A little precision at the end to avoid confusion : At 14:19 the symmetry which is referred to is not the color charge symmetry of chromodynamics (which is also based on the number 3), but the flavour symmetry. I've been a bit sloppy in the animation and the colors I've chosen might seem to suggest that this is the color symmetry (even though quarks do indeed respect the color symmetry) Many thanks to my friend Thomas who helped me write this video : www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/harveyt
@@hyperduality2838 Hm.. I won't say you're "wrong" per se, but that's a very sloppy and inconsistent set of uses of the term "dual". A few examples of different uses: - "Syntropy". No idea what that is. A bit of Google gives the only (real) definition as being related to psychology, not physics. Using "dual" to try and tie some (I'm guessing) metaphysical woowoo to real physics. - Gravitation is not "dual" to acceleration. Einstein's equivalence principle states that gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass. Both types of mass are related to acceleration in the same way (that's the whole point of the principle). Using "dual" just straight up incorrectly. - Potential energy could be thought of as "dual" to kinetic energy I guess, in the sense that they're typically written as opposite sides of an overall energy equation. Using "dual" in a slightly questionable but not totally incorrect manner. - Positive charge vs negative charge (and N/S magnetic poles and similar). Using "dual" to mean negation. - "Photons or light are dual". They're literally the same thing. Using "dual" in a rather non-sensical manner. - Bosons vs Fermions. This is probably the closest to the common (physics) use of the term "dual" you've got listed, at least if you subscribe to the ideas of supersymmetry. - Except that you claim Bosons are waves and Fermions are particles. Both types of objects are waves _and_ particles. What that means in any sort of intuitive fashion is anyone's guess still (all of those "interpretations" you hear about), but your assertion isn't quite right. What _is_ true is that Bosons have a symmetric wave function while Fermions have an anti-symmetric wave function. We can also state that Bosons are "force carriers" while Fermions are "matter particles", but that's starting to shift the intuition back to your original not-quite-right definition. The type of wave function is the important distinguishing factor. This particular little rant has nothing to do with your use of the term "dual" though. So yeah.. again, you aren't necessarily "wrong". Each use of the term "dual" you applied could be considered valid in their own contexts. The problem is that by listing a whole bunch of different contexts together, you're implicitly asserting that they're all equally meaningful and that simply isn't the case. (Though its a common trope among woowoo artists to try and convince people that their nonsense is relevant without doing the work that would prove otherwise by making implicit contextual associations to real work that has been done by real scientists).
You are explaining stuff much better than most other youtube channels. You don't add any unnecessary or disturbing things to the videos (no stupid jokes, no 5-minute spinning logo etc). You repeat the most important things in a non-disturbing way. Also the narration is great, it's not too fast and you make pauses, that help to better understand what you are talking about. Keep it up.
Man! This series blows my mind! And I have an MSc in Theoretical Physics too! Excellent stuff... Well presented and easy to grasp by those outside the field! Let's hope that these uploads inspires the next Einstein, Hawking or Feynman!
Physist: "It's too long to explain intuitively gauge theory and covariant derivatives" ScienceClic: "Hold my nuclear beer" How lucky we are to have you to explain us all of this !
@@antoniocotarodriguez5732 Just because you turn up yr radio at the end of yr video, does not mean that u have made any sense, or that I have understood u. Try to concentrate on yr academic content, rather than just thinking yr some kind of flashy showman.
@@LegendLength The laws of physics have certain local gauge symmetry. This kind of symmetry is "stronger" that what you know as classical symmetry (which are called global symmetry), it is called local symmetry: even if you change the gauge differently depending of where you are in spacetime the laws must be invariant ! And for fields with the phase symmetry (called U(1) gauge) it is possible only if you add another field (the photon field) connected to others fields to "correct" local change of the gauge in the laws of physics !
This guy explained supersymmetry in 15 minutes better than University can accomplish in an entire semester... This video is a pure educational goldmine, I have no words to explain how I'm feeling right now...
Dude. This finally made all that abstract stuff physicists talk about such as fields etc as if it's an actual physical thing make sense to me. Thank you.
These videos are really inspiring and I think they make you want to know much more. It would be awesome if traditional education could be updated to include more visualizations of abstract concepts like this. Keep up the good work!
Great. Want upgrade to VR Google to flight myself throught the video and see the laws of Physic. This animation education is great next step could be "Seeduction" to be a part of the animation. Thank you very much for your pioneer work. Florian
@@ScienceClicEN The music puts my brain in a very specific 'trance' if you will. Not sure how, but it makes it so I can process what's being explained and follow everything. Your pacing in these videos are also ON THE DOT. You give enough time to process but quick enough to the next thing so we don't lose our train of thought. This seriously needs to be shown to teachers and academics to show them the best way to throw information at our spongy brains! Maybe it's just me, but I've mostly had TERRIBLE teachers that either thought we would just get everything in the first explanation, or explain things in WAY too many different ways and going on tangents. That and my ADD brain don't mix well, however your videos + my ADD brain DO.
You are definitely going to blow up! For me, you're like 3blue1brown for Physics. I've been hearing about symmetry for ages and never quite understood it well enough for my liking, and then here you are. Such a complex topic yet you explained it so elegantly, almost as a matter of inevitability! I've been a fan since your GR visualization video, and loved the later series exploring the maths behind the pretty animations. This is how science communication should be like, as in at the end one should realise that even at the highest level Physics makes perfect sense and it doesn't have to be mind numbingly inaccessible. I once read a quote somewhere, like, if you can't explain something well then you haven't yet understood it well. There's surely a lesson there for pop scientists that for the sake of romanticising science either over exaggerate or use stupid analogies to dumb it down too much. You've found a good balance.
It never ceases to amaze me at how clearly this channel is able to communicate complex scientific principles to a general audience. I watch a lot of very good science channels, but when it comes to communicating complicated ideas clearly, no one else does it better.
I'm soaking in theoretical and intuitive knowledge about physics like a dry sponge, it's my hobby since I'm a little kid. This channel just opened knowledge to me that I just wasn't able to fully grasp because I never went to colleague, I only partly understood the mathematical principles behind these concepts. Thank you for everything you did for us hobby physicists, great channel!
Wtf the guy making these videos is 22 and can not only explain these concepts extremely well but also does the sound design and these killer animations.
Hi! I am a physics major and I am just studying for my QFT exam. This video helped me to understand the topic more efficiently than any of my university professors. Thank you!
By far the best description of symmetry I’ve ever seen. I’ve read about it for years and have struggled with it as a concept. Most explanations stay at a very trivial level and just MoveOn. This actually explains what’s going on and why we get the science we do. Bravo good work.
the best video about Noether's theorem I've found. Love how you tie in Mach's principle, GR, quantum field theory, supersymmetry very elegantly. The animations support the explanations very well too.
daaaaamn. As someone who has casually consumed science related content on youtube for a while now, this unlocked a completely new tier of understanding for me. And answered some long existing wonderings, mostly about the arbitrary-ness of what seem to be the most fundamental aspects of the universe. It would be so beautiful, and reasonable, if everything came from one fundamental thing. Anyways, the setup and trajectory of this video were so expertly tailored, that I actually mostly understood what was going on. And that's an incredible achievement.
This is just crazy. I don't know how much would the production costs be but the results are remarkable, i wish i was not a student and would somehow pay guys for such a cool job. I can already see how much glad the next generation will be when they discover you.
It certainly is! No. 5 is one of the more popular floral fragrances. it makes a fine gift for someone special if perhaps we could interest you in this 50mL bottle?
@@razeezar 😂😂😂 best way to point out a typo ever! I'm going to keep it as it is so whoever will read these comments will still understand it and have a big laugh 😂 (you're welcome guy reading funny comments 💁)
This is incredibly well put together. It has beautiful animation without sacrificing technical correctness and just the right amount of complexity that people of a wide range of backgrounds (from high school to physics major) can get something meaningful without resorting to exclusively elementary school levels of terminology. Well done!
I've been binging this channel for hours. I'm a complete physics layman, but it's one of the most fascinating subjects in the world for me. These short videos are some of the best illustrations of these complex concepts I've ever seen.
I'm in love with this channel! See, a common person can also understand the language of our universe given that you as a teacher/prof first understands it well and this video is a proof of it. Professors and teachers should take notes from such a video!
except he just made a video going on about assumptions as if they were fact. Physics does not appear to work the same everywhere in the universe, which is why there is a dark matter theory and the expanding universe theory to try to explain why things we observe dont appear to work how we would expect them to
Only suggestion is to just say symmetry instead of “a symmetry.” Had to do a mental double take a couple times thinking i heard a change of reference was “not asymmetry” when in fact it was “not a symmetry.”
To say this video is brilliant is a massive understatement. Your way of explaining things with accompanying visual animations is absolutely amazing. The animations for the different conservation laws are so clever, and tying the example with the airplane to the centrifuge was genius. Subscribed.
I think that being symmetric is the definition of the laws of physics. They can't change, so whatever you do they should remain constant if they changed, they wouldn't be the laws of physics.
I have absolutely nothing to do with physics, but this was dope! The graphics made it is so easy to grasp the theory's essence. I have never understood the word symmetry, better than now. Thanks! I am sharing with my little bro, who's a first year physics student!
For everyday purposes, it is a force, just as EM. The reason for the statement is, that on a deeper level you can explain all effects of gravity by distorted space-time. However, one could make very similar points for the other three forces. EM is just the effect of a distorted complex phase of the particle fields. The strong force is just a distortion in the distinction between the three quark colors. And the weak interaction is just a distortion in the distinction between leptons and neutrinos (and down- and up-type quarks, and which component of the Higgs field corresponds to the Higgs-particle). The reason why it's usually only stated for gravity is, that most people think they know, what space-time ist, but have no idea of the U(1), SU(3) and SU(2) behind the other forces, so you can only formulate a cool & catchy point for gravity.
That's right, I had done a video to clarify this : ruclips.net/video/YRgBLVI3suM/видео.html There is still a big difference between gravity and the other interactions though : as long as we don't know how to quantize gravity, we cannot explain it by an exchange of virtual particles, which is what we usually consider to be a "physical force". Also, gravity is different in that it affects all objects in the same way. That is not the case for the other interactions, which are coupled to some particles but not all. So yes we can use a similar formalism for all interactions, defining a curvature field and connections, but gravity is very different from the other forces. It is not a Yang-Mills theory, and it couples to all matter equally. Gravity is exactly the same thing as the centrifugal force, or the Coriolis force : the force of gravity lies in the connection of the theory (the Christoffel symbols) and not in the curvature, as opposed to Yang-Mills theories. In particular what we call "gravity" is purely gauge-dependent : you can always choose a gauge (a coordinate system) in which the connection (the gravitational force) is zero. That is not the case for the EM field, which is a curvature tensor, and hence transforms as a tensor.
I think that's also kind of where the experts are at though, they just have the confidence of familiarity with the language and knowledge of what's come before. Their higher denominational coins are theorems that predict behaviours and tie together pieces that disagree. But at the end of the day, as a species, we just don't fully understand how the universe works. I just think that's so cool
This is one of the greatest videos I have ever seen in my life, it definitely changed my way to understand complex sistems with easy examples and analogies, thank you for this
Good video, only a small important thing. A symmetry has its origin not in our universe but a complex structure is always creating symmetries. If we search we will find symmetries and on the other hand no symmetry can be a perfect symmetry. The base is only the symmetry. That was Emmy Noether's huge achievement. She was one of the most significant genius in all history.
In the sense that she was never paid for her mathematical work, or brief sojourn into physics where she contributed probably the single deepest idea we have. Spare in that sense. She was teaching university students, and collaborating on research with Hilbert at a university, so in all ways except pay she was a professional academic.
@@Ivi-Tora Yes. That is how science works. You do not put effort into showing that something works, but that it explains something that otherwise would not be explained. By falsifying other theories, you prove that yours is objectively more accurate to reality than others. You can prove that many things work with a certain theory without it being right, but you have to find just one flaw to know that it is wrong.
Thank you so much for your work. It’s so well explained, and the topics I’ve studied through more non-conventional methods are even more better visualized in my head. I may never have the time in my life to understand the actual mathematical language but it’s amazing to me that we can visualize it. Einstein had that special ability to visualize it in his mind AND do the math. You and your team are passing along that spark of curiosity to the next generation on the visual side. Hopefully you can spark a mind that can solve the quantum gravity problem mathematically and we can bridge the gap and have a new way to visualize this beautiful reality we are all in.
my boiii is back🔥 with symmetry and more importantly the covariant and invariant relationship with symmetry 🔥 damn good 🔥 I'll love to check up a video on the Action Principle, you came so close to that in this video !
The more I learn about quarks, string theory, anti-matter, and string theory. The more I feel like there is a grand symmetry that is beyond our observable universe that contains symmetry that so beyond us that it seems unsymmetrical or vice versa.
Yup 👍 sounds like the topological mechanism in my ligaments. It’s easy to explain and show I just don’t think professionals are ready for laws of physics to be broken.
Really enjoying watching your videos! :) I wanted to add a subtle but very important point: gauge symmetries are not true symmetries, they represent redundancies among the dynamical variable used to define a theory. For example, one can gauge fix up to two components of the gauge field A_\mu; two components of A are physically redundant as a massless spin-1 particle has only two helicity states. More generally, gauge transformations take a solution to the *same* solution, for example, consider X(t) and T(t) such that X = v T (a particle moving at a constant velocity). The transformation t -> t + dt, gives exactly the same solution X(t') = v T(t'). Evidently, t _> t + dt is a gauge transformation. It has no local conserved charge. This setup might look strange but it's what happens in special relativity, where t parameterises the worldline of a particle, for example. In contrast symmetry transformations take a solution to a *different* solution. Taking the previous example, suppose we let T -> T + dT, then the solution becomes (schematically) X = v T + C, which is clearly not the same solution (since for X(T=0) is different in each case, for example). Evidently T -> T + dT is a symmetry transformation. It has a local conserved charge (energy). There is a crucial exception to this when one considers gauge transformations that act non-trivially on the fields at a boundary; this is the origin of the physical charge of an electron, for example. There is no gauge-invariant conserved charge, corresponding to local gauge transformations, for the electron in QED. However, there is an *asymptotic* conserved charge associated with gauge transformations that act globally at spatial infinity. Another common assertion is that gauge symmetries are local symmetries. This isn't true either; T-duality in string theory is an example of a gauge redundancy that acts globally R -> k / R.
Honestly incredible, would you be able to explain conservation of energy and charge the same way you did momentum and angular momentum, or do they not lend themselves to graphical interpretations?
For electric charge you can think of it as the "angular momentum of complex phase". And for energy relativity tells us that it's the temporal component of momentum, the time symmetry is a translation through time, and energy is the tendency that objects have to move through time.
I have a lot of confidence in this channel as far as accuracy, which is strange because it's also the easiest to understand. I'll bet Richard Feynman would be a subscriber!
Would you say that the force fields used to explain different frames of reference are real? Centrifugal force, for example, often gets dismissed as "virtual".
I think we can say they are real. In this video, he doesn't mention it but photons have a self-interacting term too. So even if the photon field looks like a mathematical artefact, there are in fact other assumptions on its behavior which implies something on the electrons' behavior too. On example is that energy levels in are quantized in photon fields (hence photon is a particule), you would not expect that if it was just a mathematical artefact to change reference.
@Michael Bishop you are right I didn't express myself well :) I was referring to the last free propagation term of the QED lagrangian. This term only involves the electromagnetic tensor (I badly used self-interaction here) so it tells us something about how the photon field must behave independantely of electrons. That's why I think we should say that electromagnetic field is not just an mathematical artefact, it has its own way to behave even in the absence of everything else.
@@theopantamis9184 Yes I think what can be considered as "being real" in this context is the existence of a kinetic term for the gauge field itself in the Lagrangian. This is what allows the gauge field to be a dynamical entity with its own equations of motion and propagation. The kinetic term is what gives rise to Einstein's equation for the curvature of spacetime, or to Maxwell's equations for the EM field.
such a great video. Im not a physics student and was trying to understand symmetries for a long time but couldn't find any good videos or sources on it. yours was the video that made it click. thankyou.
A little precision at the end to avoid confusion : At 14:19 the symmetry which is referred to is not the color charge symmetry of chromodynamics (which is also based on the number 3), but the flavour symmetry. I've been a bit sloppy in the animation and the colors I've chosen might seem to suggest that this is the color symmetry (even though quarks do indeed respect the color symmetry)
Many thanks to my friend Thomas who helped me write this video : www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/harveyt
"Access denied
You are not authorised to access this page."
@@giftmanoff It seems the website is being modified at the moment, the link should be working a few days from now I hope
Sir please tell how you edit your videos by the way your videos are really intresting and everything is understood there is a clarity of all topics
@@physicschemistryandquantum810 I think he mostly uses After Effects to make the animations.
@@hyperduality2838 Hm.. I won't say you're "wrong" per se, but that's a very sloppy and inconsistent set of uses of the term "dual". A few examples of different uses:
- "Syntropy". No idea what that is. A bit of Google gives the only (real) definition as being related to psychology, not physics. Using "dual" to try and tie some (I'm guessing) metaphysical woowoo to real physics.
- Gravitation is not "dual" to acceleration. Einstein's equivalence principle states that gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass. Both types of mass are related to acceleration in the same way (that's the whole point of the principle). Using "dual" just straight up incorrectly.
- Potential energy could be thought of as "dual" to kinetic energy I guess, in the sense that they're typically written as opposite sides of an overall energy equation. Using "dual" in a slightly questionable but not totally incorrect manner.
- Positive charge vs negative charge (and N/S magnetic poles and similar). Using "dual" to mean negation.
- "Photons or light are dual". They're literally the same thing. Using "dual" in a rather non-sensical manner.
- Bosons vs Fermions. This is probably the closest to the common (physics) use of the term "dual" you've got listed, at least if you subscribe to the ideas of supersymmetry.
- Except that you claim Bosons are waves and Fermions are particles. Both types of objects are waves _and_ particles. What that means in any sort of intuitive fashion is anyone's guess still (all of those "interpretations" you hear about), but your assertion isn't quite right. What _is_ true is that Bosons have a symmetric wave function while Fermions have an anti-symmetric wave function. We can also state that Bosons are "force carriers" while Fermions are "matter particles", but that's starting to shift the intuition back to your original not-quite-right definition. The type of wave function is the important distinguishing factor. This particular little rant has nothing to do with your use of the term "dual" though.
So yeah.. again, you aren't necessarily "wrong". Each use of the term "dual" you applied could be considered valid in their own contexts. The problem is that by listing a whole bunch of different contexts together, you're implicitly asserting that they're all equally meaningful and that simply isn't the case. (Though its a common trope among woowoo artists to try and convince people that their nonsense is relevant without doing the work that would prove otherwise by making implicit contextual associations to real work that has been done by real scientists).
You are explaining stuff much better than most other youtube channels. You don't add any unnecessary or disturbing things to the videos (no stupid jokes, no 5-minute spinning logo etc). You repeat the most important things in a non-disturbing way. Also the narration is great, it's not too fast and you make pauses, that help to better understand what you are talking about. Keep it up.
That 5 minute spinning logo cracked me up 😂
Sciencephile AI? Pretty enterteining.
Maybe you could learn to make a compliment in a constructive way.
@@joaodavid2001 maybe you can learn what "constructive" mean. My comment was very constructive, unlike yours.
Your savings the world 😜
Art meets science. Please never stop making these videos. They're amazing, intuitive, and captivating.
This channel is a marvel of physics pedagogy, animation and editing
Hi. Perfectly said. Old uk duffer here, enjoying the ride :)
What is pedagogy
@@sawc.ma.bals. pedagogy is teaching something in a way that is easy to understand basically
Brilliant. This is what physics students need to stay motivated to study.
Agreed
Man! This series blows my mind! And I have an MSc in Theoretical Physics too! Excellent stuff... Well presented and easy to grasp by those outside the field! Let's hope that these uploads inspires the next Einstein, Hawking or Feynman!
@@sdwone your looking at him
Yeah, I find it fascinating now, in my 30s!
My school didn't make physics and math very interesting at all
If you're a physics student physics alone should be enough to motivate you.
Physist: "It's too long to explain intuitively gauge theory and covariant derivatives"
ScienceClic: "Hold my nuclear beer"
How lucky we are to have you to explain us all of this !
Is pure gold
@@antoniocotarodriguez5732 Just because you turn up yr radio at the end of yr video, does not mean that u have made any sense, or that I have understood u. Try to concentrate on yr academic content, rather than just thinking yr some kind of flashy showman.
@@LegendLength The laws of physics have certain local gauge symmetry.
This kind of symmetry is "stronger" that what you know as classical symmetry (which are called global symmetry), it is called local symmetry: even if you change the gauge differently depending of where you are in spacetime the laws must be invariant !
And for fields with the phase symmetry (called U(1) gauge) it is possible only if you add another field (the photon field) connected to others fields to "correct" local change of the gauge in the laws of physics !
@@hyperduality2838 name checks out... REALLY likes duality
can i be a grammar nazi ? the spelling of physict is wrong.
This guy explained supersymmetry in 15 minutes better than University can accomplish in an entire semester... This video is a pure educational goldmine, I have no words to explain how I'm feeling right now...
He didn’t get into supersymmetry at all. This kind of comment is really dumb and getting old
ok yapstein
it's been 3 years but there's still time to delete this comment and save your reputation
@@Untoldanimations huh?
@@-_Nuke_- trashing university while being wrong. there is nothing in this video about SUSY
I always breathe a sigh of relief when he says "to understand..."
😂😂😂💪💪💪✨✨✨
Your narration is pitch perfect. No hyperbole, no giddy irrelevant references or sexual innuendo. Just brilliant, straightforward narration.
Dude. This finally made all that abstract stuff physicists talk about such as fields etc as if it's an actual physical thing make sense to me.
Thank you.
These videos are really inspiring and I think they make you want to know much more.
It would be awesome if traditional education could be updated to include more visualizations of abstract concepts like this.
Keep up the good work!
Great. Want upgrade to VR Google to flight myself throught the video and see the laws of Physic. This animation education is great next step could be "Seeduction" to be a part of the animation. Thank you very much for your pioneer work. Florian
i love you man. first moment the music starts i am already in a good mood.
+1
Ahah thanks, glad you enjoy the music :)
@@ScienceClicEN The music puts my brain in a very specific 'trance' if you will. Not sure how, but it makes it so I can process what's being explained and follow everything. Your pacing in these videos are also ON THE DOT. You give enough time to process but quick enough to the next thing so we don't lose our train of thought.
This seriously needs to be shown to teachers and academics to show them the best way to throw information at our spongy brains! Maybe it's just me, but I've mostly had TERRIBLE teachers that either thought we would just get everything in the first explanation, or explain things in WAY too many different ways and going on tangents. That and my ADD brain don't mix well, however your videos + my ADD brain DO.
While we're at it: Does anybody have a link to this music?
It's on my SoundCloud : soundcloud.com/aroussel
You are definitely going to blow up! For me, you're like 3blue1brown for Physics. I've been hearing about symmetry for ages and never quite understood it well enough for my liking, and then here you are. Such a complex topic yet you explained it so elegantly, almost as a matter of inevitability!
I've been a fan since your GR visualization video, and loved the later series exploring the maths behind the pretty animations. This is how science communication should be like, as in at the end one should realise that even at the highest level Physics makes perfect sense and it doesn't have to be mind numbingly inaccessible. I once read a quote somewhere, like, if you can't explain something well then you haven't yet understood it well. There's surely a lesson there for pop scientists that for the sake of romanticising science either over exaggerate or use stupid analogies to dumb it down too much. You've found a good balance.
Thank you very much for the compliment, I am glad you like my approach. I hope you'll enjoy the future videos !
That quote you’re referring to came from Richard Feynman
It never ceases to amaze me at how clearly this channel is able to communicate complex scientific principles to a general audience. I watch a lot of very good science channels, but when it comes to communicating complicated ideas clearly, no one else does it better.
I'm soaking in theoretical and intuitive knowledge about physics like a dry sponge, it's my hobby since I'm a little kid. This channel just opened knowledge to me that I just wasn't able to fully grasp because I never went to colleague, I only partly understood the mathematical principles behind these concepts. Thank you for everything you did for us hobby physicists, great channel!
Wtf the guy making these videos is 22 and can not only explain these concepts extremely well but also does the sound design and these killer animations.
Hi! I am a physics major and I am just studying for my QFT exam. This video helped me to understand the topic more efficiently than any of my university professors. Thank you!
I can't believe this one didn't get a thousand likes!
By far the best description of symmetry I’ve ever seen. I’ve read about it for years and have struggled with it as a concept. Most explanations stay at a very trivial level and just MoveOn. This actually explains what’s going on and why we get the science we do. Bravo good work.
the best video about Noether's theorem I've found. Love how you tie in Mach's principle, GR, quantum field theory, supersymmetry very elegantly. The animations support the explanations very well too.
daaaaamn. As someone who has casually consumed science related content on youtube for a while now, this unlocked a completely new tier of understanding for me. And answered some long existing wonderings, mostly about the arbitrary-ness of what seem to be the most fundamental aspects of the universe. It would be so beautiful, and reasonable, if everything came from one fundamental thing. Anyways, the setup and trajectory of this video were so expertly tailored, that I actually mostly understood what was going on. And that's an incredible achievement.
That must be the best video I have seen on the subject no unnecessary clutter and no conceptual oversimplification .Thank you
Do we have a Nobel prize for education?
Yes and this guy needs it
If he doesn't get it I'll sue 😇
Eagan L • For what "education"? Indoctrination with BS?😏
@@mikel4879 you're the world champion for that
He might get Nobel peace prize
That's the best ELI5 of Noether's theorem I've ever heard.
This is just crazy. I don't know how much would the production costs be but the results are remarkable, i wish i was not a student and would somehow pay guys for such a cool job. I can already see how much glad the next generation will be when they discover you.
This Chanel is just way underrated
It certainly is! No. 5 is one of the more popular floral fragrances. it makes a fine gift for someone special if perhaps we could interest you in this 50mL bottle?
@@razeezar 😂😂😂 best way to point out a typo ever!
I'm going to keep it as it is so whoever will read these comments will still understand it and have a big laugh 😂
(you're welcome guy reading funny comments 💁)
The way you explained the electron's symmetries with the mountains was the best explanation I've seen.
..and so the universe was symmetrical again.
Weak interaction: Hold my CPT beer.
Am a petroleum engineer but this makes me wanna do quantum physics you are among the best tutors I've met thank you
This is incredibly well put together. It has beautiful animation without sacrificing technical correctness and just the right amount of complexity that people of a wide range of backgrounds (from high school to physics major) can get something meaningful without resorting to exclusively elementary school levels of terminology. Well done!
I've been binging this channel for hours. I'm a complete physics layman, but it's one of the most fascinating subjects in the world for me. These short videos are some of the best illustrations of these complex concepts I've ever seen.
Holy...
Im amazed at how you came up with such a beautiful way for explaining (and justifying) gauge symmetry.
Thank you!
I'm in love with this channel! See, a common person can also understand the language of our universe given that you as a teacher/prof first understands it well and this video is a proof of it. Professors and teachers should take notes from such a video!
I think this has just become my favorite channel
Really clear explanation. This is the best science site on RUclips.
This Channel should have several hundred thousands more suscribers than it has today. Good job science click!!
Actually, he has more than 250k suscribers in his french channel with the same content.
except he just made a video going on about assumptions as if they were fact. Physics does not appear to work the same everywhere in the universe, which is why there is a dark matter theory and the expanding universe theory to try to explain why things we observe dont appear to work how we would expect them to
My 2020-2021 absolute favourite channel
The legend continues! Now I got why there "is" a field.
You guys are a breath of fresh air on RUclips. Please keep posting more such HIGH QUALITY content
Only suggestion is to just say symmetry instead of “a symmetry.” Had to do a mental double take a couple times thinking i heard a change of reference was “not asymmetry” when in fact it was “not a symmetry.”
To say this video is brilliant is a massive understatement. Your way of explaining things with accompanying visual animations is absolutely amazing.
The animations for the different conservation laws are so clever, and tying the example with the airplane to the centrifuge was genius. Subscribed.
Thank you very much! I hope you'll like the future videos
Congrats on your Cambridge test results!
Thank you :)
@@ScienceClicEN cambridge?
this is the best science channel I've ever seen
I think that being symmetric is the definition of the laws of physics. They can't change, so whatever you do they should remain constant if they changed, they wouldn't be the laws of physics.
I have absolutely nothing to do with physics, but this was dope! The graphics made it is so easy to grasp the theory's essence. I have never understood the word symmetry, better than now. Thanks! I am sharing with my little bro, who's a first year physics student!
What a revelation! One that is so beautiful and profound! THANK YOU SO MUCH ScienceClic for helping me understand symmetries in theoretical physics!
I searched "time symmetry" and this dude ScienceClic said, "I'll do ya one better... ALL THE SYMMETRIES!"
Outstanding video. Thank you so much for sharing the beauty of physics at such an elegant level with everyone. One of the best channels ever.
Wow. This has to be the best explanation I’ve ever heard explaining the logic for creating underlying fields.
Amazing video. Never thought noethers theorem would be so intuitive
This channel needs to get more attention. Best of the best hands down
Wonderful demonstration
this channel is gold in YT world
Love this channel, i wish it had many more subs and appreciation
This channel explains very well, I dont know why he's so underrated !!
Always happy when a new one of these comes out :)
For everyday purposes, it is a force, just as EM. The reason for the statement is, that on a deeper level you can explain all effects of gravity by distorted space-time.
However, one could make very similar points for the other three forces. EM is just the effect of a distorted complex phase of the particle fields. The strong force is just a distortion in the distinction between the three quark colors. And the weak interaction is just a distortion in the distinction between leptons and neutrinos (and down- and up-type quarks, and which component of the Higgs field corresponds to the Higgs-particle).
The reason why it's usually only stated for gravity is, that most people think they know, what space-time ist, but have no idea of the U(1), SU(3) and SU(2) behind the other forces, so you can only formulate a cool & catchy point for gravity.
That's right, I had done a video to clarify this : ruclips.net/video/YRgBLVI3suM/видео.html
There is still a big difference between gravity and the other interactions though : as long as we don't know how to quantize gravity, we cannot explain it by an exchange of virtual particles, which is what we usually consider to be a "physical force". Also, gravity is different in that it affects all objects in the same way. That is not the case for the other interactions, which are coupled to some particles but not all.
So yes we can use a similar formalism for all interactions, defining a curvature field and connections, but gravity is very different from the other forces. It is not a Yang-Mills theory, and it couples to all matter equally. Gravity is exactly the same thing as the centrifugal force, or the Coriolis force : the force of gravity lies in the connection of the theory (the Christoffel symbols) and not in the curvature, as opposed to Yang-Mills theories. In particular what we call "gravity" is purely gauge-dependent : you can always choose a gauge (a coordinate system) in which the connection (the gravitational force) is zero. That is not the case for the EM field, which is a curvature tensor, and hence transforms as a tensor.
your question and the reply should be #1 on the Big List of Answers
Oh my god, I really needed this. Thank you!
I love when that sound track starts and you know the proper physics explanation starts
"Ding" A penny dropped, i think I'm slowly grasping it, I just need a few more higher domination of coins to drop. Your explanation style is on point.
I think that's also kind of where the experts are at though, they just have the confidence of familiarity with the language and knowledge of what's come before. Their higher denominational coins are theorems that predict behaviours and tie together pieces that disagree. But at the end of the day, as a species, we just don't fully understand how the universe works. I just think that's so cool
This is one of the greatest videos I have ever seen in my life, it definitely changed my way to understand complex sistems with easy examples and analogies, thank you for this
amazing animations, great diction, simple yet comprehensive explanation... i am in love with your channel.
Good video, only a small important thing. A symmetry has its origin not in our universe but a complex structure is always creating symmetries. If we search we will find symmetries and on the other hand no symmetry can be a perfect symmetry. The base is only the symmetry. That was Emmy Noether's huge achievement. She was one of the most significant genius in all history.
This channel ROCKSSS!!!!!
I love your videos
This is one of the better explanations of symmetry and its ramifications I've seen yet. Nicely done - this will help a lot of people.
You really deserve more subscribers!
This channel is so good! All physics students should know about it.
And Emmy Noether developed this fantastic theory on her spare time 🤯🤯🤯
yes, but her name is spelled with a german ö, like in bird (a little bit), not like an o ;)
In the sense that she was never paid for her mathematical work, or brief sojourn into physics where she contributed probably the single deepest idea we have. Spare in that sense. She was teaching university students, and collaborating on research with Hilbert at a university, so in all ways except pay she was a professional academic.
the detail in your videos is absolutely mind boggling
please explain super symmetry in a new video! would love to learn more!
yes!
Not enough theories have been falsified to show that supersymmetry is the least false theory.
So until everything else is proven wrong, we can't know if it's mostly-kinda-probably-true?
@@Ivi-Tora Yes. That is how science works. You do not put effort into showing that something works, but that it explains something that otherwise would not be explained. By falsifying other theories, you prove that yours is objectively more accurate to reality than others.
You can prove that many things work with a certain theory without it being right, but you have to find just one flaw to know that it is wrong.
Most intuitive explanation of Noether's Theorem I've ever heard.
simply superb
You explained Nother’s Theorem in a way even I could understand. I’ve been trying to get the underlying reason for months
wow I learned more than I ever did from a video on Noether's Thm
The only channel I don't regret subscribing, and liking every single video I see.
And this is how you should explain science (*looking at a lot of past teachers*)
Thankyou Alessandro / ScienceClic Team, for the way you explained these concepts. You are my guru in physics....
Please explain entropy and especially entanglement entropy!
He already did.
ruclips.net/video/NfTmy1ApCvI/видео.htmlsi=Qq0LnQ0elKh0kzZY
One of the best things I've seen on RUclips this decade
Thank you so much for your work. It’s so well explained, and the topics I’ve studied through more non-conventional methods are even more better visualized in my head. I may never have the time in my life to understand the actual mathematical language but it’s amazing to me that we can visualize it. Einstein had that special ability to visualize it in his mind AND do the math. You and your team are passing along that spark of curiosity to the next generation on the visual side. Hopefully you can spark a mind that can solve the quantum gravity problem mathematically and we can bridge the gap and have a new way to visualize this beautiful reality we are all in.
This channel will have over a million subs in 1 month's time
my boiii is back🔥 with symmetry and more importantly the covariant and invariant relationship with symmetry 🔥 damn good 🔥
I'll love to check up a video on the Action Principle, you came so close to that in this video !
I found this channel today.... Fell in love with the explanations
This is the first time i feel like i have understood how symmetry implies conservation.
This is the best explanation I've found. Thank you! I was getting frustrated watching other videos that didn't actually explain it.
Brilliantly done, great animations. Thank you
The more I learn about quarks, string theory, anti-matter, and string theory. The more I feel like there is a grand symmetry that is beyond our observable universe that contains symmetry that so beyond us that it seems unsymmetrical or vice versa.
Yup 👍 sounds like the topological mechanism in my ligaments. It’s easy to explain and show I just don’t think professionals are ready for laws of physics to be broken.
This guy just described in 15 mins how th universe is layered to create this existense we experience.
Why do you not have more subscribers? This the kind of content more people should be watching
HI VERY GOOD ANIMATIONS AND YOU EXPLAIN ALSO VERY GOOD .
I REALLY GET INSPIRED BY YOU
Ahah thanks ! Nice profile picture btw :p
@@ScienceClicEN Stole from your video only 😁
Looked very nice
Really enjoying watching your videos! :)
I wanted to add a subtle but very important point: gauge symmetries are not true symmetries, they represent redundancies among the dynamical variable used to define a theory. For example, one can gauge fix up to two components of the gauge field A_\mu; two components of A are physically redundant as a massless spin-1 particle has only two helicity states.
More generally, gauge transformations take a solution to the *same* solution, for example, consider X(t) and T(t) such that X = v T (a particle moving at a constant velocity). The transformation t -> t + dt, gives exactly the same solution X(t') = v T(t'). Evidently, t _> t + dt is a gauge transformation. It has no local conserved charge. This setup might look strange but it's what happens in special relativity, where t parameterises the worldline of a particle, for example.
In contrast symmetry transformations take a solution to a *different* solution. Taking the previous example, suppose we let T -> T + dT, then the solution becomes (schematically) X = v T + C, which is clearly not the same solution (since for X(T=0) is different in each case, for example). Evidently T -> T + dT is a symmetry transformation. It has a local conserved charge (energy).
There is a crucial exception to this when one considers gauge transformations that act non-trivially on the fields at a boundary; this is the origin of the physical charge of an electron, for example. There is no gauge-invariant conserved charge, corresponding to local gauge transformations, for the electron in QED. However, there is an *asymptotic* conserved charge associated with gauge transformations that act globally at spatial infinity.
Another common assertion is that gauge symmetries are local symmetries. This isn't true either; T-duality in string theory is an example of a gauge redundancy that acts globally R -> k / R.
I ❤️ Emmy Noether.
keep making these! no one is going this deep clearly ! thanks!
Simply amazing 💯💯❤️✨✨✨
Thanks :)
Guys do you have a patron. I don't think I have ever come across any other forms of communication that explain physics concepts as good as this
Honestly incredible, would you be able to explain conservation of energy and charge the same way you did momentum and angular momentum, or do they not lend themselves to graphical interpretations?
For electric charge you can think of it as the "angular momentum of complex phase". And for energy relativity tells us that it's the temporal component of momentum, the time symmetry is a translation through time, and energy is the tendency that objects have to move through time.
I have a lot of confidence in this channel as far as accuracy, which is strange because it's also the easiest to understand. I'll bet Richard Feynman would be a subscriber!
Would you say that the force fields used to explain different frames of reference are real? Centrifugal force, for example, often gets dismissed as "virtual".
I think we can say they are real.
In this video, he doesn't mention it but photons have a self-interacting term too. So even if the photon field looks like a mathematical artefact, there are in fact other assumptions on its behavior which implies something on the electrons' behavior too.
On example is that energy levels in are quantized in photon fields (hence photon is a particule), you would not expect that if it was just a mathematical artefact to change reference.
@Michael Bishop you are right I didn't express myself well :)
I was referring to the last free propagation term of the QED lagrangian. This term only involves the electromagnetic tensor (I badly used self-interaction here) so it tells us something about how the photon field must behave independantely of electrons.
That's why I think we should say that electromagnetic field is not just an mathematical artefact, it has its own way to behave even in the absence of everything else.
@@theopantamis9184 Yes I think what can be considered as "being real" in this context is the existence of a kinetic term for the gauge field itself in the Lagrangian. This is what allows the gauge field to be a dynamical entity with its own equations of motion and propagation. The kinetic term is what gives rise to Einstein's equation for the curvature of spacetime, or to Maxwell's equations for the EM field.
This is the most beautiful explanation I've even seen
That's genius !! I like it...
Thank you !
such a great video. Im not a physics student and was trying to understand symmetries for a long time but couldn't find any good videos or sources on it. yours was the video that made it click. thankyou.