbation" that upsets the balance and is amplified by the energy incentive.
That final point about "amplification" is worth noting, since it's always part of a symmetry-breaking process. Even if the initial "signal" is completely random and incredibly small, it is still drives the specifics for how the final break turns out. The energy incentive merely amplifies that signal enough to make it visible.
@@TerryBollinger Hi Terry thanks for explaining the concept. I was trying to understand spontaneous symmetry breaking and your explanation greatly helped.
0:08 doesn't condensed matter physics study infinite lattices?
What is your specialization in physics Parth ?
Excuse me friend but did you really self taught yourself about particle physics from basic to the
Advanced level with some math in ONE WEEK?!! If yes then please give the names of ALL of those books .
Yes, he really did that. He is that smart. What do you think? Snicker.... ;-)
I love ❤ studying physics but on my pace and mood but this entrance exams in India are making me hate physics #hateducationsystem
Wow...
if you had acrually studied particle physics only within 1 week, then it would mean that your knowldge of it then must have been next to nothing
3 58
Hey bro, actually I'm waiting for your next part on this video 😐🤨
Bhaiya are u indian
Hmmm it's taken me years but ok. 😆
Sir are you Indian?
yep
can someone suggest some good books for particle physics? i'm doing engineering so unfortunately we don't have any physics :,)
Larkoski is a good one. And like mentioned in the video griffiths. I’ll (sort of) warn you though that it’s best to learn things like relativity and quantum mechanics before particle physics (if you haven’t done those already).
@@FermionPhysics i know quantum physics a little bit, i read through one of its books, I'll try relative mechanics first then. Thanks alot
I'd def suggest starting with special relativity first since you'll use concepts like 4 vectors all the time
Without the thought experiment imagery Stephen and myself and our peers over the last 40+ years could not have walked Quantum Theories at all.
Even if you draw them on a blackboard it will help, it's hard to invent physics when you have to draw it happening.
You can describe any hyper dimensional space using standard 3d spacial paradigms, The particles are no longer visible in our space, but one of the fundamentals of all our work is, even a hyper dimensional space still adheres to all the fundmental rules that our visible space adheres to.
Watch out for great God of plus thinking, the + and - describe a special relativity connection between two particles, we call this behaviour the symmetry of our Universe, but it describes a two way tensor between two particles through space, and is the fundamental tensor that creates said symmetry.
A hydrogen atom de-ionises in one second, also describes that two way spacial tensor.
We call this the Higgs mechanism, or "Skin Theory", this is a brand new field we have been working on describing for the last 30 odd years, and it is hard to describe because we are no longer calling space a non contributing parameter, or in other words space no longer equals zero, which breaks our symmtery equations, obviously it does not break symmtery in reality though, so we have new math to find to describe these boundaries.
It all comes back to compressed space physics, which is the fundamental rule of General Realtivity ...
"If a particle takes 10 seconds to cross a space, it will still take 10 seconds if the space is compressed"
This is time-dilation to the outside observer.
"Time-Dilation" and "Compressed Space" are synonymouse statements and if they can't be transposed in any sentence using them then you don't understand General Relativity and Time-Dilation physics.
The fact a photon can persist in space for 13.85 billion years when it has an expressed weight of +1 degree Celsius, implies particle temperatures inside that photon that are high enough to give that particle a 13.85 billion year and counting year life span.
Temperature time dilation is a very well proven calc and is calculated as TD = (Temp in Celsius/5)^2 seconds to the observed one second.
Physics is failing so hard right now.
"Point particle" is a contradiction.
An Angstrom of a particle is still an Angstrom of a composite substance; 2 points.
The irony of the symbol of physics ('representative' dot in a theoretical circle) being the symbol of metaphysics is pretty hilarious.
What is less than a line (2 points)?
0D = (point; non-composite; exact location only; zero size).
The 1st four dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D.
4D quaternion algebra is identical to consciousness. Time is an illusion. What were doing here in this contingent universe is "turning" time. Versors "to turn".
Turning to what? 5D, the center. The whole.
we are on the same boat, particle physics exams in less than 2 weeks incoming 🥲
Hi Parth, I nearly saw all your vidios related to quantum mechaniks. Being with chemistry background please tell me how to get progress in quantum chemistry in my PhD spesially due to the fact that I have moved from chemistry of natural products to computational chemistry., what is your advice.
Do something that will get you a job.