Simple explanations my hairy butt You have to have a major in physics even to understand the basic concepts of what he says There's no "simple" in his explanations... unless you possess prior chemistry or physics knowledge to even begin to understand his talk. It is simple for those who believe they already know something. But even those who do already know something, they can only grasp at the superficial notion of the concepts of the particles of which the physicist speaks. Unless they know as much as he does. This speech is NOT for the beginner... it is made for those who are PREPARED for such information.
".. and that's it!" he says. If modern science has taught us anything, it is that the harder we look, the more we find. The current model, nicely explained by Brian Cox, fits the facts better than any previous model but I can't help thinking that the next 50 years will bring revolutionary new discoveries.
This may very well be possible, only time will tell. Your quote about modern science is spot on, and the reason this is true is; this is the very same process as learning. This fundamental aspect of science is why so many of the faithful continue to be left in the dark; they perceive science as simply the adoption of a different belief system; then a well honed process for determining facts; and thus gaining actual knowledge. The Universe is like a hot kitchen stove, at first we only learn it can burn us; but in time as we gain knowledge about the kitchen stove; we learn how the very thing that burns us can help provide us with well cooked meals upon which to sustain ourselves. The faithful are standing here denying the existence of the stove, while the rest of us choose to gain knowledge.
Put in one day of time and you will get it. It really is not hard to understand the building blocks. It is when they interact. But that was not what this video was about.
I passed my 11+ by the narrowest of margins and I even remember the question that I had got wrong and they asked me to explain. The question was if your father was a non smoker what would you buy him as a birthday present and the answers offered were a bicycle, a cigar cutter, or a pipe rack. I told them I could not afford to buy my father a bicycle or a cigar cutter as my father only used a pipe and told me he was a no smoker. I said I could make him a pipe rack as I as good at woodwork and that was my answer. They passed me so I could go to grammar school. Unfortunately my parents divorced so I didn’t go to a Grammar school but a secondary Modern school. I was interested in science but was not inspired by my science teacher when I questioned him about something he said to do with a vacuum and suction. He said that people in foreign countries like Malaya didn’t know about suction and that children would choke if given a glass of water. I questioned this as I had lived in the far east and I told him he was wrong. I also told him I didn’t remember being taught to suck. Needless to say I left school at 14 with not qualifications whatsoever. But I had learnt to make electro magnets because i like fiddling with bits of wire and batteries. I did continue my passion for science but only by teaching myself by reading books.
Speaking of physics, the inverse square law doesn't apply to extended sources of radiation so how can a geiger counter calibrated using this formula be used now with Fukushima on the surface of our planet?
Actual pictures of atoms aren’t actually pictures at all. There are a few good rules of thumb in physics. Among the best is: light acts like you’d expect on scales well above its wavelength and acts weird on scales below. In order to take a picture of a thing you need light to bounce … The only thing physicists have actually seen is basically a computer image, not the real image, and second, they observe electric fields, not the particle itself. They do not observe particles themselves; they are able to observe only the field. However this alone does not prove anything, but that the electric energy field exists and that’s about it---no atoms, no photons, no electrons, no quarks. no nothing. So no, particles do not exist. Particles exist only inside mathematical abstractions and nothing more and nothing else. We don’t know what actually exists in the real world, except that there are energy fields---electric, magnetic and all other forms and all other kinds of energy fields. STM--the scanning tunneling microscope. What is visualized is the charge density of the electric field. Basically you observe vibrations---electric vibrations. You haven’t seen an atom either. You’ve seen an image you assume to be an atom, but it is simply an instrument’s representation of the atom. It is not the atom itself. These techniques aren’t actually “visual” like microscopes we work with in biology classes. Microscopes use lenses and light to help zoom and focus on small objects. Electron microscopes, on the other hand, use quantum scattering theory to construct the shape of small objects, then the data is transferred to a computer to create a model. The wavelengths of visible light ranges on the order of ~370nm to 750nm. These are all MUCH larger than many particles of interest (and way too large to view atoms, which are on the order of Angstroms-0.1nm). Scientists need to be creative to be able to “see” atoms.
Good comment. All particles are wave interference in quantum information terms of fields, so the Big Bang Theory or analogy is the "condensate" version of interference. BBT is Not wrong, just one sided, because that's the timing spacing cause-effect of quantization/interference.
"Scientists need to be creative to be able to “see” atoms." Scientists will never be able to "see" atoms in the same way microscopes work in biology. The light diffraction limit makes this an impossibility. Those techniques you've listed ARE examples of scientists actually seeing atoms.
helder capela: " In order to take a picture of a thing you need light to bounce …" that is only true if you are not taking a picture of a light source. But we see everything indirectly, why is observing particles by electric field any less valid than seeing objects via the photons that hit our retinas and are then modelling in our brain? "Particles exist only inside mathematical abstractions", no, they exist in a physical model. Mathematics is used in physics (obviously) but it is an exact science that has proofs based on axioms, there are no proofs in the other sciences. In fact I would not describe mathematics as a science for this very reason, although I know some do. But when mathematics is used in physics it is applied mathematics not abstract mathematics, by definition.
I like Brian Cox here, when he is being clear and just explaining things to a high school level. He drives me NUTS on all those PBS / BBC shows when he is smiling constantly. Like to the extent that you can *hear* him smiling ...it's in his voice. I just want a normal explanation in a normal tone of voice; not so much smiling! Brian is brilliant and doesn't smile on these sorts of presentations, so I can only assume it's the producers of those shows chiding him, "More cowbel.... more SMILING!"
You watched that CRAZY MOVIE, didn't you, where the earth was destroyed by some really ugly creatures who wrote bad poetry. CONFESS ! You can't deny it with the answer being "42" !
Actually, that can partly be addressed by science. Try human psychology for a start. However, my guess is you will also need a thorough understanding of European social, cultural, and economic history to provide a broader and more comprehensive canvass on which to place sensibly all those involved. A tall order, if you ask me.
The Higgs field is a theoretical idea, right? I've heard the formation of matter from energy after the Big Bang as "freezing out of matter". I thought that perhaps particles of matter (and antimatter) can bud off or separate from the wave crests and troughs. Is this being considered theoretically?
Perhaps the separation of particles from electromagnetic waves is even more likely with the stretching of these waves by cosmic inflation and expansion.
I don't think bosons exist either. Everything can't be a particle, can it? Over-excitement with the discovery of fundamental particles? Particle mania?
Watching the huge space craft or "Time Machines" of our visitors; 4 x the size of an aircraft carrier disappear into noting causes me to realize that our understanding of physics is not going to explain how a space ship can disappear into nothing or how a person on the ground can disappear to a spaceship 10,000 feet from the ground. I am thinking that our visitors can shift to a different universe much smaller in comparison. . . a different form of gravity. I have seen an atom as bright green spinning and hovering in front of my face.
What don't I understand is that why has it been so long for these science educators to explain this? I remember watching documentaries on the discovery channel or nat geo, only a few years back I remember them using all of these analogies to show how far away the electron is 'orbiting' from the nucleus. If the modern version of the atom was discovered so long ago, why wasn't that more accurate version not printed in textbooks, to begin with?
Dylan Walker its for the lay public with no science background who are interested in it in a cursory way. Explainging things like particle dont exist but they do and they act like waves and things like zero dimensional point charge can not be visualized. I am well versed in this and still cant wrap my head around the very essence of a photon. So dont take that diagram so personally. Anything below the wavelength of light can not be seen therefore unimaginable to visually comprehend.
He also made a prediction, on A Horizon Doc, that we wouldn't find the Higgs Boson...Just before we discovered the Higgs Boson... sooooo..... why do my sensors still detect immense clouds of smuggery?
Does any one know how the atom recieves the information to form into a predetermined life form while following instruction to become a similar replica of its host dna transfer.
There is no empty space it turns out. Definitely some particle activity everywhere. Look up "Empty the science of nothing" on youtube they definitely seem fine with using the word aether as this medium they see in "empty" space.
I thought nucleons where comprised of more quarks but the three which determine which nucleons they are were called “valence quarks”. The statement that there are only three quarks isn’t accurate per se.
The "modern" atom ??? When was it that it became new and improved? The atom has always been the same ... it is only our understanding of it that has improved.
The Modern Understanding of the Atom .. in a universe 85% comprised of matter we know NOTHING about using QM equations that have no treatment for gravity. We know nothing.
Read "demon hunted world" by carl sagan, he basically talks how the whole thing was debunked 30 years ago. Two brothers did them to fuck with people, they demonstrated how they were done, and still to this day we still talk about how crop circles are "super natural" . We can send send people to explore space, we can certainly make crop circles.
So, in simple terms, you talk to the atom rather than breaking it! Why bring on the heat. Just have a cool conversation. It's the 21st.er century, is it not?
2.002319304 Nothing Is Real. Cosmic Inflation: Feynman Dark Energy Soup. SuperSyemmetry? Got the Hawking Radiation out of here. Black Hole. Don’t let Gravity Get you down. We can only prove that which we can observe. Frau Schrodinger: "Edwin, what have you done to the cat? It looks half dead!" Double Slit Experiment- Implied Sentience: ‘Somebody’s watching me’ -Rockwell
The physicist speaking finishes with an "and that's it." Sure. That's it. Alrighty then. Got it. There's this, then that, then you double it, add in three new particles (forgot their names now), then you consider two subatomic things going up and one coming down, photons to be included somewhere in the explanation, Higgs comes in to set it all straight... and there we go! OH YEAH "... and that's it." Thank you, smiley physicist speaker who expresses himself very well. Now all's clear. A-yup. Good program, though. I got no problem watching the "...and that's it" for another two thousand four hundred and eighty seven times.
I know he was speaking english and I know I speak english but I understood not one word of this explanation, I have now decided that I am stupid after all.
How does a Proton get its charge? How does an Electron get its charge? Why are Neutrons neutral? TLU says Its the properties of electromagnetic fields. Gravity is a contracting force. logicaluniverse.com
And yet he only barely mentioned quantum field theory. That is what is really going on. Particles only emerge from vibrations in these fields, but everything is fields, not particles. Additionally this word "force" is 16th century physics, Newtonian physics, and we know the concept is wrong. He could have done better.
He gets the hots out of doing what he does. Let the poor guy have his fun. For me, I would say how wonderful it is to see the tomatoes growing in my vegetable garden growing healthily. The speaker is ok. He just enjoys his topic to a "wonderful" degree
This Cake with raisins they were seeking was later called the Aether. Einstein's theory of relativity stopped the study of the Aether. Einstein's said Relativity is wrong Later but science continued it and even added it to Quantum Physics. The "FABRIC OF SPACE" is a term that came from continuing the study of relativity. Its not Fabric is a Medium called the Aether and Gravity is the Proof of the Aether. And the aether also moves and Light travels in the aether just a little less than the speed of the aether. Light Speed is Governed by the speed of the Aether. This is the missing Varible in Speed. Light don't travel just a little slower than light Speed. That's Hillarius! Light travels just a little less than the speed of the aether which all things set in. Gravity waves travelling at the speed of Light is ALSO proof of the Aether. Relativitiiest will continue to Stumble at the Photons beacsue they dont understand the medium (aether) photons travel in. HINT: The aether expands & retracts a little faster than light Speed as it moves. The Seen & Unseen Universe Expands and retracts at this speed. It's why every 50 years Science says the universe is retracting and then another 50 years they declare it's Expanding. Hahaha these are Declarations from Relativitiiest.
thank god for humble intellectuals like Brian who can turn such vastly complicated ideas into simple explanations
THE OTHER WAY AROUND-SURELY?
He's thick just good at regurgitation on shit. Guys stupid. Space rockets gravity.all false
Thanks who...?!?
Simple explanations my hairy butt
You have to have a major in physics even to understand the basic concepts of what he says
There's no "simple" in his explanations... unless you possess prior chemistry or physics knowledge to even begin to understand his talk.
It is simple for those who believe they already know something.
But even those who do already know something, they can only grasp at the superficial notion of the concepts of the particles of which the physicist speaks.
Unless they know as much as he does.
This speech is NOT for the beginner... it is made for those who are PREPARED for such information.
As with history, make it up as you go along.
"I would love to be wrong"
_That_ is what makes science... :-)
He wasn't being honest
He was. If he had been wrong then new avenues would open up to further our understanding.
you not understood that he talks shit.. no new avenues just bollocks
@@murdock6450 Explain your opinion.
@@Mediumal one word.. NASA
".. and that's it!" he says. If modern science has taught us anything, it is that the harder we look, the more we find.
The current model, nicely explained by Brian Cox, fits the facts better than any previous model but I can't help thinking that the next 50 years will bring revolutionary new discoveries.
This may very well be possible, only time will tell. Your quote about modern science is spot on, and the reason this is true is; this is the very same process as learning. This fundamental aspect of science is why so many of the faithful continue to be left in the dark; they perceive science as simply the adoption of a different belief system; then a well honed process for determining facts; and thus gaining actual knowledge. The Universe is like a hot kitchen stove, at first we only learn it can burn us; but in time as we gain knowledge about the kitchen stove; we learn how the very thing that burns us can help provide us with well cooked meals upon which to sustain ourselves. The faithful are standing here denying the existence of the stove, while the rest of us choose to gain knowledge.
It’s good to see Brian Cox did something productive with his life after retiring from the NFL
This is guy is such an icon. One of my fav science communicators
He is not a dick Rad.. he is actually a vagina
Yeah if your 10 years old! he's a material reductionist who doesn't believe in quantum mechanics. .he's nothing more than a scientific dinosaur!!!
His ability to make such complicated stuff, semi understandable to a lay person like myself reminds me of Richard Feynman. I like his style.
This is a brilliant explanation of the standard model.
Am currently reading and thoroughly enjoying "The Quantum Universe". Give 'em hell, Professor Cox! Cheers!
Thanks for the vid that brings my awareness of the current standard atom up to date. Brian explains the subject matter so clearly and consciously.
It would be nice very to get an updated version of this talk. A lot has changed since 2013
That was completely over my head. I wish I understood it.
Put in one day of time and you will get it. It really is not hard to understand the building blocks. It is when they interact. But that was not what this video was about.
At least, you don`t pretend to know.
I passed my 11+ by the narrowest of margins and I even remember the question that I had got wrong and they asked me to explain.
The question was if your father was a non smoker what would you buy him as a birthday present and the answers offered were a bicycle, a cigar cutter, or a pipe rack.
I told them I could not afford to buy my father a bicycle or a cigar cutter as my father only used a pipe and told me he was a no smoker.
I said I could make him a pipe rack as I as good at woodwork and that was my answer.
They passed me so I could go to grammar school. Unfortunately my parents divorced so I didn’t go to a Grammar school but a secondary Modern school.
I was interested in science but was not inspired by my science teacher when I questioned him about something he said to do with a vacuum and suction. He said that people in foreign countries like Malaya didn’t know about suction and that children would choke if given a glass of water. I questioned this as I had lived in the far east and I told him he was wrong. I also told him I didn’t remember being taught to suck. Needless to say I left school at 14 with not qualifications whatsoever. But I had learnt to make electro magnets because i like fiddling with bits of wire and batteries.
I did continue my passion for science but only by teaching myself by reading books.
Jeremy Travis: Would you expect to have qualifications at 14? You forgot to complete the next two years! ;)
No, not in England. You normally sat your GCSEs at 16 and A levels at 17. So I left school with no qualifications whatsoever.
we'll soon be able to clone Brian Cox and put one in every classroom
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY, TO THE LAST WORD. DUH
George Nolan.. that is Mr Cox trying to be clever
@Goggle products and the earth is 6000 years old lol
I wouldn't mind one...
Goggle products folks, don't feed the troll.
Has anyone got a strange quark, I need one swap for 2 higgs bosons. Then I'll have the set.
I like how they still talk out if their asses about atoms
Understanding the modern atom with Keanu Reeves
Keanu I though so too hhehehehe :):)
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Holy electron! A funny comment on yt! Rare these days!
You need to add a blur outline to your chromatic removal layer
Would sure love to run into this guy at the bar. {Then spend all night drinking beer and talking physics}
he is a very talented individual, he used to be the keyboard player for a group called D-ream
20bn neutrinos passing through my head every second... no wonder I get so many headaches.
Speaking of physics, the inverse square law doesn't apply to extended sources of radiation so how can a geiger counter calibrated using this formula be used now with Fukushima on the surface of our planet?
Brian is my favorite Beatle
It's Turtles all the way down.
I miss Terry Pratchett. I can't bring myself to read Raising Steam because I know it's the last. Turtles all the way down indeed!
@@CelticBomber the shepards crown is the last Pratchett?
@@marksmith4218 It's the last one for me I should have said.
His name is a mashup of my two favorite organs.
V Varrin: No, I meant my two favorite organs OF MINE! Not someone else's.
But which particle carries the gravity force??
Actual pictures of atoms aren’t actually pictures at all.
There are a few good rules of thumb in physics. Among the best is:
light acts like you’d expect on scales well above its wavelength and
acts weird on scales below. In order to take a picture of a thing you
need light to bounce …
The only thing physicists have actually seen is basically a computer
image, not the real image, and second, they observe electric fields,
not the particle itself. They do not observe particles themselves;
they are able to observe only the field. However this alone does not
prove anything, but that the electric energy field exists and that’s
about it---no atoms, no photons, no electrons, no quarks. no nothing.
So no, particles do not exist. Particles exist only inside
mathematical abstractions and nothing more and nothing else. We don’t
know what actually exists in the real world, except that there are
energy fields---electric, magnetic and all other forms and all other
kinds of energy fields.
STM--the scanning tunneling microscope. What is visualized
is the charge density of the electric field.
Basically you observe vibrations---electric vibrations.
You haven’t seen an atom either. You’ve seen an image you assume to be
an atom, but it is simply an instrument’s representation of the atom.
It is not the atom itself.
These techniques aren’t actually “visual” like microscopes we work
with in biology classes. Microscopes use lenses and light to help zoom
and focus on small objects. Electron microscopes, on the other hand,
use quantum scattering theory to construct the shape of small objects,
then the data is transferred to a computer to create a model. The
wavelengths of visible light ranges on the order of ~370nm to 750nm.
These are all MUCH larger than many particles of interest (and way too
large to view atoms, which are on the order of Angstroms-0.1nm).
Scientists need to be creative to be able to “see” atoms.
This is such a good answer!
Good comment. All particles are wave interference in quantum information terms of fields, so the Big Bang Theory or analogy is the "condensate" version of interference. BBT is Not wrong, just one sided, because that's the timing spacing cause-effect of quantization/interference.
"Scientists need to be creative to be able to “see” atoms." Scientists will never be able to "see" atoms in the same way microscopes work in biology. The light diffraction limit makes this an impossibility.
Those techniques you've listed ARE examples of scientists actually seeing atoms.
It would be nice if you were to site your sources, unless you are the original author of this text?
helder capela: " In order to take a picture of a thing you need light to bounce …" that is only true if you are not taking a picture of a light source. But we see everything indirectly, why is observing particles by electric field any less valid than seeing objects via the photons that hit our retinas and are then modelling in our brain?
"Particles exist only inside mathematical abstractions", no, they exist in a physical model. Mathematics is used in physics (obviously) but it is an exact science that has proofs based on axioms, there are no proofs in the other sciences. In fact I would not describe mathematics as a science for this very reason, although I know some do. But when mathematics is used in physics it is applied mathematics not abstract mathematics, by definition.
I like Brian Cox here, when he is being clear and just explaining things to a high school level. He drives me NUTS on all those PBS / BBC shows when he is smiling constantly. Like to the extent that you can *hear* him smiling ...it's in his voice.
I just want a normal explanation in a normal tone of voice; not so much smiling!
Brian is brilliant and doesn't smile on these sorts of presentations, so I can only assume it's the producers of those shows chiding him, "More cowbel.... more SMILING!"
The Higg's field sounds a lot like the ether that was spoken of by earlier physicists.
Wow what an amazing thing to learn!!
Who knew that a 'modern atom' was different from an ancient one!
if an electron has no size but has a mass does it mean it is a singularity?
In in way yes but not a gravitational one like a black hole, since its size can't be determined it's a geometrical singularity.
Great videos, well explained stuff.
I want to see a physical model of an atom, not hear about it. Listening to Brian Cox just makes me stare into space.
The answer is 42.
But do you know why it is 42? As far as I know, the computer did not keep that record.
That's right. Hubble constant is 42 miles/s per mparsec. Douglas was right!
Six times seven for those who know, sheeple.
42 is the number of Fox Mulder's flat in X-files ...
You watched that CRAZY MOVIE, didn't you, where the earth was destroyed by some really ugly creatures who wrote bad poetry.
CONFESS !
You can't deny it with the answer being "42" !
You know whats ironic, is them talking about about the atom, and they have that "atom" picture in the background.
If only Brian could be coaxed to demystify Brexit
Actually, that can partly be addressed by science. Try human psychology for a start. However, my guess is you will also need a thorough understanding of European social, cultural, and economic history to provide a broader and more comprehensive canvass on which to place sensibly all those involved. A tall order, if you ask me.
The Higgs field is a theoretical idea, right? I've heard the formation of matter from energy after the Big Bang as "freezing out of matter". I thought that perhaps particles of matter (and antimatter) can bud off or separate from the wave crests and troughs. Is this being considered theoretically?
Perhaps the separation of particles from electromagnetic waves is even more likely with the stretching of these waves by cosmic inflation and expansion.
Photons don't exist. Light is a wave; Einstein interpreted the Planck data and the photoelectric effect incorrectly.
I don't think bosons exist either. Everything can't be a particle, can it? Over-excitement with the discovery of fundamental particles? Particle mania?
This guy is 50 yrs old! What's his secret?
ALIEN
An extreme passion for what he does. In all his doccos I get a bit of a man crush on him for is passion for the universe.
getting bummed daily by lots of black men and oestrogen supplements
@@murdock6450 You are severely messed up aren't you?
@@habkenubai8200 I'm straight I fuck chicks.. Unlike your genius rocket man
What about the post modern atom?
Certainties today is wrong tomorrow! These are only theories, so do not fall in love with them ;-)
Very informative thanks Brian. It would seem 3 creationist voted.
Brian ily ❤️
Same
@@notmatilda5700 OMG ITS U
@@ameliewhite5469 stan brian
@@notmatilda5700 brian is my new favourite white boii
Mind blown
Cox rocks!
Watching the huge space craft or "Time Machines" of our visitors; 4 x the size of an aircraft carrier disappear into noting causes me to realize that our understanding of physics is not going to explain how a space ship can disappear into nothing or how a person on the ground can disappear to a spaceship 10,000 feet from the ground. I am thinking that our visitors can shift to a different universe much smaller in comparison. . . a different form of gravity. I have seen an atom as bright green spinning and hovering in front of my face.
What don't I understand is that why has it been so long for these science educators to explain this? I remember watching documentaries on the discovery channel or nat geo, only a few years back I remember them using all of these analogies to show how far away the electron is 'orbiting' from the nucleus. If the modern version of the atom was discovered so long ago, why wasn't that more accurate version not printed in textbooks, to begin with?
Dylan Walker its for the lay public with no science background who are interested in it in a cursory way. Explainging things like particle dont exist but they do and they act like waves and things like zero dimensional point charge can not be visualized. I am well versed in this and still cant wrap my head around the very essence of a photon. So dont take that diagram so personally. Anything below the wavelength of light can not be seen therefore unimaginable to visually comprehend.
In the thumbnail i thought that was keanu reeves lol imagine that
If there was reason behind it, there was intelligence.
And here I was thinking the Universe was complicated.
Its merely a hydrogen experiment thats gone horribly wrong.
He also made a prediction, on A Horizon Doc, that we wouldn't find the Higgs Boson...Just before we discovered the Higgs Boson... sooooo..... why do my sensors still detect immense clouds of smuggery?
Does any one know how the atom recieves the information to form into a predetermined life form while following instruction to become a similar replica of its host dna transfer.
I aaaaaaaaaaam shocked
Lots of threes in the quantum universe
I built a particle accelerator on my garage
That's it!
Q: what is life ?? A: nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
I'm sorry you told me I liked the old model more.
It's the leg of an elephant.
Rutherford went on to form Genesis.
Could we say the aether is the Higgs ?
There is no empty space it turns out. Definitely some particle activity everywhere. Look up "Empty the science of nothing" on youtube they definitely seem fine with using the word aether as this medium they see in "empty" space.
Matter is space distortion ...
I thought nucleons where comprised of more quarks but the three which determine which nucleons they are were called “valence quarks”. The statement that there are only three quarks isn’t accurate per se.
That's made me feel like Homer Simpson.
you mean the modern understanding of the atom.
Yes, that is how the English language works. You can shorten things like that when there is context.
um no.... the title says understanding the modern atom... atoms have not changed buddy... it's our understanding of them that has changed.... get it?
Atons are awesome:P
Sum to infinity are basic twelve particles but quantization of matter follow the numbers of phi.
And that's how stars are arranged .
Jon Culshaw!!!!
The "modern" atom ??? When was it that it became new and improved?
The atom has always been the same ... it is only our understanding of it that has improved.
A remark of a genius.
Thank you for your contribution.
Please enrich us with more of your wisdom. : )
12 fundamentals?
63.
Quark? That horrible cheese stuff is what the universe is made of???
Might be worth checking out timecompressiontheory.com it is causing a storm in the field of relativity.
Gluttonous Gluton
fractal ... dodeca ...
The Modern Understanding of the Atom .. in a universe 85% comprised of matter we know NOTHING about using QM equations that have no treatment for gravity. We know nothing.
Read my pulp proton atomic model.
Just a simple question of a compltetely diffrent subject .Whats your opinion about Crop circles. ,how they are made 😊love you,
Read "demon hunted world" by carl sagan, he basically talks how the whole thing was debunked 30 years ago. Two brothers did them to fuck with people, they demonstrated how they were done, and still to this day we still talk about how crop circles are "super natural" . We can send send people to explore space, we can certainly make crop circles.
British accent!
So, in simple terms, you talk to the atom rather than breaking it! Why bring on the heat. Just have a cool conversation. It's the 21st.er century, is it not?
pulp proton atomic model
Hey genious this happens in our upper atmosphere every day
2.002319304
Nothing
Is Real.
Cosmic Inflation:
Feynman
Dark Energy
Soup.
SuperSyemmetry?
Got the
Hawking Radiation
out of here.
Black Hole.
Don’t let Gravity
Get you down.
We can only prove
that which we can observe.
Frau Schrodinger:
"Edwin,
what have you done to the cat?
It looks half dead!"
Double Slit Experiment-
Implied Sentience:
‘Somebody’s watching me’
-Rockwell
Highs field...not eather? Ooooooo k
or maybe not.
The physicist speaking finishes with an "and that's it."
Sure. That's it. Alrighty then. Got it. There's this, then that, then you double it, add in three new particles (forgot their names now), then you consider two subatomic things going up and one coming down, photons to be included somewhere in the explanation, Higgs comes in to set it all straight... and there we go!
OH YEAH
"... and that's it."
Thank you, smiley physicist speaker who expresses himself very well.
Now all's clear. A-yup.
Good program, though. I got no problem watching the "...and that's it" for another two thousand four hundred and eighty seven times.
Easy to explain, until you take a look at the maths ... 👨🏫
I know he was speaking english and I know I speak english but I understood not one word of this explanation, I have now decided that I am stupid after all.
Stick with that thought... you may be on to something.
You're not stupid at all... you're CURIOUS and that stands out in your favor IMMENSELY.
The guy who commented before me on your comment is an a**hole.
ha ah?
rattling through the higgs field , do nt blind us with science, will you. Dumbed down, or what, appart from that it really does not explain it.
I don't believe in "ghost particles".
How does a Proton get its charge? How does an Electron get its charge? Why are Neutrons neutral? TLU says Its the properties of electromagnetic fields. Gravity is a contracting force. logicaluniverse.com
Is he telling a funny story? Why is he smiling all the way long as he speaks?
Lol
wat
Wtf does he know
Too much talk and history without anything to remember from today. And his ascent is too difficult to listen to.
It's the British accent
And yet he only barely mentioned quantum field theory. That is what is really going on. Particles only emerge from vibrations in these fields, but everything is fields, not particles. Additionally this word "force" is 16th century physics, Newtonian physics, and we know the concept is wrong. He could have done better.
He only had 8 minutes, for heaven's sake, and not 5 years of a Physics Major to explain his stuff
Give the smiley physicist some slack, will ya ?
This guy smiles too much and says _”wuuunderfull”_ too much...
He gets the hots out of doing what he does.
Let the poor guy have his fun.
For me, I would say how wonderful it is to see the tomatoes growing in my vegetable garden growing healthily.
The speaker is ok. He just enjoys his topic to a "wonderful" degree
The idea of an atom looking like a solar system is just wrong. Brian Cox just regurgitates crap.
This Cake with raisins they were seeking was later called the Aether.
Einstein's theory of relativity stopped the study of the Aether.
Einstein's said Relativity is wrong Later but science continued it and even added it to Quantum Physics.
The "FABRIC OF SPACE" is a term that came from continuing the study of relativity.
Its not Fabric is a Medium called the Aether and Gravity is the Proof of the Aether.
And the aether also moves and Light travels in the aether just a little less than the speed of the aether.
Light Speed is Governed by the speed of the Aether.
This is the missing Varible in Speed.
Light don't travel just a little slower than light Speed.
That's Hillarius!
Light travels just a little less than the speed of the aether which all things set in.
Gravity waves travelling at the speed of Light is ALSO proof of the Aether.
Relativitiiest will continue to Stumble at the Photons beacsue they dont understand the medium (aether) photons travel in.
HINT: The aether expands & retracts a little faster than light Speed as it moves.
The Seen & Unseen Universe Expands and retracts at this speed.
It's why every 50 years Science says the universe is retracting and then another 50 years they declare it's Expanding.
Hahaha these are Declarations from Relativitiiest.
This guy is terrible
Instead of just talking... some diagrams and pictures would be very helpful indeed. Like this ... Thumb down.