No, this isn't what the scientists did. Ziyu Liu and colleagues predicted an detected *_graviton-like excitations_* in a semiconductor after years of research. It is an analogue of the expected graviton, not the graviton itself. I realized that after a single Internet search. The video is quite unbearable. The problem is that you haven't designed it for a certain public, but try to appeal to all possible publics at once. As a amateur student of physics (I'm a computer engineer and teacher) I don't need the entire history of gravitation from Galileo up to Einstein before being exposed for the news. You can break away the entire video from 0:00 to 6:17 and put it in an educational video instead, and then present your news in a separate video. If you read the sources carefully. Also: don't try to be "professional" with lots of images, sounds and music: that is typical for TV film producers, and it doesn't fit very well with RUclips and other fast-video media. Instead try to be brief and concise, and only show very relevant *_still images,_* and keep them visible for say as long as you talk about a certain subtopic.
Thank u for ur comment. 1- after reading your comment, I watched my video again. I confess that it suffered from lack of research and reliable information. I apologize to the public and to you especially if I gave false or at least not totally proven information. My sources were only a news on websites and YT videos and also a help from chat GPT to make my understanding easier. Sometimes I like to involve history in my topics to help viewers understand the evolution of subject more easily. 2- I also confess that my edit wasn't professional and organized. I use music and images to make my videos less boring for the public. Sometimes I don't find relevant images to the topic. Wish for me luck to improve my knowledge and channel 🌼👍🏻.
I'm afraid I must agree with rursus8354 below: this video evidences a poor understanding of modern physics. Firstly, there is the severe error of conflating the recent Wurstbauer et al results - a case of collective excitations with spin called chiral graviton modes (CGMs) in condensed matter - with the actual graviton. Next is a poor understanding of what a graviton would be, despite reading off some parameters from the "period table of the particles". E.g., it does NOT travel faster than light (if it existed) because it has no electrodynamical coupling - where the hell did that one come from? Please one and all -ignore this video. If it gets anything right it is by accident.
Ridiculous. Like trying to discover the particle responsible for the pressure that a gaseous state of matter experiences when submerged in a liquid state of matter.... Its a force that primarily is due to the properties of matter at a distinct and separate plane of reality that the matter is able to transition between. Ie: our universe of physical matter is like the gaseous state of matter and it experiences the inwards pressure of matter interacting with a component plane or reality that is like a liquid state of matter. Which is why it appears as a monopole that is a response to the existence of physical matter. (it is the spatial magnitude that disrupts the field it interacts with and which is beyond the locally observable nature of matter. Think of it like the spatial boundary the atom places on the underlying energy field from which the of quark originates causes a diffuse area of energy surrounding the localised section of the field which is correlated to the quarks bound state within the proton and this diffuse area, being of lower potential than the optimal rest state of the fields equilibrium, is resisted by the adjacent areas and a net force force towards the low potential results. And if two points of disruption exist the surrounding low potential regions have an net inward force individually but in the reference frame containing the pair the combined net forces have the opposite force between them that essentially cancel each other out and an overall net force that is greater on the opposite sides of each point than the sides facing the other point and they experience a force that is least repulsive in the direction of the other points location.) That's why we cannot shield matter from the gravitational force as it does not originate in the local planes of reality which our technical understanding and tooling are capable of manipulating and measuring in a manner which does not fundamentally corrupt the organic characteristics and functional principles of the plane. - It is beyond the spectrum limitations for the plane of reality we exploit (EM at the atomic - molecular scale of magnitude) And importantly, the G force IS still an EM force, just beyond the spectrum scales for which our capacity to manipulate matter in a useful and meaningful manner is currently known. It is not a separate force which originates in the existence of the atomic plane of reality but a force which exists beyond these scales of the EM spectrum and interacts with itself in a manner which is indirectly observable in the laws of reality corresponding to our local, molecular based scale, plane of existence.
I loved and appreciated your comment. It truly debunked the video and you truly put the graviton theory under question even more strongly. English is my second language, so I'll need time to study ur comment even more. If I understood your way of explanation, I'll make another video to debunk graviton and put it under question.
No, this isn't what the scientists did. Ziyu Liu and colleagues predicted an detected *_graviton-like excitations_* in a semiconductor after years of research. It is an analogue of the expected graviton, not the graviton itself. I realized that after a single Internet search. The video is quite unbearable. The problem is that you haven't designed it for a certain public, but try to appeal to all possible publics at once. As a amateur student of physics (I'm a computer engineer and teacher) I don't need the entire history of gravitation from Galileo up to Einstein before being exposed for the news. You can break away the entire video from 0:00 to 6:17 and put it in an educational video instead, and then present your news in a separate video. If you read the sources carefully. Also: don't try to be "professional" with lots of images, sounds and music: that is typical for TV film producers, and it doesn't fit very well with RUclips and other fast-video media. Instead try to be brief and concise, and only show very relevant *_still images,_* and keep them visible for say as long as you talk about a certain subtopic.
Thank u for ur comment.
1- after reading your comment, I watched my video again. I confess that it suffered from lack of research and reliable information. I apologize to the public and to you especially if I gave false or at least not totally proven information. My sources were only a news on websites and YT videos and also a help from chat GPT to make my understanding easier. Sometimes I like to involve history in my topics to help viewers understand the evolution of subject more easily.
2- I also confess that my edit wasn't professional and organized. I use music and images to make my videos less boring for the public. Sometimes I don't find relevant images to the topic.
Wish for me luck to improve my knowledge and channel 🌼👍🏻.
Where is the ancient aliens guy?
I'm afraid I must agree with rursus8354 below: this video evidences a poor understanding of modern physics. Firstly, there is the severe error of conflating the recent Wurstbauer et al results - a case of collective excitations with spin called chiral graviton modes (CGMs) in condensed matter - with the actual graviton. Next is a poor understanding of what a graviton would be, despite reading off some parameters from the "period table of the particles". E.g., it does NOT travel faster than light (if it existed) because it has no electrodynamical coupling - where the hell did that one come from? Please one and all -ignore this video. If it gets anything right it is by accident.
radiation
Radioactivity
Oh goody! More airhead Physics.
It's a Fine topic though 😅😁
@@science_ibr For airheads, Yes!
What topics you like to talk about ?? @@rodkeh
@@science_ibr Real Physics.
Lol
Ridiculous. Like trying to discover the particle responsible for the pressure that a gaseous state of matter experiences when submerged in a liquid state of matter....
Its a force that primarily is due to the properties of matter at a distinct and separate plane of reality that the matter is able to transition between.
Ie: our universe of physical matter is like the gaseous state of matter and it experiences the inwards pressure of matter interacting with a component plane or reality that is like a liquid state of matter. Which is why it appears as a monopole that is a response to the existence of physical matter. (it is the spatial magnitude that disrupts the field it interacts with and which is beyond the locally observable nature of matter. Think of it like the spatial boundary the atom places on the underlying energy field from which the of quark originates causes a diffuse area of energy surrounding the localised section of the field which is correlated to the quarks bound state within the proton and this diffuse area, being of lower potential than the optimal rest state of the fields equilibrium, is resisted by the adjacent areas and a net force force towards the low potential results. And if two points of disruption exist the surrounding low potential regions have an net inward force individually but in the reference frame containing the pair the combined net forces have the opposite force between them that essentially cancel each other out and an overall net force that is greater on the opposite sides of each point than the sides facing the other point and they experience a force that is least repulsive in the direction of the other points location.)
That's why we cannot shield matter from the gravitational force as it does not originate in the local planes of reality which our technical understanding and tooling are capable of manipulating and measuring in a manner which does not fundamentally corrupt the organic characteristics and functional principles of the plane. - It is beyond the spectrum limitations for the plane of reality we exploit (EM at the atomic - molecular scale of magnitude)
And importantly, the G force IS still an EM force, just beyond the spectrum scales for which our capacity to manipulate matter in a useful and meaningful manner is currently known.
It is not a separate force which originates in the existence of the atomic plane of reality but a force which exists beyond these scales of the EM spectrum and interacts with itself in a manner which is indirectly observable in the laws of reality corresponding to our local, molecular based scale, plane of existence.
I loved and appreciated your comment.
It truly debunked the video and you truly put the graviton theory under question even more strongly.
English is my second language, so I'll need time to study ur comment even more.
If I understood your way of explanation, I'll make another video to debunk graviton and put it under question.
Lol