Note: It is worth mentioning that the majority of the proton's mass comes from the interactions of the strong nuclear force, more precisely the energy associated with binding all the quarks together. It is this same energy which gluons and sea quarks arise from meaning that although the number of sea quarks may change, the proton mass does not (to any appreciable degree). The rest masses of the quarks themselves make up only around 1% of the total proton mass. Just worth mentioning as have had multiple comments about it and did not have chance to discuss it in the video!
I was just going to ask this, even though during my thought process the fact that most mass comes from the -- as I recalled however -- the velocity of the quarks. I'm olde, and I either misremember (inclusive)or things change. However, am I misremembering velocity vs binding energy? Or do both contribute significantly? This was amazingly well written and presented, and I thank (and subscribed to) you.
@@davep8221 it's weird yes. Putting more energy into the magnetic booster and before that good and correct voltage in first acceleration phase, becomes everytime more difficult in terms of how much electricity is used for the experiment, like acceleating a 0.009 c amount requires 23 times more energy when getting from 0.99 to. 999, but not when going from 0.000001c to 0.1c. It's noticeable when things go that fast. The phenomenon in itself is that, like they are BIGGER in mass, more difficult to accelerate , and you do detect Strange-flavoured quarks, lots of those 2nd generation particles, So, them quarks have lots of binding energy exchange, and much more when flooring the gas pedal godspeed speed us away nowhere fast! 🤓🖖
@@charlesbrightman4237 why didn't you use Iron powder to get the shape of the horseshoe magnet's FIELD first? That would be more revealing. Then do the same with your setup with several magnets
@@charlesbrightman4237 you know there are more than one degree of freedom, more than one axis and stuff like iron powder is light and small enough to clearly show the shape of the field, correct? Get the differences between the lines of that field with several configurations and positioning of magnets, and it will be very fun too, c'mon, then you can get an idea of how those vectors vary
@@charlesbrightman4237 it's not to undermine your endeavours, just saying. I've done things like a nail rail gun with electromagnets, but never lots of power to shoot them like a real bullet, but like 30 cm. Pretty cool.. So you can do lots of experiments with magnetism, Horseshoe magnet is a case where you have two poles near each other, there you can get the reason why, using smallest possible ferromagnetic materials. You will align spin with the field lines
4:00 Heisenberg is speeding along a highway when a traffic cop radars him going 88 MPH in a 65 MPH zone. The cop gives chase and pulls him over. When the cop walks up to Heisenberg, he says, "I just clocked you going 88 MPH." To which Heisenberg exclaims, "Great, now I'm lost!"
It never ceases to amaze me how the most persistent particle in the universe is a churning ever-evolving mass of creation and annihilation. Much as the Earth appears smooth from a distance, yet anyone in the middle of the Atlantic during a storm (or swimming near the planet's core, for that matter) would strongly disagree!
It's not just the ocean and near the core. The lava that comes out of volcanoes started out hundreds, and even thousands of miles down. The entire planet is moving around.
It is incredible that there is all this activity within a proton at the quantum level, but not surprising, it’s what we are apt forget when we see a simple diagram, the quantum world is vibrating with energy, not static, and everything is happening within a nano time frame, changing, and fluctuating all the time. Thank you for this interesting video.
This channel better explode in popularity. This content is fantastic, though I admit I neither have the knowledge nor the understanding to fully grasp the concept. So I am naturally skeptical of the accuracy. But that's a my problem. Keep it up man.
Thanks a lot! I try to make my videos accessible as possible, but also want to go into more detail than what a lot of channels might all within a reasonable time frame. My formula is no where near perfect so I get what you mean about some of it being difficult to grasp and so being naturally sceptical towards it, definitely one of the main things I try to improve!
I found that a photon with a wavelenghth of 2pi times the planck length would exert a gravitational field that would create an event horizon with a circumference of 2pi times planck length, just enough for the photon to be held as a standing wave around the event horizon. It's the only wavelength of EM where the two things coincide. Even though it is a photon, it could fulfill the requirements for a black hole, that it is motionless in some inertial reference frame, since the center of the circle that the photon is surrounding could be non-moving. Problem is, it has a mass of 2.18 x 10^-8 kg which is way larger than any fundamental particle.
I’ve been always fascinated about protons but, after watching this video, I’ve ordered 6×10²³ protons on eBay. I can already hear it rumbling as they put my package together in the Philippines.
Thank you for the explanation of the Uncertainty Principle with relation to time and energy. It makes so much sense now! (Up to this point, I'd only seen the Uncertainty Principle expressed in terms of position and momentum.) It makes intuitive sense that the larger the energy/mass your virtual particles have, the less time they would likely exist, that their relationship would be inversely proportional. To extend the idea further, does that mean it's possible to have virtual particle systems at large macroscopic scales? But the time they would exist in would be so small (units of Planck time?) that they would be imperceptible to us? (Sorry, my background is Mathematics, so I understand the math but some of the concepts in Physics are a bit beyond what I can grasp at the moment)
You are on the right lines. I'll give the example of the massive top quark which lives for an incredibly short time. This is due to it having the most mass energy of all quarks and what you know from Heisenberg uncertainty. I don't believe there could be particles heavier than it which could be produced in a similar way, but if there was then yes they could theoretically live for even shorter times.
It’s not only that, there uncertainties in neutrino flavors over distance/time for their creation. Neutrino oscillations are a phenomena where say an electron neutrino is produced outside of a nuclear reactor, but has significant enough probability to be detected as a muon neutrino or even a tau neutrino 10’s of kilometers away, even though muons and taus are second and third generation charged leptons with much more mass than an electron. Similarly, a tau neutrino has a fairly substantial probability of fluctuating lepton flavor during flight to become a muon neutrino, or even an electron neutrino to an extent.
The problem isn't the math or the basic theories and principles but the way one decides to quantify and explain what they don't understand. Many times they add mathematical theories to make their math work. I'm glad their are people that can wrap their head around it. It's over my feeble mind.
This is a sleight of hand type explanation. The quark/antiquark (i.e. mesons) exist so shortly that their physicality is negligible and should not be considered as coexisting with the three primary quarks. When an up or down quark manages to escape the gluon bond, another takes its place instantaneously and the residual or excess energy from that breakaway forms a distinct meson. At no “real or discernible” time are there ever more than three quarks in a nucleon, unless you describe it in the creative way this video does. But, I will say his visual model of quantum uncertainty is very well done and correct to a degree, however, there are NEVER more than three quarks in either a proton or neutron. Another quark inside a nucleon would immediately violate its electric charge balance, energy density, color charge, mass distribution, etc. These changes would, in turn, alter the nature not only of the atomic/microscopic world, but the macroscopic world as well. You’ll also never find a strange or charm quark within a nucleon, and definitely not 13 quarks at once, nor 4. He has the right idea, but it cannot be visualized or understood in this way, especially not with so much activity going on in a single proton. He definitely knows the material though, that much is obvious. I subscribed!
I agree that these events take place on incredibly small time scales that it would be impossible to track a single pair popping into and out of existence, but this effect is nonetheless occurring all throughout protons and other baryons for that mater, which is why on average they contain more than the 3 valence quarks which agrees with results from scattering experiments. Are you trying to suggest that sea quarks don't exist due to how quickly they appear and disappear in the proton or for some other reason? Because if one could somehow freeze time and take a snapshot of the proton and see exactly what was inside it, they would find a lot more than 3 quarks and gluons. This wouldn't violate charge or color charge conservation either as the quark/antiquarks cancel the effect of each other. Thanks for your comment and the subscribe! 😄
@@johndavis3988 Due to the quarks within baryons containing color charge. These then impart the strong nuclear force on each other which is mediated by gluons
@@OVAstronomy if virtual particles are able to appear and disappear within a planck time frame, it seems to me that this mechanism operates at a speed way beyond that of causality. Just throwing in an idea here...what if virtual particles are virtual to us because they are part of a deeper, fundamental reality which we can only detect by inference?
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Intriguing idea! Definitely leaning more towards philosophy and how we should interpret quantum mechanics - so I cannot give a precise answer - there may well be something beyond the quantum realm we are yet to explore.
As a particle physics outsider, I wonder that since virtual particle are constantly coming and going, why isn't the time-averaged view of the proton greater than the mass of three quarks??
I don't know, I think we'll eventually find that there is only one force that splits into two opposite spinning disks like a storm, which creates two opposing forces and then builds up the fundamental particles that we are able to measure with deferent geometry depending on the frequency of the incoming radiation.
You don't say, there's hyperpolyhedra flux from 11 dimensions generating a massiveley complex continuum torsion pattern that I like to call a dynamic mosaic, ergo QCD
unless something has changed in the last 40 years, the uncertainty principle applies to position and momentum at a given point in time. The energy-time interpretation is: transition between two energy states versus the time for transition. A large transition between Energy states can be observed in a very narrow time window. A transition between to close energy states take longer to ascertain. In either case, the actual energy states can be accurately known?
It's pretty obvious to me why you can't make a precise measurement in both time and space at the same time. It's because the amount of energy passing through a point is an integral over the entire wave packet, which in itself is spread out in space. 🤔
At 6:20 could the anti-red anti-up quark annihilate with the blue up quark rather than with one of the red ones? Or can they only annihilate when color-opposite as well as species-opposite?
Great work given the video time. I wonder how similar vacuum energy is to the uncertainty principle mechanics that allow the brief existence of sea quarks? I assume the same or extremely close. With so much energy and mass nearby it must increase the chance of popping in.
Thank you! And that's an interesting thought which I will need to research more myself 😅 but the pair production from the uncertainty principle definitely has cosmological effects such as with Hawking radiation.
But what exactly *IS* a third of a charge? Because it sounds like physicists saw the proton had a +1 charge, AND saw that it was made of 2 ups and a down, and then decided that the up quarks must have a 2/3 charge because there was 2, and the down had a 1/3 charge because there was one of them.
Yeah that was from discovering the proton and believing it to be fundamental back in the past. One could very easily define charge that an up quark has +2, a down has -1 etc. Here a proton would have a charge of +3 units - it's just to make explaining what's going on easier. The actual calculations involving charge use that 1 electron (or proton) of charge has magnitude 1.6 x 10^-19 C
Can you help me out with this thought experiment? If we took a proton and managed to slip in a down quark and remove an up quark then this particle would suddenly shrink to one ten thousandth of it's size and reverse it's charge as it became an electron. The difference between these particles is enormous but their quark make up is not all that much different.
This could only happen if the up quark is decaying via the weak nuclear force into a down quark (turning the proton to become a neutron). Because of conservations laws, this causes a W+ boson to be emitted which subsequently decays into a positron and an electron neutrino. The proton would not become or release an electron here.
It's very simple to transform the Heisenberg equation from energy-time to momentum-position and back again. Letting d stand in for delta, and h for hbar we have the following simple transformation. dtde >= h/4 dtdE = dt(1/2mdv^2) dE = 1/2mdv^2 (kinetic energy) dtdE = dt(1/2mdvdv) dtdE = 1/2 (dvdt)(mdv) dx = dvdt and dp = mdv dtde = 1/2dxdp 1/2dxdp >= h/4 dxdp >= h/2 Easy peesie.
how can two up quarks of red charge exist within a nucleon at the same time? opposing spin? if a left handed quark anti quark pair form, can a neutrino change one of these quarks to prevent it annihilating, or will color cycle just cause a neutron to become a proton as usual and gluon interactions return the baryon to a normal valence state?
In the presented figure of a proton import element relevant for nuclear theory. Pron has long range pion field. (Pion is a pseudoGoldstone meson of QCD. Second comment: mass of a proton is mostly from the phenomenon of spontaneously broken chiral symmetry, from the chiral condensate.
Heisenbergs Uncertainty is only related to QM Operators - and time is not an operator. Thus the equation with delta-E and delta-t cannot be derived from Heisenberg's inequality. It's nevertheless correct that there exists a relation between E and t. So, an excited Electron will faster emit a photon to get off its additional energy, the higher the difference to the base state is. Nevertheless: Here the derivation from Heisenbergs Uncertainty is oversimplified.
The uncertainty principle, as described here, suggests that you can’t know either position nor momentum as knowing one would give a delta of 0 so the product of the deltas would be 0. What’s wrong with my rationale?
Yes which violates the mathematically inequality. The product of the uncertainties must be greater than or equal to hbar/2 - zero is not hence it is not possible. Every recorded value in experiments has an error, so even the most precise reading of position or momentum would have a non zero error - which then would mean the other has an enormous error to satisfy the uncertainty principle
Why they still show protons like a bubbles and stick to a particles term? Does proton have any border? Isnt quarks a wavefunctions? Why use particles if there is no particles at all, we just call particles an event of interaction between wavefunctions? How can you understand something on non-true model?
All ideas already exist but I wonder if it has been considered that all these quantum fuzziness is not caused by the particles themselves but by the fact that our space is no longer approximatively Euclidian there.
What is the life-span of the 3 primary quarks? Do the temporary quasi-particle quarks regulate and balance the “ energy system” - i.e., the manifestation of energy arising from the quantum field itself, and is this the basis of Reality? Does this also imply that energy is the manifestation of enormously powerful stimulii from “beneath” the quantum field?
The 3 valence quarks are constantly being replaced through annihilations with the sea quarks, but overall the proton will have 2 ups and 1 down leftover (i.e. without an antiquark partner). The energy which allows for the sea quarks to arise comes from the strong nuclear force field within baryons.
While I've heard of valence and sea quarks before, thus assuming you're generally right, this argument with the energy-time-uncertainty principle you use applies to all points in space though, leading to a sea of virtual particles, making the vaccuum non-trivial, right? I don't see how it is restricted to the inside of hadrons like the proton. Or to quarks and gluons, you can create lepton-antilepton pairs for example, so there could be electrons inside a proton, not only the 13 species you mention. Or is there something distinguishing the inside of the proton, leading to more sea quarks than in vaccuum?
Yes, there's technically no such thing as a complete vacuum where you would never find any virtual particles arising due to the energy-time uncertainty (check out the Casimir Effect and how scientists are trying to measure the weight of a vacuum). The difference with inside a proton is that its environment is dominated by the strong nuclear force, which has its own rules set about by QCD, this means you would never expect to see leptons such as electron-positron pairs forming inside the proton, the energy from uncertainty manifests as sea quarks.
IIRC the quantum foam you mention occurs at a scale of 10^-34 m. The size of a proton is 10^-15 m. In other words, the quantum foam is as small to the proton as the proton is small to us. Even smaller, actually. So I don't think the foam plays any significant role in the structure of the proton.
I believe quantum physics is the reality and tech science behind interstellar travel. Imagine a proton fusion/fission engine that can separate and compress a proton then release the energy of the quark in a hyper magnetic containment system that can precisely aim and discharge all that energy in a single blast. The magnetic energy not only provides a protective barrier, but it also compresses and folds the space in front of you. The inner wall of your cockpit or bridge is charged with counter magnetic force to protect you. You'll be traveling in subspace because the effect causes portals to appear in front of the vehicle instantly moving you between dimensions.
No since the formation of sea quarks is governed by the strong nuclear force and QCD - in brief; the actual calculation would be much more complex. I used the uncertainty principle to explain a mechanism for the creation of virtual particles, but deeper analysis requires a lot more mathematics and complicated theories beyond this video.
I was trying to be funny. A new theory on the Atomic nucleus is being constructed and is called the Structured Atomic Model or SAM. It explains many of the concepts that the Standard Model does not.
It always confused me how a top quark could hypothetically be inside a proton even though it’s _significantly_ more massive than a proton. Or is the accepted mass of the proton just an average of the range of possible masses?
I’d like to support your channel and have 2 1/2 questions: - Do you have a patreon account? - What are your qualifications (education etc) or do your prefer anonymity? Tx
Really appreciate the support. I create these videos as a hobby of mine rather than as a business looking to make money, so I don't have a patreon account or anything of that matter - I just really enjoy talking about physics! 😂 And I am currently doing my master's degree in physics, looking to do a PhD afterwards. I'm glad you like my content, and to me your viewership and kind comments are enough support!
As extra quarks come in and out of existence, they will add to the mass of the proton until they are annihilated. This means that in any ensemble of protons, the mass must rise and fall if only by minute amounts, though some exotic quarks have a greater mass then a whole proton, so maybe at times a whole multiple of the usual mass. This would result in gravitational waves that are probably way too small to be measured, but in a big enough ensemble would result in measurable mass changes that could be measured. Has anybody ever measured these "mass waves"?
I highly doubt it just because of how small they would be, if they existed. Gravitational waves are produced by accelerating masses like the collision of black holes, our current technology can only just about detect these never mind waves from masses as small as quarks
Don't the sea quarks pop into and out of existence everywhere though, not just inside of protons? If not, why? And if so, then why don't scattering events happen when you fire electrons not into protons, but just through empty space, which should have the sea foam in it as well?
I should have been more specific in my video about this; since the dynamics of the proton are dominated by the strong nuclear force (which differs from empty space), energy can manifest as sea quarks within protons. It is more to do with quantum chromodynamics than simply just the uncertainty principle - but I showcased it as a mechanism for creating quark-antiquark pairs. Particle-antiparticle pairs do arise not inside protons, but are typically electron-positron pairs due to the lack of strong force presence outside of hadrons.
@@OVAstronomy, I see, thanks. So in other words, there's a lot more energy moving around inside of a proton to allow the random fluctuations to have a better chance of producing heavier particles, compared to the fluctuations in empty space, which favor producing the lighter particles?
Mt problem with virtual particles is that physicists seem to use them as real when it is convenient, and dismiss them when they become a nuisance. The wall that physics seems to have run up against is probably because virtual particles are the least understood part of quantum mechanics and they have some secrets to reveal. I know they are meant as a mathematical intermediate and are not considered to be "real", but it's evident that in some interactions they can become real, so that means there had to be something there before the interaction, and that would mean they are NOT just a mathematical construct, but something physical.
Field potentials, such as the EM four-potential, substantiates what virtual photon flux represents. Studying UAP this last year, it appears that their star-like auras diffract into continuous-spectra comprised of all wavelengths in a Planck distribution - like stars or the CMBR - as opposed to the line spectra expected of specific fluorescing elements, and besides, these orb-like auras persist in space or under water, precluding gaseous plasma as the light source, and leaving a single yet stunning possibility; that UAP glow is stimulated emission of EM radiation from the interface of curved and flat spacetimes, caused by blue-shifting of the enclosed volume of virtual photonsphere along with compression of the coordinate space, essentially adding momentum and energy to virtual photons inside the warp bubble compared to ambient, and so causing the vacuum to begin expressing real photons of all wavelengths, but biased towards the longer, redder wavelengths by the conservation of energy, bluer photons requiring more energy so being less common. In a nutshell, UAP glow is _Casimir radiation_ - like Unruh radiation, but in this case the thermal bath effect is caused by relative shrinking of Planck's constant and/or time-dilation of the EM force constant alpha (this reducing to an effective time rate of exchange of momentum constant or dp/dt), rather than observer acceleration. Per Pierre-Marie Robitaille's similar objections to the standard model of astrophysics, this has profound implications for cosmology as we know it (potentially comprising a significant portion of sunlight, or even addressing the coronal heating problem). Apparently, squeezing spacetime makes it glow, much like the heat-pump principle, wherein the 'gas' is spacetime and the 'heat' these vacuum potentials, disparate values of false vacuum then equilibrating per the second law of thermodynamics (so warp fields can also absorb, as well as emit, light of all wavelengths, resulting in floating black holes). The real shocker however is that such strong and short-ranged spacetime deformations cannot be reconciled with the standard field equations and gravitation purely as a function of mass-energy density, but are uniquely explicable in terms of the strong nuclear force binding atomic nuclei together also reducing to an effective curvature of spacetime; the wavelike nature of *this* smaller, stronger form of gravity makes it amenable, under certain circumstances, to extruding out via amplifying waveguides to form a conformal warp bubble around a craft, just as Bob Lazar has long-expounded. He alone predicted we might see objects like this: ruclips.net/video/5uPouoZhYFA/видео.html - note the spin-Doppler effects there - and yet today's standard model of particle physics only models the nuclear binding force in terms of virtual charged pion exchanges, as a tertiary effect of the more-fundamental quark-gluon interaction. Sonia Bacca's work on helium nuclei - arguably the simplest nucleus - shows the standard model no better than chance in predicting her simple experimental results. As enticing as the fractional charge model is, colour, hypercharge and strangeness etc; is it not obvious we're back to epicycles and phlogiston here? 'The noble eightfold way'? Our guests have evidently resolved what we formulate in terms of a particle zoo, with SR and GR.. Maybe we should be thinking more like Hestenes et al, and reimagining the nucleus in more general terms.. /rant
Yes, I agree that virtual particles are one of the least well physically understood parts of quantum mechanics, mostly coming from calculations which aim to describe what's happening in particle interaction in QFT and so referring to them as particles can feel counter intuitive. Yet there are certain cases where virtual particles seem to become "real" and have direct measurable effects outside of just the mathematics, such as with Hawking Radiation or the Casimir Effect, but it's worth remembering that they may not exist as independent entities before such effects occur. A very interesting topic - thank you for this comment!
@@OVAstronomy I have another curiosity that I'd like to bounce off of you, if you don't mind. If one was to consider negative energy as a real phenomenon, would you agree that entropy is reversed in particles made of negative energy? I ask this because black hole evaporation is attributed to the negative energy half of a pair falling into the black hole while the positive energy half escapes into reality. This would also agree with reversed entropy. I've also been told this is only an analogy (Hawking described the phenomenon mathematically), but I have a distinct feeling that that might just be what actually happens...if hawking radiation is real.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 I wouldn't say that entropy is reversed, as the negative energy comes from the fact that black holes must slowly lose mass/energy as they emit Hawking radiation (since the escaped particle gains energy and so the black hole must lose an equal amount of energy in order for it to be conserved as you said) . The escaped particle which didn't fall across the event horizon doesn't have reversed entropy - it has increased entropy which is at least equal to or greater than the magnitude of the decrease in the black hole's entropy (as it will have shrunk and lost surface area leading to a decrease in its entropy, but from the 2nd law of thermodynamics the overall entropy of the system must have increased). I prefer to consider the system as a whole instead of as separate exotic components with features like reversed entropy. I guess you could do it your way and say the negative energy particle which falls into the black hole has reversed entropy, but I personally don't think that makes physics sense and is instead just another (slightly harder to make sense of) way of saying the black hole loses mass and shrinks.
It doesn't, but the true mass-energy relation does: E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where p is momentum. This is a result from special relativity and holds true on any scale. It simplifies down to E = mc^2 for negligible momentum. Combining quantum mechanics with special relativity is quantum field theory - it doesn't include GR.
@@OVAstronomy An eternal Proton is not the same for an infinitesimal moment. I find it quite liberating in my understanding of 'wave' interpretations of reality. What you should be looking at is for why there will always be Three. That is just your current understanding of things. x
@@mauricegold9377 Yes, as neutrons within nuclei are bound more by the strong force, whereas free neutrons are not. The extra down quark within neutrons makes them heavier and therefore more unstable than protons. Hence without the extra nuclear force holding them together, free neutrons decay into protons in minutes.
Not exactly as the proton is governed by QCD which is ultimately what leads to the sea quarks. It is true that the uncertainty principle can cause quark-antiquark pairs (known as mesons) to form as fluctuations in a quantum field, but the dynamics within the proton are not the same as empty space due to the presence of the strong nuclear force (a much stronger and different quantum field to other space)
Protons are made of 'energy'; bashing them creates lots of EM effects, which physicists realized could be grouped into 3s, which generated quark religion. Yes a proton is emergent from energy, no we have no idea of the process involved; we just call it nuclear force. Note in quantum religion electrons are supposedly just a quark change up/down, but if electrons are accelerated enough their charge potential equals nuclear force; the reason could have nothing to do with quarks.
Hydrogen atoms only contain 1 electron and it occupies the 1s shell. In most other atoms the 2s orbitals are filled before the 2p as they are lower in angular momentum and so lower in energy (hyperfine structure).
I prefer. To see this, same dynamics largely, but from a different perspective. To me our universal space is governed by the Higgs Field. This is the field that energy fights against to escape the universal space but cannot as it is limited to the what we define as the Speed of Light, the Universal Constant, which requires an infinite amount of energy to defeat and that kinetic energy is carried with the energy (particle) as an energised Higgs Field in the near proximity to the particle. The other perspective is that without the Higgs Field energy can travel faster than the speed of light. What is happening inside the proton nucleus is energy operating faster than the speed of light but trapped in a void in the Higgs Field, and that energy is attempting to break into our universal space, and the energy turbulence that we interpret as the strong nuclear force, gluons, is the inside out version of matter energy within our Universal Space attempting to reach or exceed the speed of light against the Higgs Field. So the quarks are the organised expression of above light speed energy reacting against the Higgs Field and the kinetic energy of that reaction energises the Higgs Field, and that energy dissipates away from the Nucleus of the Proton by the square of the distance. This Field Energy is what we experience as Gravity, and all matter moves from the lowest Field Energy towards the highest. This is why Gravity is instantaneous across the entire Universe. The field energy gradient across the Universe was established at the Big Bang when the Higgs Field was created, and is like a loaded spring. Sudden changes in the mass arrangement of the Universe travel at the speed of light in the form of Gravity Waves but Matter within the Higgs Field reacts instantaneously to the local field gradient which is preloaded by the mass of matter within it. In short Gravity is the consequence of the matter energy of nucleus of Protons and Neutrons reacting with the Higgs Field and energizing the field around the particle and in the so doing self propelling itself towards other matter which is seen as a scalar energy intensity gradient. The turbulent energy zone around the nucleus is effectively an event horizon, and therefore beyond the event horizon of a Black Hole there is just energy operating at above light speed in a Higgs Field Void ie no singularity as there is no Gravity inside the Black Hole. This different perspective leads to several testable predictions.
Many of these ideas go against our current understanding of fundamental physics: 1) The Higgs field is primarily associated with giving particles mass and does not control the speed of light. 2) The ideas of energy transfer and gravity being faster than the speed of light or instantaneous directly goes against the postulates of special and general relativity respectively. 3) The interpretation of the strong nuclear force instead being energy trying to "break into our universal space" is not consistent with QCD. While it is interesting to hear other viewpoints, they have to be consistent with experimental results to have scientific credibility which is why we still refer to SR, GR, QCD etc. to this day.
@@OVAstronomy Thanks for responding OVA. My opinion really doesn’t count other than it is an opportunity to look at things from a different perspective. 1 That is how science looks at the Higgs Field. But how did they prove its existence? By colliding two Protons together at 9.999times the speed of light, a speed at which the protons are flattened out and with a closing speed of nearly twice the speed of light and where the consequence is that the Higgs Field, normally a closed loop string inertial field, between the particles briefly becomes a form of matter, interpreted as a “Higgs Particle”. 2 the energy inside the quarks is faster than the speed of light, and that is because the Higgs Field is excluded from that space. The energy of the quarks is reacting against the Higgs field exactly as the Protons in the LHC produced a particle, the energy of the Quarks produces a kind of intense energy “shell” in the Higgs Field and that intense energy dissipates away from the Proton or electron field over the relative immense distance from the Nucleus to the outer zones of electrons and out into space. Gravity is the Higgs Field energy intensity gradient of the Higgs Field, and thereby giving the atom its mass. 3 I don’t see that there is any conflict between this thinking on why the Quarks act as they do conflicts with Quantum Chromo Dynamics. QCD is the measured experience, and science is still trying to come up with an complete understanding of the energy turbulence around the gyrating Quarks. This thinking explains why the Quarks don’t fly apart and how that drives all of the gravitational operations in the Universe. The Universe is driven by this energy reaction within the Protons and Neutrons. 4 Important to note that The Universal Higgs Field therefore has a variable intensity dependent on the number of Protons and Neutrons amassed at any one place, right up to the core of a Neutron Star, a place where eventually the ability of the Higgs Field to contain the energy of the Quarks as the density builds up and fails and the Higgs Field is finally excluded to retract away from the core of the star to become an event horizon around a Black Hole. The event horizon is where Gravity ends as far as the Black Hole is concerned, so there is no singularity inside a black hole. The inside a Black Hole is a seething mass of energy perhaps as quarks or some other energy association. 5 so where Gravity is the energy intensity gradient of the Higgs Field, this is exactly equivalent to Einstein’s interpretation of the bending of space time by bodies of Matter. But special feature of this thinking is that where particles are traveling at near the speed of light the kinetic energy stored in the Higgs Field becomes “phantom matter”. So if this is true then there should be a measurable distortion of Gravity in the near proximity of the LHC beam so a laser light beam directed to intersect tangentially with the LKHC Proton beam should be deflected towards the Near light speed Proton Beam, exactly as light is bent by galaxies and “Dark Matter” in space. 6 further more this thinking suggests that Dark Matter is actually Higgs Field higher energy intensity regions of space around Galaxies where that field energy level is produced by collapsing Neutron Stars.
I don't understand, and I get very confused by the results of the double split and other similar experiments. There are forces around us that act upon protons in this experiment. Also, it seems clear to me that these forces are affected by the apparatuses that are used to observe them. It's clear to me because of the fundamental law of physics that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force, a principle articulated by Galileo. This easily correlates with quantum entanglement and its paradoxes, string theory, dark energy, Bell's Theorem, gravity, thermodynamics, Length contraction, Hawking Radiation, Casimir Effect, Compton Scattering, and a host of other subjects. The eraser experiment is about these forces and their effects on the photon…It's very clear to me that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is not the reason that we can not know both the position and speed of particles, it is because of this dark force. Since Young’s presentation of a famous paper to the Royal Society entitled “On the theory of light and colors” in 1801 and his subsequent famous interference experiment in 1803, light was established to be a wave. About 100 years later, it was realized that light showed behavior characteristics of both wave and particle in the double slit experiment (and its variations) had become a classic for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. At that time, there was no concept of dark energy. The current concept of dark energy came about in the 1990s. I believe that dark energy is the reason for the wave characteristics of light (particles). What is one of the most fundamental laws of physics, established by Galileo, that a body in motion stays in motion unless acted by a force is the basis of my conclusion. Numerous, if not all, of the characteristics attributed to particles, I believe, are attributable to dark energy. This results in Einstein being correct; the moon is not visible simply because it’s being observed. It’s always present because these forces (dark energy) are not enough to affect its position in space. Just to be clear, double slit and similar experiments are proof of two things. First, it is proof of dark energy. Secondly, it’s proof of the existence of strings. Little, if anything, is known about dark energy. One of the things they know, for sure, about dark energy is that it’s not detectable; it cannot be observed. That’s why they call it dark. As for the proof of the existence of strings, the interference patterns left by double-slit type experiments are characterized as wave-like. Wave-like behaviors are foundational to the definition of string theory. Finally, is the fact that phenomena, wave-like behavior, disappear when apparatuses are used to observe (detect) those experiments. These assertions are further substantiated by the results of the eraser and similar experiments. Remember that the Michelson & Morley (1887) experiment was one of the most sensitive test of its time. Poignantly, it failed to detect any indication of ether wind stemming from “luminiferous ether.” It just wasn't there, completely undetectable. Not a hint. I believe dark energy is a universal uniformed negative Electric/Magnetic monopole structure. I think this accounts for its characteristics. Also, it’s interesting to note that at the time that Einstein identified Brownian motion, string theory did not exist. I feel that if string theory existed at that time, Brownian motion could have been used to substantiate that theory, string theory. Newton, very cleverly, removed the consideration of curvature from his calculations. He did this by using points center of masses. Einstein put curvature back into the calculations. He did this by cleverly introducing the concept of space-time. I, personally, do not believe that light bends around massive objects because of space-time. The light bends around massive objects because light is repelled by mass, as in Hawking Radiation. Additionally, I am confused about the concept of time. I believe that time does not exist when there is only one point, a single point. This is due to the way calculations are done within the framework of Cartesian geometry and not because of physics. There is no place in physics where there is only a single point. Again, and I know that I’m repeating myself, particle physics needs to be transformed into dark energy physics. By identifying matter as having wave-particle characteristics, matter has been mischaracterized. Science needs to be re-focused on the waves observed in the double split and the like, experiments and deemphasize the focus on particles. The concept of wave-particle duality should be abandoned. Schrödinger equation, Probability density function, and, very importantly, Maxwell's equations emanate from dark energy. As a starter, science needs to focus on the waves observed in the double split and similar experiments to determine their minimum and maximum characteristics. This should be done by varying the parameters of the experiments as much as possible. The screen should always be as large as possible. The slit should be as small as possible. The slit should be as far away as possible from the screen. Particles of varying masses and charges should be systematically used. Then all these factors, except fixed conditions, i.e., the results, should be systematically varied and their data recorded and then finally compared and analyzed. Outlier data should not be excluded. This should establish conclusively that a force is responsible for the behavior of the particles and not the inherent behavior of the particles themselves.
Dark energy is an idea from cosmology which explains how empty space expands, which causes objects very far from each other in space to accelerate away from each other. Although we don't know yet exactly what dark energy is, we only observe it on the largest scales (even larger than our own galaxy or the space between us and the next closest galaxy), it is highly unlikely it is a quantum effect. I appreciate that quantum mechanics, including the double slit experiment can be difficult to come to terms to, but it is a theory which has stood the test of time for the most part and can accurately give probabilities of things such as the position of an electron in hydrogen, and of many electrons (DFT) as well as being the cornerstone of essentially the entirety of modern condensed matter physics and nuclear physics - both of which have countless applications in society. I agree that qm cannot be complete in its current form as it does not work with GR, but dark energy is not the answer I'm afraid.
I respect and understand your opinion, and respectfully disagree. I am very sure the wavy aspect of particles is not due to themselves. And in fact is due to their environment. @@OVAstronomy
So basically, a "proton" identifies a location in space where the uncertainty principle is particularly active in producing fundamental "particles" that are constantly interacting with each other.
What about electron-positron pairs in the proton? What about virtual W- and Z-bosons inside protons and neutrons related to beta decays (inside nuclei)?
The environment within protons is dominated by the strong nuclear force which allows for sea quarks to form in the QCD framework. The creation of electron-positron pairs is governed by quantum electrodynamics (QED) which is distinct and operates under different principles. W and Z bosons are massive particles and would require a LOT of energy to form, so are typically only seen in weak interactions and not likely to form via a similar uncertainty principle mechanism - at least not for a long enough time to ever be detected in any experiment. I'd recommend researching more into the differences between the fundamental forces in the particle theory paradigm to gain more insight than what I can provide in just a comment!
The W-Boson is responsible for the Beta-Decay (also of the proton inside certain nuclei), so you can detect the consequence of their existence directly by experiments. And of course there is also a sea of electron-positron pairs and photons. @@OVAstronomy
Since proton has 6 Anti-Quarks, it is possible that a proton has both the potential of being a model of a stable Matter Anti-Matter partical until an electron interrupts the Stabilizer causing a cascading reaction. "It's only a theory."
It depends on the energy of the scattering experiment used to detect them. The more energy you scatter a particle off to see inside the proton, the more energy gets transferred to producing sea quarks and gluons through strong force interactions. Without scattering we cannot see inside and so the more energy the more quarks, but we do not know exactly sadly
Indeed, strange quarks are the next lightest after the ups and downs and so will be the most likely of the "new" quarks seen in a proton as the collision energy increases.
@@OVAstronomy what amazed me more is that you still have a proton after the collision 😳🤯😅😅😅🤓 I built a muon cloud chamber while at college and... 🤔 😬 Like one hour later I was heartbroken. Nothing 😬🤔😢 Like 2 hours later, I got ONE trace.. A trail. Dry ice + alcohol in a fish tank 🤓 home-made muon detector 🤯🤓🤓🤓🤓 😒😴 Like 28 hours of video and 😴 I got like 8 .. 👿🤬😩🤓😂
@@misterlau5246 Yeah muons can be tricky. I built a muon detector using silicon photomultipliers and plastic scintillator and was able to detect almost all of them coming from the upper atmosphere, maybe look into that type of detector.
@@misterlau5246 Haha, if you want to detect lots of muons then the setup I described is the way to go - and the components are quite affordable! Didn't mean to undermine you, cloud chambers are much cooler to look at than just seeing ticks on a computer screen
If there are on average more than 3 quarks then the mass should be consistent with more than 3 quarks. Just because it is an antimatter does not mean the mass would not count. Antimatter quarks have just as much mass as regular quarks.
The vast majority of the proton mass comes from the energy associated with the strong nuclear force binding it together and allowing for sea quarks to exist. The quarks themselves make up a very small amount of the protons overall mass which is why the proton mass does not seem to change overtime.
Great voice, mister Astronomy this isn't 🤔😅😁🖖 You rushed around 3:40, where you explain the juicy bits with delta t delta E greater than hbar... And you just said what I was going to say 😭🤓👍
Thanks, yeah this channel is more particle physics at the moment 😅. Sometimes I do run quickly through stuff to keep the video condensed, but always happy to elaborate in a comment.
I have a feeling gluons is the key, and quarks are only a manifestation of that force. I don't like this focus on quarks. Aren't they just manifestations of the gluon field?
Quarks themselves are fundamental particles in the standard model and contain their own independent properties: charge, color charge, mass etc. The gluon field you are referring to is just the way the strong nuclear force causes particles with color charge to interact. This includes the quarks but also gluons (which themselves contain color charge and so are self interacting). Quarks are not manifestations of this field but do interact with it via exchanging gluons (as gluons are also the exchange boson associated with the strong force). So gluons can interact with other gluons through exchanging gluons. In fact this is related to the reason there are 8 different gluons in total (so there are actually 8 distinct gluon fields), from there being 3 different color charges in QCD which causes an SU(3) symmetry - this is quite advanced and mathematical but definitely worth reading into if you're interested!
Not to any discernible degree since the proton's rest mass primarily comes from the energy associated with the strong force which binds it together. It is the same energy which allows for sea quarks to form and so over time the proton mass will not fluctuate significantly.
@@OVAstronomy Kinda what I was suspecting. It's quite amazing to realize that most of our mass is due to such a powerful, yet extremely short range force. Color me amazed.
@@polyrhythmia And strangely enough, although the forces involved are short-range, mass/energy itself seems to attract mass/energy, the phenomenon we call gravity, which although the weakest of the known 'forces', has the longest range. Arguments about how mass/energy does its attracting act are ongoing.
@@OVAstronomy Do you mean the mass associated with the sea quarks isn't actually created, but rather just "borrowed" briefly from the binding energy/mass of the valence quarks, and that's why the proton's mass doesn't change?
Hypothesis: if all three have matching sea quarks appear simultaneously, is it possible for the proton to annihilate itself before the gluons re-attach to the new quarks?
No because there would still be 2 ups and 1 down leftover from the creation of 3 anti quarks which annihilate the original valence quarks - and gluons move at the speed of light
@@OVAstronomy Which isn't fast enough. The pairing tests show instant change. I'm trying to see how someone removed a proton from Hg in 1568 - there's a lot of evidence they did.
@@JelMain How could they show instant change when everything is limited by the speed of light? The light given off by their change doesn't travel instantaneously and so you cannot say there can be instant change without violating causality. Not least, the proton wasn't discovered until around 1900 😅
Every model we use is a human model. We use a model of gravity that is incredibly precise, and may yet improve upon it, but at the end of the day it is still a human created model and therefore not a perfect representation of reality. Same goes with any observable phenomenon. This is why AI will never have an accurate perception of reality as it can only rely on human models to understand the world.
You have an imaginary set of spectrum that go to the number line, the trutheons. An algorithm fills undefinable spectra, a lie, or a tachyon. A solution of near infinite density generates a tachyonic field, the gluon gravitation, but magnetics is primarily trutheons due to its fed flintstone distances and strengths. An electron is much simpler because its a trutheon machinery using tachyonic flavor functioners. So, its like Othello board game, but nobody knows enough math. Like imagine an operation on a computer, and since each operation has an equals sign, '=', it implies that a cold fusion sluices of yotto metter helium 3 at - 500 kelvin was breading up and cooling down to go through that equals sign, thus a proton is tremendously large, but only so large as the capacitive elements of elements can bread up and down. To the contrary, an electron is a robot, it can function at absolute cold temperatures. So you never think about why you only know how to add and multiply, what about a picture of a dog chasing a mailman? (2/3 add)(5/7 multiply) field infinity zero? This is because it would imply Tesla Sony and Nissan used the same same type of parts, maybe one time? Even ever? So all known (truthion) and unknown (tachyon) fill the harmonic boundery wells. So, you get to partial differential equations and learn the coolest function E^MX, but time goes on, you expand things out, make funtions, build geometry, however, why minecraft? For God could not possibly suck that damn much. a rainbow! You never consider it important, but say you have a lamborghini, you want it to have as much ergonomics as any cup holder, ice box delorean device, without crushing your warranty, it must have a warranty? But on that scale, a rainbow is so hard to make that its obviously from higher dimensions. So, there's many ways to construct a pivot table simplex, ; Rotate the cup along the romulan lamborghini dash, rearrange Your younger father discusing pineapples with denzel washintom, your conjoined mother and father concieving you, but them those might be tachyon's. So the rainbow needs storage, like there are weekness in reality, phong shaders could go hella hard, diamonds 256 lattice at the fall off curves, nurds _N U R D S H U L K A M A N I A OOH YAAH_ LOL
Protons are governed by strong interactions which causes energy to manifest as sea quarks. Virtual particles do form this way outside of protons but typically come in the form of electron-positron pairs. See the Casimir effect.
Very well done. I try to follow quantum mechanics but there seems to be many opinions. You have given this average man a glimpse into the research that is happening with a easy way of understanding the material. Thank you.
Yes, there are more than three particles in a proton and they are not quarks, they are Electrons and there are over 1800 of them in each proton. The difference in mass between a Proton and a Neutron is exactly two and a half times the mass of the Electron, which means that every Electron is made of two smaller particle that I call a "Halflec", a contraction of half-electron. Electrons do not orbit a nucleon, they smash into it, as all the Classical Physics tells us it should but because the proton is very near its saturation point it can't hold on to even one more Electron, so another Electron gets ejected and to the outside observer, it appears to orbit. Sort of... In this case Chemistry has a better grasp, as it shows electrons occupy regions and if one understands that electrons are naturally repelled by each other, the formation of regions and their orientation which is dependent on the number of orbital electrons, becomes self-evident. The Halflec is indisputably proven by the data of The Periodic Table of Elements and Isotopes. A simple arithmetic analysis proves the Halflec's existence and at the same time, reveals a flaw in the data which demonstrates the veracity of both the proof and ergo, the Halflec particle. The Halflec is the fundamental particle of Matter and it is always surrounded by an envelope of the energy particles we call Photons. It is the force of Gravity that binds the Matter particles together but it is the repulsive force of the energy envelope of photons, that keep the matter particles from touching, because the force of attraction between the matter and the energy particles, is just as much as the force of attraction between matter particles themselves and since Photons are a fluid mass, they can seep in between the particles of matter. The so-called week force, is just the difference between the attractive force of the matter and the repulsive force of the Photons. There are only the two forces. The Halflec Model intuitively explains all the anomalies of subatomic structure, like nuclear electrons and tunneling electrons... There are no mysteries except those that have not yet been considered.
@@OVAstronomy Charges are just a theoretical convention of The Standard Model but the standard Model is bunk! It is not about Positive and Negative, it is about "more" or "less"! Charges are TSM attempt to explain the difference between Protons and Neutrons and Electrons. It Takes 2 1/2 Electrons to satisfy the Proton and turn it into a Neutron but the individual Proton by itself, can not hold on to one more Electron but it does keep trying and that Electron is what TSM calls and orbital Electron. Only in the presents of other nucleons can some Protons capture and hold the extra Electrons and it can hold on to them because of the increased mass of multiple nucleons. Of course as soon as the Neutron escapes the nucleus there is no longer enough total mass to hold the extra Electrons so the Neutron decays as soon as it leaves.
Note: It is worth mentioning that the majority of the proton's mass comes from the interactions of the strong nuclear force, more precisely the energy associated with binding all the quarks together. It is this same energy which gluons and sea quarks arise from meaning that although the number of sea quarks may change, the proton mass does not (to any appreciable degree). The rest masses of the quarks themselves make up only around 1% of the total proton mass.
Just worth mentioning as have had multiple comments about it and did not have chance to discuss it in the video!
I was just going to ask this, even though during my thought process the fact that most mass comes from the -- as I recalled however -- the velocity of the quarks. I'm olde, and I either misremember (inclusive)or things change.
However, am I misremembering velocity vs binding energy? Or do both contribute significantly?
This was amazingly well written and presented, and I thank (and subscribed to) you.
@@davep8221 it's weird yes. Putting more energy into the magnetic booster and before that good and correct voltage in first acceleration phase, becomes everytime more difficult in terms of how much electricity is used for the experiment, like acceleating a 0.009 c amount requires 23 times more energy when getting from 0.99 to. 999, but not when going from 0.000001c to 0.1c. It's noticeable when things go that fast.
The phenomenon in itself is that, like they are BIGGER in mass, more difficult to accelerate , and you do detect Strange-flavoured quarks, lots of those 2nd generation particles,
So, them quarks have lots of binding energy exchange, and much more when flooring the gas pedal godspeed speed us away nowhere fast! 🤓🖖
@@charlesbrightman4237 why didn't you use Iron powder to get the shape of the horseshoe magnet's FIELD first? That would be more revealing. Then do the same with your setup with several magnets
@@charlesbrightman4237 you know there are more than one degree of freedom, more than one axis and stuff like iron powder is light and small enough to clearly show the shape of the field, correct? Get the differences between the lines of that field with several configurations and positioning of magnets, and it will be very fun too, c'mon, then you can get an idea of how those vectors vary
@@charlesbrightman4237 it's not to undermine your endeavours, just saying.
I've done things like a nail rail gun with electromagnets, but never lots of power to shoot them like a real bullet, but like 30 cm. Pretty cool.. So you can do lots of experiments with magnetism,
Horseshoe magnet is a case where you have two poles near each other, there you can get the reason why, using smallest possible ferromagnetic materials. You will align spin with the field lines
4:00 Heisenberg is speeding along a highway when a traffic cop radars him going 88 MPH in a 65 MPH zone. The cop gives chase and pulls him over. When the cop walks up to Heisenberg, he says, "I just clocked you going 88 MPH." To which Heisenberg exclaims, "Great, now I'm lost!"
That's a funny one, I'm surprised you didn't get more responses.
because his speed was 100% known , his position was 100% unknown
@@mikev4621 That's the whole joke.
@@wayneyadams it's actually very good
It never ceases to amaze me how the most persistent particle in the universe is a churning ever-evolving mass of creation and annihilation. Much as the Earth appears smooth from a distance, yet anyone in the middle of the Atlantic during a storm (or swimming near the planet's core, for that matter) would strongly disagree!
It's not just the ocean and near the core.
The lava that comes out of volcanoes started out hundreds, and even thousands of miles down. The entire planet is moving around.
who told you that?
And you believe them?
why?
It is incredible that there is all this activity within a proton at the quantum level, but not surprising, it’s what we are apt forget when we see a simple diagram, the quantum world is vibrating with energy, not static, and everything is happening within a nano time frame, changing, and fluctuating all the time. Thank you for this interesting video.
More like at femto, atto and zepto timeframe.
@@edinfific2576 True!
As a physics instructor I appreciate your efforts at summarizing and conveying extremely technical data and findings.
This channel better explode in popularity. This content is fantastic, though I admit I neither have the knowledge nor the understanding to fully grasp the concept. So I am naturally skeptical of the accuracy. But that's a my problem. Keep it up man.
Thanks a lot! I try to make my videos accessible as possible, but also want to go into more detail than what a lot of channels might all within a reasonable time frame. My formula is no where near perfect so I get what you mean about some of it being difficult to grasp and so being naturally sceptical towards it, definitely one of the main things I try to improve!
I found that a photon with a wavelenghth of 2pi times the planck length would exert a gravitational field that would create an event horizon with a circumference of 2pi times planck length, just enough for the photon to be held as a standing wave around the event horizon. It's the only wavelength of EM where the two things coincide. Even though it is a photon, it could fulfill the requirements for a black hole, that it is motionless in some inertial reference frame, since the center of the circle that the photon is surrounding could be non-moving. Problem is, it has a mass of 2.18 x 10^-8 kg which is way larger than any fundamental particle.
Yeah may have to step away from that theory then I am afraid 😅
Thank you so much for this information! And I enjoy your voice.
Impressive! Most impressive!
I’ve been always fascinated about protons but, after watching this video, I’ve ordered 6×10²³ protons on eBay. I can already hear it rumbling as they put my package together in the Philippines.
Thank you for the explanation of the Uncertainty Principle with relation to time and energy. It makes so much sense now! (Up to this point, I'd only seen the Uncertainty Principle expressed in terms of position and momentum.)
It makes intuitive sense that the larger the energy/mass your virtual particles have, the less time they would likely exist, that their relationship would be inversely proportional. To extend the idea further, does that mean it's possible to have virtual particle systems at large macroscopic scales? But the time they would exist in would be so small (units of Planck time?) that they would be imperceptible to us?
(Sorry, my background is Mathematics, so I understand the math but some of the concepts in Physics are a bit beyond what I can grasp at the moment)
You are on the right lines. I'll give the example of the massive top quark which lives for an incredibly short time. This is due to it having the most mass energy of all quarks and what you know from Heisenberg uncertainty. I don't believe there could be particles heavier than it which could be produced in a similar way, but if there was then yes they could theoretically live for even shorter times.
It’s not only that, there uncertainties in neutrino flavors over distance/time for their creation. Neutrino oscillations are a phenomena where say an electron neutrino is produced outside of a nuclear reactor, but has significant enough probability to be detected as a muon neutrino or even a tau neutrino 10’s of kilometers away, even though muons and taus are second and third generation charged leptons with much more mass than an electron. Similarly, a tau neutrino has a fairly substantial probability of fluctuating lepton flavor during flight to become a muon neutrino, or even an electron neutrino to an extent.
The problem isn't the math or the basic theories and principles but the way one decides to quantify and explain what they don't understand. Many times they add mathematical theories to make their math work. I'm glad their are people that can wrap their head around it. It's over my feeble mind.
Learning takes time and understanding quantum mechanics or the mathematics behind it comes naturally to nobody, so don't feel discouraged!
Concise and logical. Well done.
A very clear and very lovely explanation
Nice clear explanation. Super fascinating discoveries thanks to you guys with your good work.
what a fantastic fucking video. straight to the point and very concise. keep it up
Appreciate you 🙏
Beautiful video! Is it only inside protons and other particles that quarks show up or is does it happen everywhere in space?
A really good, clear explanation - thank you!
What? This is so mind-blowing
Nice, thanks 😊. Am I wrong or you never used the word 'meson' in the video?
Probably didn't, but definitely could have.
Very good. Thanks 🙏
Should we expect the mass to fluctuate within a certain margin if the internal dynamics are so messy?
This is a sleight of hand type explanation. The quark/antiquark (i.e. mesons) exist so shortly that their physicality is negligible and should not be considered as coexisting with the three primary quarks. When an up or down quark manages to escape the gluon bond, another takes its place instantaneously and the residual or excess energy from that breakaway forms a distinct meson. At no “real or discernible” time are there ever more than three quarks in a nucleon, unless you describe it in the creative way this video does. But, I will say his visual model of quantum uncertainty is very well done and correct to a degree, however, there are NEVER more than three quarks in either a proton or neutron. Another quark inside a nucleon would immediately violate its electric charge balance, energy density, color charge, mass distribution, etc. These changes would, in turn, alter the nature not only of the atomic/microscopic world, but the macroscopic world as well. You’ll also never find a strange or charm quark within a nucleon, and definitely not 13 quarks at once, nor 4. He has the right idea, but it cannot be visualized or understood in this way, especially not with so much activity going on in a single proton. He definitely knows the material though, that much is obvious.
I subscribed!
I agree that these events take place on incredibly small time scales that it would be impossible to track a single pair popping into and out of existence, but this effect is nonetheless occurring all throughout protons and other baryons for that mater, which is why on average they contain more than the 3 valence quarks which agrees with results from scattering experiments. Are you trying to suggest that sea quarks don't exist due to how quickly they appear and disappear in the proton or for some other reason? Because if one could somehow freeze time and take a snapshot of the proton and see exactly what was inside it, they would find a lot more than 3 quarks and gluons. This wouldn't violate charge or color charge conservation either as the quark/antiquarks cancel the effect of each other. Thanks for your comment and the subscribe! 😄
From where do the additional Gluons
come
@@johndavis3988 Due to the quarks within baryons containing color charge. These then impart the strong nuclear force on each other which is mediated by gluons
@@OVAstronomy if virtual particles are able to appear and disappear within a planck time frame, it seems to me that this mechanism operates at a speed way beyond that of causality. Just throwing in an idea here...what if virtual particles are virtual to us because they are part of a deeper, fundamental reality which we can only detect by inference?
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Intriguing idea! Definitely leaning more towards philosophy and how we should interpret quantum mechanics - so I cannot give a precise answer - there may well be something beyond the quantum realm we are yet to explore.
As a particle physics outsider, I wonder that since virtual particle are constantly coming and going, why isn't the time-averaged view of the proton greater than the mass of three quarks??
See the pinned comment - it's because most of the mass comes from the energy associated with the strong nuclear force
I don't know, I think we'll eventually find that there is only one force that splits into two opposite spinning disks like a storm, which creates two opposing forces and then builds up the fundamental particles that we are able to measure with deferent geometry depending on the frequency of the incoming radiation.
The graph at 3:00 is for thebindding force between nucleons, not the strong force between quarks.
You don't say, there's hyperpolyhedra flux from 11 dimensions generating a massiveley complex continuum torsion pattern that I like to call a dynamic mosaic, ergo QCD
unless something has changed in the last 40 years, the uncertainty principle applies to position and momentum at a given point in time. The energy-time interpretation is: transition between two energy states versus the time for transition. A large transition between Energy states can be observed in a very narrow time window. A transition between to close energy states take longer to ascertain. In either case, the actual energy states can be accurately known?
It's pretty obvious to me why you can't make a precise measurement in both time and space at the same time. It's because the amount of energy passing through a point is an integral over the entire wave packet, which in itself is spread out in space. 🤔
Question: Are all sea quarks virtual by definition? I’ve been struggling to understand virtual particles.
At 6:20 could the anti-red anti-up quark annihilate with the blue up quark rather than with one of the red ones? Or can they only annihilate when color-opposite as well as species-opposite?
No, quarks can only annihilate antiquarks of the same flavour and anti-color
Great work given the video time. I wonder how similar vacuum energy is to the uncertainty principle mechanics that allow the brief existence of sea quarks? I assume the same or extremely close. With so much energy and mass nearby it must increase the chance of popping in.
Thank you! And that's an interesting thought which I will need to research more myself 😅 but the pair production from the uncertainty principle definitely has cosmological effects such as with Hawking radiation.
I think this is where the Higgs Field comes in
But what exactly *IS* a third of a charge?
Because it sounds like physicists saw the proton had a +1 charge, AND saw that it was made of 2 ups and a down, and then decided that the up quarks must have a 2/3 charge because there was 2, and the down had a 1/3 charge because there was one of them.
Yeah that was from discovering the proton and believing it to be fundamental back in the past. One could very easily define charge that an up quark has +2, a down has -1 etc. Here a proton would have a charge of +3 units - it's just to make explaining what's going on easier. The actual calculations involving charge use that 1 electron (or proton) of charge has magnitude 1.6 x 10^-19 C
Can you help me out with this thought experiment? If we took a proton and managed to slip in a down quark and remove an up quark then this particle would suddenly shrink to one ten thousandth of it's size and reverse it's charge as it became an electron. The difference between these particles is enormous but their quark make up is not all that much different.
This could only happen if the up quark is decaying via the weak nuclear force into a down quark (turning the proton to become a neutron). Because of conservations laws, this causes a W+ boson to be emitted which subsequently decays into a positron and an electron neutrino. The proton would not become or release an electron here.
Excellent but suggest the narration be slower. Sometimes it is just too fast to follow.
It's very simple to transform the Heisenberg equation from energy-time to momentum-position and back again. Letting d stand in for delta, and h for hbar we have the following simple transformation.
dtde >= h/4
dtdE = dt(1/2mdv^2)
dE = 1/2mdv^2 (kinetic energy)
dtdE = dt(1/2mdvdv)
dtdE = 1/2 (dvdt)(mdv)
dx = dvdt and dp = mdv
dtde = 1/2dxdp
1/2dxdp >= h/4
dxdp >= h/2
Easy peesie.
Incredible! Thank you!
how can two up quarks of red charge exist within a nucleon at the same time? opposing spin? if a left handed quark anti quark pair form, can a neutrino change one of these quarks to prevent it annihilating, or will color cycle just cause a neutron to become a proton as usual and gluon interactions return the baryon to a normal valence state?
In the presented figure of a proton import element relevant for nuclear theory. Pron has long range pion field. (Pion is a pseudoGoldstone meson of QCD. Second comment: mass of a proton is mostly from the phenomenon of spontaneously broken chiral symmetry, from the chiral condensate.
Heisenbergs Uncertainty is only related to QM Operators - and time is not an operator. Thus the equation with delta-E and delta-t cannot be derived from Heisenberg's inequality. It's nevertheless correct that there exists a relation between E and t. So, an excited Electron will faster emit a photon to get off its additional energy, the higher the difference to the base state is. Nevertheless: Here the derivation from Heisenbergs Uncertainty is oversimplified.
Have phycists actually measured the electic charge of quarks or is it implied by the math.
The uncertainty principle, as described here, suggests that you can’t know either position nor momentum as knowing one would give a delta of 0 so the product of the deltas would be 0. What’s wrong with my rationale?
Yes which violates the mathematically inequality. The product of the uncertainties must be greater than or equal to hbar/2 - zero is not hence it is not possible. Every recorded value in experiments has an error, so even the most precise reading of position or momentum would have a non zero error - which then would mean the other has an enormous error to satisfy the uncertainty principle
Why they still show protons like a bubbles and stick to a particles term? Does proton have any border? Isnt quarks a wavefunctions? Why use particles if there is no particles at all, we just call particles an event of interaction between wavefunctions? How can you understand something on non-true model?
No wonder people are doubting the stability of a proton.
All ideas already exist but I wonder if it has been considered that all these quantum fuzziness is not caused by the particles themselves but by the fact that our space is no longer approximatively Euclidian there.
What is the life-span of the 3 primary quarks? Do the temporary quasi-particle quarks regulate and balance the “ energy system” - i.e., the manifestation of energy arising from the quantum field itself, and is this the basis of Reality? Does this also imply that energy is the manifestation of enormously powerful stimulii from “beneath” the quantum field?
The 3 valence quarks are constantly being replaced through annihilations with the sea quarks, but overall the proton will have 2 ups and 1 down leftover (i.e. without an antiquark partner). The energy which allows for the sea quarks to arise comes from the strong nuclear force field within baryons.
Nice Vid..keep going 🌌👍
While I've heard of valence and sea quarks before, thus assuming you're generally right, this argument with the energy-time-uncertainty principle you use applies to all points in space though, leading to a sea of virtual particles, making the vaccuum non-trivial, right? I don't see how it is restricted to the inside of hadrons like the proton. Or to quarks and gluons, you can create lepton-antilepton pairs for example, so there could be electrons inside a proton, not only the 13 species you mention. Or is there something distinguishing the inside of the proton, leading to more sea quarks than in vaccuum?
Yes, there's technically no such thing as a complete vacuum where you would never find any virtual particles arising due to the energy-time uncertainty (check out the Casimir Effect and how scientists are trying to measure the weight of a vacuum). The difference with inside a proton is that its environment is dominated by the strong nuclear force, which has its own rules set about by QCD, this means you would never expect to see leptons such as electron-positron pairs forming inside the proton, the energy from uncertainty manifests as sea quarks.
IIRC the quantum foam you mention occurs at a scale of 10^-34 m. The size of a proton is 10^-15 m. In other words, the quantum foam is as small to the proton as the proton is small to us. Even smaller, actually. So I don't think the foam plays any significant role in the structure of the proton.
I believe quantum physics is the reality and tech science behind interstellar travel. Imagine a proton fusion/fission engine that can separate and compress a proton then release the energy of the quark in a hyper magnetic containment system that can precisely aim and discharge all that energy in a single blast. The magnetic energy not only provides a protective barrier, but it also compresses and folds the space in front of you. The inner wall of your cockpit or bridge is charged with counter magnetic force to protect you.
You'll be traveling in subspace because the effect causes portals to appear in front of the vehicle instantly moving you between dimensions.
does protons actually have the unwritten circle wall in every drawing or its just a boulder of quarks that you can see inside the proton
The quarks and a strong force field! (Which most of the proton's mass energy is from)
@@OVAstronomy thx
Is it meaningful to input the Planck time to the uncertainty formula to determine to largest possible sea mass?
No since the formation of sea quarks is governed by the strong nuclear force and QCD - in brief; the actual calculation would be much more complex. I used the uncertainty principle to explain a mechanism for the creation of virtual particles, but deeper analysis requires a lot more mathematics and complicated theories beyond this video.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The ELECTRON is by far the most important particle. The proton is just a place where electrons hang out.
Electrons hang out in a proton? Not quite sure I follow, but nice to have an avid electron enjoyer leave a comment!
I was trying to be funny. A new theory on the Atomic nucleus is being constructed and is called the Structured Atomic Model or SAM. It explains many of the concepts that the Standard Model does not.
All particles matter.
It always confused me how a top quark could hypothetically be inside a proton even though it’s _significantly_ more massive than a proton. Or is the accepted mass of the proton just an average of the range of possible masses?
If it is a virtual quark, the anything can happen.
I’d like to support your channel and have 2 1/2 questions:
- Do you have a patreon account?
- What are your qualifications (education etc) or do your prefer anonymity?
Tx
Really appreciate the support. I create these videos as a hobby of mine rather than as a business looking to make money, so I don't have a patreon account or anything of that matter - I just really enjoy talking about physics! 😂 And I am currently doing my master's degree in physics, looking to do a PhD afterwards. I'm glad you like my content, and to me your viewership and kind comments are enough support!
As extra quarks come in and out of existence, they will add to the mass of the proton until they are annihilated. This means that in any ensemble of protons, the mass must rise and fall if only by minute amounts, though some exotic quarks have a greater mass then a whole proton, so maybe at times a whole multiple of the usual mass. This would result in gravitational waves that are probably way too small to be measured, but in a big enough ensemble would result in measurable mass changes that could be measured. Has anybody ever measured these "mass waves"?
I highly doubt it just because of how small they would be, if they existed. Gravitational waves are produced by accelerating masses like the collision of black holes, our current technology can only just about detect these never mind waves from masses as small as quarks
Don't the sea quarks pop into and out of existence everywhere though, not just inside of protons? If not, why? And if so, then why don't scattering events happen when you fire electrons not into protons, but just through empty space, which should have the sea foam in it as well?
I should have been more specific in my video about this; since the dynamics of the proton are dominated by the strong nuclear force (which differs from empty space), energy can manifest as sea quarks within protons. It is more to do with quantum chromodynamics than simply just the uncertainty principle - but I showcased it as a mechanism for creating quark-antiquark pairs. Particle-antiparticle pairs do arise not inside protons, but are typically electron-positron pairs due to the lack of strong force presence outside of hadrons.
@@OVAstronomy, I see, thanks. So in other words, there's a lot more energy moving around inside of a proton to allow the random fluctuations to have a better chance of producing heavier particles, compared to the fluctuations in empty space, which favor producing the lighter particles?
Protons are made of Twinkie crème. That stuff has a half life longer than the universe.
Your level of understanding is entirely too common.
I wonder if this has anything to do with motion.
Mt problem with virtual particles is that physicists seem to use them as real when it is convenient, and dismiss them when they become a nuisance.
The wall that physics seems to have run up against is probably because virtual particles are the least understood part of quantum mechanics and they have some secrets to reveal.
I know they are meant as a mathematical intermediate and are not considered to be "real", but it's evident that in some interactions they can become real, so that means there had to be something there before the interaction, and that would mean they are NOT just a mathematical construct, but something physical.
Field potentials, such as the EM four-potential, substantiates what virtual photon flux represents. Studying UAP this last year, it appears that their star-like auras diffract into continuous-spectra comprised of all wavelengths in a Planck distribution - like stars or the CMBR - as opposed to the line spectra expected of specific fluorescing elements, and besides, these orb-like auras persist in space or under water, precluding gaseous plasma as the light source, and leaving a single yet stunning possibility; that UAP glow is stimulated emission of EM radiation from the interface of curved and flat spacetimes, caused by blue-shifting of the enclosed volume of virtual photonsphere along with compression of the coordinate space, essentially adding momentum and energy to virtual photons inside the warp bubble compared to ambient, and so causing the vacuum to begin expressing real photons of all wavelengths, but biased towards the longer, redder wavelengths by the conservation of energy, bluer photons requiring more energy so being less common. In a nutshell, UAP glow is _Casimir radiation_ - like Unruh radiation, but in this case the thermal bath effect is caused by relative shrinking of Planck's constant and/or time-dilation of the EM force constant alpha (this reducing to an effective time rate of exchange of momentum constant or dp/dt), rather than observer acceleration. Per Pierre-Marie Robitaille's similar objections to the standard model of astrophysics, this has profound implications for cosmology as we know it (potentially comprising a significant portion of sunlight, or even addressing the coronal heating problem). Apparently, squeezing spacetime makes it glow, much like the heat-pump principle, wherein the 'gas' is spacetime and the 'heat' these vacuum potentials, disparate values of false vacuum then equilibrating per the second law of thermodynamics (so warp fields can also absorb, as well as emit, light of all wavelengths, resulting in floating black holes).
The real shocker however is that such strong and short-ranged spacetime deformations cannot be reconciled with the standard field equations and gravitation purely as a function of mass-energy density, but are uniquely explicable in terms of the strong nuclear force binding atomic nuclei together also reducing to an effective curvature of spacetime; the wavelike nature of *this* smaller, stronger form of gravity makes it amenable, under certain circumstances, to extruding out via amplifying waveguides to form a conformal warp bubble around a craft, just as Bob Lazar has long-expounded. He alone predicted we might see objects like this: ruclips.net/video/5uPouoZhYFA/видео.html - note the spin-Doppler effects there - and yet today's standard model of particle physics only models the nuclear binding force in terms of virtual charged pion exchanges, as a tertiary effect of the more-fundamental quark-gluon interaction. Sonia Bacca's work on helium nuclei - arguably the simplest nucleus - shows the standard model no better than chance in predicting her simple experimental results. As enticing as the fractional charge model is, colour, hypercharge and strangeness etc; is it not obvious we're back to epicycles and phlogiston here? 'The noble eightfold way'? Our guests have evidently resolved what we formulate in terms of a particle zoo, with SR and GR.. Maybe we should be thinking more like Hestenes et al, and reimagining the nucleus in more general terms.. /rant
Yes, I agree that virtual particles are one of the least well physically understood parts of quantum mechanics, mostly coming from calculations which aim to describe what's happening in particle interaction in QFT and so referring to them as particles can feel counter intuitive. Yet there are certain cases where virtual particles seem to become "real" and have direct measurable effects outside of just the mathematics, such as with Hawking Radiation or the Casimir Effect, but it's worth remembering that they may not exist as independent entities before such effects occur. A very interesting topic - thank you for this comment!
@@OVAstronomy I have another curiosity that I'd like to bounce off of you, if you don't mind. If one was to consider negative energy as a real phenomenon, would you agree that entropy is reversed in particles made of negative energy? I ask this because black hole evaporation is attributed to the negative energy half of a pair falling into the black hole while the positive energy half escapes into reality. This would also agree with reversed entropy. I've also been told this is only an analogy (Hawking described the phenomenon mathematically), but I have a distinct feeling that that might just be what actually happens...if hawking radiation is real.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 I wouldn't say that entropy is reversed, as the negative energy comes from the fact that black holes must slowly lose mass/energy as they emit Hawking radiation (since the escaped particle gains energy and so the black hole must lose an equal amount of energy in order for it to be conserved as you said) . The escaped particle which didn't fall across the event horizon doesn't have reversed entropy - it has increased entropy which is at least equal to or greater than the magnitude of the decrease in the black hole's entropy (as it will have shrunk and lost surface area leading to a decrease in its entropy, but from the 2nd law of thermodynamics the overall entropy of the system must have increased). I prefer to consider the system as a whole instead of as separate exotic components with features like reversed entropy. I guess you could do it your way and say the negative energy particle which falls into the black hole has reversed entropy, but I personally don't think that makes physics sense and is instead just another (slightly harder to make sense of) way of saying the black hole loses mass and shrinks.
lol yeah things are warming up towards a breakthrough.@@MrVibrating
If GR doesn't hold at such tiny scales why should E=mc2 hold?
It doesn't, but the true mass-energy relation does: E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where p is momentum. This is a result from special relativity and holds true on any scale. It simplifies down to E = mc^2 for negligible momentum. Combining quantum mechanics with special relativity is quantum field theory - it doesn't include GR.
Because E=mc2 doesn't come from GR, but from SR, which is true at all scales
So although a Proton looks forever the same it is in fact changing continually. That's a nice view to have.
It will always have the 3 valence quarks and an indeterminable and constantly changing number of sea quarks.
@@OVAstronomy An eternal Proton is not the same for an infinitesimal moment. I find it quite liberating in my understanding of 'wave' interpretations of reality. What you should be looking at is for why there will always be Three. That is just your current understanding of things. x
@@OVAstronomy Neutrons within the nucleus seem to be moderately stable, but free neutrons only live for a few minutes.
@@mauricegold9377 Yes, as neutrons within nuclei are bound more by the strong force, whereas free neutrons are not. The extra down quark within neutrons makes them heavier and therefore more unstable than protons. Hence without the extra nuclear force holding them together, free neutrons decay into protons in minutes.
On that description, one would expect sea quarks to be no more likely to appear in a proton than anywhere else in space.
Not exactly as the proton is governed by QCD which is ultimately what leads to the sea quarks. It is true that the uncertainty principle can cause quark-antiquark pairs (known as mesons) to form as fluctuations in a quantum field, but the dynamics within the proton are not the same as empty space due to the presence of the strong nuclear force (a much stronger and different quantum field to other space)
Thanks. @@OVAstronomy
Protons are made of 'energy'; bashing them creates lots of EM effects, which physicists realized could be grouped into 3s, which generated quark religion. Yes a proton is emergent from energy, no we have no idea of the process involved; we just call it nuclear force. Note in quantum religion electrons are supposedly just a quark change up/down, but if electrons are accelerated enough their charge potential equals nuclear force; the reason could have nothing to do with quarks.
How is a Hydrogen atom holding eight electrons, and why is it's 2s shell not filled when there are electrons in the 2p shell?
Hydrogen atoms only contain 1 electron and it occupies the 1s shell. In most other atoms the 2s orbitals are filled before the 2p as they are lower in angular momentum and so lower in energy (hyperfine structure).
If the energy imparted to the particles inLHC becomes quarks, are the quarks present in protons "at rest"? ( which they never are...)
No. That would violate the uncertainty principle.
thats was enjoyable
So basically, the probability that there are only 3 quarks inside a proton at any given time is much much higher than 4, 5 ... or 13, right?
No, it is indeterminable but will likely be higher than 3
I would not be shocked to discover that these building blocks of matter extend in detail almost into micro infinity.
As far as we can tell; quarks are fundamental - but then again we thought the same thing about protons less than a century ago
Well, you know what they say. Turtles all the way down…
@@OVAstronomy Precisely :).
Some say we'll eventually find a Lego block the size of a Planck unit.
Just joking now of course.
I prefer. To see this, same dynamics largely, but from a different perspective. To me our universal space is governed by the Higgs Field. This is the field that energy fights against to escape the universal space but cannot as it is limited to the what we define as the Speed of Light, the Universal Constant, which requires an infinite amount of energy to defeat and that kinetic energy is carried with the energy (particle) as an energised Higgs Field in the near proximity to the particle. The other perspective is that without the Higgs Field energy can travel faster than the speed of light. What is happening inside the proton nucleus is energy operating faster than the speed of light but trapped in a void in the Higgs Field, and that energy is attempting to break into our universal space, and the energy turbulence that we interpret as the strong nuclear force, gluons, is the inside out version of matter energy within our Universal Space attempting to reach or exceed the speed of light against the Higgs Field. So the quarks are the organised expression of above light speed energy reacting against the Higgs Field and the kinetic energy of that reaction energises the Higgs Field, and that energy dissipates away from the Nucleus of the Proton by the square of the distance. This Field Energy is what we experience as Gravity, and all matter moves from the lowest Field Energy towards the highest. This is why Gravity is instantaneous across the entire Universe. The field energy gradient across the Universe was established at the Big Bang when the Higgs Field was created, and is like a loaded spring. Sudden changes in the mass arrangement of the Universe travel at the speed of light in the form of Gravity Waves but Matter within the Higgs Field reacts instantaneously to the local field gradient which is preloaded by the mass of matter within it.
In short Gravity is the consequence of the matter energy of nucleus of Protons and Neutrons reacting with the Higgs Field and energizing the field around the particle and in the so doing self propelling itself towards other matter which is seen as a scalar energy intensity gradient. The turbulent energy zone around the nucleus is effectively an event horizon, and therefore beyond the event horizon of a Black Hole there is just energy operating at above light speed in a Higgs Field Void ie no singularity as there is no Gravity inside the Black Hole.
This different perspective leads to several testable predictions.
Many of these ideas go against our current understanding of fundamental physics:
1) The Higgs field is primarily associated with giving particles mass and does not control the speed of light.
2) The ideas of energy transfer and gravity being faster than the speed of light or instantaneous directly goes against the postulates of special and general relativity respectively.
3) The interpretation of the strong nuclear force instead being energy trying to "break into our universal space" is not consistent with QCD.
While it is interesting to hear other viewpoints, they have to be consistent with experimental results to have scientific credibility which is why we still refer to SR, GR, QCD etc. to this day.
@@OVAstronomy Thanks for responding OVA. My opinion really doesn’t count other than it is an opportunity to look at things from a different perspective.
1 That is how science looks at the Higgs Field. But how did they prove its existence? By colliding two Protons together at 9.999times the speed of light, a speed at which the protons are flattened out and with a closing speed of nearly twice the speed of light and where the consequence is that the Higgs Field, normally a closed loop string inertial field, between the particles briefly becomes a form of matter, interpreted as a “Higgs Particle”.
2 the energy inside the quarks is faster than the speed of light, and that is because the Higgs Field is excluded from that space. The energy of the quarks is reacting against the Higgs field exactly as the Protons in the LHC produced a particle, the energy of the Quarks produces a kind of intense energy “shell” in the Higgs Field and that intense energy dissipates away from the Proton or electron field over the relative immense distance from the Nucleus to the outer zones of electrons and out into space. Gravity is the Higgs Field energy intensity gradient of the Higgs Field, and thereby giving the atom its mass.
3 I don’t see that there is any conflict between this thinking on why the Quarks act as they do conflicts with Quantum Chromo Dynamics. QCD is the measured experience, and science is still trying to come up with an complete understanding of the energy turbulence around the gyrating Quarks. This thinking explains why the Quarks don’t fly apart and how that drives all of the gravitational operations in the Universe. The Universe is driven by this energy reaction within the Protons and Neutrons.
4 Important to note that The Universal Higgs Field therefore has a variable intensity dependent on the number of Protons and Neutrons amassed at any one place, right up to the core of a Neutron Star, a place where eventually the ability of the Higgs Field to contain the energy of the Quarks as the density builds up and fails and the Higgs Field is finally excluded to retract away from the core of the star to become an event horizon around a Black Hole. The event horizon is where Gravity ends as far as the Black Hole is concerned, so there is no singularity inside a black hole. The inside a Black Hole is a seething mass of energy perhaps as quarks or some other energy association.
5 so where Gravity is the energy intensity gradient of the Higgs Field, this is exactly equivalent to Einstein’s interpretation of the bending of space time by bodies of Matter. But special feature of this thinking is that where particles are traveling at near the speed of light the kinetic energy stored in the Higgs Field becomes “phantom matter”. So if this is true then there should be a measurable distortion of Gravity in the near proximity of the LHC beam so a laser light beam directed to intersect tangentially with the LKHC Proton beam should be deflected towards the Near light speed Proton Beam, exactly as light is bent by galaxies and “Dark Matter” in space.
6 further more this thinking suggests that Dark Matter is actually Higgs Field higher energy intensity regions of space around Galaxies where that field energy level is produced by collapsing Neutron Stars.
I don't understand, and I get very confused by the results of the double split and other similar experiments. There are forces around us that act upon protons in this experiment. Also, it seems clear to me that these forces are affected by the apparatuses that are used to observe them. It's clear to me because of the fundamental law of physics that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force, a principle articulated by Galileo. This easily correlates with quantum entanglement and its paradoxes, string theory, dark energy, Bell's Theorem, gravity, thermodynamics, Length contraction, Hawking Radiation, Casimir Effect, Compton Scattering, and a host of other subjects. The eraser experiment is about these forces and their effects on the photon…It's very clear to me that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is not the reason that we can not know both the position and speed of particles, it is because of this dark force.
Since Young’s presentation of a famous paper to the Royal Society entitled “On the theory of light and colors” in 1801 and his subsequent famous interference experiment in 1803, light was established to be a wave. About 100 years later, it was realized that light showed behavior characteristics of both wave and particle in the double slit experiment (and its variations) had become a classic for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. At that time, there was no concept of dark energy. The current concept of dark energy came about in the 1990s. I believe that dark energy is the reason for the wave characteristics of light (particles). What is one of the most fundamental laws of physics, established by Galileo, that a body in motion stays in motion unless acted by a force is the basis of my conclusion. Numerous, if not all, of the characteristics attributed to particles, I believe, are attributable to dark energy. This results in Einstein being correct; the moon is not visible simply because it’s being observed. It’s always present because these forces (dark energy) are not enough to affect its position in space.
Just to be clear, double slit and similar experiments are proof of two things. First, it is proof of dark energy. Secondly, it’s proof of the existence of strings. Little, if anything, is known about dark energy. One of the things they know, for sure, about dark energy is that it’s not detectable; it cannot be observed. That’s why they call it dark. As for the proof of the existence of strings, the interference patterns left by double-slit type experiments are characterized as wave-like. Wave-like behaviors are foundational to the definition of string theory. Finally, is the fact that phenomena, wave-like behavior, disappear when apparatuses are used to observe (detect) those experiments. These assertions are further substantiated by the results of the eraser and similar experiments. Remember that the Michelson & Morley (1887) experiment was one of the most sensitive test of its time. Poignantly, it failed to detect any indication of ether wind stemming from “luminiferous ether.” It just wasn't there, completely undetectable. Not a hint. I believe dark energy is a universal uniformed negative Electric/Magnetic monopole structure. I think this accounts for its characteristics. Also, it’s interesting to note that at the time that Einstein identified Brownian motion, string theory did not exist. I feel that if string theory existed at that time, Brownian motion could have been used to substantiate that theory, string theory.
Newton, very cleverly, removed the consideration of curvature from his calculations. He did this by using points center of masses. Einstein put curvature back into the calculations. He did this by cleverly introducing the concept of space-time. I, personally, do not believe that light bends around massive objects because of space-time. The light bends around massive objects because light is repelled by mass, as in Hawking Radiation. Additionally, I am confused about the concept of time. I believe that time does not exist when there is only one point, a single point. This is due to the way calculations are done within the framework of Cartesian geometry and not because of physics. There is no place in physics where there is only a single point.
Again, and I know that I’m repeating myself, particle physics needs to be transformed into dark energy physics. By identifying matter as having wave-particle characteristics, matter has been mischaracterized. Science needs to be re-focused on the waves observed in the double split and the like, experiments and deemphasize the focus on particles. The concept of wave-particle duality should be abandoned. Schrödinger equation, Probability density function, and, very importantly, Maxwell's equations emanate from dark energy.
As a starter, science needs to focus on the waves observed in the double split and similar experiments to determine their minimum and maximum characteristics. This should be done by varying the parameters of the experiments as much as possible. The screen should always be as large as possible. The slit should be as small as possible. The slit should be as far away as possible from the screen. Particles of varying masses and charges should be systematically used. Then all these factors, except fixed conditions, i.e., the results, should be systematically varied and their data recorded and then finally compared and analyzed. Outlier data should not be excluded. This should establish conclusively that a force is responsible for the behavior of the particles and not the inherent behavior of the particles themselves.
Dark energy is an idea from cosmology which explains how empty space expands, which causes objects very far from each other in space to accelerate away from each other. Although we don't know yet exactly what dark energy is, we only observe it on the largest scales (even larger than our own galaxy or the space between us and the next closest galaxy), it is highly unlikely it is a quantum effect. I appreciate that quantum mechanics, including the double slit experiment can be difficult to come to terms to, but it is a theory which has stood the test of time for the most part and can accurately give probabilities of things such as the position of an electron in hydrogen, and of many electrons (DFT) as well as being the cornerstone of essentially the entirety of modern condensed matter physics and nuclear physics - both of which have countless applications in society. I agree that qm cannot be complete in its current form as it does not work with GR, but dark energy is not the answer I'm afraid.
I respect and understand your opinion, and respectfully disagree. I am very sure the wavy aspect of particles is not due to themselves. And in fact is due to their environment. @@OVAstronomy
So basically, a "proton" identifies a location in space where the uncertainty principle is particularly active in producing fundamental "particles" that are constantly interacting with each other.
I don't believe we know what's inside a Proton as
we add energy that turns into matter in particle accelerators
creating new particles.
What about electron-positron pairs in the proton? What about virtual W- and Z-bosons inside protons and neutrons related to beta decays (inside nuclei)?
The environment within protons is dominated by the strong nuclear force which allows for sea quarks to form in the QCD framework. The creation of electron-positron pairs is governed by quantum electrodynamics (QED) which is distinct and operates under different principles. W and Z bosons are massive particles and would require a LOT of energy to form, so are typically only seen in weak interactions and not likely to form via a similar uncertainty principle mechanism - at least not for a long enough time to ever be detected in any experiment. I'd recommend researching more into the differences between the fundamental forces in the particle theory paradigm to gain more insight than what I can provide in just a comment!
The W-Boson is responsible for the Beta-Decay (also of the proton inside certain nuclei), so you can detect the consequence of their existence directly by experiments. And of course there is also a sea of electron-positron pairs and photons. @@OVAstronomy
Since proton has 6 Anti-Quarks, it is possible that a proton has both the potential of being a model of a stable Matter Anti-Matter partical until an electron interrupts the Stabilizer causing a cascading reaction. "It's only a theory."
So how many Sea Quarks have they seen in experiments so far? I mean as a max per proton or neutron?
It depends on the energy of the scattering experiment used to detect them. The more energy you scatter a particle off to see inside the proton, the more energy gets transferred to producing sea quarks and gluons through strong force interactions. Without scattering we cannot see inside and so the more energy the more quarks, but we do not know exactly sadly
How many sea quarks in a sea proton?
That model of the proton, in context, is correct 🧐
Accelerate a proton 10 laps for 3k x velocity,there appear lots of Strange type quarks. 🤯
Indeed, strange quarks are the next lightest after the ups and downs and so will be the most likely of the "new" quarks seen in a proton as the collision energy increases.
@@OVAstronomy what amazed me more is that you still have a proton after the collision 😳🤯😅😅😅🤓
I built a muon cloud chamber while at college and... 🤔 😬 Like one hour later I was heartbroken. Nothing 😬🤔😢
Like 2 hours later, I got ONE trace.. A trail. Dry ice + alcohol in a fish tank 🤓 home-made muon detector
🤯🤓🤓🤓🤓
😒😴
Like 28 hours of video and 😴 I got like 8
..
👿🤬😩🤓😂
@@misterlau5246 Yeah muons can be tricky. I built a muon detector using silicon photomultipliers and plastic scintillator and was able to detect almost all of them coming from the upper atmosphere, maybe look into that type of detector.
@@OVAstronomy 🥺I told you I built a MacGyver-ish contraption and you bring to the table the cool toys 🥺😭
@@misterlau5246 Haha, if you want to detect lots of muons then the setup I described is the way to go - and the components are quite affordable! Didn't mean to undermine you, cloud chambers are much cooler to look at than just seeing ticks on a computer screen
Interesting
If there are on average more than 3 quarks then the mass should be consistent with more than 3 quarks. Just because it is an antimatter does not mean the mass would not count. Antimatter quarks have just as much mass as regular quarks.
The vast majority of the proton mass comes from the energy associated with the strong nuclear force binding it together and allowing for sea quarks to exist. The quarks themselves make up a very small amount of the protons overall mass which is why the proton mass does not seem to change overtime.
Seems crazy that we know very long half lives with any confidence.
Great voice, mister
Astronomy this isn't 🤔😅😁🖖
You rushed around 3:40, where you explain the juicy bits with delta t delta E greater than hbar... And you just said what I was going to say 😭🤓👍
Thanks, yeah this channel is more particle physics at the moment 😅. Sometimes I do run quickly through stuff to keep the video condensed, but always happy to elaborate in a comment.
I have a feeling gluons is the key, and quarks are only a manifestation of that force.
I don't like this focus on quarks. Aren't they just manifestations of the gluon field?
Quarks themselves are fundamental particles in the standard model and contain their own independent properties: charge, color charge, mass etc. The gluon field you are referring to is just the way the strong nuclear force causes particles with color charge to interact. This includes the quarks but also gluons (which themselves contain color charge and so are self interacting). Quarks are not manifestations of this field but do interact with it via exchanging gluons (as gluons are also the exchange boson associated with the strong force). So gluons can interact with other gluons through exchanging gluons. In fact this is related to the reason there are 8 different gluons in total (so there are actually 8 distinct gluon fields), from there being 3 different color charges in QCD which causes an SU(3) symmetry - this is quite advanced and mathematical but definitely worth reading into if you're interested!
Instant subscribe
My key take-away as an interested layman is that protons are literally made from nothing.
And it's that nothing which contains virtual matter due to quantum mechanics!
Nice channel, I will subscribe :)
Thank you 😊
Does the overall mass of the proton change over time?
Not to any discernible degree since the proton's rest mass primarily comes from the energy associated with the strong force which binds it together. It is the same energy which allows for sea quarks to form and so over time the proton mass will not fluctuate significantly.
@@OVAstronomy Kinda what I was suspecting. It's quite amazing to realize that most of our mass is due to such a powerful, yet extremely short range force. Color me amazed.
@@polyrhythmia And strangely enough, although the forces involved are short-range, mass/energy itself seems to attract mass/energy, the phenomenon we call gravity, which although the weakest of the known 'forces', has the longest range. Arguments about how mass/energy does its attracting act are ongoing.
@@OVAstronomy Do you mean the mass associated with the sea quarks isn't actually created, but rather just "borrowed" briefly from the binding energy/mass of the valence quarks, and that's why the proton's mass doesn't change?
@@keppela1Yes, It arises from QCD, but your physical intuition is correct
Hypothesis: if all three have matching sea quarks appear simultaneously, is it possible for the proton to annihilate itself before the gluons re-attach to the new quarks?
No because there would still be 2 ups and 1 down leftover from the creation of 3 anti quarks which annihilate the original valence quarks - and gluons move at the speed of light
@@OVAstronomy Which isn't fast enough. The pairing tests show instant change. I'm trying to see how someone removed a proton from Hg in 1568 - there's a lot of evidence they did.
@@JelMain How could they show instant change when everything is limited by the speed of light? The light given off by their change doesn't travel instantaneously and so you cannot say there can be instant change without violating causality. Not least, the proton wasn't discovered until around 1900 😅
@@OVAstronomy That's been disproved in paired quanta.
Every model we use is a human model. We use a model of gravity that is incredibly precise, and may yet improve upon it, but at the end of the day it is still a human created model and therefore not a perfect representation of reality. Same goes with any observable phenomenon. This is why AI will never have an accurate perception of reality as it can only rely on human models to understand the world.
You have an imaginary set of spectrum that go to the number line, the trutheons. An algorithm fills undefinable spectra, a lie, or a tachyon. A solution of near infinite density generates a tachyonic field, the gluon gravitation, but magnetics is primarily trutheons due to its fed flintstone distances and strengths. An electron is much simpler because its a trutheon machinery using tachyonic flavor functioners. So, its like Othello board game, but nobody knows enough math. Like imagine an operation on a computer, and since each operation has an equals sign, '=', it implies that a cold fusion sluices of yotto metter helium 3 at - 500 kelvin was breading up and cooling down to go through that equals sign, thus a proton is tremendously large, but only so large as the capacitive elements of elements can bread up and down. To the contrary, an electron is a robot, it can function at absolute cold temperatures.
So you never think about why you only know how to add and multiply, what about a picture of a dog chasing a mailman? (2/3 add)(5/7 multiply) field infinity zero? This is because it would imply Tesla Sony and Nissan used the same same type of parts, maybe one time? Even ever? So all known (truthion) and unknown (tachyon) fill the harmonic boundery wells.
So, you get to partial differential equations and learn the coolest function E^MX, but time goes on, you expand things out, make funtions, build geometry, however, why minecraft? For God could not possibly suck that damn much. a rainbow! You never consider it important, but say you have a lamborghini, you want it to have as much ergonomics as any cup holder, ice box delorean device, without crushing your warranty, it must have a warranty? But on that scale, a rainbow is so hard to make that its obviously from higher dimensions.
So, there's many ways to construct a pivot table simplex, ; Rotate the cup along the romulan lamborghini dash, rearrange Your younger father discusing pineapples with denzel washintom, your conjoined mother and father concieving you, but them those might be tachyon's. So the rainbow needs storage, like there are weekness in reality, phong shaders could go hella hard, diamonds 256 lattice at the fall off curves, nurds _N U R D S H U L K A M A N I A OOH YAAH_ LOL
When a quark disintegrates does it leave some kind of gunk?🤔😁
When quarks annihilate they leave behind gluons
Why should the sea quarks be limited to inside a proton. Could be everywhere
Protons are governed by strong interactions which causes energy to manifest as sea quarks. Virtual particles do form this way outside of protons but typically come in the form of electron-positron pairs. See the Casimir effect.
Very well done. I try to follow quantum mechanics but there seems to be many opinions. You have given this average man a glimpse into the research that is happening with a easy way of understanding the material. Thank you.
We'll have all the answers when we have a correct model of spacetime.
This shows quarks are 'bigger' than protons. That is the inside is bigger than the outside.
consider c/(del t) & (del s) . The 'inside' === (del s)
A candy center?
Is Nessie a sea quark?
No, because Nessie isnt from the sea 😢
Yes, there are more than three particles in a proton and they are not quarks, they are Electrons and there are over 1800 of them in each proton. The difference in mass between a Proton and a Neutron is exactly two and a half times the mass of the Electron, which means that every Electron is made of two smaller particle that I call a "Halflec", a contraction of half-electron.
Electrons do not orbit a nucleon, they smash into it, as all the Classical Physics tells us it should but because the proton is very near its saturation point it can't hold on to even one more Electron, so another Electron gets ejected and to the outside observer, it appears to orbit. Sort of... In this case Chemistry has a better grasp, as it shows electrons occupy regions and if one understands that electrons are naturally repelled by each other, the formation of regions and their orientation which is dependent on the number of orbital electrons, becomes self-evident.
The Halflec is indisputably proven by the data of The Periodic Table of Elements and Isotopes. A simple arithmetic analysis proves the Halflec's existence and at the same time, reveals a flaw in the data which demonstrates the veracity of both the proof and ergo, the Halflec particle.
The Halflec is the fundamental particle of Matter and it is always surrounded by an envelope of the energy particles we call Photons. It is the force of Gravity that binds the Matter particles together but it is the repulsive force of the energy envelope of photons, that keep the matter particles from touching, because the force of attraction between the matter and the energy particles, is just as much as the force of attraction between matter particles themselves and since Photons are a fluid mass, they can seep in between the particles of matter. The so-called week force, is just the difference between the attractive force of the matter and the repulsive force of the Photons. There are only the two forces. The Halflec Model intuitively explains all the anomalies of subatomic structure, like nuclear electrons and tunneling electrons...
There are no mysteries except those that have not yet been considered.
One of many tiny little problems with this... protons are positively charged whereas electrons are negatively charged.
@@OVAstronomy Charges are just a theoretical convention of The Standard Model but the standard Model is bunk! It is not about Positive and Negative, it is about "more" or "less"! Charges are TSM attempt to explain the difference between Protons and Neutrons and Electrons. It Takes 2 1/2 Electrons to satisfy the Proton and turn it into a Neutron but the individual Proton by itself, can not hold on to one more Electron but it does keep trying and that Electron is what TSM calls and orbital Electron. Only in the presents of other nucleons can some Protons capture and hold the extra Electrons and it can hold on to them because of the increased mass of multiple nucleons. Of course as soon as the Neutron escapes the nucleus there is no longer enough total mass to hold the extra Electrons so the Neutron decays as soon as it leaves.
Of the fermions, electrons, being true elementary particles, are likely more stable than protons.
Yes, and they're lighter.
How about a video discussing whether neutrinos are Majorana or Dirac fermions? Just a thought.
Remember when one i think japanese researcher faked a pentaquark paper. Mission failed succesfully
I saw some quarks the other day and I knew then, this is all true...
Really? I've never had an electron comment on my videos before!
@@OVAstronomy If you squint your eyes and look hard, you will see them too....