Yeah, the part where you said something like, " the electron surrounds the nucleus as a standing wave which is why you can only have specific energy levels/bands" helped my visualisation a lot. A tiny lightbulb moment that went on in my little brain. Many thanks for posting this excellent video!
@@lepidoptera9337 Now what proof do you have of that? I believe that all matter is standing waves in some form or other and that there is no solid particles at all. That makes more sense to me.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 I have measured trillions of quanta with equipment that I have built with my own hands. I have NEVER seen a standing wave. The only thing I and every other high energy physicist have ever seen were energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. Oh, yeah, that and lots of people who aren't paying attention in high school when we explain to them that quanta are small amounts of energy. Look it up. It should be in your high school science textbook under "photoelectric effect". :-)
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 What proof do I have? I have personally made trillions of quantum measurements with machines built by me. I have not seen a single particle. I have not seen a wave, either. All I have ever seen were energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. That's what a quantum is: a combination of these properties. Waves are emergent phenomena. They are the averages of many quanta of energy. That's what the theory says, as well, if you care to listen.
Finally somebody used simple words to explain one of the mind-boggling questions of quantum theory! 🎉 "If reality at infnitesimal scale is composed of little things that are both waves AND particles, why the ordinary bodies in our world (which are bunches of those things put together) don't appear and act in the same way?"... and the answer is - BOOM - because the mass. 🎉 The bigger the mass is, the smaller the wavelenght does. And vice versa". Thanx a lot! 🙇♂️
Thanks. Not trivia for me, specially the video is in the sense of general knowledge. Actually it's amazing for me to know, I have one more reason to like her. RIP for them both, served humanity in different ways.. The grandfather had the greater contribution I would say.
@@kariossyr6018 Pseudo knowledge. To be able to refer to a model, one has to specify the experimental environment. The way we detect is a function of the lab setup, not of the observable reality.
@@florincoter1988 Not trivia, I was replying to the original comment, as I liked the info about these two legends. About the video itself, I didn't like it. Have a nice day.
Even Einstein struggled with the identity of the electron. He famously pondered "I would like to know what an electron is" when asked what he would most like to discover in physics.
Great video. Really made it a bit more intuitive for me. Thank you! You have earned my sub, for sure. Keep up the great work, I can't wait to see how far you go on this platform!
PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS: Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements: I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2). Chemical Element #119 (8s1): #119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell. Chemical Element #120 (8s2): #120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars. When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way. In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically). If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better. (Except of course for those who might be in the way of a periodic nova or supernova. They might have a no good, very bad, horrible day.)
Nice presentation that probably should have been named "Nature of the Atom". While theoretical chemists casually use the S-equation to approximate orbitals and such - it has the right structure to provide a qualitatively correct "picture" of such things, it properly does NOT model real electrons. I think you know that for you need the Dirac equation, but did not want to burden the lay audience with the subtleties of that [if afraid of complex numbers, imagine the fear of spinors, etc. !!] cheers DKB
0:08 "the electrons always try to get from a negatively charged body to one that is positively charged *in relation* to it" That is: charge is RELATIVE. 2:24 IMHO here you should have said something like: electrons are *present around* the nucleus as *spherical* standing waves. 2:55 Imaginary numbers are simply a "mathematical shorthand", they don't mean that there is something not measurable!
Maybe the understanding has moved on since I was taught electron theory in the mid-1970's. Back then, we were taught that an electron can be thought of as a bundle of energy, with a characteristic wavelength, and therefore a 'cloud',rather than a particle occupying a precise location at any one time. From that, we understand that an electron extends to infinity in all directions, albeit at incredibly small energy levels. Every 'particle' is, after all, a bundle of 'concentrated' energy, and not a solid object. This can be seen from considering that E=mc² (plus relativistic effects). OK, now I'll watch your video and, if necessary, eat umble pie!
04:22 I love this Nobel father son proving / disproving example, father does not have his Nobel removed ... it encapsulates exactly the process of why science is a process not an established list of unquestionable facts, something the 'theory' deniers completely misunderstand in their attempts to deny our present understandings.
@@pj_ytmt-123hmm, i argue critical thought is even more foundational, make them mature enough to decide which systems of truth are more true, and from there comes instrospective self-knowledge, etc Also should we depend on something that insecure?, Anyways ontological existences that are worthy to be worshiped do not request nor force it, Have a fulfilling day
@@theeyeofomnipotent Well, every generation thinks it's better than its forefathers. Do you consider yourself more learned than St. Jerome, who *translated the Latin Vulgate: "Widely considered the most learned of the Latin Church Fathers, Jerome achieved fluency in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, with knowledge of Aramaic, Arabic, and Syriac..." Or have you done more critical thinking than St. Aquinas, whose magnum opus _Summa Theologiae_ consisted of 3125 articles of critical analysis dialectics? * St. Athanasius compiled the canon of the Bible
@@pj_ytmt-123 argument using identity is not the best way to argue, it is one of the bias people use, just because it's made by 'this amazing person or with amazing abilities' doesn't mean everything that come out of them is always true/amazing or is true/amazing anyway, infact we need to examine it even more just because of the fact we could be biased by the halo effect, and that amazing person could also be sliping things behind that halo effect, In the tower of evidence, expert opinion is basically the bottom of the totem pole, Such evidence must be defined as when all observer agree using same overall methods regardless of identity Everything must be able to be reproduced using the same methods, and be mostly the same in every observer, it should ring a bell what principal from which system of truth this refers to Such views in some discussions are also referenced as 'juvenoia' and 'generation' is a very loose umbrella anyway, what defines a generation?, What is better anyway?, we were just adding more thought to be argued for. An ontological existence that doesn't want the subjects to be able to mature and be able to examine what is wrong and right themself for being independent is a bad parent,... an infatilization
I imagine aether as net of circle pixels/atoms on tv screen. But I am closer to think that aether is 2D not 3D, it doesnt have depth, but depth is function of Time
You can also look at it from the wavelength spectrum of the electromagnetic waves. You can go from longwave to shortwave to microwave and then find infrared light and then visible light and then? Because of de Broglie, we know that there is no maximum frequency.
I gotta side with Einstein when it comes to how much we have to rely on probability in order to describe quantum mechanics. I think it's unlikely that these "particles" actually behave probabilistically, it's just that they are so small we have to invent new types of reasoning to explain what we can observe, we are likely still missing the big picture. The same thing would probably happen if we tried to create a scientific theory about cats but were never actually allowed to observe them, and instead only had pieces of information about them, like that they sometimes "vibrate", which is really just purring and is determined by other processes, it is not intrinsic / non-deterministic like how we often describe quantum phenomena.
There are no particles and quantum mechanics doesn't behave probabilistically, you just don't know why the theory starts with statistical independence and then works its way up to systems that are not statistically independent. That's a problem with your education, not a problem with the theory. ;-)
Holy shit...the holiday get-together dinner table at the Thomson's would've been epic! "Well, you obviously are completely clueless on the matter!" "Well, my Nobel prize says otherwise!" "You mean...THIS!!!" 😮😄
Everything is a wave as everything is just a ripple in a quantum field. Particles do sometimes behave like waves because they are in fact waves and they are always waves. These waves are just sometimes condensed down to a single spot and when that happens, we cannot really see that they are waves as the behavior we typically associate with waves is behavior that can only be observed when the energy of a wave is spread across a larger area. An electron is just an ultra high energy wave. Keep in mind that a wave in fact consists out of small energy packets, called photons. Energy always comes in discrete steps, it's quantized, because it is always a multiple of the energy of a single photon. Also keep in mind, that the energy of a photon depends only on its frequency. A wave with a bigger amplitude does not consist out of photons of higher energy, it just consists out of more photons. The higher the frequency of an EM wave, the more it can interact with particles, which you can also see as "the closer it gets to becoming a particle itself". The frequency of an electron is between the end of x-rays and the beginning of gamma rays, depending on the energy of the electron. The frequency of a proton is above gamma rays, this region is called cosmic rays. The difference between a pure EM wave and a particle is only that a particle has a mass, whereas an EM wave consisting out of photons only has an impulse but no mass. Photons will act as if they have a mass, when they hit something but that's only because they have an impulse and thus can be treated as if they had a mass. And that's the big riddle of physics: How exactly do particles get their their mass? We currently think that they get their mass by an interaction with the Higgs-field. But why can an electron interact with the Higgs-field, yet a photon of light cannot? If you solve this, you solved it all, then we can probably unify quantum field theory and relativity, know exactly how gravity works and you will win the Nobel price for sure.
I think the electron is the observed manifistation of a disturbance of the electro field. Like a wave on the surface of a pond yet all instances of the electron are identical thus the identical atomic weight.
The simple explanation is, your thoughts can change reality. How you think about something changes how you feel about it. The universe reacts to feelings. You are the universe, experiencing itself.
The Q is does a single electron or a light particle (photon) travel in a straight line, does these particles behave differently in a vacuum or in copper wire? If its both a wave and a particle then electrons and photons particles dont travel in a straight line, they would move up and down in a waveform travelling through the medium.
THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA: Revised TOE: 3/25/2017b. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. (The 'stationary photon' does not really exist, it is mentioned basically only to help describe what a stationary photon would do.) 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
@@Lastindependentthinker Consider also this item from my files: IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW: Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How? * ADDED NOTE: My current TOE idea can potentially answer all of these above items, and more, in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. And wouldn't one expect the true TOE of existence itself to be able to do that? What other TOE idea in known existence can currently do that? Surely not the General or Special Relativity Models nor even the Standard Model of Particle Physics. TOE Idea: Short version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test): The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe. The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. I am open to any and all theory of everything ideas that can potentially answer all those above items in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. Currently, as far as I am currently aware of, there are no others but my own.
@@Lastindependentthinker Then just this morning while laying in bed after a fairly restful nights sleep, consider this item: a. 'Gravity' appears to only act in one way, an attractive force. b. A 'normal' photon normally rotates in a certain direction as the electrical and magnetic portions of the photon complement each other. c. "IF" my TOE idea is correct, that gravity is a part of currently recognized 'em', gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other, and the photon would normally spin in a certain direction, then that could possibly be why gravity is only an attractive force. d. "IF" true, then by changing the 'em' coherent normally inter-related directions, maybe it's possible to generate artificial gravity?
Hi, you obviously have a better understanding than I do. One of the curious things that I have noticed is that gravity appears to be a displacement. And electromagnetism or fields emanate in lines from their source. Gravity presents itself as an acceleration and is object specific. The more mass the larger the acceleration. Although I have only just heard de Broglie from this video. There has to be a common denominator between Einsteins field equation, de Broglie and a couple of other formula's. Although math is not my strength I have put some time into learning the symbols as I believe we are trying to find formula's within formula's to describe E or energy. e=mc2 is just another way of just saying that if energy is equal to or greater than the ground-state. Then you get the periodic table of elements. If not? Then we would not be here to talk about it. If the Big Bang is true? Then U+infinity symbol is the unlimited potential of the ground-state. Ground symbol is the connection via quantum tunneling to our dimension. Then E sub p sub t equals the matter anti-matter period. Mind you I am just a casual at this with a lifetime interest. This is the best I've got.@@charlesbrightman4237
@@Lastindependentthinker E=mc2: Consider the following: a. 'c', speed of light, 'speed' being distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. b. Modern science does not apparently know what space and time actually are, plus modern science claims that space can contract, expand and warp and that time can vary and warp. So, how could modern science even know what the speed of light is, especially if space and time are warping and varying, especially across the vast universe? The speed of light would depend upon what space and time it were in. c. And how do numbers and certain mathematical constants actually exist so that modern science can do math for their math to do what math does in this existence? It would seem the very nature of reality would have to allow numbers and certain mathematical constants to exist so that math can do what math does in this existence. Modern science utilizes formulas and do not apparently know how exactly their formulas do what their formulas do. d. Singular Big Bang Theory: Personally, I believe the singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons, the CMBR from the supposed bang should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us, and the red shift observations have a more 'normal' already known physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. e. Our spiral shaped galaxy is probably collapsing in upon itself, and it's possible all galaxies collapse in upon themselves. And even utilizing modern science's view of reality, that matter warps the fabric of spacetime, there is a lot of matter in a galaxy which would put a huge dent in spacetime. How could a galaxy not collapse in upon itself if space and time were warped to make it so? f. Consider also that modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Hence, energy is eternally existent and is a finite amount. g. Wouldn't it be more probable that instead of a singular big bang, all galaxies eventually collapse in upon themselves, 'bang', generating a huge nebula cloud, which then coalesces into a new galaxy with new life in it? In other words, the universe is eternally existent but galaxies and life just come and go throughout all of eternity. We are just the latest version of galactic life, which will all most probably die and go extinct, to eventually allow a new galaxy and new life to come about. h. Unless of course we could possibly figure out what the true theory of everything is, and possibly utilize it so as to continue to exist while galaxies and other life just come and go in this eternal existence. (If it's even possible to do for various reasons. It's currently highly possible we were all destined to die and go extinct even before we even ever came into existence. But hey, it's fun to ponder while we all await our demise. Helps to pass the time, whatever 'time' actually is.)
Electrons are neither waves nor particles. To say they're understood at all is to utter a falsehood. Protons aren't understood either. No one knows what's inside a proton. The dogma used to be that it's two up and one down quark, but that model has recently been shot down in flames.
Electron's are quanta and are described very well by quantum electrodynamics. It's not 'shot down in flames at all'. A proton contains 3 valency quarks, but the energy associated with them in the gluon bonds is very high (makes up 98% of the mass of the proton) and this leads to a 'soup' of virtual quarks, gluons and mesons and so on which can be described by QCD (quantum chromodynamics).
Show a LED lamp to a cave man and he will think it’s BOTH a rock and a fire. Hint: it’s neither🤯 The fundamental problem with science that the latest - inherently temporary - theory or model is always celebrated as the ultimate truth. Phrasing does matter!
Traditional physics is inherently forced to use math and materialist categories for describing, proving and modelling but how could they deal with events and phenomena that are proven to involve uncertainties, theoretically undetectable (sub-Planck) physical properties, assumed thermodynamic probabilities and even, worst of all, the APPARENT dual nature and all that infinity? These are obvious error messages given by the nature saying: You are asking the wrong questions based on false, narrow-minded assumptions. Successful discovery of the natural reality, most obviously at subatomic levels, is fundamentally incompatible with the kind of mathematics and set of categories “scientists” currently tend to use. Being mathematically sharp and precise, as well as never questioning ancient dogmas (like the notorious faith in the uniformity of rules and constants of the nature regardless of e.g. size scale), are drawing a sharp and arbitrary boundary around our scope of possible discovery (discoverable universe). An intellectually limited person’s idea of “everything” - regardless of the amount of acquired knowledge and number of PhDs - is inherently restricted to just a subset of the actual everything. When operating a shaking patient, it is a disadvantage for the surgeon to have steady hands. He should rather be adaptive and flexible. The ONLY dogma or axiom that I still find valid is that any description or model that requires or results in extremely complicated mathematics (and fishy normalization trickery) is necessarily a misuse of both science and math - not much more productive than religion or esoteric lunatism that don’t even bother proving anything.
@@rocoe9019You may think so but the truth is you're just out of your depth. You simply don't understand what the video is actually about . If you had a scientific background you would know more about what the video is explaining (very well as it happens ).
If it acts both as a "particle" and a "wave", then it must be something else. Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? Does it take two full turns to get down the rabbit-hole (Alpha funnel)? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea...
I am not a physicist - only an electronic engineer - but I have also been thinking about things as I can see you have a lot. I think the thing we can agree on is that everything is energy. I there fore think that we have to find a solution to how energy can exist on it's own like it apparently does in Electro Magnetic Emission (EME - light, radiated heat, radio waves etc). This will have to be without any medium because other ways we have to explain how the medium is created. Some thing like string theory is fine but without strings. I actually don't believe that there are any particles at all. I think particles are standing waves. The phenomenon of mass will then be resistance to being moved or inertia. Gravity I believe is a similar force to electricity and magnetism. Bending of space time I am a little sceptical to. Time keeping mechanisms run different at different speed and at different altitude I believe in but that it causes what is thought of as bend Spacetime I am not so sure of. Mechanical clocks have run different for ever without doing anything so that electronic clocks or even biological clocks run different I believe only makes a difference for the life time of where the clock is but not for any body or any thing else. I believe time is a momentary thing. We can remember the past but it is gone. The future can only be predicted with some randomness included. So trying to get to the answers of all your questions I think you/we have to start with a small thing like understanding EME or for that matter electricity. I mean how it works - not how it shows up to us because that we know well. It is not so small at all but the rest is much bigger and much more difficult to understand believe.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Thank you for the king response. They are very rare these days. During the last couple of weeks, I came up with the following statement. It is a compactified version of my idea. Your concept of "standing waves" may be related. What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? It takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length
@@SpotterVideo I am basically just making my ideas from what I have noticed when working with electronics and then trying to get that to fall in line with what I hear and read about what has been found out. I know that EME has energy and I believe that it is traveling with the speed of light. I also know that I can have a standing wave on a coax cable (or similar) and that is stationary in it's totality outwards. The energy of the EME in that standing wave must there fore be stationary. If energy is equal to mass then there must be a mass increase where that standing wave is. My standing waves in coax cables and transmission lines are at comparatively very low frequencies but I believe it is the same at all frequencies so from that I deduct that all matter COULD be a form of standing waves. If e=hf and electrons in different positions around the core of an atom have different energy levels then it could be different frequencies of standing waves I would think. It could then be that adding energy could be done by mixing two frequencies and get a higher resulting frequency out of it. I am familiar with from radio theory that two lower frequencies can be mixed and generate a higher frequency. It just demands some non linearity for the mixing. This is really where I am at. Having an aether and strings or quantum field or any field to hold this may be necessary but it just make some thing more to explain so I would prefer to be without all that. It is ok for calculation purposes but I would prefer that it was not there in reality. Of cause what I would prefer is irrelevant to what nature makes up. I am not God just a participating observer. What I would like advances on are things like what is an electric field and what is EME actually. I don't mean how we see or measure it but what it actually is. I am after the basic building blocks - the manifestation of energy. To make up the whole theory is too much for me. I believe EWT (Energywavetheory.com) may have some good ideas but i am not capable to analyse it all.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 I have my HAM radio license. Have you ever considered that radio waves could travel through space like a coil spring which is turning? Electrons are described as both a particle and a wave. Therefore, they must be something else, which we do not now understand. Physicists describe them as a "point" particle, so where is the stuff it is really made up of? This make me believe there is at least one extra spatial dimension. How many spatial dimensions are found below? Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
@@SpotterVideo I did have a HAM (WHF) licence in Denmark and worked some with it then but coming to Australia and being full time working with electronics I just never got around to getting it here. I can only take so much electronics. In regards to Radio waves then they are at least either vertical aligned. horizontal aligned, twisting right or twisting left. They are both magnetic and electrostatic. It is just the same as light. What I can't understand is that the magnetic part is in phase with the voltage part. They say it is. When they are generated from a dipole they supposedly are not as the current and voltage is 90 degrees out of phase but supposedly when it gets to what is called farfield it changes. (Farfield is from one wave length away I believe). I wish that I could measure it. When I first heard about it many years ago I thought electro magnetic waves would be like the energy in a pendulum and there fore change from magnetic to electric and visa versa as the pendulum changes from potential to kinetic energy and visa versa but apparently not. I would have liked very much to have made some research into this but I don't really have the resources. i believe that I would very much have liked to do research but to get money for my living and all the other things I have liked in life I had to settle for maintenance jobs. It was for a long time big computers but the latter 15 years before my retirement it was lesser complicated stuff as I apparently got too old (or too expensive) for the big computer companies. When I studied to become an electronic engineer I did learn about physics and chemistry as well and of cause the mathematics but it is so long ago. it was quite advanced but we went through it fast so a lot has left just as fast. We just had to know that it existed so that if we needed it later we could study it our self's. After all if we did get into research it would be a narrow field so then we could study it in depth. That is what I am trying a little of now.
A wonder of low mass ,small size with a negative charge. As we know now it has three generation with crown of 1st. Poor proton with ~2000 time heavy , small wave length. No generation, fallacy of + ve Welcome you for reminding what is electron
On one hand, they are considered point particles of zero size/volume. On the other hand, if we consider electron's wave function is the electron itself, then when bound in an atom it's the size of an atom (~ 10^-10 m). A free electron's wave function can be arbitrary large, in theory.
At 4:40 you are wrong.. you say "the true nature of matter is one of probability". That's not what quantum physics shows. Some people think that when more information is known, we won't have probabilities. That's hidden variables theory. Also from what I understand, those orbital diagrams aren't regions of space, they're probability distributions... that i suppose might map to space somehow,
I still don't get where the particles like light or electrons get their energy that allows them to be alight or move for billions of years. Nope they are no perpetuum machines and yet they move forever.
I get why it seems weird! In our planet we see how things eventually slowdown. This is because of friction and air resistance. When you shoot a bullet it keeps hitting air molecules that continually slow it down little by little. However in space there is no air so there is nothing to slow anything down. If i threw an apple in space it would keep moving in that direction forever. Light and electrons are no different they just keep going until they hit something. If everything just slowed down on its own then that would mean the particles would lose energy from nothing which would violate the law of physics stating that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed!
@@Brad-qw1te well what you said works only partly. If there was nothing in the space, then the rocket engines wouldn't work as they'd have nothing to cause action/reaction - nothing to lean on. Even the satellites have to either be pushed up like ISS, or they eventually burn in the atmosphere. But in the atomic world, there seems as if indeed there is nothing smaller than electrons oscillating around, so theoretically, there is void. But there are other electrons to bump into all the time. What prevents their collisions is most often the electric charge which ensures the electrons stay on their "orbit". But still, even the charge is an energy and once it pushes something away, that energy is spent. So... I am still baffled, but then I have to remind myself that I don't want to become a scientist to learn as much detail. 🤣 I can remain baffled until someone more curious than me will explain. 🤭
oi! dont ask awkward questions! wtf IS charge? i like to try and go back to the old days...when charge only meant one thing... a flow. "a charge of cavalry"... gotta remember that it was just a term coined to describe something happening... attraction...repulsion... seemingly opposite "charges" that can either attract their opposites or repel their brethren... but no-ones explained what it actually IS, so far as i can surmise. iunno. at least you ask the right questions :)
So wouldnt this also mean that every combination of adjacent fermions each have their own wave? Given the math of combinatorics, thats an infathomable number of waves.
No. There's only one quantum state ("wavefunction") for the quantum model of any physical system and it doesn't matter how many particles it contains. This simple and well known fact about quantum states - that they're functions on configuration space, not functions on (3D) space - was understood even by Schrodinger (among others of that era). It was one of the reasons that he warned against the naive interpretation of the quantum state as a physical wave in his famous "Cat paper", why the early semi-classical interpretations that did try to understand QM that way were abandoned, and why today everyone who has understood the theory properly will - or at least should! - tell you that the idea that the quantum state ("wavefunction") _is_ a wave or that it (sometimes) _behaves_ like a wave ("wave-particle duality") is simply _incorrect;_ a misconception belonging to semi-classical antiquity. With hindsight and the advantage of a modern understanding of the conceptual and mathematical foundations of QM we recognise quantum theory (QT) as a noncommutative, algebraic generalisation of probability theory and there's no mystery about why the applied theory (QM and QFT) yields only probabilistic predictions (Born's rule). And although, as I've pointed out, there hasn't really been any excuse for those obsolete misconceptions about waves and wave-particle duality since long before this modern understanding there most certainly isn't any excuse for them now (yet, rather scandalously, they do persist).
Think an electron IS a particle but the universe has a certain capture rate at which when it actually renders the electron it has sort of a shutter speed to it which makes the electron SMEAR into realty instead of a static state...Sort of like trying to take a picture of a moving ball at high speed...The ball itself is a solid ball but will appear as a blur in the photo. This allows both concepts to be true, that it's a particle and a cloud of probability.
@@dougfoster445 The results of wave-like behaviour before measurement and particle-like behaviour after measurement. You posit that it shows wave-like behaviour because it is simply a particle moving too fast for incremental time, in other words, it has always been a particle; then it should only exhibit particle-like results when pushed through the double-slits and being stopped by the screen.
Soooooo. so physicists today consider an electron a "point source" phenomenon. Yet they don't know how that works. (Points exist in math, but are not supposed to exist in nature.) I thought that they would talk about "this" conundrum. One which those old timey physicist were not aware of. The rest is old news.
An electron is a quantum of energy that carries a lepton number of one, a negative electric charge, a spin of 1/2 and a rest mas of 511keV/c^2. See how easy this was? No need for five minutes. One sentence is enough. ;-)
I cant understand why you brilliant people dont understand that a particle is only a single wave length hiting a target. When you interfere with it it becomes a perticle SO simple .
0:58 So if the wavelength associated to a person is so small, and the smaller the wavelength the higher the energy, why persons do not cause cancer, like if they were ultraenergetic gamma beams?
Gamma rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation, which can cause random errors to the DNA of a living object, potentially leading to cancer. Particle waves aren't electromagnetic, and they don't appear to be destructive at high energies. The mathematics gives a huge indication that particles follow the rules associated with waves, but I'm not sure that anyone knows for certain what it is that's actually waving! We do know that this wave nature of particles is baked into the structure of the universe, so if something about it prevented the formation of large conglomerations of atoms, then stars, planets, and ultimately living things, could never have developed in the first place - this universe would be a featureless void. If you believe that there are an infinite number of universes, each with their own set of unique laws, then this might be the fate of most of them...
@@mandolinic I am afraid you are confusing probabilistic waves, which belong to phase space, with the wave asociated to a particle, which is indeed electromagnetic.
You are not simply a wave. You are a ton of atoms and if you plug your mass into the equation you have a wavelength but its not like you are transferring all of your energy into anything unlike a photon. When a photon hits an electron its giving it all of its energy whereas if you touch something you arnt giving it all of your energy.
@@mandolinic Well said.. My thought is that subatomic particles like electrons, have different meaning for their composition. They're mainly energy fields with mass arises on interacting with the Higgs field.
Seems to me that the electron is a particle that is moving though the fundamental EM field. It's not that the electron IS a wave, it merely has a frequency at which it moves/spins in concordance/harmony with the surrounding EM field. What Schrodinger saw in his slit experiment was (IMHO) most likely the disturance of the EM field as the electron hit the plate, rather than the electron itself, which was either absorbed or reflected.
I don't think "wave" or "particle" adequately captures the true essence of an electron. As a charged thing, it has a magnetic field around it due to its constant motion. This is the "wave" part. But staying within an orbital path gives it a sort of particle nature given its discreteness, and our ability to determine its mass. This is one of those both/and situations. Add to that the interactions they have with photons, which are more clearly waves, that can influence which orbital the electron travels in. When they drop into a lower orbit, they give off a photon. Maybe we should call it a "pave" or a "warticle"? 😉
It's not the you can't measure the position and momentum of an electron precisely, you can --but only because hbar is really small, beyond that: you can't measure them both because it doesn't have them both the same time.
The measurement problem is due to the wavelike nature of matter. A wave with a definite position acts like a particle, but the momentum of that particle now has multiple possibilities due to how that wave is constructed from multiple sine waves of different frequencies (superpositions) so its momentum is undefined. Likewise, if you measure a particles momentum then that means its position is now a superposition of waves and is spread out over a large volume, like the size of an atom. The way you measure the particle affects the particle itself.
![Kodak Black - Versatile 4 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VcP_1Ua__vY/mqdefault.jpg)
Yeah, the part where you said something like, " the electron surrounds the nucleus as a standing wave which is why you can only have specific energy levels/bands" helped my visualisation a lot. A tiny lightbulb moment that went on in my little brain. Many thanks for posting this excellent video!
Electrons are not standing waves. That's just the usual physics bullshit you will hear on the internet about it. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Now what proof do you have of that? I believe that all matter is standing waves in some form or other and that there is no solid particles at all. That makes more sense to me.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 I have measured trillions of quanta with equipment that I have built with my own hands. I have NEVER seen a standing wave. The only thing I and every other high energy physicist have ever seen were energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. Oh, yeah, that and lots of people who aren't paying attention in high school when we explain to them that quanta are small amounts of energy. Look it up. It should be in your high school science textbook under "photoelectric effect". :-)
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 What proof do I have? I have personally made trillions of quantum measurements with machines built by me. I have not seen a single particle. I have not seen a wave, either. All I have ever seen were energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. That's what a quantum is: a combination of these properties. Waves are emergent phenomena. They are the averages of many quanta of energy. That's what the theory says, as well, if you care to listen.
@@lepidoptera9337I met an electron once he was pretty cool
Finally somebody used simple words to explain one of the mind-boggling questions of quantum theory! 🎉 "If reality at infnitesimal scale is composed of little things that are both waves AND particles, why the ordinary bodies in our world (which are bunches of those things put together) don't appear and act in the same way?"... and the answer is - BOOM - because the mass. 🎉 The bigger the mass is, the smaller the wavelenght does. And vice versa". Thanx a lot! 🙇♂️
It's more to do with the energy scales in many instances as well
Yay! Another great channel I can subscribe to and learn cool stuff with! Thanks, buddy. Congrats on your rising numbers. You deserve it.
Perfect length and quality of content. Perfect. Thank you.
A bit of trivia: Max Born is the grand father of singer/actress Olivia Newton John!
Thanks.
Not trivia for me, specially the video is in the sense of general knowledge. Actually it's amazing for me to know, I have one more reason to like her. RIP for them both, served humanity in different ways.. The grandfather had the greater contribution I would say.
@@kariossyr6018 Pseudo knowledge. To be able to refer to a model, one has to specify the experimental environment. The way we detect is a function of the lab setup, not of the observable reality.
Elton John is her brother 4:57
@@florincoter1988 Not trivia, I was replying to the original comment, as I liked the info about these two legends.
About the video itself, I didn't like it.
Have a nice day.
@@kariossyr6018 Thank you.
The realm of quantum mechanics is just as confusing as the very life we all live. Great presentation, loved it to the end!
Even Einstein struggled with the identity of the electron. He famously pondered "I would like to know what an electron is" when asked what he would most like to discover in physics.
And Quantum BS hasnt explained it further
That's where God's energy lives. Read Sophia's code by Kaia Ra
@@rogerjohnson2562check out the electron field theory
That video was very informative , the electron orbits and the uncertainty principle finally clicked in my head and i see how it works now! Thanks
No, electrons do not orbit. They "dwell" in a "cloud" of probability around the nucleus. They are not turning small balls.
If the 'uncertainty' principle clicked...
Great video. Really made it a bit more intuitive for me. Thank you! You have earned my sub, for sure. Keep up the great work, I can't wait to see how far you go on this platform!
PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS:
Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements:
I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2).
Chemical Element #119 (8s1):
#119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell.
Chemical Element #120 (8s2):
#120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars.
When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way.
In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically).
If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better. (Except of course for those who might be in the way of a periodic nova or supernova. They might have a no good, very bad, horrible day.)
This perfectly summarizes what I need to know for chemistry. Thank you!
Utterly fascinating
Nice presentation that probably should have been named "Nature of the Atom". While theoretical chemists casually use the S-equation to approximate orbitals and such - it has the right structure to provide a qualitatively correct "picture" of such things, it properly does NOT model real electrons. I think you know that for you need the Dirac equation, but did not want to burden the lay audience with the subtleties of that [if afraid of complex numbers, imagine the fear of spinors, etc. !!]
cheers DKB
0:08 "the electrons always try to get from a negatively charged body to one that is positively charged *in relation* to it" That is: charge is RELATIVE.
2:24 IMHO here you should have said something like: electrons are *present around* the nucleus as *spherical* standing waves.
2:55 Imaginary numbers are simply a "mathematical shorthand", they don't mean that there is something not measurable!
Nice brief summary.
Another one of your great videos! Thanks.
Maybe the understanding has moved on since I was taught electron theory in the mid-1970's. Back then, we were taught that an electron can be thought of as a bundle of energy, with a characteristic wavelength, and therefore a 'cloud',rather than a particle occupying a precise location at any one time. From that, we understand that an electron extends to infinity in all directions, albeit at incredibly small energy levels. Every 'particle' is, after all, a bundle of 'concentrated' energy, and not a solid object. This can be seen from considering that E=mc² (plus relativistic effects).
OK, now I'll watch your video and, if necessary, eat umble pie!
That's it. Thanks. 😉
That’s my understanding as well. Electrons have centers but no edges.
Excellent... thanks 🙏.
04:22 I love this Nobel father son proving / disproving example, father does not have his Nobel removed ... it encapsulates exactly the process of why science is a process not an established list of unquestionable facts, something the 'theory' deniers completely misunderstand in their attempts to deny our present understandings.
Religion and the penchant for absolutes corrupts young minds
@@v2talkNay, a solid biblical foundation sets young-uns on the right path. ✌️
@@pj_ytmt-123hmm, i argue critical thought is even more foundational, make them mature enough to decide which systems of truth are more true,
and from there comes instrospective self-knowledge, etc
Also should we depend on something that insecure?,
Anyways ontological existences that are worthy to be worshiped do not request nor force it,
Have a fulfilling day
@@theeyeofomnipotent Well, every generation thinks it's better than its forefathers.
Do you consider yourself more learned than St. Jerome, who *translated the Latin Vulgate:
"Widely considered the most learned of the Latin Church Fathers, Jerome achieved fluency in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, with knowledge of Aramaic, Arabic, and Syriac..."
Or have you done more critical thinking than St. Aquinas, whose magnum opus _Summa Theologiae_ consisted of 3125 articles of critical analysis dialectics?
* St. Athanasius compiled the canon of the Bible
@@pj_ytmt-123 argument using identity is not the best way to argue, it is one of the bias people use, just because it's made by 'this amazing person or with amazing abilities' doesn't mean everything that come out of them is always true/amazing or is true/amazing anyway, infact we need to examine it even more just because of the fact we could be biased by the halo effect, and that amazing person could also be sliping things behind that halo effect,
In the tower of evidence, expert opinion is basically the bottom of the totem pole,
Such evidence must be defined as when all observer agree using same overall methods regardless of identity
Everything must be able to be reproduced using the same methods, and be mostly the same in every observer, it should ring a bell what principal from which system of truth this refers to
Such views in some discussions are also referenced as 'juvenoia' and 'generation' is a very loose umbrella anyway, what defines a generation?,
What is better anyway?, we were just adding more thought to be argued for.
An ontological existence that doesn't want the subjects to be able to mature and be able to examine what is wrong and right themself for being independent is a bad parent,... an infatilization
Lovely channel!!
Brilliant. Thank you.
Well done. Your thumbnail tells us that electrons know which way "up" is.
I imagine aether as net of circle pixels/atoms on tv screen. But I am closer to think that aether is 2D not 3D, it doesnt have depth, but depth is function of Time
I imagine joseph john thomson and his son constantly having heated arguments wherever it is a wave or a particle, like those 2 from American chopper
You can also look at it from the wavelength spectrum of the electromagnetic waves. You can go from longwave to shortwave to microwave and then find infrared light and then visible light and then? Because of de Broglie, we know that there is no maximum frequency.
I gotta side with Einstein when it comes to how much we have to rely on probability in order to describe quantum mechanics. I think it's unlikely that these "particles" actually behave probabilistically, it's just that they are so small we have to invent new types of reasoning to explain what we can observe, we are likely still missing the big picture. The same thing would probably happen if we tried to create a scientific theory about cats but were never actually allowed to observe them, and instead only had pieces of information about them, like that they sometimes "vibrate", which is really just purring and is determined by other processes, it is not intrinsic / non-deterministic like how we often describe quantum phenomena.
There are no particles and quantum mechanics doesn't behave probabilistically, you just don't know why the theory starts with statistical independence and then works its way up to systems that are not statistically independent. That's a problem with your education, not a problem with the theory. ;-)
What!!! There's more than one Electron in the Universe? It is a fundamental particle that pops in and out of SpaceTime. Prove me wrong.
Bro i don't even know what it looks like
Holy shit...the holiday get-together dinner table at the Thomson's would've been epic!
"Well, you obviously are completely clueless on the matter!"
"Well, my Nobel prize says otherwise!"
"You mean...THIS!!!"
😮😄
Everything is a wave as everything is just a ripple in a quantum field. Particles do sometimes behave like waves because they are in fact waves and they are always waves. These waves are just sometimes condensed down to a single spot and when that happens, we cannot really see that they are waves as the behavior we typically associate with waves is behavior that can only be observed when the energy of a wave is spread across a larger area. An electron is just an ultra high energy wave. Keep in mind that a wave in fact consists out of small energy packets, called photons. Energy always comes in discrete steps, it's quantized, because it is always a multiple of the energy of a single photon. Also keep in mind, that the energy of a photon depends only on its frequency. A wave with a bigger amplitude does not consist out of photons of higher energy, it just consists out of more photons. The higher the frequency of an EM wave, the more it can interact with particles, which you can also see as "the closer it gets to becoming a particle itself". The frequency of an electron is between the end of x-rays and the beginning of gamma rays, depending on the energy of the electron. The frequency of a proton is above gamma rays, this region is called cosmic rays. The difference between a pure EM wave and a particle is only that a particle has a mass, whereas an EM wave consisting out of photons only has an impulse but no mass. Photons will act as if they have a mass, when they hit something but that's only because they have an impulse and thus can be treated as if they had a mass. And that's the big riddle of physics: How exactly do particles get their their mass? We currently think that they get their mass by an interaction with the Higgs-field. But why can an electron interact with the Higgs-field, yet a photon of light cannot? If you solve this, you solved it all, then we can probably unify quantum field theory and relativity, know exactly how gravity works and you will win the Nobel price for sure.
Higgs-field might be a hoax.
Good video
So the nature of the electrons is uncertain. Very clear explanation indeed.
Новейшая временная да ещё геометрическая принята за истину. Видно кому-то это выгодно.
I think the electron is the observed manifistation of a disturbance of the electro field. Like a wave on the surface of a pond yet all instances of the electron are identical thus the identical atomic weight.
The simple explanation is, your thoughts can change reality. How you think about something changes how you feel about it. The universe reacts to feelings. You are the universe, experiencing itself.
A photon is just a single wavelength
matter is single wavelenghts combining .
4:20 "Dad, you're right but you're wrong."
I think u should do full lecture on organic clayden
I’m honoured you think so but it might end up being quite a long video 😅
The Q is does a single electron or a light particle (photon) travel in a straight line, does these particles behave differently in a vacuum or in copper wire? If its both a wave and a particle then electrons and photons particles dont travel in a straight line, they would move up and down in a waveform travelling through the medium.
Is this how the world can be influenced. Trough uncertainty in the smallest realms
Is an electron moving through a circuit a wave or particle? I really want to know!!😮
Since the material itself is full of electrons, can't we use electricity without a power plant?
What lead to de Broglie suggesting the electron was not a fundamental particle and did he change his mind? Have I got the history wrong?
THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA:
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017b.
My Current TOE:
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons.
10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks.
12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. (The 'stationary photon' does not really exist, it is mentioned basically only to help describe what a stationary photon would do.)
14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe.
15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true.
26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught?
DISCLAIMER:
27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty.
Sounds good to me.
@@Lastindependentthinker Consider also this item from my files:
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW:
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon?
And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
* ADDED NOTE: My current TOE idea can potentially answer all of these above items, and more, in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. And wouldn't one expect the true TOE of existence itself to be able to do that? What other TOE idea in known existence can currently do that? Surely not the General or Special Relativity Models nor even the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
TOE Idea: Short version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test):
The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other.
I am open to any and all theory of everything ideas that can potentially answer all those above items in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. Currently, as far as I am currently aware of, there are no others but my own.
@@Lastindependentthinker Then just this morning while laying in bed after a fairly restful nights sleep, consider this item:
a. 'Gravity' appears to only act in one way, an attractive force.
b. A 'normal' photon normally rotates in a certain direction as the electrical and magnetic portions of the photon complement each other.
c. "IF" my TOE idea is correct, that gravity is a part of currently recognized 'em', gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other, and the photon would normally spin in a certain direction, then that could possibly be why gravity is only an attractive force.
d. "IF" true, then by changing the 'em' coherent normally inter-related directions, maybe it's possible to generate artificial gravity?
Hi, you obviously have a better understanding than I do. One of the curious things that I have noticed is that gravity appears to be a displacement. And electromagnetism or fields emanate in lines from their source. Gravity presents itself as an acceleration and is object specific. The more mass the larger the acceleration. Although I have only just heard de Broglie from this video. There has to be a common denominator between Einsteins field equation, de Broglie and a couple of other formula's. Although math is not my strength I have put some time into learning the symbols as I believe we are trying to find formula's within formula's to describe E or energy. e=mc2 is just another way of just saying that if energy is equal to or greater than the ground-state. Then you get the periodic table of elements. If not? Then we would not be here to talk about it. If the Big Bang is true? Then U+infinity symbol is the unlimited potential of the ground-state. Ground symbol is the connection via quantum tunneling to our dimension. Then E sub p sub t equals the matter anti-matter period. Mind you I am just a casual at this with a lifetime interest. This is the best I've got.@@charlesbrightman4237
@@Lastindependentthinker E=mc2: Consider the following:
a. 'c', speed of light, 'speed' being distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points.
b. Modern science does not apparently know what space and time actually are, plus modern science claims that space can contract, expand and warp and that time can vary and warp. So, how could modern science even know what the speed of light is, especially if space and time are warping and varying, especially across the vast universe? The speed of light would depend upon what space and time it were in.
c. And how do numbers and certain mathematical constants actually exist so that modern science can do math for their math to do what math does in this existence? It would seem the very nature of reality would have to allow numbers and certain mathematical constants to exist so that math can do what math does in this existence. Modern science utilizes formulas and do not apparently know how exactly their formulas do what their formulas do.
d. Singular Big Bang Theory: Personally, I believe the singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons, the CMBR from the supposed bang should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us, and the red shift observations have a more 'normal' already known physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed.
e. Our spiral shaped galaxy is probably collapsing in upon itself, and it's possible all galaxies collapse in upon themselves. And even utilizing modern science's view of reality, that matter warps the fabric of spacetime, there is a lot of matter in a galaxy which would put a huge dent in spacetime. How could a galaxy not collapse in upon itself if space and time were warped to make it so?
f. Consider also that modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Hence, energy is eternally existent and is a finite amount.
g. Wouldn't it be more probable that instead of a singular big bang, all galaxies eventually collapse in upon themselves, 'bang', generating a huge nebula cloud, which then coalesces into a new galaxy with new life in it? In other words, the universe is eternally existent but galaxies and life just come and go throughout all of eternity. We are just the latest version of galactic life, which will all most probably die and go extinct, to eventually allow a new galaxy and new life to come about.
h. Unless of course we could possibly figure out what the true theory of everything is, and possibly utilize it so as to continue to exist while galaxies and other life just come and go in this eternal existence. (If it's even possible to do for various reasons. It's currently highly possible we were all destined to die and go extinct even before we even ever came into existence. But hey, it's fun to ponder while we all await our demise. Helps to pass the time, whatever 'time' actually is.)
Wave when is moving and the particle when stopped.
Luey De Boy is the one who did N=MC2
Electrons are neither waves nor particles. To say they're understood at all is to utter a falsehood. Protons aren't understood either. No one knows what's inside a proton. The dogma used to be that it's two up and one down quark, but that model has recently been shot down in flames.
The more I study the more I realize how long of a road we still have
Electron's are quanta and are described very well by quantum electrodynamics. It's not 'shot down in flames at all'. A proton contains 3 valency quarks, but the energy associated with them in the gluon bonds is very high (makes up 98% of the mass of the proton) and this leads to a 'soup' of virtual quarks, gluons and mesons and so on which can be described by QCD (quantum chromodynamics).
What wave? Like waving ropes?
While I like these videos. Realistically we know nothing about electrons but a lot of its properties.
Brilliantly explained, connecting all the dots.
4:40 the 'bizzare' dots?
Never mind that has anyone ever seen Schrödinger and Roy Scheider (from jaws) in the same room?
So it is a field ?
Show a LED lamp to a cave man and he will think it’s BOTH a rock and a fire. Hint: it’s neither🤯 The fundamental problem with science that the latest - inherently temporary - theory or model is always celebrated as the ultimate truth. Phrasing does matter!
You're obviously not a scientist otherwise you wouldn't post such tripe .
@@billcook7483I'm not a scientist and I can see he's talking tripe,
Traditional physics is inherently forced to use math and materialist categories for describing, proving and modelling but how could they deal with events and phenomena that are proven to involve uncertainties, theoretically undetectable (sub-Planck) physical properties, assumed thermodynamic probabilities and even, worst of all, the APPARENT dual nature and all that infinity? These are obvious error messages given by the nature saying: You are asking the wrong questions based on false, narrow-minded assumptions. Successful discovery of the natural reality, most obviously at subatomic levels, is fundamentally incompatible with the kind of mathematics and set of categories “scientists” currently tend to use. Being mathematically sharp and precise, as well as never questioning ancient dogmas (like the notorious faith in the uniformity of rules and constants of the nature regardless of e.g. size scale), are drawing a sharp and arbitrary boundary around our scope of possible discovery (discoverable universe). An intellectually limited person’s idea of “everything” - regardless of the amount of acquired knowledge and number of PhDs - is inherently restricted to just a subset of the actual everything. When operating a shaking patient, it is a disadvantage for the surgeon to have steady hands. He should rather be adaptive and flexible. The ONLY dogma or axiom that I still find valid is that any description or model that requires or results in extremely complicated mathematics (and fishy normalization trickery) is necessarily a misuse of both science and math - not much more productive than religion or esoteric lunatism that don’t even bother proving anything.
@@rocoe9019You may think so but the truth is you're just out of your depth. You simply don't understand what the video is actually about . If you had a scientific background you would know more about what the video is explaining (very well as it happens ).
they're never facts.. always theories
Why do we think electrons are particles again?
They have mass. And you can count them.
What if everything is wrong?
If it acts both as a "particle" and a "wave", then it must be something else.
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? Does it take two full turns to get down the rabbit-hole (Alpha funnel)?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea...
I am not a physicist - only an electronic engineer - but I have also been thinking about things as I can see you have a lot.
I think the thing we can agree on is that everything is energy.
I there fore think that we have to find a solution to how energy can exist on it's own like it apparently does in Electro Magnetic Emission (EME - light, radiated heat, radio waves etc). This will have to be without any medium because other ways we have to explain how the medium is created. Some thing like string theory is fine but without strings.
I actually don't believe that there are any particles at all. I think particles are standing waves. The phenomenon of mass will then be resistance to being moved or inertia. Gravity I believe is a similar force to electricity and magnetism.
Bending of space time I am a little sceptical to. Time keeping mechanisms run different at different speed and at different altitude I believe in but that it causes what is thought of as bend Spacetime I am not so sure of. Mechanical clocks have run different for ever without doing anything so that electronic clocks or even biological clocks run different I believe only makes a difference for the life time of where the clock is but not for any body or any thing else. I believe time is a momentary thing. We can remember the past but it is gone. The future can only be predicted with some randomness included.
So trying to get to the answers of all your questions I think you/we have to start with a small thing like understanding EME or for that matter electricity. I mean how it works - not how it shows up to us because that we know well. It is not so small at all but the rest is much bigger and much more difficult to understand believe.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Thank you for the king response. They are very rare these days. During the last couple of weeks, I came up with the following statement. It is a compactified version of my idea. Your concept of "standing waves" may be related.
What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common?
It takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (Quantum unit).
Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length
@@SpotterVideo I am basically just making my ideas from what I have noticed when working with electronics and then trying to get that to fall in line with what I hear and read about what has been found out.
I know that EME has energy and I believe that it is traveling with the speed of light. I also know that I can have a standing wave on a coax cable (or similar) and that is stationary in it's totality outwards. The energy of the EME in that standing wave must there fore be stationary. If energy is equal to mass then there must be a mass increase where that standing wave is.
My standing waves in coax cables and transmission lines are at comparatively very low frequencies but I believe it is the same at all frequencies so from that I deduct that all matter COULD be a form of standing waves.
If e=hf and electrons in different positions around the core of an atom have different energy levels then it could be different frequencies of standing waves I would think. It could then be that adding energy could be done by mixing two frequencies and get a higher resulting frequency out of it. I am familiar with from radio theory that two lower frequencies can be mixed and generate a higher frequency. It just demands some non linearity for the mixing.
This is really where I am at. Having an aether and strings or quantum field or any field to hold this may be necessary but it just make some thing more to explain so I would prefer to be without all that. It is ok for calculation purposes but I would prefer that it was not there in reality. Of cause what I would prefer is irrelevant to what nature makes up. I am not God just a participating observer.
What I would like advances on are things like what is an electric field and what is EME actually. I don't mean how we see or measure it but what it actually is. I am after the basic building blocks - the manifestation of energy. To make up the whole theory is too much for me. I believe EWT (Energywavetheory.com) may have some good ideas but i am not capable to analyse it all.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 I have my HAM radio license. Have you ever considered that radio waves could travel through space like a coil spring which is turning?
Electrons are described as both a particle and a wave. Therefore, they must be something else, which we do not now understand. Physicists describe them as a "point" particle, so where is the stuff it is really made up of? This make me believe there is at least one extra spatial dimension. How many spatial dimensions are found below?
Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
@@SpotterVideo I did have a HAM (WHF) licence in Denmark and worked some with it then but coming to Australia and being full time working with electronics I just never got around to getting it here. I can only take so much electronics.
In regards to Radio waves then they are at least either vertical aligned. horizontal aligned, twisting right or twisting left. They are both magnetic and electrostatic. It is just the same as light.
What I can't understand is that the magnetic part is in phase with the voltage part. They say it is. When they are generated from a dipole they supposedly are not as the current and voltage is 90 degrees out of phase but supposedly when it gets to what is called farfield it changes. (Farfield is from one wave length away I believe). I wish that I could measure it.
When I first heard about it many years ago I thought electro magnetic waves would be like the energy in a pendulum and there fore change from magnetic to electric and visa versa as the pendulum changes from potential to kinetic energy and visa versa but apparently not. I would have liked very much to have made some research into this but I don't really have the resources.
i believe that I would very much have liked to do research but to get money for my living and all the other things I have liked in life I had to settle for maintenance jobs. It was for a long time big computers but the latter 15 years before my retirement it was lesser complicated stuff as I apparently got too old (or too expensive) for the big computer companies.
When I studied to become an electronic engineer I did learn about physics and chemistry as well and of cause the mathematics but it is so long ago. it was quite advanced but we went through it fast so a lot has left just as fast. We just had to know that it existed so that if we needed it later we could study it our self's. After all if we did get into research it would be a narrow field so then we could study it in depth. That is what I am trying a little of now.
Light does not behave as a wave. Photons ride on the CMB, like a feather in the wind.
A wonder of low mass ,small size with a negative charge.
As we know now it has three generation with crown of 1st.
Poor proton with ~2000 time heavy , small wave length. No generation, fallacy of + ve
Welcome you for reminding what is electron
It's not the electrons that are weird, rather, your understanding is weird (i.e. not consistent with reality)
Nobel Prizes for everybody!
Thanks quarks and takions
...busy little fuzzballs: without which, nothing...
What is the volume of an electron?
On one hand, they are considered point particles of zero size/volume. On the other hand, if we consider electron's wave function is the electron itself, then when bound in an atom it's the size of an atom (~ 10^-10 m). A free electron's wave function can be arbitrary large, in theory.
At 4:40 you are wrong.. you say "the true nature of matter is one of probability". That's not what quantum physics shows. Some people think that when more information is known, we won't have probabilities. That's hidden variables theory. Also from what I understand, those orbital diagrams aren't regions of space, they're probability distributions... that i suppose might map to space somehow,
There is only one electron, and we can only see parts of it at one time.
I still don't get where the particles like light or electrons get their energy that allows them to be alight or move for billions of years. Nope they are no perpetuum machines and yet they move forever.
I get why it seems weird! In our planet we see how things eventually slowdown. This is because of friction and air resistance. When you shoot a bullet it keeps hitting air molecules that continually slow it down little by little.
However in space there is no air so there is nothing to slow anything down. If i threw an apple in space it would keep moving in that direction forever. Light and electrons are no different they just keep going until they hit something. If everything just slowed down on its own then that would mean the particles would lose energy from nothing which would violate the law of physics stating that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed!
@@Brad-qw1te well what you said works only partly. If there was nothing in the space, then the rocket engines wouldn't work as they'd have nothing to cause action/reaction - nothing to lean on. Even the satellites have to either be pushed up like ISS, or they eventually burn in the atmosphere.
But in the atomic world, there seems as if indeed there is nothing smaller than electrons oscillating around, so theoretically, there is void. But there are other electrons to bump into all the time. What prevents their collisions is most often the electric charge which ensures the electrons stay on their "orbit". But still, even the charge is an energy and once it pushes something away, that energy is spent. So... I am still baffled, but then I have to remind myself that I don't want to become a scientist to learn as much detail. 🤣 I can remain baffled until someone more curious than me will explain. 🤭
It's a perpetual machine because endlessly it turns from electro to magneto , magneto to electro on and on and on
What is the explanation for why the larger the object, the less wavelength it has?
To move larger object you need more energy. That is why smaller objects can move faster, than larger ones.
The more particles entangled with each other, the less likely they will return to a super position.
So why are they "negatively " charged? what is a "charge"?
oi! dont ask awkward questions!
wtf IS charge?
i like to try and go back to the old days...when charge only meant one thing... a flow. "a charge of cavalry"...
gotta remember that it was just a term coined to describe something happening... attraction...repulsion... seemingly opposite "charges" that can either attract their opposites or repel their brethren...
but no-ones explained what it actually IS, so far as i can surmise.
iunno. at least you ask the right questions :)
@@paradiselost9946 ..what are right questions? you have no answer to my question!
@@nickharrison3748 no i dont... i dont think anyone does ;)
the fact you ask though...
everything is weird if you study it extensively enough.
Is this 3d perception of electrons good approach to topic? Dont get me wrong, I know nothing actually, Im carpenter
_Weird are your thoughts._ 😅
The world we can see around us is a lot less concrete than we think it is.
So wouldnt this also mean that every combination of adjacent fermions each have their own wave? Given the math of combinatorics, thats an infathomable number of waves.
No. There's only one quantum state ("wavefunction") for the quantum model of any physical system and it doesn't matter how many particles it contains. This simple and well known fact about quantum states - that they're functions on configuration space, not functions on (3D) space - was understood even by Schrodinger (among others of that era). It was one of the reasons that he warned against the naive interpretation of the quantum state as a physical wave in his famous "Cat paper", why the early semi-classical interpretations that did try to understand QM that way were abandoned, and why today everyone who has understood the theory properly will - or at least should! - tell you that the idea that the quantum state ("wavefunction") _is_ a wave or that it (sometimes) _behaves_ like a wave ("wave-particle duality") is simply _incorrect;_ a misconception belonging to semi-classical antiquity.
With hindsight and the advantage of a modern understanding of the conceptual and mathematical foundations of QM we recognise quantum theory (QT) as a noncommutative, algebraic generalisation of probability theory and there's no mystery about why the applied theory (QM and QFT) yields only probabilistic predictions (Born's rule). And although, as I've pointed out, there hasn't really been any excuse for those obsolete misconceptions about waves and wave-particle duality since long before this modern understanding there most certainly isn't any excuse for them now (yet, rather scandalously, they do persist).
Think an electron IS a particle but the universe has a certain capture rate at which when it actually renders the electron it has sort of a shutter speed to it which makes the electron SMEAR into realty instead of a static state...Sort of like trying to take a picture of a moving ball at high speed...The ball itself is a solid ball but will appear as a blur in the photo. This allows both concepts to be true, that it's a particle and a cloud of probability.
Interesting thought... But it can't explain the double-slit experiment.
@@pj_ytmt-123 which part of it? The wave or the collapse?
@@dougfoster445 The results of wave-like behaviour before measurement and particle-like behaviour after measurement.
You posit that it shows wave-like behaviour because it is simply a particle moving too fast for incremental time, in other words, it has always been a particle; then it should only exhibit particle-like results when pushed through the double-slits and being stopped by the screen.
There are no particles. Only wave packets.
It’s the interface Between the material and the serial is half lignt half matter
Soooooo. so physicists today consider an electron a "point source" phenomenon. Yet they don't know how that works. (Points exist in math, but are not supposed to exist in nature.) I thought that they would talk about "this" conundrum. One which those old timey physicist were not aware of. The rest is old news.
Thks &;
Sounds-likes thems-theres loops of vibrating strings around the nucleus to to little-old me
An electron is a quantum of energy that carries a lepton number of one, a negative electric charge, a spin of 1/2 and a rest mas of 511keV/c^2. See how easy this was? No need for five minutes. One sentence is enough. ;-)
I cant understand why you brilliant people dont understand that a particle is only a single wave length hiting a target. When you interfere with it it becomes a perticle SO simple .
Well I'm too stupid to know what a 'perticle' is so dont ask me.
Would have loved the background music not to have been waves tbh
Particle or a wave is a wrong question and a misnomer, they're all distinct atomic waves of information motion
Always negative🤔🤨
Thats why i stopped my study!!!
0:58 So if the wavelength associated to a person is so small, and the smaller the wavelength the higher the energy, why persons do not cause cancer, like if they were ultraenergetic gamma beams?
Gamma rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation, which can cause random errors to the DNA of a living object, potentially leading to cancer. Particle waves aren't electromagnetic, and they don't appear to be destructive at high energies. The mathematics gives a huge indication that particles follow the rules associated with waves, but I'm not sure that anyone knows for certain what it is that's actually waving! We do know that this wave nature of particles is baked into the structure of the universe, so if something about it prevented the formation of large conglomerations of atoms, then stars, planets, and ultimately living things, could never have developed in the first place - this universe would be a featureless void. If you believe that there are an infinite number of universes, each with their own set of unique laws, then this might be the fate of most of them...
@@mandolinic I am afraid you are confusing probabilistic waves, which belong to phase space, with the wave asociated to a particle, which is indeed electromagnetic.
@@waliaphellps1745 Thanks. I stand corrected.
You are not simply a wave. You are a ton of atoms and if you plug your mass into the equation you have a wavelength but its not like you are transferring all of your energy into anything unlike a photon. When a photon hits an electron its giving it all of its energy whereas if you touch something you arnt giving it all of your energy.
@@mandolinic Well said..
My thought is that subatomic particles like electrons, have different meaning for their composition. They're mainly energy fields with mass arises on interacting with the Higgs field.
In fact, particles are just really condensed waves. So wave-particle duality is a myth, There are only waves.
That's because we live in a simultaneously.
Where's my prize?
In the trash can behind the Chinese restaurant closest to you. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337that's not a nice comment, it's took hours of thinking and contemplating to come up with that conclusion.
@@m101ist It took me years to come up with that, but now I am reusing it on all the geniuses on the internet. ;-)
This is basic high school physics, from 1970!
Whre is my anti matter???
Seems to me that the electron is a particle that is moving though the fundamental EM field. It's not that the electron IS a wave, it merely has a frequency at which it moves/spins in concordance/harmony with the surrounding EM field. What Schrodinger saw in his slit experiment was (IMHO) most likely the disturance of the EM field as the electron hit the plate, rather than the electron itself, which was either absorbed or reflected.
Human have wave 🌊🌊 also ?
NTS 10/u
The mind is weird
Ummm,. Makes sense
I don't think "wave" or "particle" adequately captures the true essence of an electron. As a charged thing, it has a magnetic field around it due to its constant motion. This is the "wave" part. But staying within an orbital path gives it a sort of particle nature given its discreteness, and our ability to determine its mass. This is one of those both/and situations. Add to that the interactions they have with photons, which are more clearly waves, that can influence which orbital the electron travels in. When they drop into a lower orbit, they give off a photon. Maybe we should call it a "pave" or a "warticle"? 😉
I do not believe the quantum world is confusing, we just do not understand it yet.
It's not the you can't measure the position and momentum of an electron precisely, you can --but only because hbar is really small, beyond that: you can't measure them both because it doesn't have them both the same time.
Are u a physicist?
You are entirely wrong .
The measurement problem is due to the wavelike nature of matter. A wave with a definite position acts like a particle, but the momentum of that particle now has multiple possibilities due to how that wave is constructed from multiple sine waves of different frequencies (superpositions) so its momentum is undefined. Likewise, if you measure a particles momentum then that means its position is now a superposition of waves and is spread out over a large volume, like the size of an atom. The way you measure the particle affects the particle itself.
hello
Well done! See my test video of how these fields can be quantized 4:57
Electrons are weird. Dyslexic electrons are wired.
It is sup