I am a student of physics, whenever I think something is impossible to explain to a physics illiterate you come and show me that it is I who is illiterate in teaching hahahahaha
I dont think teaching is entirely an unteachable hability, but he very much has it, yes. My main surprise though is that he manages to explain things from scratch without modifying the concepts for ease of teaching, for quantum mechanichs its REEEEALLY UNCOMMON, I wouldnt believe much more channels other than this one if I were you. @@borabingol6797
@@gurnblanston5000 my mom was a teacher like her father and I have been a consultant for 16 years where I did teaching. Teaching can be learned but it is like billards, you can learn how to play billards but if you don’t have it you can only get to a certain level and stop there.
This is such a great system of teaching, whereby the Explainer has to explain to a smart person who is not an expert. Thereby testing the Explainer’s capacity to teach and causing growth in both the audience and the teacher. Plus, it’s just a really entertaining format. We are all in the position of your wife, who is asking questions that we would ask, making her a great analogue for your audience. It’s a wonderful service you are doing for science, which deserves plaudits and recognition. Thank you for that. 👍
@@scene2much : I know them well. History is my bag, along with physics, wherein all knowledge lies. My problem is being dyslexic and innumerate, along with a mild form of autism and ADD. Consequently, I have some closer relationships with my books than with people, rather like Machiavelli toward the end of his life, or so my wife thinks. I guess I was kinda’ spelling out the obvious intention of the video’s maker, which will cause some to roll their eyes, but my intent was to help explain some of the educational theory behind this approach and touch on why it’s so important, so that any teachers who come across these videos might be encouraged to recommend them, both to other teachers and their pupils. But I also feel this guy deserves recognition as an educator. He has, over time, managed to crowbar aspects of the theory that don’t come naturally to me into my brain, in a way that many science explainers have failed to do, for which I remain eternally grateful.
@@fundemort : You needn’t believe in their relationship in order to get the science, or be entertained by the videos, so it’s not something you need apologise for, son. They have shared their wedding photos and other evidence of their marriage, in previous videos. But, “believing,” in their marriage is not a, “them,” or a, “me,” problem. Why do you care?
@@ashroskell so many assumptions you made there. 1. do i look care? i said i can't explain why, so it's a first impression not a "care" judgement. 2. they really don't seem like a couple they seem more like co-workers. or like a professor to his master or phd student. its not a bad thing though. in fact it could be a good thing. it proves they are able to separate their personal and work life very well. 3. did my comment sound like i make it a problem to you? because i already said sorry. also 4. which part did i say i didn't get entertained or get the science?
Fully agree and I feel ashamed I m not giving enough attention to this channel lately, it is in fact the channel that turned me into viewing YTvids but nowadays I have so much subscriptions I can't view all content generated. I need to get my priorities sorted out! Great lesson and great format Nick and AkwardM!
Ive watched lots of documentaries, read articles and books, scientist interviews and youtubers. You have done the most to supply critically missing puzzle pieces that clarify the picture, make things make sense, and make me say "OOH!" Its the little details.
Same here! In this video in particular, emphasizing that virtual particles and anti-matter going backwards in time are just mathematical tools was very helpful.
@@ScienceAsylum But what was the first field and who disturbed it in the first place? Then you model particles with fields consisting of harmonic oscillators of...what? Other mini particles connected by something? How do they touch one another/propagate (distrurbance etc). Reductionism? Again? Is something usefull going to be built out of all of this?
The episodes when you explain quantum mechanics to your wife, are by far my favorite uploads. I would love to have her add in her comments/thoughts in a bubble or something into your normal uploads. Does not have to be many. Maybe 2-4 per episode.
Feynman was once asked if he could explain Quantum Electro Dynamics so that a lay person could understand it, and he replied, "No." As a certified lay person, I can say you have made some progress in that direction. Also, I have read most of Feynman's books, and they are extremely readable for those of us who are fascinated by the topic but have had nothing more than high school calculus. He was a fascinating person.
Feynman did write a little book in 1985 titled "QED" that gets pretty close to a layman's explanation. But in the 39 years since thee best explanations have gotten even clearer. This is one of the very best.
Its impossible to explain something no one understands. What we have is some maths, and various interpretations of that maths (some interpretations are popular)
Well, I think I really needed a video like this. Things get very weird at quantum level and thus you can't be sure what's going on. You made my day sir, thanks!
With weird topics like this, it's really helpful to have someone in the room so I can see where the specific mental obstacles are for those who haven't seen it before.
@@ScienceAsylum It's also fun listening to your interactions with each other. You guys have such good chemistry and I hope you do more videos together like this. Might even be fun to switch things up occasionally and have her explain weird biology stuff to you.
Think of the quantum wold as a far out religious cult that has completely lost touch with reality. As long as they stay in their broom closets, we are all safe.
The competitive advantage he has above other youtubers is that, he is clear of what he is saying even during an explanation, which makes us think it is easy to understand
@@ScienceAsylum Hey Nick! Have you seen or know about another theoretical physicist and RUclipsr named Andrezj Dragan? In one of his videos, named "Quantum Principle of Relativity episode #9" he explains how we could possibly use faster than light travel from special relativity, to explain things in quantum mechanics, ultimately bridging the gap between the two... What are your thoughts on that topic or on what prof Dragan has to say?
@@ScienceAsylum You just took a page out of Feynmans book about how to understand and explain things. And i think he should get another Nobel for "theory of explaining things" 😁
I just wanted to say that I love that despite having over half a million subscribers, Nick actually reads and responds to so many of the comments. Another great video Nick!
I like interacting with people and I try to keep my comment section a friendly place to be for everyone. It's like an extension to the learning. I learn stuff from the conversations too.
@@wefinishthisnow3883 I see _most_ of the comments, but I'll admit I might miss one or two now and then. There are a lot of comments. Sometimes the comment doesn't warrant a response. Other times I don't know the answer to the question their asking. But I try to at least _read_ them all.
Your wife asks my questions!! Super helpful for folks not great with math, thanks for this channel. I think this is the first time I've been confident I have a basic grasp of what quantum field theory actually is (and I'm rather dense, that's a big deal!). 😊
Best video on Feynman diagrams, and I've seen them all. Having your wife there to explain things to seems to have inspired you to explain things much better.
I love the part where you describe the Quantum Field Theory, and for that matter any science, as "a tool to solve problems" (16:32), and the only way you know it is correct because "it gives us answers that match reality" (16:46). For that is what, I think, science is really about. Making progressively more refined models of reality 1. to predict the future more closely, 2. describing/explaining reality more correctly, 3. enlarging our knowledgebase, 4. fidning solutions to current problems, etcetera. Thanks for this beautiful insight.
I LOVE these episodes where you explain things to your wife. It reminds me of Physics Girl's "explaining to my editor" series (wishing her a fast and complete recovery), but you have a much calmer approach. These are incredible.
Youre my favorite nerd. All of the different versions of you. Its cute you buy them each their own book "Lectures on Physics" instead of reading it three time's. Your wife seems cool too.
First view❤ I've been following your videos from a long time and I've been benefitted a lot... I've gain more knowledge through your channel... I really like ur humor a lot... Thanks brother❤😊
Nick, somehow you always break physics down to where I can actually understand it. You truly have a gift for teaching. I am as impressed by your communication skills as I am with the actual physics. Way to go man! Thank you for all your hard work!
The Feynman diagram animations seem so nice for some reason, I just love the bright-but-not-eyestrainy yellow and pink on top of the really nicely textured gray background x) Nice video! I learned something new today :D
Nick and Mrs Nick, thank you for explaining the hardest things that most people try to understand. Please keep this format as the Q & A helps answer some questions we ask and keep us entertained. André in Sydney
These videos are great for students. Explaining physics to a natural person that knows nothing about the new subject and can ask questions and you have to keep trying until the person (and the rest of us) gets it. Fantastic!
I've been a fan of your videos for years now. Even though I don't fully understand everything you say, it's still fun to watch you explain them. Keep the videos coming!
This was one of my favorite videos you've done. Really well thought out and great questions that allowed you dive deeper into some nuances of QFT! Great video!
Might be the first video I’ve watched from this channel. I really like the teacher/student dynamic and the skepticism she brings. I doubt I’ll ever understand quantum mechanics fully so the questioning throughout helped me to better understand rather than just nod my head yes while the information goes over my head. Awesome work!
Thank you Nick and thank you to your wife, whom I've come to think of as my avatar. When she is asking you questions I feel like those are also my questions. Great video.
You should do a part two of this video on the types of infinities in QFT and the difference between renormalization and non-renormalization theories. I really enjoyed this and it made QFT entirely approachable.
Excellent explanation of QFT and the commonly used term "wave". This made more sense to me than many of the other explanations I've seen. Love the channel content!
I loved this episode, the pace of the explanation was right, and it made sense, the questions were on point. I loved the humor and the interactions between the two of you, it made me feel like I'm sitting there with you and laughing along. Thank you both, wish you the best
Awesome. What I would love to see is some idea of what is involved in “calculating a Feynman diagram”. It’s clearly computationally expensive and I have never seen explained what’s actually happening in the computing.
Thanks to your contagious follies I have finally managed to grasp some of the basics that govern the rules of Feynman diagrams! Thank you for increasing my crazy level!
For anyone who wants more, I suggest looking up the Douglas Robb memorial lectures by Feynman himself. He does regular quantum dynamics as well there, but in lecture 3 he goes a little bit deeper into this video's topic (quantum electrodynamics), but staying at more or less the same level of difficulty / abstraction. (Maybe a bit more concrete in its calculations, and it builds upon the former two lectures, so it's not a bad idea to watch those as well.)
Thank you for the animation of Feynman diagrams. Finally I feel more comfortable with the time axis being vertical. It is also kind of heartwarming how your wife said your slogan at the end. Made me smile, that she acknowledges and enjoys your own creation - the science asylum and its values and motivations - in that way.
What a great video, this format really does help suss out some important info and distinctions, you guys work great together. As an aside at 7:39 it's mentioned how space is not discreet like in the graphic. What's funny is I've been watching a lot about quantum gravity and a theory of everything, and I saw the idea come up that it might actually be space itself (and gravity) that are discreet, and just quantum fields that are continuous and it's this mismatch that is responsible for the challenging of unifying QM and GR. (The idea being that QM is what "happens" in the "margins" between discrete components of space). Just thought it was funny to see this come up in the video.
for most of this channel you break higher concepts down into simpler parts. in this video, the safeties are off. love the honest breakdown w/o holding my hand along the way!
I love the videos where you are explaining physics to your wife. You are able to find a way to explain a complex topic to anyone, regardless of their knowledge. That is amazing skill. 😎
Oh man! I love the wife reacts! You 2 are amazing together! Like Bert and Ernie, C-3PO, R2-D2, Batman and Robin, Beavis and Butt-Head, Marlin and Dory, Bonnie and Clyde,... Yeah! Add Nick And AwkwardM to that list!
Got a QFT exam coming up. Even though they'll probably be after my exam, I'd still be interested in more videos on QFT. I rarely ever get a broader view of what's going on when I'm 2 hours into a lecture seeing the integral over momentum space divided by (2*pi)^3 for the hundredth time. EDIT: I passed.
@@JohnSalchichon2 I _am_ a physicist. I just never had the opportunity to learn QFT properly. During physics education, you learn a kind of overview of everything and then you specialize in something specific. I imagine a lot of other academic fields are like that too. If we want to deeply learn anything beside our specialization, we have to learn it ourselves and I just never got into QFT before now 🤷♂
I really like this format of videos. Your wife is a gem, much better than any of those "clones" of you. 🙂 Great video, but I doubt that the "3D" animation of fields would be hard to process, if done correctly. I have an idea of how it could look like using a 3D lattice rendering.
If you did it with the lattice approximation, you _might_ be able to pull it off. You just wouldn't have a suppressed dimension to use, so you'd have to get creative with colors and textures.
I've seen the 3D animations and it looks like a cube of jiggly multicolored mess. Not the most intuitive thing to look at if you aren't used to multivariable graph representation.
@@ScienceAsylum There are Python libraries for domain coloring, which I imagine would automate the process of adding color to represent the 4th dimension.
Holy cow! The diagram's lecture blew my mind. Six ways of how to understand an electron. 🤯🤯🤯🤯 Now I really can understand how Feymann was revolutionary.
@@RS-ls7mm A If you want to argue terms "wife" comes from words meaning either literally just "woman" or something like "servant". Love is what you make of it.
Always love to see Awkward M make an appearance. Also a nice explanation of a concept I like to think of as "keep throwing science at the wall to see what sticks." Even if it doesn't make sense and has ideas that are bonkers (like anti-matter travelling backwards in time) if it leads to a workable conclusion, it was still worth the time to think about it.
Fortunately, the bonkers idea of antimatter being time-reversed matter is just a shut-up-and-calculate tool that works because of the symmetries of nature! When you "time-reverse" an electron on a feynman diagram, the other properties that also flip signs are its charge and spin, which bingo boingo turns it into its antimatter complement! :D It's a simple idea that feynman had that tremendously simplified the math of QCD interactions.
Thank you for a huge “aha” moment. The idea that fields are merely descriptions of how distinct quantities or properties change at different locations (while occupying the same 3D space) made me think of a weather map… at any given point in space, you have a scalar describing the temperature, another describing the atmospheric pressure, and a vector describing how the wind is blowing. Each of those could be thought of as its own “field.” But the reality is 3D; the map is just a slice - the temperature and pressure drop and the wind speed & direction changes if you look at a different slice at cruising altitude. I’m sure the analogy breaks down, but then again, some of the best learning I’ve done is by discovering how a particular analogy fails. Thank you once again Nick.
That's not just an analogy. What you're describing about weather maps are just examples of fields, so that's a great comparison! 👍 They might not be _quantum_ fields, but they're definitely fields.
I always thought of particles in "concept" as point fields. And also always thought that if a wave was high frequency & concetrated enough to the point of being too small due to the wavelength being too short, it could behave like a particle. Anyways, I'mma watch the video right now.
Thank you for your excellent description of the Feynman Diagram. Now I can almost envision a time field as you envision other fields. With arrows of time changing with the perspective of individual viewers. Then bring multiple Masses into the field warping space and time. Time becomes one big mush as multiple observers appear. But at the quantum level time will be defined. Neat. I can almost see it. Thank you.
It's not surprising when you consider that all observations in QFT are essentially just interactions with particles. Meaning when you are observing a field, you are affecting it and introducing additional distrubances. Otherwise how else can you observe something if you don't interact with it? You become coupled with that field so what you perceive is a result of you affecting that field, or rather that field being disturbed by your interaction with it.
@@mrgalaxy396 Well that is like saying the Uncertainty Principle is not surprising hahaha, yeah I agree with you that once you understand the process and think about it that is the only logical conclusion, but it IS a surprise when you see it for the first time, unless you're someone that actively researches the area prior to seeing it for the first time xD
I'd like to do these twice per year, but that doesn't always work out. (We actually recorded one last October, but it quickly became clear that after a few very good questions from her, that I didn't understand what I was trying to explain. The topic got postponed.)
This was a good one! I almost feel like I can begin to grasp the basic ideas of QFT. But without the calculations. This sort-of reminds me of a chemistry lecture I attended as an undergrad. It was part of a third-year chemistry module, and the lecturer was explaining what was happening *during* a chemical reaction. My degree was biochemistry with chemistry (so about 2/3 biochemistry and 1/3 chemistry), and this module was attended by many of the straight-chemistry students. I think I was the only biochemist there. Our lecturer at one point made an allusion to ab-initio molecular orbital calculations, and the reaction of those who had previously encountered this phenomenon was a mixture of terror and resignation. Fortunately for me, the lecturer did not have us actually do any ab-initio molecular orbital calculations. I gathered that they're kinda tough.
Professor Lucid, I am studying thermodynamics and I am having a very hard time understanding the concept My problems have a lot of roots. One of them is that I can't understand the relationship between total work and ∆K Since I can't still understand that I am having trouble understanding some formulas in thermodynamics too Do you have any suggestions? What do you think I should do? I tried searching for it but I kept getting more confused
Thermodynamics is a lot to take in all at once. I found it helpful to learn the historical motivation behind all the equations. We came up with many of them before we even knew for sure that atoms existed and were made of subatomic parts. Once we knew that, we started to look at it all statistically and that made everything make a lot more sense.
@@sirlancelot6333 It sounds like your system has several degrees of freedom. Work can be done on it and this energy may go into other things than linear kinetic energy, like rotation(rotational energy) or the stretching of a spring(potential energy).
Wonderfully clear as usual. I especially liked the way you were clear that the mathematical use of fields does not represent the actual mechanism of particle interaction, it is just the mathmatical technique for description.
This is my favorite video on the internet! It intuitively explains without relying in the complex vocabulary or maths. I have a few questions/observarions: 1. I always thought the electromagnetic field IS a quantum field, and the photon was a ripple in that field (I love the word ripples). Isn’t it? 2. If (and that’s a big IF) all particles are simply disturbances/ripples in a field, and that field is simply composed of different values, and we simply perceive them as matter/particles (since we ourselves are made of it as well), doesn’t it kind of match a sort of simulation theory? We’re all just information in quantim fields, and we just perceive it as matter? 3. We always hear it said that a field is composed of an infinite number of points. But can a point in space be smaller than the Planck Length? If not, isn’t there a finite number of points? 4. Is it correct to imagine that virtual particles are actually very complex vibrations in the quantum fields that interact with each other, but which are below the “minimum threshold” to make up a full particle? (Like those wigglings in the uncertainty principle at 6:52 which don’t make a full particle). Are virtual particles like that? Complex wigglings interacting with the “full wiggles” of particles?
1. Yes, but I prefer to call it the "photon field" rather than the EM field for two reasons. I think it's important to distinguish it from the classical EM field and naming the field after the particle is consistent with how we name the other quantum fields. 2. It certainly doesn't _disprove_ the simulation hypothesis, but I wouldn't say that it proves it either. 3. Planck length being the smallest distance in space is just speculation at the moment. We have no idea if that's true or even if space has a smallest distance. 4. I wouldn't say virtual particles are "below a minimum threshold." That makes them seem more real than they are. They're not real at all. They're just a simplified way to "imagine" at complex vibrations. They're imaginary.
Omg, the bit where he turned the electron Feynman diagram to show the electron emitting a photon when changing direction blew my mind. That's "Bremsstrahlung", or braking radiation and how they generate medical x-rays! You know when two things just click on your head and you get that dopamine rush, well that just happened!
Brilliant explanation!! Congratulations to your wife who had very smart reflexes in her exchange, I am impressed. A guy who dwelled into advanced electromagnetics and after bumping into probabilities and stochastics I started to wander who I was!! Thanks for your vid and keep up the great work!
This is an excellent depiction of where we're at with the model, what the limitations of that model are and how the model engages with the underlying reality.
Currently in the middle of trying to learn QFT and it's making me very sad and confused. Hopefully I come out of the other end of it eventually. At 8:52, you label the electron as "spin-up" and the positron as "spin-down". What exactly does that mean? I would have figured that an electron could be either spin-up or spin-down (as measured in the Stern-Gerlach experiment).
Yeah, I'm finally learning QFT on more than just surface level and it's wild. I'm hoping to make more videos about it soon as I learn more, but it's definitely a journey. It's _so_ different than everything else. I've been watching your new spinor series as part of the process. Good stuff. Very thorough. 8:52 That was just a choice. I didn't meant to imply that electrons couldn't be spin down. I was just making them anti-particles, so I had to pick one orientation for each. It could have just as easily gone the other way.
Given that @AndrewDotsonvideos refers to your channel in his tensor videos, I'm sure he'd be happy to help you out on QFT! Why is QFT making you sad and confused? I'd have thought with your background you'd find it relatively intuitive. Isn't there a lot of geometry? Though there are several different ways to approach it. Also I think this Sean Carroll quote is relevant to keep in mind "Axiomatic QFT is an attempt to make everything absolutely perfectly mathematically rigorous. It is severely handicapped by the fact that it is nearly impossible to get results in QFT that are both interesting and rigorous." From a blog entry titled "how to think about quantum field theory"
@@narfwhals7843 There are probably things in QFT I will like eventually (I'm excited to understand the gauge symmetries that all the force particles obey). But a lot of it is very hard for me to understand. I understand the basic idea of creation and annihilation operators, but throwing them into a differential equation is hard for me to wrap my mind around. What is the time derivative of a creation operator? I think I understand the basics of Green's functions, but nevertheless, all the integrals that involve propagators are very ugly and tedious to churn through. Time-ordering is also something I'm struggling to understand intuitively. Also, computations involve long summations that suck. There's also a lot of conceptual things I don't get. Like why QFT is necessary for a relativistic formulation of QM. People tell me QFT gives you "local" theories but I don't know what that means or how to prove it. In summary, there's just a lot of tedious math to get through and for around 80% of it, I don't feel it comes with much conceptual understanding.
@@eigenchris I'll be covering a lot of the conceptual stuff in the videos I have planned. Maybe they'll help you as much as your mathy videos have been helping me.
Great explanation, I felt like the pace was easy to follow thanks to the back-and-forth. My favorite part of the video was the "do we say waves like we say spin?", lol. At least it's not astrophysics where everything that isn't hydrogen or helium is a "metal".
The "Waaoooommm" sound effect that plays everytime a 'disturbance' happens in a quantum field is fantastic.
😂 I've been using that sound effect since the beginning of my channel. It's an oldie.
i feel like home, when i hear it
@@Nulley0 i can feel a disturbance in the force !!
@@ScienceAsylum please tell me it's just a recording of you making the sound
It gets me everytime 😂
I am a student of physics, whenever I think something is impossible to explain to a physics illiterate you come and show me that it is I who is illiterate in teaching hahahahaha
Teaching is some other ability, some have it some don’t. He is gifted with teaching.
I dont think teaching is entirely an unteachable hability, but he very much has it, yes.
My main surprise though is that he manages to explain things from scratch without modifying the concepts for ease of teaching, for quantum mechanichs its REEEEALLY UNCOMMON, I wouldnt believe much more channels other than this one if I were you. @@borabingol6797
@@borabingol6797 Its all about analogies, for some. It can make learning faster and deeper at the same time.
@@gurnblanston5000 my mom was a teacher like her father and I have been a consultant for 16 years where I did teaching. Teaching can be learned but it is like billards, you can learn how to play billards but if you don’t have it you can only get to a certain level and stop there.
@@borabingol6797 Agreed.
This is such a great system of teaching, whereby the Explainer has to explain to a smart person who is not an expert. Thereby testing the Explainer’s capacity to teach and causing growth in both the audience and the teacher. Plus, it’s just a really entertaining format. We are all in the position of your wife, who is asking questions that we would ask, making her a great analogue for your audience. It’s a wonderful service you are doing for science, which deserves plaudits and recognition. Thank you for that. 👍
Check out Plato's Dialogues.
im sorry but for some reason i can't quite explain. i don't see them as a couple. again im sorry.
@@scene2much : I know them well. History is my bag, along with physics, wherein all knowledge lies. My problem is being dyslexic and innumerate, along with a mild form of autism and ADD. Consequently, I have some closer relationships with my books than with people, rather like Machiavelli toward the end of his life, or so my wife thinks.
I guess I was kinda’ spelling out the obvious intention of the video’s maker, which will cause some to roll their eyes, but my intent was to help explain some of the educational theory behind this approach and touch on why it’s so important, so that any teachers who come across these videos might be encouraged to recommend them, both to other teachers and their pupils. But I also feel this guy deserves recognition as an educator. He has, over time, managed to crowbar aspects of the theory that don’t come naturally to me into my brain, in a way that many science explainers have failed to do, for which I remain eternally grateful.
@@fundemort : You needn’t believe in their relationship in order to get the science, or be entertained by the videos, so it’s not something you need apologise for, son. They have shared their wedding photos and other evidence of their marriage, in previous videos. But, “believing,” in their marriage is not a, “them,” or a, “me,” problem. Why do you care?
@@ashroskell so many assumptions you made there. 1. do i look care? i said i can't explain why, so it's a first impression not a "care" judgement. 2. they really don't seem like a couple they seem more like co-workers. or like a professor to his master or phd student. its not a bad thing though. in fact it could be a good thing. it proves they are able to separate their personal and work life very well. 3. did my comment sound like i make it a problem to you? because i already said sorry. also 4. which part did i say i didn't get entertained or get the science?
I'm still in shock because of how underappreciated this channel is compared to the quality of content it has! Keep up the good work! :D
Thanks!
Fully agree and I feel ashamed I m not giving enough attention to this channel lately, it is in fact the channel that turned me into viewing YTvids but nowadays I have so much subscriptions I can't view all content generated. I need to get my priorities sorted out! Great lesson and great format Nick and AkwardM!
Ive watched lots of documentaries, read articles and books, scientist interviews and youtubers. You have done the most to supply critically missing puzzle pieces that clarify the picture, make things make sense, and make me say "OOH!"
Its the little details.
That's great! I'm so glad I've helped 🤓
Same here! In this video in particular, emphasizing that virtual particles and anti-matter going backwards in time are just mathematical tools was very helpful.
Same for me too.
@@ScienceAsylum But what was the first field and who disturbed it in the first place?
Then you model particles with fields consisting of harmonic oscillators of...what?
Other mini particles connected by something?
How do they touch one another/propagate (distrurbance etc).
Reductionism? Again?
Is something usefull going to be built out of all of this?
@The Science Asylum this episode was great. I felt that i have a private tutor teaching me. Felt lot more like we are talking in person.
The episodes when you explain quantum mechanics to your wife, are by far my favorite uploads. I would love to have her add in her comments/thoughts in a bubble or something into your normal uploads. Does not have to be many. Maybe 2-4 per episode.
I agree. she ask the very questions I want to ask. makes it easier for me to understand. And it's entertaining. LOL
my wife has a phd in nuclear physics from the no. 1 ranked school, so it's not so fun for me.
Nick's wife is much cooler than Nick himself. Although I think I am in love with how he explains things.
StopAskingMyName, Please identify yourself.
it's the interaction between a noob and an expert that makes great videos
Feynman was once asked if he could explain Quantum Electro Dynamics so that a lay person could understand it, and he replied, "No." As a certified lay person, I can say you have made some progress in that direction. Also, I have read most of Feynman's books, and they are extremely readable for those of us who are fascinated by the topic but have had nothing more than high school calculus. He was a fascinating person.
Feynman did write a little book in 1985 titled "QED" that gets pretty close to a layman's explanation. But in the 39 years since thee best explanations have gotten even clearer. This is one of the very best.
His bio /book was great.
Its impossible to explain something no one understands.
What we have is some maths, and various interpretations of that maths (some interpretations are popular)
Well, I think I really needed a video like this. Things get very weird at quantum level and thus you can't be sure what's going on. You made my day sir, thanks!
With weird topics like this, it's really helpful to have someone in the room so I can see where the specific mental obstacles are for those who haven't seen it before.
@@ScienceAsylum It's also fun listening to your interactions with each other. You guys have such good chemistry and I hope you do more videos together like this. Might even be fun to switch things up occasionally and have her explain weird biology stuff to you.
Think of the quantum wold as a far out religious cult that has completely lost touch with reality. As long as they stay in their broom closets, we are all safe.
The competitive advantage he has above other youtubers is that, he is clear of what he is saying even during an explanation, which makes us think it is easy to understand
I don't want there to be any miscommunication.
@@ScienceAsylum Hey Nick! Have you seen or know about another theoretical physicist and RUclipsr named Andrezj Dragan?
In one of his videos, named "Quantum Principle of Relativity episode #9" he explains how we could possibly use faster than light travel from special relativity, to explain things in quantum mechanics, ultimately bridging the gap between the two...
What are your thoughts on that topic or on what prof Dragan has to say?
@@-_Nuke_- That's not new, Quantum Field Theory already uses Special Relativity. The problem is with General Relativity.
@@ScienceAsylum you're doing an amazing job at simplifying such a complex body of knowledge to make it fit in our monkey brains 😎
@@ScienceAsylum You just took a page out of Feynmans book about how to understand and explain things. And i think he should get another Nobel for "theory of explaining things" 😁
I just wanted to say that I love that despite having over half a million subscribers, Nick actually reads and responds to so many of the comments.
Another great video Nick!
I like interacting with people and I try to keep my comment section a friendly place to be for everyone. It's like an extension to the learning. I learn stuff from the conversations too.
@@ScienceAsylum ^ You see everyone? This is what I'm talking about! One of many reasons we love you Nick!
@@wefinishthisnow3883 I see _most_ of the comments, but I'll admit I might miss one or two now and then. There are a lot of comments. Sometimes the comment doesn't warrant a response. Other times I don't know the answer to the question their asking. But I try to at least _read_ them all.
Your wife asks my questions!!
Super helpful for folks not great with math, thanks for this channel. I think this is the first time I've been confident I have a basic grasp of what quantum field theory actually is (and I'm rather dense, that's a big deal!). 😊
I'm glad we could help 🤓
It’s mind bending to think the entire universe, including us are just disturbances of energy fields. Truly amazing
Nick, you are an exceptional communicator, and your wife is such a good sport.
Best video on Feynman diagrams, and I've seen them all.
Having your wife there to explain things to seems to have inspired you to explain things much better.
For me it is the first time I understand a bit what Feynman diagrams are actually about.
I love the part where you describe the Quantum Field Theory, and for that matter any science, as "a tool to solve problems" (16:32), and the only way you know it is correct because "it gives us answers that match reality" (16:46). For that is what, I think, science is really about. Making progressively more refined models of reality 1. to predict the future more closely, 2. describing/explaining reality more correctly, 3. enlarging our knowledgebase, 4. fidning solutions to current problems, etcetera. Thanks for this beautiful insight.
6:15 wow, you're really good at asking questions, making this all-the-more great
I LOVE these episodes where you explain things to your wife. It reminds me of Physics Girl's "explaining to my editor" series (wishing her a fast and complete recovery), but you have a much calmer approach. These are incredible.
Thanks! (I even had on a Physics Girl shirt for this one.)
@@ScienceAsylum That's true!! I didn't even notice :D nice attention to details
Youre my favorite nerd. All of the different versions of you. Its cute you buy them each their own book "Lectures on Physics" instead of reading it three time's. Your wife seems cool too.
I love when you and your wife do videos together.
First view❤ I've been following your videos from a long time and I've been benefitted a lot... I've gain more knowledge through your channel... I really like ur humor a lot... Thanks brother❤😊
You're welcome. I'm glad you've found my work enlightening 🙂
Nick, somehow you always break physics down to where I can actually understand it. You truly have a gift for teaching. I am as impressed by your communication skills as I am with the actual physics. Way to go man! Thank you for all your hard work!
Thanks! I put a lot of effort into choosing the correct words.
The Feynman diagram animations seem so nice for some reason, I just love the bright-but-not-eyestrainy yellow and pink on top of the really nicely textured gray background x)
Nice video! I learned something new today :D
Thanks! It was really important to me that they look aesthetically pleasing, so thanks for noticing.
Nick and Mrs Nick, thank you for explaining the hardest things that most people try to understand. Please keep this format as the Q & A helps answer some questions we ask and keep us entertained. André in Sydney
These videos are great for students. Explaining physics to a natural person that knows nothing about the new subject and can ask questions and you have to keep trying until the person (and the rest of us) gets it. Fantastic!
Wow! I truly enjoyed this episode. It was so amazing. Thanks a million for enlightening us.
Very instructive! The laid back vibe made it so much more watchable. Thank you!
I've been a fan of your videos for years now. Even though I don't fully understand everything you say, it's still fun to watch you explain them. Keep the videos coming!
The best simple explanation of Feynman diagrams I've seen. Awesome!
This was one of my favorite videos you've done. Really well thought out and great questions that allowed you dive deeper into some nuances of QFT! Great video!
Thanks!
Might be the first video I’ve watched from this channel. I really like the teacher/student dynamic and the skepticism she brings. I doubt I’ll ever understand quantum mechanics fully so the questioning throughout helped me to better understand rather than just nod my head yes while the information goes over my head. Awesome work!
Thanks! It's not the style of every video, but I try to do 1-2 of these per year when the topic demands it.
Thank you Nick and thank you to your wife, whom I've come to think of as my avatar. When she is asking you questions I feel like those are also my questions. Great video.
You should do a part two of this video on the types of infinities in QFT and the difference between renormalization and non-renormalization theories. I really enjoyed this and it made QFT entirely approachable.
Excellent explanation of QFT and the commonly used term "wave". This made more sense to me than many of the other explanations I've seen. Love the channel content!
I liked the animation of the Feymann diagrams rotating, very explanatory.
I'm gonna show this video to MY wife: "SEE?!? *THIS* is how you fake interest in MY LIFE!!!"
Man, I have no words to describe how amazing your channel is. Your content is just super dope. Please never stop. Cheers from Brazil
"Matter is real, it's not an illusion"
That's exactly what an illusion would say
😆
The illusion EXISTS and it can speak?
Every time I watch on of these videos I find a new way at looking at things. Thanks
I loved this episode, the pace of the explanation was right, and it made sense, the questions were on point. I loved the humor and the interactions between the two of you, it made me feel like I'm sitting there with you and laughing along. Thank you both, wish you the best
Love that you got those Feynmann Lectures on Physics series in the background
Awesome. What I would love to see is some idea of what is involved in “calculating a Feynman diagram”. It’s clearly computationally expensive and I have never seen explained what’s actually happening in the computing.
This format is amazing. Congrats! You clarified a ton in s single video in a very comprehensive way. Easily this is your best video EVER! ❤
I love the way you explain things. You are clear and concise. You define your terms. I wish more of us could explain things as effectively as you.
Thanks. I'm glad you appreciate it. I put a lot of effort into these explanations.
I really like this format. M does a really well keeping the theroetician in check. And Nick does a good job setting up the conversation.
Thank you so much for this video, I have been thinking about this question for so long now.
You're welcome. Glad it helped 👍
Thanks to your contagious follies I have finally managed to grasp some of the basics that govern the rules of Feynman diagrams! Thank you for increasing my crazy level!
For anyone who wants more, I suggest looking up the Douglas Robb memorial lectures by Feynman himself. He does regular quantum dynamics as well there, but in lecture 3 he goes a little bit deeper into this video's topic (quantum electrodynamics), but staying at more or less the same level of difficulty / abstraction. (Maybe a bit more concrete in its calculations, and it builds upon the former two lectures, so it's not a bad idea to watch those as well.)
Thank you for the animation of Feynman diagrams. Finally I feel more comfortable with the time axis being vertical.
It is also kind of heartwarming how your wife said your slogan at the end. Made me smile, that she acknowledges and enjoys your own creation - the science asylum and its values and motivations - in that way.
Wow.. thanks for making Feynman diagram more understandable, Nick!
btw.. your Alvarez could use fresh set of strings 😁
Great format, the discussion/explanation format. Plus, your wife is very funny.
(7:45) Your animation skills are spot-on, my friend!
Thanks! I had to learn how to use nodes in Blender for that ripply surface animation.
What a great video, this format really does help suss out some important info and distinctions, you guys work great together. As an aside at 7:39 it's mentioned how space is not discreet like in the graphic. What's funny is I've been watching a lot about quantum gravity and a theory of everything, and I saw the idea come up that it might actually be space itself (and gravity) that are discreet, and just quantum fields that are continuous and it's this mismatch that is responsible for the challenging of unifying QM and GR. (The idea being that QM is what "happens" in the "margins" between discrete components of space). Just thought it was funny to see this come up in the video.
🤯 You have reached the top of the science youtube channels 👏👏
for most of this channel you break higher concepts down into simpler parts. in this video, the safeties are off. love the honest breakdown w/o holding my hand along the way!
When Nick talks to his wife, I realize that he is actually a normal person, and not a crazy, hot-headed scientist.
I love the videos where you are explaining physics to your wife. You are able to find a way to explain a complex topic to anyone, regardless of their knowledge. That is amazing skill. 😎
Oh man! I love the wife reacts! You 2 are amazing together! Like Bert and Ernie, C-3PO, R2-D2, Batman and Robin, Beavis and Butt-Head, Marlin and Dory, Bonnie and Clyde,... Yeah! Add Nick And AwkwardM to that list!
Glad you like them. We enjoy making them.
The questions asked are really just perfect I was like why it is so and then she just asks it straight away
Thanks for the video ❤
You're welcome! We're glad you liked it.
Got a QFT exam coming up. Even though they'll probably be after my exam, I'd still be interested in more videos on QFT. I rarely ever get a broader view of what's going on when I'm 2 hours into a lecture seeing the integral over momentum space divided by (2*pi)^3 for the hundredth time.
EDIT: I passed.
There will definitely be more QFT videos. I'm learning it as I go. This was just the beginning.
@@ScienceAsylum I thought you were a physicist wtf
well then, all the more impressive
@@JohnSalchichon2 Physicists have to learn things too. It’s not the case that every physicist specializes in every subdiscipline of physics.
@@JohnSalchichon2 I _am_ a physicist. I just never had the opportunity to learn QFT properly. During physics education, you learn a kind of overview of everything and then you specialize in something specific. I imagine a lot of other academic fields are like that too. If we want to deeply learn anything beside our specialization, we have to learn it ourselves and I just never got into QFT before now 🤷♂
Hi crazy. I love the new format, where you explain concepts to your wife. It helps you to focus on explaining things to people who are new to science.
I really like this format of videos. Your wife is a gem, much better than any of those "clones" of you. 🙂 Great video, but I doubt that the "3D" animation of fields would be hard to process, if done correctly. I have an idea of how it could look like using a 3D lattice rendering.
If you did it with the lattice approximation, you _might_ be able to pull it off. You just wouldn't have a suppressed dimension to use, so you'd have to get creative with colors and textures.
I suspect Nick's wife is posing as his clone.
I've seen the 3D animations and it looks like a cube of jiggly multicolored mess. Not the most intuitive thing to look at if you aren't used to multivariable graph representation.
@@ScienceAsylum There are Python libraries for domain coloring, which I imagine would automate the process of adding color to represent the 4th dimension.
Any close examples or hint of what that might look like?
17:30 I had a big "aha now I understand why we use vectors and stuff" moment here
I somehow feel both smarter and dumber after this.
Holy cow! The diagram's lecture blew my mind. Six ways of how to understand an electron. 🤯🤯🤯🤯
Now I really can understand how Feymann was revolutionary.
I absolutely love these videos you do with your partner!
@@RS-ls7mm Wives are partners and one should not just assume marital status.
@@narfwhals7843 What a loveless term.
Thanks! They're a lot of fun 🤓
@@RS-ls7mm A If you want to argue terms "wife" comes from words meaning either literally just "woman" or something like "servant". Love is what you make of it.
@@RS-ls7mm it's a shortening of "life partner", which i think is very nice :)
I really enjoy these quite a bit when you bring your other half on. Nice to see. Thanks for the content!
Always love to see Awkward M make an appearance. Also a nice explanation of a concept I like to think of as "keep throwing science at the wall to see what sticks." Even if it doesn't make sense and has ideas that are bonkers (like anti-matter travelling backwards in time) if it leads to a workable conclusion, it was still worth the time to think about it.
Fortunately, the bonkers idea of antimatter being time-reversed matter is just a shut-up-and-calculate tool that works because of the symmetries of nature! When you "time-reverse" an electron on a feynman diagram, the other properties that also flip signs are its charge and spin, which bingo boingo turns it into its antimatter complement! :D
It's a simple idea that feynman had that tremendously simplified the math of QCD interactions.
Thank you for a huge “aha” moment. The idea that fields are merely descriptions of how distinct quantities or properties change at different locations (while occupying the same 3D space) made me think of a weather map… at any given point in space, you have a scalar describing the temperature, another describing the atmospheric pressure, and a vector describing how the wind is blowing. Each of those could be thought of as its own “field.” But the reality is 3D; the map is just a slice - the temperature and pressure drop and the wind speed & direction changes if you look at a different slice at cruising altitude.
I’m sure the analogy breaks down, but then again, some of the best learning I’ve done is by discovering how a particular analogy fails.
Thank you once again Nick.
That's not just an analogy. What you're describing about weather maps are just examples of fields, so that's a great comparison! 👍 They might not be _quantum_ fields, but they're definitely fields.
I always thought of particles in "concept" as point fields. And also always thought that if a wave was high frequency & concetrated enough to the point of being too small due to the wavelength being too short, it could behave like a particle. Anyways, I'mma watch the video right now.
but a massive particle at rest has a high frequency (Mc^2/h), and a long (infinite) wavelength = h/sqrt(E^2 - (mc^2)^2*) = h/0.
Thank you for your excellent description of the Feynman Diagram. Now I can almost envision a time field as you envision other fields. With arrows of time changing with the perspective of individual viewers. Then bring multiple Masses into the field warping space and time. Time becomes one big mush as multiple observers appear. But at the quantum level time will be defined. Neat. I can almost see it. Thank you.
I would love to see awardM guiding you into biology honestly
We've considered it, but we're not sure very many people feel like you do.
@@ScienceAsylumoh, but we are many, sir. this collab might sound crazy, but then again, it's ok to be a little.
"This is where things are going to get a little weird" is such a good in-joke for quantum physicists.
For me one of the weirdest concepts in QFT is that the very existence of particles is observer-dependent (Unruh effect)
It's not surprising when you consider that all observations in QFT are essentially just interactions with particles. Meaning when you are observing a field, you are affecting it and introducing additional distrubances. Otherwise how else can you observe something if you don't interact with it?
You become coupled with that field so what you perceive is a result of you affecting that field, or rather that field being disturbed by your interaction with it.
@@mrgalaxy396 Very helpful comment TY
@@mrgalaxy396 Well that is like saying the Uncertainty Principle is not surprising hahaha, yeah I agree with you that once you understand the process and think about it that is the only logical conclusion, but it IS a surprise when you see it for the first time, unless you're someone that actively researches the area prior to seeing it for the first time xD
“Do we say waves like we say ‘spin’”? “No. It’s not *that* bad.” Cracked me up!
😆
You should have your wife in more of your videos.
I'd like to do these twice per year, but that doesn't always work out. (We actually recorded one last October, but it quickly became clear that after a few very good questions from her, that I didn't understand what I was trying to explain. The topic got postponed.)
This was a good one!
I almost feel like I can begin to grasp the basic ideas of QFT. But without the calculations.
This sort-of reminds me of a chemistry lecture I attended as an undergrad. It was part of a third-year chemistry module, and the lecturer was explaining what was happening *during* a chemical reaction. My degree was biochemistry with chemistry (so about 2/3 biochemistry and 1/3 chemistry), and this module was attended by many of the straight-chemistry students. I think I was the only biochemist there.
Our lecturer at one point made an allusion to ab-initio molecular orbital calculations, and the reaction of those who had previously encountered this phenomenon was a mixture of terror and resignation.
Fortunately for me, the lecturer did not have us actually do any ab-initio molecular orbital calculations. I gathered that they're kinda tough.
Professor Lucid, I am studying thermodynamics and I am having a very hard time understanding the concept
My problems have a lot of roots. One of them is that I can't understand the relationship between total work and ∆K
Since I can't still understand that I am having trouble understanding some formulas in thermodynamics too
Do you have any suggestions? What do you think I should do? I tried searching for it but I kept getting more confused
Thermodynamics is a lot to take in all at once. I found it helpful to learn the historical motivation behind all the equations. We came up with many of them before we even knew for sure that atoms existed and were made of subatomic parts. Once we knew that, we started to look at it all statistically and that made everything make a lot more sense.
What is K in your calculation?
@@mrgadget1485 Kinetic energy
@@ScienceAsylum Thanks you so much ☕🍂
@@sirlancelot6333 It sounds like your system has several degrees of freedom. Work can be done on it and this energy may go into other things than linear kinetic energy, like rotation(rotational energy) or the stretching of a spring(potential energy).
Wonderfully clear as usual. I especially liked the way you were clear that the mathematical use of fields does not represent the actual mechanism of particle interaction, it is just the mathmatical technique for description.
I still don’t understand, but I’m get closer.
Trying to get through Feynman's book "QED" got too taxing for me, so thank you for this!
I'm glad I could distill it for you.
Very engaging discussion. I love the way you two communicate with the side effect of teaching me more effectively.
Outstanding - Nick has a smart wife - and episodes are more fun with two of them interacting
Your wife seems so chill and cool! Always great seeing you two!!
This is my favorite video on the internet!
It intuitively explains without relying in the complex vocabulary or maths.
I have a few questions/observarions:
1. I always thought the electromagnetic field IS a quantum field, and the photon was a ripple in that field (I love the word ripples). Isn’t it?
2. If (and that’s a big IF) all particles are simply disturbances/ripples in a field, and that field is simply composed of different values, and we simply perceive them as matter/particles (since we ourselves are made of it as well), doesn’t it kind of match a sort of simulation theory? We’re all just information in quantim fields, and we just perceive it as matter?
3. We always hear it said that a field is composed of an infinite number of points. But can a point in space be smaller than the Planck Length? If not, isn’t there a finite number of points?
4. Is it correct to imagine that virtual particles are actually very complex vibrations in the quantum fields that interact with each other, but which are below the “minimum threshold” to make up a full particle? (Like those wigglings in the uncertainty principle at 6:52 which don’t make a full particle). Are virtual particles like that? Complex wigglings interacting with the “full wiggles” of particles?
1. Yes, but I prefer to call it the "photon field" rather than the EM field for two reasons. I think it's important to distinguish it from the classical EM field and naming the field after the particle is consistent with how we name the other quantum fields.
2. It certainly doesn't _disprove_ the simulation hypothesis, but I wouldn't say that it proves it either.
3. Planck length being the smallest distance in space is just speculation at the moment. We have no idea if that's true or even if space has a smallest distance.
4. I wouldn't say virtual particles are "below a minimum threshold." That makes them seem more real than they are. They're not real at all. They're just a simplified way to "imagine" at complex vibrations. They're imaginary.
Truly, without a doubt, one of the best videos on this topic I've watched. THANK YOU!!!!
Omg, the bit where he turned the electron Feynman diagram to show the electron emitting a photon when changing direction blew my mind.
That's "Bremsstrahlung", or braking radiation and how they generate medical x-rays!
You know when two things just click on your head and you get that dopamine rush, well that just happened!
This is impressive! Just WOW! I really enjoyed it! Probably your best video yet!
What an excellent description! Thanks so much!
You're very welcome!
Brilliant explanation!! Congratulations to your wife who had very smart reflexes in her exchange, I am impressed. A guy who dwelled into advanced electromagnetics and after bumping into probabilities and stochastics I started to wander who I was!! Thanks for your vid and keep up the great work!
I'm glad you enjoyed it 🤓
So well done. I am teaching children of QuantumQid about Feynman Diagrams and this is the best video I have seen.
Thanks!
This is an excellent depiction of where we're at with the model, what the limitations of that model are and how the model engages with the underlying reality.
15:39 Subtitle: "(Skeptical staring)"
That legit made me burst out laughing XD
😂
I absolutely love these episodes! Crazy for life! Keep up the good work the both of you
Currently in the middle of trying to learn QFT and it's making me very sad and confused. Hopefully I come out of the other end of it eventually.
At 8:52, you label the electron as "spin-up" and the positron as "spin-down". What exactly does that mean? I would have figured that an electron could be either spin-up or spin-down (as measured in the Stern-Gerlach experiment).
Yeah, I'm finally learning QFT on more than just surface level and it's wild. I'm hoping to make more videos about it soon as I learn more, but it's definitely a journey. It's _so_ different than everything else. I've been watching your new spinor series as part of the process. Good stuff. Very thorough.
8:52 That was just a choice. I didn't meant to imply that electrons couldn't be spin down. I was just making them anti-particles, so I had to pick one orientation for each. It could have just as easily gone the other way.
Given that @AndrewDotsonvideos refers to your channel in his tensor videos, I'm sure he'd be happy to help you out on QFT!
Why is QFT making you sad and confused? I'd have thought with your background you'd find it relatively intuitive. Isn't there a lot of geometry?
Though there are several different ways to approach it.
Also I think this Sean Carroll quote is relevant to keep in mind "Axiomatic QFT is an attempt to make everything absolutely perfectly mathematically rigorous. It is severely handicapped by the fact that it is nearly impossible to get results in QFT that are both interesting and rigorous."
From a blog entry titled "how to think about quantum field theory"
@@narfwhals7843 There are probably things in QFT I will like eventually (I'm excited to understand the gauge symmetries that all the force particles obey).
But a lot of it is very hard for me to understand. I understand the basic idea of creation and annihilation operators, but throwing them into a differential equation is hard for me to wrap my mind around. What is the time derivative of a creation operator? I think I understand the basics of Green's functions, but nevertheless, all the integrals that involve propagators are very ugly and tedious to churn through. Time-ordering is also something I'm struggling to understand intuitively. Also, computations involve long summations that suck. There's also a lot of conceptual things I don't get. Like why QFT is necessary for a relativistic formulation of QM. People tell me QFT gives you "local" theories but I don't know what that means or how to prove it.
In summary, there's just a lot of tedious math to get through and for around 80% of it, I don't feel it comes with much conceptual understanding.
@@eigenchris I'll be covering a lot of the conceptual stuff in the videos I have planned. Maybe they'll help you as much as your mathy videos have been helping me.
@@ScienceAsylum Looking forward to it!
I love your easily digestable explanations, especially when it comes to less intuitive subjects.
4:46 that "aaah.... Okay... " Why is it so relatable to me!!? 😅
When a Jedi says "I feel a disturbance in the Force" now has a fundamental deep meaning to me, not just movie gibberish.
Great explanation, I felt like the pace was easy to follow thanks to the back-and-forth. My favorite part of the video was the "do we say waves like we say spin?", lol. At least it's not astrophysics where everything that isn't hydrogen or helium is a "metal".
I keep picturing Owen Wilson everytime particles pass each other and go "wow".
Haven't seen your content in a while glad you're still doing it.
Yep, I've been making it consistently. I must not have been making videos about topics you're that into.
@@ScienceAsylum RUclips doesn't seem to show me any videos that I'm into lately.