Quarks | Standard Model Of Particle Physics

[I0NSH00TeR]

trippy

[Aki1011001]

Q. What did the 2 hydrogen atoms say to the oxygen atom?

A: Water you doing here?!

[sirwilliamhowell]

oh i totally get it now

[abdul0333]

physics is amazing. I wish i had a better brain to understand it.

[MikeRoePhonicsMusic]

@abdul0333 You just need a better teacher.

[Geo877]

@abdul0333 brightstorm (dot) com/science/physics/the-atom-a­nd-quantum-physics/quantum-phy­sics Check out this guy! Best physics teacher I've come across! And look up khan academy :)

[abdul0333]

@Geo877 Thanks mate it will help me alot 

[RichtoffenRoach]

@abdul0333 Mee too

[SailingMonsoon]

Trying to watch this in New Zealand, but the video is blanked-out, nothing but audio is received. What's going on? Audio ain't good enough. Is this some sort of unreasonable "copyright" policy being enforced?

[ff7masta]

Strong "s" sounds are piercing my ears.

[APokeInTheEye]

Btw.. nothing wrong with the dudes voice...

[APokeInTheEye]

Here are some smart people i believe =)

So... is there a smaller "thing" than a quark? What are these little shells called with energy inside? Are these particles the smallest? =)

I never paid attention in physics... now im curious :D ?

[mdma4life]

@APokeInTheEye

Quarks are fundamental (so we believe at least)

There are 12: Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top, Bottom, antiup, antidown ... etc.

Leptons are the other class of fundamental particles in the Standard Model

There are 12: Electron, Muon, Tau, Electron Neutrino, Muon Neutrino, Tau Neutrino

These two classes are called Fermions

There are also Bosons, these are particles which carry the 4 fundamental forces: Photon (EM), Graviton (Gravity), Gluon (Strong Nuclear), W/Z (Weak Nuclear)

[mdma4life]

@APokeInTheEye

There is also one more predicted particle that we need to still observe to confirm that the Standard Model theory of particle physics, the HIggs, which is a boson that gives matter its mass (from the "Higgs Field" that permeates the Universe). Time will tell if it exists or we are just wrong.

Particle physics is trying to go beyond just the standard model too, such as Grand Unification Theories, extra dimensions, superpartners, WIMPs, etc

You should read up, its crazy shit

[billdotgov]

your voice and vocal inflection are SO fucking annoying i can't even watch your video.

[FOXnewsAlien]

electric charge? Wrong! That is atomic levels not sub. Gravity and matter does not exist at that size. You are very wrong about as quatum physics is not understood. Subatomic spin and bonding of non matter is not based on gravity but of unknowns. The quarks change as the pop in and out of existance. Yes like magic. The phase back and forth from hyper space into normal space.

[RukiaKurapika]

It never actually explained what quark is....anyone?

or am i watching a follow-on video?

[xseb5x]

@RukiaKurapika What makes up a proton/neutron. There is no further explanation of what it is made up of.

[shandcunt]

Fuckin awe inspiring!!!

[phuphugad]

I know the guy who discovered the quarks, his name is Gell-man (or something like that),and he is my father's friend!

[phuphugad]

I know the guy who discovered quarks, his name is Gell-man (or something like that), he is my father's friend

[CACBCCCU]

Similar to how charge-polarized quark-anti-quark mesons may surround a proton, it seems the pair of "up" quarks in the proton could be a polarized condensation on the down quark. It reminds me of the ringing in signal filtering, or of chromatic aberration. Wave signal filtering transforms are also, to me anyway, reminiscent of complementary terms in the uncertainty principle, in that the narrower the pulse uncertainty, the wider the necessary bandwidth of the waves forming the pulse.

[CACBCCCU]

Seems odd the "up" quark has twice as much charge as the "down" quark but only around half the mass. It implies to me that the "up" quark could be made of anti-matter, or mostly anti-matter. The neutron (d-u-d) is less stable than the neutron (u-d-u) and I suppose that shows the "up" is less capable of holding together two "downs" than vice-versa. I get the impression that two "ups" condense on a "down" easily, but the complementary process forming d-u-d maybe has to start with two "downs."

[CACBCCCU]

"neutron (u-d-u)" should be "proton (u-d-u)"

The thinking is that anti-matter is like a bubble on the dirac sea, maybe somwhat like a charge hole in a semiconductor. The larger the antimatter bubble, seems the less the antimatter energy would be bound by the inertia of the matter surrounding it, and perhaps the more it could behave as anti-mass. It's basically wild speculation, but that's what I like to do sometimes, and I hope no one minds too much. Thanks for reading, if you got this far.

[CACBCCCU]

somwhat=somewhat

I'm not suggesting the "down" quark is the "anti-up" quark, or that there is no "anti-up" quark, but that maybe the names "up" and "anti-up" could be switched. Seems it could remove the question of where all the supposedly-missing anti-matter went, and why the so-called "anti-matter" that has been detected cosmologically seems rare, dark, and perhaps lacks the capacity to form antimatter stars.

[artdegreat]

pleeeease stop calling them corks :( :( im british, i can't deal with it

[JRockey0915]

Hey baby, if we were quarks I'd be top and you'd be bottom.

[McBeefsupreme]

i dont understand color charge plz help :s

[AurumenK]

and another thing how come if there is no god then there are MILLIONS of cases of near death experiences and they all see the same thing, an angel or a bright light and they move towards it and find heaven. Sounds like science has failed to mention those eh? God is proven fuck all you who don't believe.

[CS5TutorialsMaster]

@AurumenK It's all in your mind. Not saying that there's no God, and yes, science HAS failed to explain many a phenomenon in the universe, starting with how it all began. We only have theories, but that's more than we had before. I choose to believe that if you believe in it, it's true for you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so I suggest not saying "fuck all you who don't believe." Plus, what about other religions? What about polytheism? You can't tell me that only your religion is true.

[davelantor]

@AurumenK God is not proven moron ...

[ZenrathGoesRawr]

I'm so confused. So we have no true proof of quarks, just a bunch of clues that point towards their existence?

[CS5TutorialsMaster]

@ZenrathGoesRawr I think that about sums it up. We have clues as to something exists that has these particular properties, and maybe more, and so we're giving it a name.

[thrillzonevideos]

my brain is lagging

[flait7]

What the fuck happened to the other 4 flavors of quarks? and what are their properties? >.<

[FACTI0NWARS]

no thats gta4s more ammo cheat

[xHizukax]

hey guys look, i can see my own Quarks! its direction is: Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right.... is this normal?

[xHizukax]

hey guys i can see my own Quarks! ..

[NotLuckyInLife]

How come they sat color instead of potential?

[cozzycovers]

cool stuff

[faithie70]

there is 100 septenvigintillion quarks in the known universe

[Nerusai]

I still favor this video as one of the easiest videos that explain some phenomena in detail. Especially the animations are quite nice.

[jmm1233]

WHOA

[libziswitty]

schnüffel gibts den keinen hier der mit mir chatten mag bin so gelangweilt

[TheMaskTV]

What makes me laugh is the dude that named these clearly didn't think it through well enough. He named them up-quarks, down-quarks and anti-up-quarks and anti-down-quarks. What struck me was that he hadn't thought that an anti-down-quarks name would have the same meaning as an up-quark, yet is a totally different quark and vice versa.

Thanks for confusing us pal!

[JuanJoseFaOrTi]

@TheMaskTV yes, theres a difference between negative and positive and anti negative and anti positive... u got it? Positive charge has an anti positive charge (wich is not the negative one) and the negative charges have anti negative charges. U get confused because u have the mistaken belief (that someone taught u in school) that positive is the oposite of negative... thats not true.

[TheMaskTV]

@JuanJoseFaOrTi wow, plz explain, i'm currently studying as level (UK) physics, and yes, my teacher is appalling at teaching so i teach my self. thnx...

[JuanJoseFaOrTi]

@TheMaskTV lol, theres a difference between oposing charges - Negative/positive. wich repel eachother... and anti-charge... wich destroy eachother when they touch. OK superman has positive charge and lex luthor has negative charge... and bizarro wich is the bizare superman would be the anti-charge. its hard to explain over youtube's comments.

[TheMaskTV]

@JuanJoseFaOrTi thnx nyway, i'll research it myself once my exams are over. do you study physics?

[JuanJoseFaOrTi]

@TheMaskTV not formally, im just interested, i wouldve studied physics but when i started my degree i wasnt interested in it at all. i would study it formally if i have the time :D, good luck.

[TheMaskTV]

@JuanJoseFaOrTi thnx, n remember, its never too l8.

[JuanJoseFaOrTi]

@TheMaskTV i know, but the later the harder hehe, and when ppl depends on ur monhly income... then it gets even tougher. but i will do it... ive set my mind to it.

[TheMaskTV]

@JuanJoseFaOrTi Fight the obsticles bro, fight the obsticles.

[castroherman]

They should make a Quarks cereal with the quarks represented by marshmallows.

[xseb5x]

@castroherman I WOULD SO BUY THAT.

[mdma4life]

@castroherman

The top quark marshmallow would be too large to fit in the bowl :P (physicists will understand heh)

[amandarandom89]

And then, for some inexplicable reason, there are Top, Bottom, Strange and Charm quarks. They're not really needed for anything, but they exist anyway.

[lawnsmasher]

fuck 5:00 am and i have class at 8:30

[tsalexey544]

This hurts my brain =((((((

[TRUCKEEDOG666]

No doubt. I try and try but still come up a lot short.

[Katsuhisa777]

Seconded.

[ccaptorchen]

faith in science is still faith.. people who says that line need to rethink that ignorant statement

people trust science.. not faith. if scientist are wrong we correct it. that isn't faith

if priests molest boys and the pope tries to cover up for it.. people still have faith in him. that is faith... see the difference?

[qsucvatz]

@ccaptorchen Define faith as belief without evidence (all religious cases are).

Then science, which is entirely based on evidence, cannot be faith.

[ccaptorchen]

my point exactly

[belegulo]

@qsucvatz So, every human have faith in water when they didn lknow what was it made of?

From my perspective, God is physics laws because both play the same definition.

So, faith was and sometimes is necessary for personal life (put money in bank, for example)

[Juxtaroberto]

@belegulo You don't need any faith to put your money in the bank. Banks work a certain way, and as long as you don't withdraw more money than you deposit, you're fine. There is no faith involved.

[belegulo]

@Juxtaroberto "You don't need any faith to put your money in the bank."

You need faith for have trust in someone that will keep your money.

[Juxtaroberto]

@belegulo If it was some stranger off the street, then yes, you'd need faith. But that's what banks DO, and that's what they've been doing since the first bank opened. There are LAWS that protect you and your money, you don't need faith.

[AurumenK]

@qsucvat yeah well disprove god. You can't prove nor disprove god so it remains theory if you don't believe keep it to youself, you just show ignorance and cause conflict something our world doesn't need more of! You claim to be based on science but humanity is so retarded when it comes to technology at this point I wouldn't be surprised if we knew up from down! You'll see in the end there is a god or you'll stay in this dimension as a ghost, then disappear.

[ascuba5]

@qsucvatz - It's important to keep in mind that the nature of scientific evidence, is derived purely from observation. Faith, which is also defined as complete trust in something or someone, describes well the relationship between a scientist and their observations.. particularly the indirect observations. A good example of this would be the 'Dark Field'. Therefore it's not as 'black and white' as you suggest.. there is without a doubt faith in science, by it's definition.

[qsucvatz]

@ascuba5 I am using another definition of faith:

Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without evidence supporting the claim (e.g. a superstition) or disregarding all evidence to the contrary (e.g. a delusion).

This definition separates science from superstition by the fine line of evidence. There is evidence that our observations are useful for obtaining knowledge about the world.

[ascuba5]

@qsucvatz - Allow me to simplify my previous reply for you, you seem to have missed the point.

If you believe and put trust into what you see, then you have faith in your 'evidence'.

So then it is my opinion, that science is built on a foundation of faith.

God aside, most of us have a little faith in something.

I figured this when I worked in a kitchen, and saw how people really dig my omelettes. I have faith in my omelettes, but only whilst assuming the foundation (the eggs) are all good..

[ascuba5]

It's also important to look at the consistency of the eggs after you whipped em, you can tell this by the colour. If the colour is consistent the you're on the way! You need seasoning too, a little salt (not too much though), some black pepper.. anything else I would say depends on what you're putting on the inside of the omelette.

And watch the heat of the pan, keep it nice and hot with a three-egg omelette. You want the inside fluffy, not too firm.. but don't split it when folding over!

[qsucvatz]

@ascuba5 There is evidence that science works very well, so well that no other source of knowledge comes close to science's success rate. There is no faith where there is evidence. If you want to call trust in our senses faith - I cannot, because there is evidence it works. There is no evidence of any testable gods.

See definition 2b here on m-w.com's definition of faith.

[qsucvatz]

@ascuba5 Reason won't get you beyond first principles. Accepting observation as valid facts of reality has proven to be the most useful fucking journey upon which humans have ever endeavored. Dark energy and dark matter exist, are observed, measured, and tested. Fairies, bigfoot and Jesus are useless. There is no blind religious faith in science. There never will be. Everything must be repeatably testable.

[ascuba5]

@qsucvatz - You mentioned the Merriam Webster definition 2b. "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust".

Let me point out that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are still hypotheses. The definition of this according to Cambridge Dictionaries would be: "An idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved". Clearly, you're so wrapped up in debating the existence of God, you have confused and contradicted yourself with science.

[Ichvyenichalster]

@qsucvatz haha ironic because all physics dealt with at a given time by professionals hasn't been fully confirmed (which is why they have jobs) thus fitting into your definition of faith. Atoms are barely measurable, quarks are immeasurable, and to think they consists of 1 dimensional strings that hold a crutch for our understanding of the cosmos is exactly what i call faith, for now. Theoretical physics can then be defined as faith in mathematics.

[DecemberControversy]

this is too complicated for me

[gtssage]

Science is amazing. you could not make this stuff up.

[1imax111]

very accurate:D

[pilgrimpater]

Mind you this has made my brain hurt so much that i just have to unquark a bottle of wine. That'll make it easier to understand my up from down ..... not!

[dpn48312]

Thank you for presenting these. But I would also find it helpful to see a presentation of *how we know this is true* or *what has led to this theory*. Without that, I agree with other commenters: I just have to take what you say on faith -- I have no idea how you got that or what you are talking about. This gives the matter more the feel of religion than science -- not what you intended, I'm sure!

[pilgrimpater]

dpn48312. I would tend to strongly agree with your comment because this stuff is not a fraction as clear cut as Evolution. However, maybe "how we know this is true" is even more complicated to understand for the layman and perhaps we should entrust our selves to the peer review process.

[dpn48312]

Well, I realize it would not be easy, but 1) to raise the general knowledge of science and the scientific method, and 2) to help deal with assertions that science and/or atheism and/or rationalism is just another religion -- because ultimately you have to take everything on faith -- I think it is necessary, and would be a very valuable next step.

[pilgrimpater]

I think we agree on this point. I hate taking anything on face value without at least understanding it. However i am not quite sure why you bring atheism into the equation. Atheism has nothing to do with science whatsoever. Science is agnostic & there are many high profile supporters of Evolution who are Christian. Science can never be just another religion. Any assumptions (hypotheses) that it makes have to be thoroughly tested. As i said earlier peer review is vital for the scientific method

[dpn48312]

Of course, you are right. But in the raging Youtube debate of atheism vs. (fundamentalist) Christianity, one side always tries to paint atheism as a religion because it "takes on faith" the things that scientists say. From that point of view, one either "believes scientists" or "believes God's word". Unless there are videos I have yet to discover that explain how we know what we know, videos like this sort of leave us there. This is not a criticism, but a suggested next step.

[pilgrimpater]

Is the raging debate between Atheism and Fundamentalism (Christian or Moslem)?

For me the debate is Science versus Fundamentalism. We believe scientists because they adhere to the scientific method including the ability to predict. They are self policing and are constantly reappraising their conclusions. Fundamentalism provides no such thing. All scientific theries must be falsifiable. Fundamentalism is not falsifiable. It is not open to change as we become more knowledgable. That is belief.

[dpn48312]

You and I agree. But I think a fundamentalist would say scientist=atheist. So, it would help.

[pilgrimpater]

dpn48312. Yeah a fundie would say that but tbh that is their problem. Streetly puts it quite well in a later comment here.

[steelty]

Faith in science is based on the observation of what science has done for knowledge so far. We trust scientist because we ourselves can observe what they say and examine the evidence for it. Faith is religion is based on nothing. There isn't anything to observe to see if it's right or wrong.

[ZombieX13]

ok I've been following these vids for awhile now but this one finally lost me with that little block chart.

[Philipisgr8]

I got lost about five episodes ago. I just nod along now.

[mortenlu]

Word.

[ReluctantZer0]

@Philipisgr8 same here

[HaleyMary]

Is there a relation between the larger volume shifting red, green and blue representing the color change generating the strong nuclear force and the doppler shift effect between the red and blue? like with the red being lower frequency and the blue being higher frequency? Is the up quark blue or green and the down quark red?

[rgzdev]

Why is the neutron heavier? Are the down quarks heavier? How can down quarks be heavier than up quarks?

[Dentarthurdent54]

Gah... I still need to memorize the elementary particles and their properties and relations to each other. I know it should be pretty simple, but I'm pretty lazy. =P

[9noitulover]

this shit is elementary educational shit, learned this freshman year for fun.

[MarxKnewBest]

This is insane type of technology. Next thing you know it, we'll be finding out particles that make up these quarks, and get smaller and smaller.  Idk how small they can get.

[bricearmondpatterson]

Imagine splitting a quark and not a atom- you'd probably blow half the planet up.

[9noitulover]

cant split a quark, but you can break the color neutrality of a nucleon and that energy is much greater than the splitting of an atom, that would make an epic nuclear weapon, unfortunately no one has figured out how to break the color neutrality of baryons or mesons so until then we'll have to live without.

[MitsuomiTakayanagiEC]

but even if you could break the colour of one it doesn't mean you could continue the process like what happens in a nuclear reaction

[9noitulover]

no, thats the tricky part, breaking color neutrality and turning it into a chain reaction would be no simple task, it would probably require a much more detailed understanding of our universe to do such a thing, and not only that you would probably need material similar or denser than black hole or neutron star material to get the particles close enough for quantum tunneling and you'd have to consider the dark matter and negative energy within it as well and figure how to reduce those too.

[bricearmondpatterson]

Don't you mean Fortunately lol.

[9noitulover]

lol, yes fortunately for our current global civilization that's ready to kill itself that we cant do that, however its unfortunate for physicists that wish to understand how the universe works so they can build a more comprehensive model, If only our default reaction was not to kill others because they have different ideological beliefs then we would never have this issue.

[tomaselvis]

My brain!!!!

[soulf2]

I got lost about 2 vids ago. My maximum brain capacity may have been exceeded and requires some cleaning of useless knowledge. I'll be back after that to watch the video again. Thanks for the great vids!

[wildcatbungalo]

Don't feel bad - I have a degree in physics and this is at the bounds of my education.

But it is my understanding that weak and electrical charges are related but independent except at very high energies.

Can anyone clarify the point that they are trying to make in the video about them being independent?

[MitsuomiTakayanagiEC]

I would like to do a degree in physics but I can't even do baby maths

[wildcatbungalo]

You might be able to do a Bachelor's of Arts in Physics somewhere but it is becoming rare - even that is likely to involve some serious math though. I also read about a Philosophy of Science degree that someone possessed but I'm not sure where that is available. Regardless, you should challenge yourself to the math - it is very rewarding and revealing to a point and then you get to real physics and it's all statistical analysis, and highly meaningful but I did not find that to my liking.

[MitsuomiTakayanagiEC]

I just know it will take me sooo sooo long to understand the maths and although I like learning things for myself I would have no idea where to start with physics Maths

[9noitulover]

if you already know calculus I'd recommend

Steven Weinberg: The Quantum Theory of Fields Vol I, II, & III

If you don't know calculus then I'd start learning calculus and read some of the concepts and theories on Quantum Mechanics and Elementary Particle Physics on the Internet

[Nuker1337]

@MitsuomiTakayanagiEC Go to high school then, and study some basic maths and physics. Then go to university and become a physicist.

[MitsuomiTakayanagiEC]

thanks for your advice guys

[9noitulover]

I'm sure they are considering nucleons at typical energies and not at higher energies, so they are only considering the fields at low energies, at which case like you mentioned are separated.

[Paxmax]

that was really quarky!

[xerochi]

Great Vid.