Vulgar Display of Truth that 'God particle' is higgs boson and it's a part of group called leptons (electrons, neutrino etc) Idk wth is a God gene though
It would be cool to have a channel that produces a video series that explains how particle accelerators work, how the results are collected and then how they are analyzed to come up with these proofs of particles like quarks.
Yes! I would also like to see a detailed technical explanation of these processes, it is frustrating to only hear the results of such experiments without an understanding of the mechanisms involved.
They collide protons together at the speed of light and get temporarily stable resonances they deduce (wrongly) are fundamental particles. They've somehow convinced themselves protons aren't fundamental particles in the midst of this because they forgot quantum fluctuations are real. It's a clusterf---k.
James Manto gotta be honest im no scientist, but I thought quarks helped explain the weak one? Maybe i missed the point i just think the point of the joke was if theres a strong theres a weak too.
People kept telling me I'm weird, so I had to put a positive spin on it. That's how I discovered my quarks. Now I tell people I'm not weird, just quarky.
On Canadian radio there was a show called “quirks and quarks” and I loved listening on road trips. Now I love scishow and science podcasts, and I think that show is the reason why!
I'd like to know more about _how_ these particles were predicted and tested for their existence. All too often, I heard about scientists apparently proving something but not even a layman overview of how it was done.
Absolutely. I can understand why they feel they want to dumb it down for us, but it's not like there isn't room on the internet for lay explanations and also detailed, technical explanations... it makes me wonder why such a thing seems impossible to find, why hasn't somebody done this by now?
You should have explained where Gell-Mann got the idea for the name! He read it in James Joyce's book Finnegans Wake, and Joyce in turn heard it when he was travelling through Germany from some ladies on a market; "Quark" is German for curd cheese. So basically, the whole universe is made up of a dairy product
What I love about this channel is although the thumbnail only said quarks, it is not boring for people who know loads about quarks. It’s like a one way discussion and they talk things without running down a list. Sci show is what I would call a gentleman and a scholar
Stefan Chin, I would like you to do a behind the scenes video on your work flow operations in the production of your videos. The quality is generally very good and the number you produce are amazing. Would like to “meet” all of the people in the credits.
Always something to learn. I was under the impression that quark was the sound the floor makes when I try to tip toe entering the house after a good night in the pub (bar for the US viewers) .
Good introduction to Quarks. Fine Structure Constant contains a Electric Quantum q=4C/3X=25e/3 q=(13U1d). Alpha=(e/q)^2/2=(e/25e/3)^2/2 Alpha=(3/25)^2/2=9/1250=7.2k Alpha=1/139 Planck's Constant h =qM=4C/3X.Wb/2P=2CWb/3XP M=Wb/2P is Magnetic Quantum.
Hello and may I ask you a question? Particle accelerators smashing protons and electrons etc give us the standard model. However, could you explain in a video why this is so? If we crashed, say, cars together and examined their (much wrecked & destroyed) parts, how would we be able to extrapolate, from the wreckage, what the car parts were before the crash? Thanks!
I have a Chemistry exam final tomorrow and I read on my book that protons and neutrons are made of quarks and I won't study quarks right now because it's hard to understand, so I decided to watch this and now I'm like I guess the book was telling the truth because I understood absolutely nothing and my brain will explode
@@jetison333 Not really, it all follows from constant speed of light measured in vacuum & the equivalence principle. From just those two postulates (and a little help from Minkowski) Special Relativity tells us about the structure of spacetime, then GR extrapolates it out to find a geometric interpretation of gravity as just the way stuff moves within that structure. I find it rather amusing that most physicists still refer to gravity as a force despite our best theory of gravity for over a century saying it technically isn't one :D
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
03:00 I like the name "spinors" for quarks, because you MAY think of them like each of the 3 dimensional vectors [aligned with an unreal, invisible, non-relative, "absolute frame of reference"] that define the "spining" of a proton or neutron in space (with time as the "binding" in between). -> This is why none of the 3 can exist independently [they are just "math numbers" in the Matrix].
Hank Green, Strange Charm: A Song about Quarks 🎶🖖🤟🎵Oh Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Top, Bottom, if you don't know what a quark is, it don't matter you still got 'em And with leptons and bosons unless something's amiss They make up everything that we can see and that we know exists.
I understand now why the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine main Ferengi character was named Quark. He's Strange, he's Charming, and according to some slash fiction out there, he's both Bottom and Top. It all makes so much sense now!
I wish I was bright enough to study this stuff for real. It is by far the most fascinating subject in all of academia today. Our understanding of time, space, matter, and reality itself has been swept away by discoveries made in quantum mechanics over the last half century.
There's a certain beauty in the simplicity of this truth. One could say it has a strange charm. While physicists didn't start at the bottom, it still took them many ups and downs to reach the top.
It's *strange* how I find a certain *charm* in DS9. It's *ups* and *downs,* all *topsy* tervy then *bottoming* out. It's the *flavor* of the show that gets me. I'll show myself out.
When I worked in Los Alamos, NM, I had converstations with visiting physicists from other countries and places like the U. of Chicago that included two more pairs of quarks. Murray Gell-Mann [down the road at the Santa Fe Institute] had previously predicted them as well. I think George Zweig, too, way back at Cal Tech.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. .
@@SpotterVideo Much appreciated that you took the time to discuss this intreguing concept / theory. It rings quite plausable to me, including an explanation for theoretical "Glue Balls" and the idea that gluons represent the major of mass [E = mc2] of nucleons. Thanks again!
@@higherresolution4490 I forgot to mention one thing within this model. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut). Thanks for your kind response.
As an ex-patron of the channel, I'd like to point out a few things. Videos published during the early days of SciShow are full of illustrations and animations, in varying degree of scientific accuracy. They are fun and arguably intuitive to watch. It is not hard to notice that there has been a shift from those videos to SciShow videos today: few illustrations, but plenty of texts. One can be forgiven to think that the team simply gave up on the intuitive approach and copy-pasted the script so they can publish as many videos as possible. This particular video is an excellent example. It is not difficult to find illustrations, figures or animations for the physics of elementary particles. To give you an idea, the most popular (and extremely well-known) source for a historical overview of modern particle physics is Griffith Elementary Particle Physics Chapter 1, which contains more than 14 relevant figures and a dozen more tables. The non-photographic figures are so simple they could be reproduced in Paint. Yet, this video has only two photographic figures. Instead of slides and slides of text, they could've put in a figure of the actual eight-fold way (which will explain why the prediction was made in the first place), or a table of the standard model, or an illustration of quark confinement. They could've mentioned the term "November Revolution" when explaining the discovery of J/psi meson. They could've introduced the table of discovered mesons in the 60s. They could've simply reproduced some of the figures in Griffith. Despite all that, they didn't, and instead copied the script and turned the entire video into a podcast. Seriously? SciShow can do better than this. We know they can because they did it very well all the way back in 2013(?). Now that this topic has been checked off from their list, I'm sincerely regretful knowing that an episode with great potential just turned into five minutes of script-reading for both Stephan and the audience.
Quarks, at say 0.43e-16m, are still e18 times larger than the Planck length e-34m. That allows the opportunity for a _lot_ of subcomponents of quarks. Enter sub-quark physics. Must be at least 2 more levels of components. Must make the physicists (and accelerator builders) happy knowing this ;).
I suggest the name BARB for the components of quarks. It comes from Barbelo a.ka. Barbēlō, who "is the Aeon of impenetrability, stasis and ineffability, and also refers to the first emanation of God in several forms of Gnostic cosmogony." And there are lots of cool names to choose from to name the different generations. (refer to Trimorphic Protennoia and related books).
wow, there are so few particles taught in school, and even that is too much for the absolute majority. Do you want more stuff to be taught in school? Most don't. If there were democratic elections in schools on what to be taught, then science would be scrapped altogether.
They don't teach you about quarks in America? (I assume you're in america). Admittedly we weren't taught much about them, beyond the fact that they exist, they form Hadrons, which is the collection of all Mesons and Baryons, along with a load of examples of each, but even before we were formally taught them we had discussed them/the teacher had brought it up at some point while explaining something else, like when explaining beta decay. (tbf quarks are probably the most irrelevant part of the subject for school level, but I'd have thought they'd have been at least mentioned...)
Yeah I learnt all this in school, they gave us diagrams with curly lines from particle detectors and you had to be able to infer electrical charge and mass from the radius and velocity and use that to determine which particle it was but i assume in america physics is way dumbed down compared to here.
The quark is a fundamental constituent of matter observed in 1968 through deep elastic scatter. We found that protons aren't as simple as we thought. We thought they were solid particles but, they are not.
There is a 7th type of quark that you didn't mention. It's a type of curd cheese and you can easily discover it at the grocery store at least around here.
The next atomic bomb is gonna split quarks instead of atoms and it's gonna be devastating lol I don't actually know if this is possible but imagine the destruction though if we've come so far and still can't split them. If there's as much energy as he makes it sounds like it'd be crazy.
If you were to shrink yourself to the size of particles, you are not going to see electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. particles, instead you will find yourself looking at complex structures of electromagnetic vortices made of ether following the geometry of platonic solids at various energy, frequencies and vibration/resonance, and ether pressures.
For engineers like myself, quarks and other theoretical physics stuff is like having a toy that you don't have the instructions for. You wanna do stuff with it, but can't figure out how yet.
The code to unlock the secrets of the universe is: Up, Up, Down, Down, Strange, Charm, Strange, Charm, Bottom, Top, [Start]😂🤣😅😊 #Quarks #Contra30Lives #KonamiCode #QuantumPhysics
We learned about quarks in High School Physics class in 1972 - all that were known at the time (Up, Down, and Strange, but I thought we also discussed Charmed). I wonder what modern High School Physics classes are discussing?
To get 2 months of unlimited access to Skillshare for free, click here:
skl.sh/scishow12
SciShow, what about the god particle or god gene which has a trihelix strand instead of the normal bihelyptical strand of DNA?
TWO months? Wow, that's generous. I'll have to check out what they have.
3
Now this person gets it.
Vulgar Display of Truth that 'God particle' is higgs boson and it's a part of group called leptons (electrons, neutrino etc)
Idk wth is a God gene though
Gell-mann seriously had a hidden talent for naming schemes
Fourth quark's the charm!
i hate you for this
Pierre Abbat wow just LOL
sniff
i hope both your pillow sides are warm
Nice lol
"...but apparently [calling the new quarks truth and beauty] was just too much... "
That was a genuine LOL on my part.
"indivisible"
haha I've heard that joke before, not getting me this time
It would be cool to have a channel that produces a video series that explains how particle accelerators work, how the results are collected and then how they are analyzed to come up with these proofs of particles like quarks.
Yes! I would also like to see a detailed technical explanation of these processes, it is frustrating to only hear the results of such experiments without an understanding of the mechanisms involved.
You might as well just study quantum mechanics or buy a book like Feynman's lectures otherwise there's way too much to explain for a simple video
They collide protons together at the speed of light and get temporarily stable resonances they deduce (wrongly) are fundamental particles. They've somehow convinced themselves protons aren't fundamental particles in the midst of this because they forgot quantum fluctuations are real. It's a clusterf---k.
Physics before quarks: "There's four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..."
@@goldenwarrior1186 if there's a strong version of something, there has to be a...?
James Manto gotta be honest im no scientist, but I thought quarks helped explain the weak one? Maybe i missed the point i just think the point of the joke was if theres a strong theres a weak too.
9Ball I mean, that would make sense, but I’m not sure about quarks explaining the weak nuclear force. I’ma look it up real quick.
@@emilandersenaudio and there is
Weak nuclear force
Up, down, strange, charm, bottom and top. Sounds like sexy time roles.
🤣
Hot and steamy quarks soon to come
"Particle with strangeness were particles with strange quarks in them" mkay
you can't argue with that logic
Scientists are giving up lol it's getting too complex for them
Quark: it smells like upquark
What is upquark?
Quark: Nothin much you?
Insert the sound of Morn's groans here...
People kept telling me I'm weird, so I had to put a positive spin on it. That's how I discovered my quarks. Now I tell people I'm not weird, just quarky.
Sebastian Elytron nooo you could've said you were strange instead of weird. Missed opportunity :(
I thought with "spin" also in there it would be one too many :(
Well that had a certain strange charm to it. Bottom's up!
Should have said people say you're "strange", so you had to put some "top"-spin or "charm" on it.
Do you have any features too?
my powerful flexing broke some quantum mechanics causing scientists to investigate
Sounds like something Captain Quark would say :P
Muscle Hank
Congrats!
Muscle Hank I like this
I bet you can't separate two quarks
the LHC pales in comaprison to you muscle hank
On Canadian radio there was a show called “quirks and quarks” and I loved listening on road trips. Now I love scishow and science podcasts, and I think that show is the reason why!
Which podcasts do you listen to for science? I've been meaning to pick one up.
3:30 So a quark is kind of like my phone, it never seems to have a full charge.
Master Therion 👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌😂👌
Nope, your phone just has a few "quarks" that the programmers needed to work out.
And it can never be isolated from the rest of you.
No Celebrity yes daddy *hulk voice* MORE JOKE JOOOOOKE
Idk that’s kind of strange.
I'd like to know more about _how_ these particles were predicted and tested for their existence. All too often, I heard about scientists apparently proving something but not even a layman overview of how it was done.
agreed!
It's a theoretical circle jerk for more funding.
Absolutely. I can understand why they feel they want to dumb it down for us, but it's not like there isn't room on the internet for lay explanations and also detailed, technical explanations... it makes me wonder why such a thing seems impossible to find, why hasn't somebody done this by now?
Don’t be so lazy, look it up.
"if you use energy to separate quarks, they will use this energy to make new quarks"
-Kurzgesagt
@NobodyNew agreed
You should have explained where Gell-Mann got the idea for the name! He read it in James Joyce's book Finnegans Wake, and Joyce in turn heard it when he was travelling through Germany from some ladies on a market; "Quark" is German for curd cheese. So basically, the whole universe is made up of a dairy product
Quark is named after the sound that a subatomic particle makes when it goes through a sheetrock wall.
"Up, Down,
Strange, Charm,
Top, Bottom,
if you don't know what a quark is it don't matter you've still got 'em."
This show has been beyond instrumental in helping me develop my novel. Thank you Scishow, and keep being great
mind blown!
Jesus Christ Didn't you ever ask your dad about this stuff? Tbf you are busy streaming so it's understandable I guess. 🙏
Seriously. Who is pretending to be us?
Ian Macfarlane first off that was from a hymn/song/pray and second that guy is not associated with Us.
Jesus Christ WTF is your channel lol
Jesus Christ, is my pet dog, Woofers, in heaven right now? 😭😭
*QUARKS AND STUFF*
THE SUN IS A DEADLY LASER
CHINA IS WHOLE AGAIN... THEN IT BROKE AGAIN.
GHOSTS N STUFF
SOMETHINGS ALIVE IN THE OCEAN
Woah, I paused it. I think there’s a universe now!
What I love about this channel is although the thumbnail only said quarks, it is not boring for people who know loads about quarks. It’s like a one way discussion and they talk things without running down a list. Sci show is what I would call a gentleman and a scholar
Stefan: physicists strive for simple answers to complex phenomenon
M-theorists: hold my dimensions
Scientist:That's it our universe has six total types of quark.
*SOME NEW UNIDENTIFIES QUARKS:"Im gonna end this man whole career."*
I'm glad this meme is dead
Stefan Chin, I would like you to do a behind the scenes video on your work flow operations in the production of your videos. The quality is generally very good and the number you produce are amazing. Would like to “meet” all of the people in the credits.
Always something to learn. I was under the impression that quark was the sound the floor makes when I try to tip toe entering the house after a good night in the pub (bar for the US viewers) .
Good introduction to Quarks.
Fine Structure Constant contains a Electric Quantum q=4C/3X=25e/3
q=(13U1d).
Alpha=(e/q)^2/2=(e/25e/3)^2/2
Alpha=(3/25)^2/2=9/1250=7.2k
Alpha=1/139
Planck's Constant
h =qM=4C/3X.Wb/2P=2CWb/3XP
M=Wb/2P is Magnetic Quantum.
Having a background in the field scishow talks about is the best feeling
Hello and may I ask you a question? Particle accelerators smashing protons and electrons etc give us the standard model. However, could you explain in a video why this is so? If we crashed, say, cars together and examined their (much wrecked & destroyed) parts, how would we be able to extrapolate, from the wreckage, what the car parts were before the crash? Thanks!
helped me understand quarks better. 11/10. please do more like that.
I have a Chemistry exam final tomorrow and I read on my book that protons and neutrons are made of quarks and I won't study quarks right now because it's hard to understand, so I decided to watch this and now I'm like I guess the book was telling the truth because I understood absolutely nothing and my brain will explode
“Spinors and stuuuuff” and “Aces and stuuuuff” just doesn’t have the same ring to it as *”quarks and stuuuuff”*
"... And that's the kind of simplicity physicists strive for. Ah, physics. It's so beautiful."
... And then you get to general relativity...
Well, GR is intuitive and logical, if you are a five-dimensional being...
GR is much simpler, you start with light having the same speed always and the whole thing builds up from that into a beautiful tensor madness
@@khhnator wouldn't you only get special relativity starting with that?
@@jetison333 Not really, it all follows from constant speed of light measured in vacuum & the equivalence principle. From just those two postulates (and a little help from Minkowski) Special Relativity tells us about the structure of spacetime, then GR extrapolates it out to find a geometric interpretation of gravity as just the way stuff moves within that structure. I find it rather amusing that most physicists still refer to gravity as a force despite our best theory of gravity for over a century saying it technically isn't one :D
GR is beautiful compared to the shitshow of quark theory.
Stefan should do more of these as the presenter. I think he's really good.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons.
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons.
Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
03:00 I like the name "spinors" for quarks, because you MAY think of them like each of the 3 dimensional vectors [aligned with an unreal, invisible, non-relative, "absolute frame of reference"] that define the "spining" of a proton or neutron in space (with time as the "binding" in between).
-> This is why none of the 3 can exist independently [they are just "math numbers" in the Matrix].
Hank Green, Strange Charm: A Song about Quarks
🎶🖖🤟🎵Oh Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Top, Bottom,
if you don't know what a quark is,
it don't matter you still got 'em
And with leptons and bosons unless something's amiss
They make up everything that we can see and that we know exists.
and with lepton and bosons, unless something ammes they make up everything we can see and know exists.
What does the [406] mean?
We just took over the Cardassian space station, beamed aboard, and there it was: Quark’s!
Quarks has one of the most interesting naming system.
You are all amazing!! Thank you. I love this channel
Up down strange charm top bottom if you don’t know what a quark it don’t matter you still got em
"...like a really flexible Trello board".
Thanks for reminding me to get back to work.
what's a trello board
Physics: making things simpler and then more complicated
I understand now why the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine main Ferengi character was named Quark. He's Strange, he's Charming, and according to some slash fiction out there, he's both Bottom and Top. It all makes so much sense now!
"strangeness" vs "the eightfold path" quite the difference in naming abillity :D
I wish I was bright enough to study this stuff for real. It is by far the most fascinating subject in all of academia today. Our understanding of time, space, matter, and reality itself has been swept away by discoveries made in quantum mechanics over the last half century.
There's a certain beauty in the simplicity of this truth. One could say it has a strange charm. While physicists didn't start at the bottom, it still took them many ups and downs to reach the top.
Good job on the blur effect behind the word "quarks" Mr video editor guy. No sarcasm.
Now* THIS is a scishow episode!
If a quark is a quork, is a bark a bork? Dog wants to know.
I've been waiting for this for a long time
you guys always explain stuff so simple.
Its a shame that my brain stops function when you talk about quantum mechanics
Come to Quark's, Quark's is fun, come right now, don't walk run!
This is the Ferengi joke I scrolled down for.
It's *strange* how I find a certain *charm* in DS9. It's *ups* and *downs,* all *topsy* tervy then *bottoming* out. It's the *flavor* of the show that gets me.
I'll show myself out.
3:06 Up, down, strange charm, top bottom if you don't know what a quark is it don't matter you still got 'em :)
I already knew a lot about quarks because when I was 13 I memorized the song "strange charm" by hank green.
When I worked in Los Alamos, NM, I had converstations with visiting physicists from other countries and places like the U. of Chicago that included two more pairs of quarks. Murray Gell-Mann [down the road at the Santa Fe Institute] had previously predicted them as well. I think George Zweig, too, way back at Cal Tech.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity.
.
@@SpotterVideo Much appreciated that you took the time to discuss this intreguing concept / theory. It rings quite plausable to me, including an explanation for theoretical "Glue Balls" and the idea that gluons represent the major of mass [E = mc2] of nucleons. Thanks again!
@@higherresolution4490 I forgot to mention one thing within this model. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut).
Thanks for your kind response.
As an ex-patron of the channel, I'd like to point out a few things. Videos published during the early days of SciShow are full of illustrations and animations, in varying degree of scientific accuracy. They are fun and arguably intuitive to watch. It is not hard to notice that there has been a shift from those videos to SciShow videos today: few illustrations, but plenty of texts. One can be forgiven to think that the team simply gave up on the intuitive approach and copy-pasted the script so they can publish as many videos as possible.
This particular video is an excellent example. It is not difficult to find illustrations, figures or animations for the physics of elementary particles. To give you an idea, the most popular (and extremely well-known) source for a historical overview of modern particle physics is Griffith Elementary Particle Physics Chapter 1, which contains more than 14 relevant figures and a dozen more tables. The non-photographic figures are so simple they could be reproduced in Paint. Yet, this video has only two photographic figures. Instead of slides and slides of text, they could've put in a figure of the actual eight-fold way (which will explain why the prediction was made in the first place), or a table of the standard model, or an illustration of quark confinement. They could've mentioned the term "November Revolution" when explaining the discovery of J/psi meson. They could've introduced the table of discovered mesons in the 60s. They could've simply reproduced some of the figures in Griffith. Despite all that, they didn't, and instead copied the script and turned the entire video into a podcast.
Seriously? SciShow can do better than this. We know they can because they did it very well all the way back in 2013(?). Now that this topic has been checked off from their list, I'm sincerely regretful knowing that an episode with great potential just turned into five minutes of script-reading for both Stephan and the audience.
No illustrations are better than inaccurate illustrations.
Quark is what a posh duck says.
Quarks, at say 0.43e-16m, are still e18 times larger than the Planck length e-34m.
That allows the opportunity for a _lot_ of subcomponents of quarks.
Enter sub-quark physics. Must be at least 2 more levels of components. Must make the physicists (and accelerator builders) happy knowing this ;).
Quarks. Let's hear it for Joyce, Gell-Mann & QCD.
OCD + Quarks = QCD?
I suggest the name BARB for the components of quarks. It comes from Barbelo a.ka. Barbēlō, who "is the Aeon of impenetrability, stasis and ineffability, and also refers to the first emanation of God in several forms of Gnostic cosmogony."
And there are lots of cool names to choose from to name the different generations. (refer to Trimorphic Protennoia and related books).
This video remind's me of Hank's song, "Strange Charm ".
You forgot the 7th quark. There was a Quark working on the DS9 space station in Star Trek.
I thank you for your pursuit of truth & education!
wow there are so many particles that they don't teach you in school
wow, there are so few particles taught in school, and even that is too much for the absolute majority.
Do you want more stuff to be taught in school? Most don't. If there were democratic elections in schools on what to be taught, then science would be scrapped altogether.
They don't teach you about quarks in America? (I assume you're in america). Admittedly we weren't taught much about them, beyond the fact that they exist, they form Hadrons, which is the collection of all Mesons and Baryons, along with a load of examples of each, but even before we were formally taught them we had discussed them/the teacher had brought it up at some point while explaining something else, like when explaining beta decay. (tbf quarks are probably the most irrelevant part of the subject for school level, but I'd have thought they'd have been at least mentioned...)
May the Science be with You if anything science should be taught more in school.
hii 488 I'm in the US, and I remember talking (albeit briefly) about quarks in school.
Yeah I learnt all this in school, they gave us diagrams with curly lines from particle detectors and you had to be able to infer electrical charge and mass from the radius and velocity and use that to determine which particle it was but i assume in america physics is way dumbed down compared to here.
I had gone through a bunch of RUclips videos about quarks, but none of the enlightened my understanding of quarks until I found this video.
You're getting buff!
Stefan repping that 406 shirt we see you #proud.
Just got a brilliant and before the skillshare ad.
Science is sooooooo fascinating!
Excellent presentation!
Good segue into the ad. I'm more likely to watch it if it has particular relevance to the topic of the video or the people making the video.
Great video
One part plutonic quarkksssss....
But wait, first let me say I love all of you and all of your families
....one part Cesiummmmm
This was an awesome video congrats man
I always get hungry hearing someone talk about Quarks.
The quark is a fundamental constituent of matter observed in 1968 through deep elastic scatter. We found that protons aren't as simple as we thought. We thought they were solid particles but, they are not.
Ground basics, all particles que into arcs forming the new shell layer to pile up to the pole. Physics is beautiful.. Fascinating. 😂
There is a 7th type of quark that you didn't mention. It's a type of curd cheese and you can easily discover it at the grocery store at least around here.
Thank you for this.
up down strange charm top bottom if you don't know what a quark is it don't matter you still got 'em
I'm reading The Phoenix Project, a great attempt to mix project management and entrainment
This one was kinda over my head but still real cool
The next atomic bomb is gonna split quarks instead of atoms and it's gonna be devastating lol
I don't actually know if this is possible but imagine the destruction though if we've come so far and still can't split them. If there's as much energy as he makes it sounds like it'd be crazy.
thankfully, it appears that quarks are elementary -- you can't split them, because there's nothing smaller to split them into.
Neither do I know if it's possible but I know it'll be called quarky bomb.
It's because you rock dear sir
If you were to shrink yourself to the size of particles, you are not going to see electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. particles, instead you will find yourself looking at complex structures of electromagnetic vortices made of ether following the geometry of platonic solids at various energy, frequencies and vibration/resonance, and ether pressures.
So, Murray Gell-Mann, the man with too much character repetitions in his name, is the Mendeleev of Particle Physics
6:20 What do you mean? I watch EVERYTHING in x2 speed.
When you're not the only one who does that
That topic is strangely charming
Best naming in Physics ever.
"Up down strange charm, top bottom,
If you don't know what a quark is;
It don't matter you still got 'em."
-Hank, Strange Charm
For engineers like myself, quarks and other theoretical physics stuff is like having a toy that you don't have the instructions for. You wanna do stuff with it, but can't figure out how yet.
4:57 It really annoys me that he put bottom on top of top lol
The code to unlock the secrets of the universe is:
Up, Up, Down, Down, Strange, Charm, Strange, Charm, Bottom, Top, [Start]😂🤣😅😊
#Quarks #Contra30Lives #KonamiCode #QuantumPhysics
Good video!!!
🎶 up, down, strage, charm 🎵 top bottom 🎵if you don't know what a quark is it don't matter you still got'em 🎶
Gettin quarky wit it!
We learned about quarks in High School Physics class in 1972 - all that were known at the time (Up, Down, and Strange, but I thought we also discussed Charmed). I wonder what modern High School Physics classes are discussing?
Up, Down, Strange, Charm, Top, Bottom, if you don't know what a quarck is: it don't matter, you still got 'em