As a professional linguist, I approve of "I don't care if it's not an official word, as long as it takes the idea out of my brain and puts it into yours."
Best thing I have ever heard as a professional writer and linguist myself! Word meanings like quantum particles don't exist anywhere and everywhere.. "as long as it takes it out of my head and puts it in yours" ANY word inspite of Uncertainty is 100% valid on "linguistic" Probability.. :D
I know it's off-topic but how do i know when to put "un-" or "in-" as a prefix to make a negative of something? And another question. If there was a Vehicle which could somehow compress to car size and stretch to the size of a bus. If you enter the vehicle as a passenger are you ON or IN that vehicle? :D
Sweet! Good one. One of my all time favourite sentence is from the guide. "They looked like the calculated product of a mind that wanted simply to kill" - narrator of the book in mr.DNA's masterpiece. Love😊
@@niveditadey8783 But besetztenunfähig is only an "official word" because German permits free coinage of words and unoccupiable is not an "official word" only because English does not. All aural communication consists of a series of sounds each of which is a symbol conventionally assigned some lexical meaning, the sequence and arrangement of which may, by convention, provide additional syntactical meaning. Un+occupy+able is actually three words to anybody but a typesetter. Clearly, occupy+un+able would be better syntax but English somewhat arbitrarily (though maybe as a cautious "hey!-the-opposite-of-what-I'm-about-to-say" warning) demands that the privative come first in a "word," official or unofficial. What is missing from occupy+un+able is the passive voice. If we use good English and say "that which is unable to be occupied" we sacrifice fluency but maybe gain a little precision: Here, the conceptual problem is with a "that which" that both is and is "unable to be occupied."
Hmm, the two discrete options (where there's a minimum separation or particles have a minimum size & have a shape) may not be discernible unless the shape of a particle has some detectable effect.
@@venkatchilakalapudi9639 Noble gases are still bound electrons and quarks, so they have an interaction where size could come into being without a chemical bond
Someone is finally talking about the things I really want to know about! Thank you! And you explain things thoroughly and interestingly. You’re a great help!
I enjoyed this video as much as an episode of "Lost"! 4:00 I knew I was gonna be entertained... but oh boy! Did you point out some exciting questions/concepts to think about! And Wow, your dedication to "Comment Response" was very impressive, to say the least!
The idea at 4:25 somehow supports the idea, that the universe is simultated. It's like a voxel based game: Each voxel has values and parameters that can change, but a fixed position in space. And "blocks" moving trough space are just dieappearing in a voxel and appear in the next one. The voxels of a simulated universe are of course very small, like a single pixel on a super high resolution screen. So from a macroscopic persfective it looks super smooth and even if you zoom in, it will still look very smooth for a very far zoom up to a border simulated intelligent beings might never be able to cross. Just an idea, but nice sci fi stuff
i love that you made up a word and your justification is spot on. language should evolve the way everything else does ... dictionaries can hold language back!
Does QFT get rid of the whole point and size paradox? Because everything is made of fields, and "particles" are just the quanta from that field that we see when we look really close. I have only read a few books about this stuff, but I find it all very interesting and intriguing. Your videos drive me nuts because they answer many questions and and then make just as many new ones! But that's what I love about them, please don't stop! lol
QFT does not help. It can't because it can't handle gravity as a particle interaction, so it can't say anything about space or time itself. Space and time are just environments for QFT to work in.
@@ScienceAsylum Isn't that effectively washing our hands of the whole question by saying 'we don't know the true nature of space and time so we don't know the answer'?
I'm trying but there is some barrier made of mostly empty space but I think there are some points of charge floating in there. Anyway, I don't seem to be able to put my hand though it. I'm going to call it "force field", although, doctors are weirdly fixated on the name "steel".
I'm wondering for quite some time how length is "build up". I imagined it at first as somewhat of a magnitude/amount of single points but that just doesn't make sense and leads to many false expactations (e.g. the arc of any function should be equal within the same domain). I'm glad that you make these thorough videos. In many conversations about these kind of topics, I feel like my opposites just accept things at a shallow level, wich frustrates me. So even if there aren't any satisfying answers sometimes, thanks for sharing your insightful opinion in such a entertaining way. It is great to see someone with a higher understanding of physics to do this kind of stuff. It really gives me some kind of approval.
Mate seriously cool video. Something I have never bothered about but you've made it so interesting. In Cosmos one of the things Carl Sagan speculated about was whether each electron may contain a whole universe. He was wondering how far we can keep on going down.
JMO - Space is the illusion caused by how long it takes information to be exchanged between energy peaks (particles). The entire Universe is in one point (one original planck length), but the exchange of information takes longer and longer, giving the illusion of distance and growth. Planck time units keep halving (causing planck distance units to appear to double), the harmonics and interferences of the original energy burst keep getting more complex, so the Universe seems to grow. BTW, this explains early expansion, since doubling is more influential the first few million times.
No, if C is constant everything else can change to compensate for it. That's the principle behind time dilation and length contraction, which are experimentally verified phenomena that GPS's are based off of.
How are things made out of point particles larger than points? It's the interplay of (up to) three things: Forces, Particle properties, and Energy. The quarks that we know don't just have an electric charge, but also (like the gluons) have a color charge. While the electric charge can be positive or negative, and while like charges repel while opposites attract, the force arising from the color charges - the strong nuclear force - is always attractive. And it works, believe it or not, much like a spring does. When two color-charged objects are close together, the force between them drops away to zero, like a coiled spring that isn't stretched at all. When quarks are close together, the electrical force takes over, which often leads to a mutual repulsion. But when the color-charged objects are far apart, the strong force gets stronger. Like a stretched spring, it works to pull the quarks back together. Based on the magnitude of the color charges and the strength of the strong force, along with the electric charges of each of the quarks, that's how we arrive at the size of the proton and the neutron: where the strong and electromagnetic forces roughly balance. On slightly larger scales, the strong force holds protons and neutrons together in an atomic nucleus, overcoming the electrostatic repulsion between the individual protons. This nuclear force is a residual effect of the strong nuclear force, which only works over very short distances. Because individual protons and neutrons themselves are color-neutral, the exchange is mediated by virtual, unstable particles known as pions, which explains why nuclei beyond a certain size become unstable; it's too difficult for pions to be exchanged across larger distances. Only in the case of neutron stars does the addition of gravitational binding energy suppress the nucleus' tendency to rearrange itself into a more stable configuration. And on the scale of the atom itself, the key is that the lowest-energy configuration of any electron bound to a nucleus isn't a zero-energy state, but is actually a relatively high-energy one compared to the electron's rest mass. This quantum configuration means that the electron itself needs to zip around at very high speeds inside the atom; even though the nucleus and the electron are oppositely charged, the electron won't simply hit the nucleus and remain at the center. Instead, the electron exists in a cloud-like configuration, zipping and swirling around the nucleus (and passing through it) at a distance that's almost a million times as great as the size of the nucleus itself. There are some fun caveats that allow us to explore how these sizes change in extreme conditions. In extremely massive planets, the atoms themselves begin to get compressed due to large gravitational forces, meaning you can pack more of them into a small space. Jupiter, for example, has three times the mass of Saturn, but is only about 20% larger in size. If you replace an electron in a hydrogen atom with a muon, an unstable electron-like particle that has the same charge but 206 times the mass, the muonic hydrogen atom will be only 1/206th the size of normal hydrogen. And a Uranium atom is actually larger in size than the individual protons-and-neutrons would be if you packed them together, due to the long-range nature of the electrostatic repulsion of the protons, compared to the short-range nature of the strong force. By having different forces at play of different strengths, you can build a proton, neutron, or other hadron of finite size out of point-like quarks. By combining protons and neutrons, you can build nuclei of larger sizes than their individual components, bound together, would give you. And by binding electrons to the nucleus, you can build a much larger structure, all owing to the fact that the zero-point energy of an electron bound to an atom is much greater than zero. In order to get a Universe filled with structures that take up a finite amount of space and have a non-zero size, you don't need anything more than zero-dimensional, point-like building blocks. Forces, energy, and the quantum properties inherent to particles themselves are more than enough to do the job.
Although not a physicist, Strangeness of Quantum physics always boggle me, no matter how many videos i see. Great work to explain such profoundly intelligent questions in simple manner :-) Great video once again !!!
What a mind bending video of "simple" subject like size! Makes me think of where the particle really is and what you can actually measure. I think the position is actually quntized, I think classic "particle in a box" calculation of Shröndinger's equation proves this. (unless there is no box ie. universe is truly infinite in size or curved in a suitable way).
Can you do a video on String Theory? I graduated from Johns Hopkins and some researchers there explained some great theories. But it's just that - a theory. It may be too speculative for this channel, but it would really give a better idea of what is happening at the smallest sizes if there's enough content.
This is my favorite video so far. So much paradox. I'm also very hesitant to apply infinity to nature. Even if nature is fundamentally governed by probability it is still somewhat definitive or finite.I also like to think that an electron, in our perspective, is every where it's "allowed" all at once. The probability wave is the electron. If an electron is allowed in a place, another is not allowed in that same place. So every point an electron can repel another, is where that electron is. Just happens to be more than one point.
This is great stuff. You actually got me thinking! Personally, I would go with the fact that there has got to be a minimum, indivisible size/point in space time ( Planck something ? ). That would explain several things. Keep up the good work!
4:08 Agreed about not applying infinitely to the physical universe, but also, even mathematically, it only makes sense for points to make up space if they don't have zero size but instead have an infinitely small size. An infinite number of infinitely small things can certainly add up to a finite (or even infinitely large) number. That's just basic calculus stuff (though it blew my mind when I first learned about it in calc 2). But if points literally have zero size, then it doesn't matter _how_ many of them there -- the total size would still be zero, because zero (as in, _exactly_ zero, not a quantity _approaching_ zero) times infinity is still just zero.
Hilariously I just found your channel, and I'm working independently on the same topic. It's my favorite subject I'm science, and this video really does fit with the model I'm constructing. Well done.
Hey, Crazy here! Thanks for an awesome video! I've heard this idea (I think by R. Penrose) about Cyclic cosmology. In a nutshell, when the universe grows so old, cold and diluted that no more particles can interact, a quantum field fluctuation may turn out to be a big bang for the next generation of universe, as the particle/fluctuation does not know what size it is since there is no point of reference. So, I believe that size is more of a relation than an absolute value.
I think the solution is along these lines: Given that things are countable, or at least enumerable - even though we can't tell fundamental particles of the same kind apart, we can still tell how many of them are there, or at least how big the imbalance in their quantum field is - and that number is variable, it follows that a second dimension must exist. (Otherwise some negative products would have no root.) Given that the compound states influence themselves, it follows that a third dimension must exist to resolve that; but the total amount of information within any three-dimensional volume of space is only proportional to its surface. And there is no inherent preference to any dimension or orientation, because you can always change the base. But that would only answer the question why space is three-dimensional. It says nothing about size. For that we need time. The speed of light is constant in any reference frame. That makes space a function of time, and the passage of time a function of space. That is to say that size is relative to the passage of time, in relation to the speed of light. I don't know what I'm talking about. Is it time for my medication yet?
I think the third one is the more likely answer. When we draw a point on a graph, it may be minuscule but it certainly is a circle of nonzero size. And thus a line is simply a collection of a large number of such circles. This, of course, is speaking pragmatically. I'm not sure if it holds mathematically but I guess my point is that at least in the real world, it's not possible to have an entity of zero size. Hmm I just had a thought. If the electron really had no size, where would its charge and mass be concentrated? We'd basically be pointing to a patch of empty space and say, "That's an electron." but would then have to answer the question, "Why aren't all empty patches of space electrons then?"
Your solution #2, it is related to the definition of quanta (that gives name to quantum mechanics) the "jumps" of the electron take "only discrete values consisting of integer multiples of one quantum" (last quote taken from wikipedia) and I think it is the correct one
Maybe that the distance between point particles should be considered just as a value. Like, particle A is "1 joule" away from particle B. If we want to find what space is made of, then space's constituants themselves should not have a space-volume (or else we should wonder what that space-volume is made of). It would be like saying that the atoms constituting water are also made of water.
Very interesting concept and I wish someone could answer this..... "Does an object's relative size influence said object's perception of time?!" I feel as though larger object experience a slower passage of time than smaller objects do. What say you?!
I would have thought the answer was simpler: a combination of repulsion between electron shells, temperature and pressure determine the size between atoms.
My vote is for points of a tiny size. And the shape would be spherical. That seems to be a common shape of things in the universe. But, in this case, we might not be talking about a solid object. We might be talking about an area of influence. A curvature of space or an energy field of some sort. Or an area of space with a particular property which defines it as what we think of as a particle.
Taking in account of your first estimated solution to the problem I.E. "the infinite division of space" seems to contradict with the LQG which posits that the space is only divisible to the Planck length and it can't get any smaller than that.
192.168.0.13, please demonstrate the universe has a reason, then demonstrate why it needs an intelligence behind it, and btw typing in caps does not make your comment look better.
icu rmt is actually on to something because there are more than one types of infinities. ruclips.net/video/SrU9YDoXE88/видео.html in case your tired of your brain being in one piece
I say we through out locality, there are no points there are only waves in fields that we see as points because the only way to "see" a wave is for another wave to interact with it. The interactions might have locality but they are secondary not primary.
I literally ponder so often about how no matter which direction we go, as far as we can go away, the farthest zoomed in as we can go, we find immense detail and complexity. Which is an absurd amount of detail!
Pseudo Nym Not only do I think about it, I dream about it. I spend time on weekends when others are on picnics enjoying time with their families, while I'm going to legal seminars. I sometimes wonder if the fee I've charged was fair. Most of the time I've spent more hours working than I received for time I've spent trying to help my clients. I've spent more hours of my free time working on cases than I've even thought of charging a client. Yes, there are many lawyers who do more than their fair share working to try to help others battle their cases. If we lose, we don't get paid, but at least we tried our best to help our clients. How many other business professionals work and don't get paid? Yes, I know many doctor friends who are in the same boat. But we are proud to swim or sink together. Many times we do swim, but sometimes we sink. It's part of our lives. Most lawyers are not rich. Most are hard-working people who are trying to help their clients under the circumstances. What you read about and hear in the newspapers are the headlines. You never read or hear about the hard-working professionals who barely make it with a narrow win. And their compensation is sometimes just enough to pay their monthly bills. So to answer your question: " Do you think about how ethical it is to be a lawyer"? I just don't think about it, I live it. And I live it in a very ethical way. So do most of my lawyer brothers and sisters.
If points "have size" then we're back to the original problem. For instance, if we assume a point is a square with a particular volume (width x height x depth), we haven't answered the question of what constitutes volume or space at all. All we've done is tried to describe volume/space by referring to more volume/space. This problem is essentially derived from Zeno's Paradox. In my opinion, our conception of volume/space is fundamentally incoherent. We rely on it every day, but when we stop to carefully define and explain it, it is reducible to absurdity. We do not know what volume/space is on a fundamental level.
From what you've explained, what I understand is that there are two perspectives to your question: one from the researchers and one from the general public. The best available answer that we have at the moment that satisfies both perspectives is that electrons exist but not in the conventional sense that we understand as length, width and height; and this is all we know at the moment.
I suspect the answer to why we have size has more to do with the first option for defining an electron's size as dependent on it's environment, e.g. if an electron's in the 3s orbital of the atom, then the electron's size is the 3s orbital. And the Pauli exclusion principle can be used to show that this keeps atoms from occupying the same space (usually). But if the electrons aren't bound to an atom, you could (in principle) pack a whole lot more of them into a much smaller space (until they all quantum tunnel away). In essence, I don't think you need to invoke infinities, or even minimum possible distances (because the Planck distance, which is normally what would get invoked, is way too small for the scale of what we're talking about, and isn't necessarily a hard limit anyway). My best guess is that larger-scale quantum effects force size to exist.
Interesting point regarding counting beyond 10... This got me thinking about the language Tamil. Here we actually count till 10 [Pathu (பத்து)] then continue similar to saying Firsteen 11 (Pathinonnu - பதினொரு = பத்து (10) +ஒன்று (1) ); 12 (Panirandu - பன்னிரண்டு = பத்து (10) + இரண்டு).... when you get to 20 (Irupathu - இருபது = இரு (2) * பத்து (10))... similarly 30 (Mupathu - முப்பது = மூன்று (3) * பத்து (10)). Also realized that when you add to the right (பத்து (10) +ஒன்று (1) - its addition. When you add to the left மூன்று (3) * பத்து (10) - its multiplication). Counting up from 10 to the next set is always addition with increment of 1. Each multiple of 10 is always multiplication (mild twist for 90s, 900s for an interesting reason). Impressive to recognize how scientific and sophisticated this language has been designed 5000+ years before!
I've worked pretty hard on making manifolds that solve these issues and wrangle different types of infinities. I have no idea how to properly go about sharing it now that I've got it working computationally. I'm pretty awful at formal proofing, but easily able to demonstrate the way these manifolds work in programmer-friendly logic. They're pretty compatible with Riemann manifold, being as smooth as you like. Anyway the short version; I think the solution isn't exactly that points need to have dimension, but your spatial metrics do and you need to equip the graph with metrics for each dimension. Equipped with this, in a little bit of a special way, a *range* of points takes up space in a simple way whether the space is curved, boxy, shaped like a reindeer, whatever. You can quantify the charge over the set of points in a range and how much that affects the spacing of other local charges. While I probably have an 80% chance of sounding nutty, if you would like to discuss I have a pretty good demo of this math. Feel free to PM to collab on a paper or if generally interested.
hey thx for the response. 1. yup it is quantizing space, but that's not *all* it is because it's also encoding the relation of local spatial metric to the amount of information within that range. 2. the space is actually not finite depending on your choice of topology. also in the sense of infinite points existing within any spatial range. this is somewhat key to getting around zeno's paradox and being gaining the ability to contain or relate to different infinities as ranges of finite points with some special tessellation rules. like how the most boring fractals you can imagine would make a nice ruler if laid along a path, if u can allow that crude explanation lol.. 3. the construct i am working with is compatible with Riemann manifolds but a generalization of it with very convenient singular cohomology. the metrics are an enhancement over the standard Riemann metric, but the method of making the manifold "smooth" is also somewhat different. 4. there's a sort of 'aspect ratio' between topological space used by the elements and the spatial..space metric local to that particular set of elements. long story short this allows things like easy embedding, very straight forward variably curved space and removal of singularities from just about anything. also legal cusps (ie smooth and non-singularity having cusps) 5. just to note, i use Riemann manifolds as a base to communicate, but when I first worked on these it was for animating 3D models as 4D shapes years before i knew Riemann manifolds existed. interestingly we both ended up using harmonics to understand similar things so there's a lot of compatibility and i wasted a lot of time reinventing lol. it came about by taking the couple novel things i had and applying what was already known. that's why it's not quite really a riemann manifold but a superset of them and why i was able to generalize them without too much trouble. this is where i start to break down in formalization because i have a little trouble discussing the relation to abelian groups. it seems obvious to me how they relate but communication breaks down every time i try to convey it so i must be getting something off. we're definitely working with a commutative graded ring as the base and it's fairly easy to observe from the demos. if interested i'd like to send a PM or email though since i'm actively trying to write a paper about it oh what's also neat is that i can graph dimensions the complex plane doesnt play nice with such as 5 dimensional spaces or 191 dimensional spaces or whatever N dimensional space you like. Riemann manifolds of course not being compatible with this. mapping a 5-sphere to a Reimman sphere and then transforming the 5-sphere to whatever 5-shape for example is fairly trivial with these constructs. (well trivial compared to most things involving these topics) if on the other hand this comes out just another blob of word salad lmk, i'll give it one more attempt to reduce the novel parts into a more comprehend-able package.
Thank you for your effort in making these videos! But around 2:45min you are mentioning that the GLUON field gives quarks the concept of "mass" during interaction. As far as I know the theory is that the HIGGS field gives mass and the GLUON field is important because it creates a force between quarks, hence "glueing" them together. Maybe you could explain?
The gluon field doens't give mass to the quarks (as you said, that's what the Higgs field does)... but the gluon field's energy is 99% of a _proton's_ mass and the quarks are the other 1% of the _proton._
I feel like the answer is "unoccupiable space." Taking the humble helium atom as an example, I imagine that the electrons orbit at a distance such that the repulsion of the electrons towards each other "balances" with their attraction towards the nucleus. If they come too close to the nucleus, the repulsion overwhelms the attraction and pushes them back out. If they go too far, well, the atom ends up ionized (would require being able to overwhelm the attractive force, which could be the very same thing as ionization energy.) Of course, thanks to uncertainty the balance point would constantly be jiggling around, resulting in fuzzy orbitals.
Nice video. Since you asked what I think, here goes. Tell me how crazy I am: My opinion is similar to your 1st explanation at time index 1:20 (the electron could be anywhere in the orbital, therefore it's the size of the orbital). But with a slight nuance: I don't think that an orbital is a *probability* of locations. I think the electron literally fills the volume of the orbital. The shape of the electron is literally the shape of the orbital. It's not a little point particle zipping around inside that region. It all has to do with energy. If energy is added to an atom, where does it go? Energy could come from a free electron or from a photon. The energy will be absorbed into the atom and take the form of an electron. Which orbital will the energy fill? That depends on how much energy is being added (frequency of the photon), but in general, the lowest orbitals are filled first. Orbitals can hold a maximum of 2 electrons. Electrons repel chargewise, so two electrons are reluctant share an orbital until all higher orbitals in the shell are filled with a single electron. Why? Because it takes less energy to fill the next orbital than to cram a 2nd electron into a lower orbital. The Pauli exclusion principal requires that the 2nd electron must take a spin of -1/2 in order to exist in the same orbital. This means in order to share an orbital, one of the electrons must flip its spin. This requires energy as a negative spin is not preferable. It requires slightly more energy (about 0.05 milli-electron-volts more) to have a negative spin than a positive spin. This is why on high-resolution spectrographs, you see fine structure emission lines. The 2 electrons sharing an orbital do NOT both contain the same energy. They contain slightly different amounts of energy (roughly 0.05 meV difference) so they create a double band on the spectrograph. Because positive spin has a slightly lower energy state than negative spin, we say the universe has chirality and this is why there is no such thing as supersymmetry. Oh I forgot to discuss the probabilistic distribution of electrons measured. Well if you look at those experiments, you most certainly do get a distribution of points over time. Each measurement strikes an atom with a photon or electron and tracks the trajectory of the emitted electron. What you're seeing is a plot of pinpoint locations where emissions occurred, but you do not actually see what the electron looks like while it is occupying an orbital.
Nick Lucy you´re alway very amazing and understandable. I´m waiting with big entusiasm you describing the quantum fields theory applied to atom´s model, chemical bonds (ionic, hydrogen, van der walls, covalent, etc), quantum fields moving to a double slit experiment....I think if someone could put in a video illustrating all that is your channel. Best regards and continue to send for us, amazing videos
Another great video, now my head hurts again.:) I wonder if space if quantized and space is expanding, does the number of possible locations increase or just the space between them. If number of points increases that would imply something can get between previously impossible point in future.
All of our units of size are measurements. Meaning that we use a device to "measure" the amount of space relative to the size of device. Are we even sure there is absolute space? Or is the only thing that matters how far one particle is from all the other particles relatively?
3:34 the question is how come a countable (even may b finite) collection of particles that don't have size come together to make something that does have a size? Or who knows may b there's an uncountably many of them.
A part I don't get about the Planck Length... if nothing can be smaller, then what is the geometry of space-time at this size ? There is no alignment allowing each particle to be spaced by a h length. If it's a cube structure, then the diagonale will be something 1,3 X h in length. How do we explain that ?
Given that "thirteen" and "fifteen" already buck the trend of simply affixing the base number to the "-teen" suffix, I suggest forms like "unteen" and "twiteen" might also work. Not that I'm suggesting we adopt these. It's just a little fun to imagine how we might enforce decimal on our language. Incidentally, other examples of base 12 exist in English as well. In particular, we have words for a dozen and a gross (144=12^2).
I have another solution. Maybe each particle is a point but what determines size is the distance between them. So we have size as there is distance between the particles on one side of us and the particles on the other.
I really appreciate your videos. I don't understand 99% of the math, but I still understand the general principles of what you're talking about. Thank you and keep it up.
Your delivery speed is like a music video, choppy and moving constantly. (Electron like?) But you do cover very interesting topics in an extremely entertaining way. George Gamow asserted in his wonderful little book One, Two, Three, ... Infinity that a hotel with infinite rooms with all of them already occupied, that the manager could free up a room by moving everyone down one room. If that is true, you just have to shuffle your subscribers around a bit and they will be 1 million in no time, and who knows? Infinity may one day appear in your subscriber count. Well maybe not, but with your energy which you apply effectively to create visual and audible work...I'm still working out the equation to get the exact value... I will be surprised if you don't hit 1 million one day. Whatever comes in that area, keep up the great work. I enjoy watching your content. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "There are two types of people in this world, those who are willing to work and those who are willing to let them." The RUclips world is made up of a low percentage of the former, and a very high percentage of the latter. President Jefferson would be proud of you. (Of course he also loved science, which would help with that I am sure.)
How do we even define length, breadth and height? I think that the answer could be in the definition of these 3 quantities (what I am thinking is that these quantities could be defined based on certain kinds of collections of points)
Point charges are just objects in other dimensions that only intersect at one “point” with out spacial dimensions but at all points in our time dimension.
Hi congratulations for the channel. Very interesting, informative and entertaining. But sometimes it gets too fast for those who do not have English as their first language. Your clone who wears glasses makes it even harder, but it's still funny. My guess: There are interactions between fundamental particles (which are probably points without size) that make them occupy a certain space and do not allow the entry of others in that territory. The electric charge determines this in the scale of the atom, and in the scale of the nucleus is the strong force.
I mean, it's possible the best guess is that things don't exist, fields exist, and "how big is it?" is best answered by a compton wavelength, and using units of volume is trying to be more specific about the 'things' concept than it can sustain.
I think the third option might be the most realistic one. A point would have the size of 1 on all dimensions, 1 being the distance between a location in a quantum field to the next one, be it Planck length or something even smaller. It probably couldn't be a sphere as a sphere is something consisting of many points as its size on each axis varies by location.
So how are particles without size interacting? They cannot collide, because there always will be plenty of space in between them. Forces are making them interact? But what are the forces? Is it something that is able to violate locality and affect things on a distance? Or forces are made of particles as well? But if so, back to square one, how can they interact with anything?
As a professional linguist, I approve of "I don't care if it's not an official word, as long as it takes the idea out of my brain and puts it into yours."
Excellent! :-D
Best thing I have ever heard as a professional writer and linguist myself! Word meanings like quantum particles don't exist anywhere and everywhere.. "as long as it takes it out of my head and puts it in yours" ANY word inspite of Uncertainty is 100% valid on "linguistic" Probability.. :D
I know it's off-topic but how do i know when to put "un-" or "in-" as a prefix to make a negative of something?
And another question.
If there was a Vehicle which could somehow compress to car size and stretch to the size of a bus. If you enter the vehicle as a passenger are you ON or IN that vehicle? :D
Sweet!
Good one.
One of my all time favourite sentence is from the guide.
"They looked like the calculated product of a mind that wanted simply to kill" - narrator of the book in mr.DNA's masterpiece.
Love😊
@@niveditadey8783 But besetztenunfähig is only an "official word" because German permits free coinage of words and unoccupiable is not an "official word" only because English does not. All aural communication consists of a series of sounds each of which is a symbol conventionally assigned some lexical meaning, the sequence and arrangement of which may, by convention, provide additional syntactical meaning. Un+occupy+able is actually three words to anybody but a typesetter. Clearly, occupy+un+able would be better syntax but English somewhat arbitrarily (though maybe as a cautious "hey!-the-opposite-of-what-I'm-about-to-say" warning) demands that the privative come first in a "word," official or unofficial. What is missing from occupy+un+able is the passive voice. If we use good English and say "that which is unable to be occupied" we sacrifice fluency but maybe gain a little precision: Here, the conceptual problem is with a "that which" that both is and is "unable to be occupied."
Obviously we are missing a fundamental particle, called a sizon, which gives particle size. We should get the LHC working on that right away!
lol
But what is the size of the SIZON?!
@@fandomguy8025 It's 1.
So...its a force carrier particle? Lol
Hmm, the two discrete options (where there's a minimum separation or particles have a minimum size & have a shape) may not be discernible unless the shape of a particle has some detectable effect.
You make some excellent points.
I see what you did there...
badum tss
He also has some great lines.
Good point
sure but they dont have much depth.
Maybe "size" occurs in the interaction between particles, such as chemical bonds, so it takes more than one particle for size to come into being.
Bingo, it's all just a really, really big bunch of relations between different forms of energy
That actually makes a lot of sense!!!
Wasn't that the second option... the space between the electrons?
Then what about elements cant make bonds like noble gases
@@venkatchilakalapudi9639 Noble gases are still bound electrons and quarks, so they have an interaction where size could come into being without a chemical bond
I'm surprised you don't have millions of subscribers
there are an infinite number of subscribers between the subscribers
he has infinite subscribers
nop, still not many subscribers... which kinda makes me sad. Very underrated channel.
Keep up the good work
Best way to get him more subs? SHARE!!! Like the video! Subscribe! Tweet it! Do the things!!!!!
ALL THE THINGS!!!!!
Thanks whoeveriam0iam14222... That made me laugh so hard I almost spit water on my screen!
Someone is finally talking about the things I really want to know about! Thank you! And you explain things thoroughly and interestingly. You’re a great help!
THIS WAS ONE OF THE PUREST FORM OF BRILLIANCE IN EXPLANATION I HAVE EVER SEEN
so true
Indeed.
Man these video's are so good, please never stop making them.
They will have to pry the RUclipss from my cold dead hands.
I've watched a few of your videos and I just subscribed. I learn more in one video than I did in school.
I enjoyed this video as much as an episode of "Lost"!
4:00 I knew I was gonna be entertained... but oh boy! Did you point out some exciting questions/concepts to think about!
And Wow, your dedication to "Comment Response" was very impressive, to say the least!
*During an existential crisis*
Normal people: "why do I exist?"
Physicists: "why do I take up space?"
New favorite channel.
I agree with your statement about unoccupiable.
Thanks!
The idea at 4:25 somehow supports the idea, that the universe is simultated. It's like a voxel based game: Each voxel has values and parameters that can change, but a fixed position in space. And "blocks" moving trough space are just dieappearing in a voxel and appear in the next one. The voxels of a simulated universe are of course very small, like a single pixel on a super high resolution screen. So from a macroscopic persfective it looks super smooth and even if you zoom in, it will still look very smooth for a very far zoom up to a border simulated intelligent beings might never be able to cross. Just an idea, but nice sci fi stuff
I like the 'border simulated intelligent beings might never be able to cross".
i love that you made up a word and your justification is spot on. language should evolve the way everything else does ... dictionaries can hold language back!
Dictionaries are useful for telling you how words are often used, but I don't think they should dictate how we use words.
I'm really happy that I found this channel: it's great!
I like how you don’t answer the question, but just ask more questions and then end the video. Wraps everything up real well.
Does QFT get rid of the whole point and size paradox? Because everything is made of fields, and "particles" are just the quanta from that field that we see when we look really close. I have only read a few books about this stuff, but I find it all very interesting and intriguing. Your videos drive me nuts because they answer many questions and and then make just as many new ones! But that's what I love about them, please don't stop! lol
QFT does not help. It can't because it can't handle gravity as a particle interaction, so it can't say anything about space or time itself. Space and time are just environments for QFT to work in.
Okay, yeah that makes sense. Thanks for replying to me!
Still a good point to start. I like the QFT. Guess we have to find out one day how much truth is in it...
@@ScienceAsylum There's another reason we need a theory of quantum gravity.
@@ScienceAsylum Isn't that effectively washing our hands of the whole question by saying 'we don't know the true nature of space and time so we don't know the answer'?
The topic fascinating, the delivery brilliant, the approach logical leading to Camus and Descartes. You and the presentations are fun and joyful
When will I escape the Science Asylum? 3:44
.....never.....
When you throw the hydrotherapy cart through the window! 😀
8-)
@@Milesco 🤣🤣
IM STILL LEARNING ‼️
I'm trying but there is some barrier made of mostly empty space but I think there are some points of charge floating in there. Anyway, I don't seem to be able to put my hand though it. I'm going to call it "force field", although, doctors are weirdly fixated on the name "steel".
I can only imagine the hard work u have put into these videos to make them easier to understand.
They're so much work. There's a reason I can only make 2 per month.
I'm wondering for quite some time how length is "build up". I imagined it at first as somewhat of a magnitude/amount of single points but that just doesn't make sense and leads to many false expactations (e.g. the arc of any function should be equal within the same domain).
I'm glad that you make these thorough videos. In many conversations about these kind of topics, I feel like my opposites just accept things at a shallow level, wich frustrates me. So even if there aren't any satisfying answers sometimes, thanks for sharing your insightful opinion in such a entertaining way. It is great to see someone with a higher understanding of physics to do this kind of stuff. It really gives me some kind of approval.
Thanks for watching. I'm glad you appreciate them.
@@ScienceAsylum but how is there build up?? does it start when it gets to countable infinity or uncountable infinity????
Mate seriously cool video. Something I have never bothered about but you've made it so interesting. In Cosmos one of the things Carl Sagan speculated about was whether each electron may contain a whole universe. He was wondering how far we can keep on going down.
I love your work! I just became a Patreon supporter!
Thank you!
I've been watching and subscribed a couple of weeks ago. I"m hooked up as no other channel could before. Regards from Buenos Aires.
JMO - Space is the illusion caused by how long it takes information to be exchanged between energy peaks (particles). The entire Universe is in one point (one original planck length), but the exchange of information takes longer and longer, giving the illusion of distance and growth. Planck time units keep halving (causing planck distance units to appear to double), the harmonics and interferences of the original energy burst keep getting more complex, so the Universe seems to grow. BTW, this explains early expansion, since doubling is more influential the first few million times.
Wouldn't that mean that c is decreasing in velocity?
No, if C is constant everything else can change to compensate for it. That's the principle behind time dilation and length contraction, which are experimentally verified phenomena that GPS's are based off of.
I always wait your comment...👍
How are things made out of point particles larger than points? It's the interplay of (up to) three things: Forces, Particle properties, and Energy.
The quarks that we know don't just have an electric charge, but also (like the gluons) have a color charge. While the electric charge can be positive or negative, and while like charges repel while opposites attract, the force arising from the color charges - the strong nuclear force - is always attractive. And it works, believe it or not, much like a spring does.
When two color-charged objects are close together, the force between them drops away to zero, like a coiled spring that isn't stretched at all. When quarks are close together, the electrical force takes over, which often leads to a mutual repulsion. But when the color-charged objects are far apart, the strong force gets stronger. Like a stretched spring, it works to pull the quarks back together. Based on the magnitude of the color charges and the strength of the strong force, along with the electric charges of each of the quarks, that's how we arrive at the size of the proton and the neutron: where the strong and electromagnetic forces roughly balance.
On slightly larger scales, the strong force holds protons and neutrons together in an atomic nucleus, overcoming the electrostatic repulsion between the individual protons. This nuclear force is a residual effect of the strong nuclear force, which only works over very short distances. Because individual protons and neutrons themselves are color-neutral, the exchange is mediated by virtual, unstable particles known as pions, which explains why nuclei beyond a certain size become unstable; it's too difficult for pions to be exchanged across larger distances. Only in the case of neutron stars does the addition of gravitational binding energy suppress the nucleus' tendency to rearrange itself into a more stable configuration.
And on the scale of the atom itself, the key is that the lowest-energy configuration of any electron bound to a nucleus isn't a zero-energy state, but is actually a relatively high-energy one compared to the electron's rest mass. This quantum configuration means that the electron itself needs to zip around at very high speeds inside the atom; even though the nucleus and the electron are oppositely charged, the electron won't simply hit the nucleus and remain at the center. Instead, the electron exists in a cloud-like configuration, zipping and swirling around the nucleus (and passing through it) at a distance that's almost a million times as great as the size of the nucleus itself.
There are some fun caveats that allow us to explore how these sizes change in extreme conditions. In extremely massive planets, the atoms themselves begin to get compressed due to large gravitational forces, meaning you can pack more of them into a small space. Jupiter, for example, has three times the mass of Saturn, but is only about 20% larger in size. If you replace an electron in a hydrogen atom with a muon, an unstable electron-like particle that has the same charge but 206 times the mass, the muonic hydrogen atom will be only 1/206th the size of normal hydrogen. And a Uranium atom is actually larger in size than the individual protons-and-neutrons would be if you packed them together, due to the long-range nature of the electrostatic repulsion of the protons, compared to the short-range nature of the strong force.
By having different forces at play of different strengths, you can build a proton, neutron, or other hadron of finite size out of point-like quarks. By combining protons and neutrons, you can build nuclei of larger sizes than their individual components, bound together, would give you. And by binding electrons to the nucleus, you can build a much larger structure, all owing to the fact that the zero-point energy of an electron bound to an atom is much greater than zero. In order to get a Universe filled with structures that take up a finite amount of space and have a non-zero size, you don't need anything more than zero-dimensional, point-like building blocks. Forces, energy, and the quantum properties inherent to particles themselves are more than enough to do the job.
Although not a physicist, Strangeness of Quantum physics always boggle me, no matter how many videos i see. Great work to explain such profoundly intelligent questions in simple manner :-)
Great video once again !!!
Thanks! ...and it's ok if it hurts your brain. Richard Feynman was pretty sure /no one/ was capable of actually understanding quantum physics.
Why the heck someone doesn't make this channel popular!? This is top notch!
What a mind bending video of "simple" subject like size! Makes me think of where the particle really is and what you can actually measure. I think the position is actually quntized, I think classic "particle in a box" calculation of Shröndinger's equation proves this. (unless there is no box ie. universe is truly infinite in size or curved in a suitable way).
Can you do a video on String Theory? I graduated from Johns Hopkins and some researchers there explained some great theories. But it's just that - a theory. It may be too speculative for this channel, but it would really give a better idea of what is happening at the smallest sizes if there's enough content.
This is my favorite video so far. So much paradox. I'm also very hesitant to apply infinity to nature. Even if nature is fundamentally governed by probability it is still somewhat definitive or finite.I also like to think that an electron, in our perspective, is every where it's "allowed" all at once. The probability wave is the electron. If an electron is allowed in a place, another is not allowed in that same place. So every point an electron can repel another, is where that electron is. Just happens to be more than one point.
This is great stuff. You actually got me thinking!
Personally, I would go with the fact that there has got to be a minimum, indivisible size/point in space time ( Planck something ? ). That would explain several things. Keep up the good work!
How do you manage to have so little likes on your videos? O.o Seriously, great channel!! =D
Because His Videos Doesn't make up space
4:08 Agreed about not applying infinitely to the physical universe, but also, even mathematically, it only makes sense for points to make up space if they don't have zero size but instead have an infinitely small size. An infinite number of infinitely small things can certainly add up to a finite (or even infinitely large) number. That's just basic calculus stuff (though it blew my mind when I first learned about it in calc 2). But if points literally have zero size, then it doesn't matter _how_ many of them there -- the total size would still be zero, because zero (as in, _exactly_ zero, not a quantity _approaching_ zero) times infinity is still just zero.
Hilariously I just found your channel, and I'm working independently on the same topic. It's my favorite subject I'm science, and this video really does fit with the model I'm constructing. Well done.
Glad I could help.
Hey, Crazy here! Thanks for an awesome video! I've heard this idea (I think by R. Penrose) about Cyclic cosmology. In a nutshell, when the universe grows so old, cold and diluted that no more particles can interact, a quantum field fluctuation may turn out to be a big bang for the next generation of universe, as the particle/fluctuation does not know what size it is since there is no point of reference. So, I believe that size is more of a relation than an absolute value.
I think the solution is along these lines:
Given that things are countable, or at least enumerable - even though we can't tell fundamental particles of the same kind apart, we can still tell how many of them are there, or at least how big the imbalance in their quantum field is - and that number is variable, it follows that a second dimension must exist. (Otherwise some negative products would have no root.)
Given that the compound states influence themselves, it follows that a third dimension must exist to resolve that; but the total amount of information within any three-dimensional volume of space is only proportional to its surface.
And there is no inherent preference to any dimension or orientation, because you can always change the base.
But that would only answer the question why space is three-dimensional. It says nothing about size. For that we need time.
The speed of light is constant in any reference frame. That makes space a function of time, and the passage of time a function of space.
That is to say that size is relative to the passage of time, in relation to the speed of light.
I don't know what I'm talking about. Is it time for my medication yet?
So, space is caused by the time it takes for information to reach a certain point.
@@catovr Yes.
Thanks for the vid. Keep up the good work!
I think the third one is the more likely answer. When we draw a point on a graph, it may be minuscule but it certainly is a circle of nonzero size. And thus a line is simply a collection of a large number of such circles. This, of course, is speaking pragmatically. I'm not sure if it holds mathematically but I guess my point is that at least in the real world, it's not possible to have an entity of zero size. Hmm I just had a thought. If the electron really had no size, where would its charge and mass be concentrated? We'd basically be pointing to a patch of empty space and say, "That's an electron." but would then have to answer the question, "Why aren't all empty patches of space electrons then?"
So an electron might be a point in spacetime, thats somehow deviated enough that it behaves like it physically exists.. but it actually doesnt?
@@MrExcessum Eh.......what? 😅
@@feynstein1004 You asked a question at the end of your comment
@@MrExcessum No, I know. I just didn't understand what you were saying 😅
@@feynstein1004 Me neither, I was interested in the way you explained it, and thought Id get some further clarification...
Your solution #2, it is related to the definition of quanta (that gives name to quantum mechanics) the "jumps" of the electron take "only discrete values consisting of integer multiples of one quantum" (last quote taken from wikipedia) and I think it is the correct one
I totally look forward to watching these videos. Thanks for another one!
You're welcome! I'm glad you like them.
I like what you said about not caring if it’s a real word “as long as it takes the idea from my head and puts it in yours”
Mandatory separations is my guess due to energy and charge
Maybe that the distance between point particles should be considered just as a value. Like, particle A is "1 joule" away from particle B.
If we want to find what space is made of, then space's constituants themselves should not have a space-volume (or else we should wonder what that space-volume is made of). It would be like saying that the atoms constituting water are also made of water.
@@En_theo great point
@@hardino0311
I see what you did there... but puns are pointless in physics :))
The best physics series ever. You are as free of politics as possible. You keep getting better.
I always assumed space was energy fields repulsing each other. kinda like how two magnets will push each other away if you flip one over. .
The problem is Quantum Field Theory requires space as a foundation to work in. Space already has to be there for it to work.
FOILED AGAIN! DAM YOU SCIENCE ASYLUM.
@@ScienceAsylum then maybe is why it cant do curvy space gravity?
Very interesting concept and I wish someone could answer this.....
"Does an object's relative size influence said object's perception of time?!"
I feel as though larger object experience a slower passage of time than smaller objects do.
What say you?!
I will have to say, "You are legend."
I don't understand anything beyond the titles of your videos but I like your delivery
This is why I simply measure everything in cats. My son weighs 13 cats. It’s a much simpler way to live.
Diamondsmasher... if ur son weighs 13 cats 🐱
How do I equate myself?? 🤣🤣🤣
Stay Blessed Always
🙏🏽🙏🏼🙏🏽❤️❤️❤️‼️‼️‼️
safe to say my life isnt complete if i miss one of these vids. i watched one and subscribed instantly.
Just when I think I understand something you go and make me realize we really know nothing.
Wow, just when I thought I had the fundamental concept of 1 dimension down, you made me rethink everything. Genius! 🤯
I would have thought the answer was simpler: a combination of repulsion between electron shells, temperature and pressure determine the size between atoms.
My vote is for points of a tiny size. And the shape would be spherical. That seems to be a common shape of things in the universe. But, in this case, we might not be talking about a solid object. We might be talking about an area of influence. A curvature of space or an energy field of some sort. Or an area of space with a particular property which defines it as what we think of as a particle.
Mandatory separation sounds most likely to me.
Mandatory created by who
@@anthonypauls467
Electromagnetism
You have a great channel! Thank you for the great videos!
*_Energy_* (possibly the Strings of _String Theory_ ) locked in Quantum Fields
Taking in account of your first estimated solution to the problem I.E. "the infinite division of space" seems to contradict with the LQG which posits that the space is only divisible to the Planck length and it can't get any smaller than that.
As an atheist i am starting to think it would be easier not to learn stuff and just say that's how god made it.
Ian Duplantis, i don't believe in god so why ask me?
atheists spend alot of time talking about God.
Mike Young, I spend a lot of time talking about Game of Thrones also, that's made up too.
SO DO YOU THINK OUR COMPLEX UNIVERSE JUST HAPPENED FOR NO REASON AND BY NO INTELLIGENCE?
192.168.0.13, please demonstrate the universe has a reason, then demonstrate why it needs an intelligence behind it, and btw typing in caps does not make your comment look better.
Great. Fantastic. Brilliant. No one is better that this Guy for explain só difficult questions on Physics!!!
infinite infinities
icu rmt still is just 1 infinity
icu rmt is actually on to something because there are more than one types of infinities. ruclips.net/video/SrU9YDoXE88/видео.html in case your tired of your brain being in one piece
I say we through out locality, there are no points there are only waves in fields that we see as points because the only way to "see" a wave is for another wave to interact with it. The interactions might have locality but they are secondary not primary.
This makes you wonder what "space" actually is.
For real though...
It's the final frontier
@@ChallengeTheNarrative : Arrrrgh! Pseudo, you beat me to it! ;-)
I literally ponder so often about how no matter which direction we go, as far as we can go away, the farthest zoomed in as we can go, we find immense detail and complexity. Which is an absurd amount of detail!
Science is too vague. Lawyers are needed.
Lawyers would take this to the other extreme... now that I think about it, mathematicians are like the lawyers of science.
I'm a lawyer, and I spend all my time driving listening to books on Quantam Theory. Amazing stuff, still can't understand it.
@@daffidavit do you think about how ethical it is to be a lawyer?
Pseudo Nym Not only do I think about it, I dream about it. I spend time on weekends when others are on picnics enjoying time with their families, while I'm going to legal seminars. I sometimes wonder if the fee I've charged was fair. Most of the time I've spent more hours working than I received for time I've spent trying to help my clients. I've spent more hours of my free time working on cases than I've even thought of charging a client. Yes, there are many lawyers who do more than their fair share working to try to help others battle their cases. If we lose, we don't get paid, but at least we tried our best to help our clients.
How many other business professionals work and don't get paid? Yes, I know many doctor friends who are in the same boat. But we are proud to swim or sink together. Many times we do swim, but sometimes we sink. It's part of our lives. Most lawyers are not rich. Most are hard-working people who are trying to help their clients under the circumstances. What you read about and hear in the newspapers are the headlines. You never read or hear about the hard-working professionals who barely make it with a narrow win. And their compensation is sometimes just enough to pay their monthly bills.
So to answer your question: " Do you think about how ethical it is to be a lawyer"? I just don't think about it, I live it. And I live it in a very ethical way. So do most of my lawyer brothers and sisters.
If points "have size" then we're back to the original problem. For instance, if we assume a point is a square with a particular volume (width x height x depth), we haven't answered the question of what constitutes volume or space at all. All we've done is tried to describe volume/space by referring to more volume/space.
This problem is essentially derived from Zeno's Paradox.
In my opinion, our conception of volume/space is fundamentally incoherent. We rely on it every day, but when we stop to carefully define and explain it, it is reducible to absurdity. We do not know what volume/space is on a fundamental level.
You would be THE GREATEST teacher in any school. Period !
From what you've explained, what I understand is that there are two perspectives to your question: one from the researchers and one from the general public. The best available answer that we have at the moment that satisfies both perspectives is that electrons exist but not in the conventional sense that we understand as length, width and height; and this is all we know at the moment.
Points with size that are infinitely divisible makes the most sense to me. But blackholes can sqeeze a star into a point, so really what are points?
I suspect the answer to why we have size has more to do with the first option for defining an electron's size as dependent on it's environment, e.g. if an electron's in the 3s orbital of the atom, then the electron's size is the 3s orbital. And the Pauli exclusion principle can be used to show that this keeps atoms from occupying the same space (usually). But if the electrons aren't bound to an atom, you could (in principle) pack a whole lot more of them into a much smaller space (until they all quantum tunnel away).
In essence, I don't think you need to invoke infinities, or even minimum possible distances (because the Planck distance, which is normally what would get invoked, is way too small for the scale of what we're talking about, and isn't necessarily a hard limit anyway). My best guess is that larger-scale quantum effects force size to exist.
Interesting point regarding counting beyond 10... This got me thinking about the language Tamil. Here we actually count till 10 [Pathu (பத்து)] then continue similar to saying Firsteen 11 (Pathinonnu - பதினொரு = பத்து (10) +ஒன்று (1) ); 12 (Panirandu - பன்னிரண்டு = பத்து (10) + இரண்டு).... when you get to 20 (Irupathu - இருபது = இரு (2) * பத்து (10))... similarly 30 (Mupathu - முப்பது = மூன்று (3) * பத்து (10)). Also realized that when you add to the right (பத்து (10) +ஒன்று (1) - its addition. When you add to the left மூன்று (3) * பத்து (10) - its multiplication). Counting up from 10 to the next set is always addition with increment of 1. Each multiple of 10 is always multiplication (mild twist for 90s, 900s for an interesting reason). Impressive to recognize how scientific and sophisticated this language has been designed 5000+ years before!
I've worked pretty hard on making manifolds that solve these issues and wrangle different types of infinities. I have no idea how to properly go about sharing it now that I've got it working computationally. I'm pretty awful at formal proofing, but easily able to demonstrate the way these manifolds work in programmer-friendly logic. They're pretty compatible with Riemann manifold, being as smooth as you like.
Anyway the short version; I think the solution isn't exactly that points need to have dimension, but your spatial metrics do and you need to equip the graph with metrics for each dimension. Equipped with this, in a little bit of a special way, a *range* of points takes up space in a simple way whether the space is curved, boxy, shaped like a reindeer, whatever. You can quantify the charge over the set of points in a range and how much that affects the spacing of other local charges.
While I probably have an 80% chance of sounding nutty, if you would like to discuss I have a pretty good demo of this math. Feel free to PM to collab on a paper or if generally interested.
If you're spreading the information over a finite space in a Riemann manifold, isn't that just quantizing space?
hey thx for the response.
1. yup it is quantizing space, but that's not *all* it is because it's also encoding the relation of local spatial metric to the amount of information within that range.
2. the space is actually not finite depending on your choice of topology. also in the sense of infinite points existing within any spatial range. this is somewhat key to getting around zeno's paradox and being gaining the ability to contain or relate to different infinities as ranges of finite points with some special tessellation rules. like how the most boring fractals you can imagine would make a nice ruler if laid along a path, if u can allow that crude explanation lol..
3. the construct i am working with is compatible with Riemann manifolds but a generalization of it with very convenient singular cohomology. the metrics are an enhancement over the standard Riemann metric, but the method of making the manifold "smooth" is also somewhat different.
4. there's a sort of 'aspect ratio' between topological space used by the elements and the spatial..space metric local to that particular set of elements. long story short this allows things like easy embedding, very straight forward variably curved space and removal of singularities from just about anything. also legal cusps (ie smooth and non-singularity having cusps)
5. just to note, i use Riemann manifolds as a base to communicate, but when I first worked on these it was for animating 3D models as 4D shapes years before i knew Riemann manifolds existed. interestingly we both ended up using harmonics to understand similar things so there's a lot of compatibility and i wasted a lot of time reinventing lol. it came about by taking the couple novel things i had and applying what was already known. that's why it's not quite really a riemann manifold but a superset of them and why i was able to generalize them without too much trouble.
this is where i start to break down in formalization because i have a little trouble discussing the relation to abelian groups. it seems obvious to me how they relate but communication breaks down every time i try to convey it so i must be getting something off. we're definitely working with a commutative graded ring as the base and it's fairly easy to observe from the demos. if interested i'd like to send a PM or email though since i'm actively trying to write a paper about it
oh what's also neat is that i can graph dimensions the complex plane doesnt play nice with such as 5 dimensional spaces or 191 dimensional spaces or whatever N dimensional space you like. Riemann manifolds of course not being compatible with this. mapping a 5-sphere to a Reimman sphere and then transforming the 5-sphere to whatever 5-shape for example is fairly trivial with these constructs. (well trivial compared to most things involving these topics)
if on the other hand this comes out just another blob of word salad lmk, i'll give it one more attempt to reduce the novel parts into a more comprehend-able package.
Thank you for your effort in making these videos! But around 2:45min you are mentioning that the GLUON field gives quarks the concept of "mass" during interaction. As far as I know the theory is that the HIGGS field gives mass and the GLUON field is important because it creates a force between quarks, hence "glueing" them together. Maybe you could explain?
The gluon field doens't give mass to the quarks (as you said, that's what the Higgs field does)... but the gluon field's energy is 99% of a _proton's_ mass and the quarks are the other 1% of the _proton._
I feel like the answer is "unoccupiable space." Taking the humble helium atom as an example, I imagine that the electrons orbit at a distance such that the repulsion of the electrons towards each other "balances" with their attraction towards the nucleus. If they come too close to the nucleus, the repulsion overwhelms the attraction and pushes them back out. If they go too far, well, the atom ends up ionized (would require being able to overwhelm the attractive force, which could be the very same thing as ionization energy.) Of course, thanks to uncertainty the balance point would constantly be jiggling around, resulting in fuzzy orbitals.
Nice video. Since you asked what I think, here goes. Tell me how crazy I am: My opinion is similar to your 1st explanation at time index 1:20 (the electron could be anywhere in the orbital, therefore it's the size of the orbital). But with a slight nuance: I don't think that an orbital is a *probability* of locations. I think the electron literally fills the volume of the orbital. The shape of the electron is literally the shape of the orbital. It's not a little point particle zipping around inside that region. It all has to do with energy. If energy is added to an atom, where does it go? Energy could come from a free electron or from a photon. The energy will be absorbed into the atom and take the form of an electron. Which orbital will the energy fill? That depends on how much energy is being added (frequency of the photon), but in general, the lowest orbitals are filled first. Orbitals can hold a maximum of 2 electrons. Electrons repel chargewise, so two electrons are reluctant share an orbital until all higher orbitals in the shell are filled with a single electron. Why? Because it takes less energy to fill the next orbital than to cram a 2nd electron into a lower orbital. The Pauli exclusion principal requires that the 2nd electron must take a spin of -1/2 in order to exist in the same orbital. This means in order to share an orbital, one of the electrons must flip its spin. This requires energy as a negative spin is not preferable. It requires slightly more energy (about 0.05 milli-electron-volts more) to have a negative spin than a positive spin. This is why on high-resolution spectrographs, you see fine structure emission lines. The 2 electrons sharing an orbital do NOT both contain the same energy. They contain slightly different amounts of energy (roughly 0.05 meV difference) so they create a double band on the spectrograph. Because positive spin has a slightly lower energy state than negative spin, we say the universe has chirality and this is why there is no such thing as supersymmetry.
Oh I forgot to discuss the probabilistic distribution of electrons measured. Well if you look at those experiments, you most certainly do get a distribution of points over time. Each measurement strikes an atom with a photon or electron and tracks the trajectory of the emitted electron. What you're seeing is a plot of pinpoint locations where emissions occurred, but you do not actually see what the electron looks like while it is occupying an orbital.
Nick Lucy you´re alway very amazing and understandable. I´m waiting with big entusiasm you describing the quantum fields theory applied to atom´s model, chemical bonds (ionic, hydrogen, van der walls, covalent, etc), quantum fields moving to a double slit experiment....I think if someone could put in a video illustrating all that is your channel.
Best regards and continue to send for us, amazing videos
Another great video, now my head hurts again.:) I wonder if space if quantized and space is expanding, does the number of possible locations increase or just the space between them. If number of points increases that would imply something can get between previously impossible point in future.
All of our units of size are measurements. Meaning that we use a device to "measure" the amount of space relative to the size of device. Are we even sure there is absolute space? Or is the only thing that matters how far one particle is from all the other particles relatively?
Maybe no space is "unoccupiable"...but the movement of a point charge from its present position to a future position has defined limits.
3:34 the question is how come a countable (even may b finite) collection of particles that don't have size come together to make something that does have a size? Or who knows may b there's an uncountably many of them.
A part I don't get about the Planck Length... if nothing can be smaller, then what is the geometry of space-time at this size ? There is no alignment allowing each particle to be spaced by a h length. If it's a cube structure, then the diagonale will be something 1,3 X h in length. How do we explain that ?
Given that "thirteen" and "fifteen" already buck the trend of simply affixing the base number to the "-teen" suffix, I suggest forms like "unteen" and "twiteen" might also work. Not that I'm suggesting we adopt these. It's just a little fun to imagine how we might enforce decimal on our language.
Incidentally, other examples of base 12 exist in English as well. In particular, we have words for a dozen and a gross (144=12^2).
I have another solution. Maybe each particle is a point but what determines size is the distance between them. So we have size as there is distance between the particles on one side of us and the particles on the other.
I really appreciate your videos. I don't understand 99% of the math, but I still understand the general principles of what you're talking about. Thank you and keep it up.
Holy moly that clock is the most beautiful design I have seen...
4:16 Don't let anyone tell you how the heck you must make the air vibrate with your synthesized concept.
Your delivery speed is like a music video, choppy and moving constantly. (Electron like?) But you do cover very interesting topics in an extremely entertaining way. George Gamow asserted in his wonderful little book One, Two, Three, ... Infinity that a hotel with infinite rooms with all of them already occupied, that the manager could free up a room by moving everyone down one room. If that is true, you just have to shuffle your subscribers around a bit and they will be 1 million in no time, and who knows? Infinity may one day appear in your subscriber count. Well maybe not, but with your energy which you apply effectively to create visual and audible work...I'm still working out the equation to get the exact value... I will be surprised if you don't hit 1 million one day.
Whatever comes in that area, keep up the great work. I enjoy watching your content.
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "There are two types of people in this world, those who are willing to work and those who are willing to let them." The RUclips world is made up of a low percentage of the former, and a very high percentage of the latter. President Jefferson would be proud of you. (Of course he also loved science, which would help with that I am sure.)
Ahhh... Hilbert's hotel paradox! I really do need to do a video on infinity.
How do we even define length, breadth and height? I think that the answer could be in the definition of these 3 quantities (what I am thinking is that these quantities could be defined based on certain kinds of collections of points)
More and more people will support you on Patreon, I'm sure!
Point charges are just objects in other dimensions that only intersect at one “point” with out spacial dimensions but at all points in our time dimension.
Could you do a video on consciousness?
That would take a collaboration with a neuroscience channel. I can't do that by myself.
Always an inspiration. Sometimes weird. Nice work.
Points themselves won’t have size.......but the space between them can. Can it be this simple to make the choice among options towards the end?
Hi congratulations for the channel. Very interesting, informative and entertaining. But sometimes it gets too fast for those who do not have English as their first language. Your clone who wears glasses makes it even harder, but it's still funny.
My guess: There are interactions between fundamental particles (which are probably points without size) that make them occupy a certain space and do not allow the entry of others in that territory. The electric charge determines this in the scale of the atom, and in the scale of the nucleus is the strong force.
I need to add close captions... especially to the videos Nerd Clone is in.
I mean, it's possible the best guess is that things don't exist, fields exist, and "how big is it?" is best answered by a compton wavelength, and using units of volume is trying to be more specific about the 'things' concept than it can sustain.
I think the third option might be the most realistic one. A point would have the size of 1 on all dimensions, 1 being the distance between a location in a quantum field to the next one, be it Planck length or something even smaller. It probably couldn't be a sphere as a sphere is something consisting of many points as its size on each axis varies by location.
So how are particles without size interacting? They cannot collide, because there always will be plenty of space in between them.
Forces are making them interact? But what are the forces? Is it something that is able to violate locality and affect things on a distance?
Or forces are made of particles as well? But if so, back to square one, how can they interact with anything?
Love these videos!