@Xxthefckxx What if there really wasn't a beginning? Space-time expands and contracts, right now it's expanding I believe? What if the universe was just sooo incredibly tiny and contracted ~14 billion years ago that scientists and humans simply can't perceive it and said that around 'here' it started. It's like that paradox where you take a step towards the wall and half that the next etc you'll never reach the wall :)
@immisukkas If the current popular theory is correct, the universe will keep expanding forever due to dark energy. Also, it's not that humans aren't able to perceive, is just that according to calculations, right before the big bang, the "universe" was infinitely small. Zeno's paradoxes (there are 2 other similar ones to the one you mentioned) have been solved as far as I know, with even several solutions proposed.
@armageddonarman honestly, study now, even if it takes ages by the time we're in uni we'll know a lot
my mate it 17 and he know EVERYTHING abaout particle physics and I can tell you know that he will join CERN and become very sucessfull, why? because he has interest in theoreticle physics
if you like nuc phys, stick with it, but of course dont get consumed
@TheWoWRevelation yeah... I study hard and also plan to join CERN ;) Buy the way: I'm from Kazakhstan, 1st Uranium exporter in the world :D So nuclear engineering is very demanded ;)
@CertifiedBad4ss it's dealing with anti-matter, a different quality; akin to a mirror reflection of an object, rather than an object being turned upside down.
@TheDigitalStone If an electron and positron collide they annihalate completely and the result is gamma radiation (photons). You calculate the energy given off using e=mc^2. One electron and positron therefore release energy equal to two electron masses multiplied by the speed of light squared.
But what i meant was the last sentence of the video where he said:
"If a particle collides with it's corresponding anti-particle, then they would annihalate. The resulting pulse of energy may be emitted as photons or converted into other particles.".
Notice the word "or" in there.
Essentially it says that it can convert into *any* particle.
Why isolate one particle (photon in this case) and then tell that the other particles can also be the outcome just as well?
@TheDigitalStone Think of a photon as a force carrier [called a gauge boson] rather than a particle. Another gauge boson is the gluon, so called because it carries the force that holds quarks together in the proton or neutron.
It is only at very high energy annihalations that other [ exotic and short lived ] particles are created and these are often observed to decay very quickly through stages to some combination of electron and neutrino.
Why would anyone want to create such an abstruce and complicated theory around the atom that students have a difficult time digesting when the atom is actually a very simple weave of energies?
Atoms are made up of weaves of energies that come by way of conduits of families of frequencies that are cut off at the end of a cycle of evolution and leave an energy field of EMERs which serves to bind to other atom's weaves and produce molecules. Intricic lattices of matter can be synthezised.
Protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, positrons, quarks, leptons, byrons mesons, pions, kaons, gluons, valence orbits, energy levels, electrons spinning arround the nucleos at 5 million orbit per second. COME ON PEOPLE, LET'S BE REAL!
An atom measures an average of 9 quintillionths of one millimeter and they are produced from the weave of frequencies within a cycle of evolution that can last slightly less or more than one second.
Different arrays of frequencies produces variable weaves.
every time we discover a new form (smaller) OF evergy, we say its the smallest, til we discover a smaller form. thre is no end, they shouldnt say smallest, there is no smallest. there is quarks, then if u break those up into neg. and pos charges, smaller energy. an atom is like the number 1. there is no end to deviding it. there is less visable number, such as 1 to the neg. 9th to the posotive 9th power. but there is always, 1 to the neg. 10th to pos. 10th pwr. Ther4 there is alwys smllr energy.
@iMedAndMore . René Descartes (who didnt believe in "final' or basic structural uni) , said , on XVI century, that space doesnt really exists, because where is extension, there is ( at least) the possibility of space division.Sleep with all that Jazz
it makes sense but how do we put this into practical use...like if we were using chemistry to make a product? and will the possibility of these quarks being duplicated by humans get us closer to the next step?? building new alloy elements such as a making water that can burn for energy at a productive rate.? its exciting none the less
Hey I got this interesting thing here. Is it possible to make a uuu baryon? If yes, then it's cool because it will have a +2 charge in one particle (2/3 + 2/3 + 2/3 = 2). Could they form atoms? Like 2 electrons would spin around it to obtain octet.
Another interesting thing - three down quarks = -1 charge baryon. Is it possible to form an atomt-ype particle of those when there are these minus charge baryons in the nucleus and positrons spinning around them? Would they annihilate? Or be stable?
@jonnaSKATE If you can't follow this you're a bit thick. There's no calculations or anything difficult in this, just names of things with no actual information about them.
the information in this video is like making me eat something that I like in increasingly larger quantities while asking me to do that in a decreasingly small amount of time...
@Aviatorsmith Yeah, that's why I said probably. I certainly agree that we shouldn't be too sure of our selves, but based on how complete the physical model looks when these particles are elementary, the chances are pretty good that they cannot be broken down. But that doesnt say we've found it all, because there are several elementary particles missing from the model we have yet to find I'm sure.
@smithr24680 ................ maybe there made up of energy and strings and maybe even extra hidden dimensions did u know that it could go on till infinite there is no such thing as the smallest thing cuz it could keep on going forever!!
@6043231041 no.....you got to accept something came from nowhere, cause everything has to come with some first thing, and where did that first thing came from......its a headache, where did the big bang come from....i say that 2 universes collide with each other and form a new universe with similar things of both universe, like a child with a mom and a dad, but if those universes came from the same things, where did the first universe came from...haha its a puzzle we will never be able to solve
@XxThEfCkxX ....... u talking about the multiverse theory....dude this has nothing to do with parallel universes...wtf......did u know if a quark was the size of the sun....then a string would be the size of a tiny grain of sand!!!
I think quite the opposite- Hank's video was intresting, but I wanted to understand it deeper, so I came here. (: This is the kind of thing I'm intrested in learning anyway.
Okay, now I understand Hank Green's song "Strange Charm" a bit better. I thought when he was saying "Oh, Up, Diwn, Strange, Charm, Top, Bottom" that he was just saying random words to fill in the gap.
@stevebenbob Or just a simplified version of it, the way that fits best for you. Think about it, he didn't went to indept the topic, he just mentioned some names and facts, which by themselves, make a lot of sense.
so the image of atom we have been shown as a sphere is not what it really looks like ? if we can become the size of atom would we see those three quarks juggling around ?? instead of sphere ?
@Canihazcheezburgerz If you were the size of an atom you would not see a quark at all.
Let's swap it around and make a Hydrogen atom 2 metres across. The proton in the centre is now 1/100th of a millimetre across. The electron is 1000 times smaller than the proton and orbiting at a distance of about 500 metres.
The figures can be argued about - but I hope you get the idea.
And of course none of them exist except as our interpretation of what is going on. A quark is as real as fog.
@Canihazcheezburgerz We do not consider quarks to have size. Do not think in terms of particles. At the quantum level it is better to think of energy and forces interacting. We only use 'particle' in lieu of a better label. Were you able to zoom in it would be interacting energy you see - not tiny particles.
A proton is not a particle. It is composed of three quarks and their interacting forces. A proton's size is really the field of interaction of the forces and energies within it.
Again I see the electron described as a fundamental particle. However it appears during beta decay of a neutron, which consists of 3 quarks. So there is nothing fundamental about an electron, is there?
@Juxtaroberto What part of a neutron (3 quarks) turning into an electron [plus] proving that an electron is made up of something smaller do you not understand?
And of course a top quark decaying into a bottom quark [plus] proves that quarks too are not fundamental.
Or is that not clear?
fleas have smaller fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And smaller fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
@periwest No need to get snarky, asshole. All you could prove is that the NEUTRON was made up of different bits, not the electron.
And there is NOTHING which states that fundamental particles cannot decay into other particles. There is a gauge boson. a mediator, involved. Also, fundamental particles don't "break up" into their constituents, because they have no constituents. When they decay, BRAND NEW particles emerge. What part of that do YOU not understand?
@periwest Congratulations on completely ignoring what I said. I'm glad you realized you were wrong, but it'd be better to apologize for being a cyberdouche instead of changing the conversation to speculation as to whether or not I have children (I don't).
@9hello123 What a strange thing to say! Until very recently 'we' thought the atom was indivisible. We know better now and I would doubt there is any sober physicist who would state that the electron is indivisible. Science continually shows us more in both directions. I would suggest that our continued confusion over gravity and attempts at shoehorning theories utilising multiple dimensions point to the fact that there are levels below what we can currently see.
@periwest Until very recently we didn't know if the atom was indivisible and had no way to test if it was and physicists didn't say one way or the other what it could be broke down into. Now we do have the technology to thanks to de broglie and einstein and every time we have tested if the quarks and leptons can be broken down the results have came back that we can't.
@9hello123 You obviously see different results than I do. If you can explain beta decay [for example] without resorting to smoke and mirrors and without conceding that something is going on at a sub-quark level then you will convince me. Otherwise you are determining that quarks spontaneously convert into quarks of another flavour. I would suggest that quarks being composed of something else would much better explain their behaviour and interaction.
@periwest What does beta decay have to do with anything? A high energy, unstable neutron loses energy by transforming a down quark into an up quark and emits an electron and electron antineutrino to balance the charge and lepton number.
That has absolutely nothing to do with how fundamental an electron is.
@9hello123 "transforming a down quark into an up quark" Is smoke and mirrors! Surely you can see that. You cannot have both quarks as fundamental particles and then have them being destroyed and created during an event.
@periwest You are joking right? Have you took a physics class?
The down quark is destroyed into pure energy and then recreated as an up quark, please atleast no the absolute basics (E=mc^2) before bothering to argue about something you know nothing about.
@9hello123 "Have I[ took] a physics class" !!! "At least [no] the absolute basics" !!! I think I am ahead of you on the basics by evidence of your reply, and I would suggest that pitting your qualifications against mine will only see you embarrassed. So a down quark becomes pure energy and an up quark is created from pure energy? No smoke and mirrors at all there then!
@periwest Sorry I forgot I'm typing in an essay and not on the internet. Oh wait!
Please. Matter becoming pure energy is the absolute basics of physics, you can't pretend to understand anything in physics if you say that matter and pure energy aren't equivalent.
@9hello123 You have answered your own question. Now if you can just think outside the text book you will see the obvious extension of what you have stated.
well when it says "for begginers" it means for people who have already studied physics enough to even chance at comprehending these fundimental particles, besides, thats about as simple as you can possibly make quarks and leptons
Why do they persist in defining fundamental particles?
A free neutron undergoes beta decay. fact!
i.e. The Neutron - consisting up 1 up and 2 down quarks (fundamental particles!) decays into A Proton - consisting of 2 down and 1 up quarks, plus an electron, plus an electron anti-neutrino
QED something supposedly comprising three fundamental particles changes by one of thosefundamental particles disappearing and being replaced by three new fundamental particles.
@xbakano Mesons consisting of 1 quark and 1 antiquark are bosons (because they can have spin either 0 or 1)...A meson is for example the Kaon, or the most renowned pion...During the first days of nuclear physics it was believed that the mesons(pions) were the mediators of strong force. Afterwards came the idea of gluons which is more foundamental.
Generally put the elementary particles are devided into Bosons(spin=0,1,2,3...) and Fermions(spin=1/2,3/2,5/2,...). Fermions interact with the fields
@xbakano ...they create and bosons are the particles that mediate the fields. So for example electrons are the fermions, and interact with the Electromagnetic field they create, by exchanging photons which are the bosons of the electromagnetic force.
So we have the flavor(quarks or leptons) charge that interacts by weak force(W or Z bosons), colours(quarks) that interact with strong force(gluons), gravity (mass) that interacts by graviational force(Graviton) and electric charges using phtons.
@luno44 So true. In Britain it is taught in A-Level Physics (16-18), but almost all the interesting stuff has been dropped from the syllabus at lower levels.
so one of the primary mission of CERN is to find the HIGGS fields and the particle that has mass. but where did the first 2 original protons come from that collided to create the universe?
that's really clever...and very well explained. thanks very much. i've always been curious about this but never concentrated on sciences in school. Now I understand much more.
but when a neutron turns into a proton it gives up a part of its negative charge so that would be 1 quark up and 1 down = + 1/3 thats impossible is it?
@9hello123 I just rewatched the video(s)... YES they fuckin' do! When someone says "oh you have this particle that behaves like this, but there's some more fuckin' particles and these other ones behave different, but then there's some MORE and they're unstable (because they're anti) and then you have some more particles which are anti, but stable...
ordinary people DON'T understand this I tried and I'll try again many times... but this is
I understood the first 18 seconds. hmm, may be a beginners guide, but not a TOTAL beginners guide (idiots guide).
jennypockets 4 weeks ago
lol i did a project on higgs boson for grade 9 science
SuperNishkid 1 month ago
i love this stuff butt i wont learn this in school for a while cuz im only 13.
dontaskwhy12231 1 month ago 6
@dontaskwhy12231
lol, same.
JMastr211 1 month ago
@Xxthefckxx What if there really wasn't a beginning? Space-time expands and contracts, right now it's expanding I believe? What if the universe was just sooo incredibly tiny and contracted ~14 billion years ago that scientists and humans simply can't perceive it and said that around 'here' it started. It's like that paradox where you take a step towards the wall and half that the next etc you'll never reach the wall :)
immisukkas 2 months ago
@immisukkas If the current popular theory is correct, the universe will keep expanding forever due to dark energy. Also, it's not that humans aren't able to perceive, is just that according to calculations, right before the big bang, the "universe" was infinitely small. Zeno's paradoxes (there are 2 other similar ones to the one you mentioned) have been solved as far as I know, with even several solutions proposed.
Metawe7 1 week ago
I'm 16 and I study nuclear engineer physics now... I want to say: do not start to study Nuc Physics in 16!
IT IS BRAIN FUK AND TTIME CONSUMING.
Anyway... I have time on social life for girlfriend.... But I do not have time to FUKING SLEEEP!!!
armageddonarman 3 months ago
@armageddonarman honestly, study now, even if it takes ages by the time we're in uni we'll know a lot
my mate it 17 and he know EVERYTHING abaout particle physics and I can tell you know that he will join CERN and become very sucessfull, why? because he has interest in theoreticle physics
if you like nuc phys, stick with it, but of course dont get consumed
:P
TheWoWRevelation 2 months ago
@TheWoWRevelation yeah... I study hard and also plan to join CERN ;) Buy the way: I'm from Kazakhstan, 1st Uranium exporter in the world :D So nuclear engineering is very demanded ;)
armageddonarman 2 months ago
@armageddonarman well good luck! i like QED myself :P
TheWoWRevelation 2 months ago
@armageddonarman Disregard bitches, acquire knowledge
khaghgoo 2 months ago
@khaghgoo what do you mean?
armageddonarman 2 months ago
@armageddonarman You only have time for 2 of the 3 S's. Sleep, Socialize, and Study. Pick your 2.
t5e2 1 month ago
wut meson?
emotsm5185 3 months ago
1 attometre (am) is approximately the upper limit of the size of quarks and electrons ! ^^
GenyaArikado 3 months ago
lol strange charm.
ben1996123 4 months ago
My brain hurts
ExodusCalling 4 months ago
the future of quarks is string theory.
Psalm789 5 months ago
The irony
lightitupfool 5 months ago
Woudn't the 'antiup' quark just be a down?
you know, antiup, opposite of up=down.
CertifiedBad4ss 5 months ago
@CertifiedBad4ss it's dealing with anti-matter, a different quality; akin to a mirror reflection of an object, rather than an object being turned upside down.
PrinceZappa 5 months ago
just watch this
/watch?v=U0kXkWXSXRA&feature=mh_lolz&list=FLx8WdsK15zbY
your welcome
thestarwarsfan12345 6 months ago
wheres part 1?
nuttnice187 6 months ago
i like this
legomyeggo123 6 months ago
nice dude
BEmuslimBE 6 months ago
nice,today my sir taught about this
saikumar650 7 months ago 6
Holy fuck! I need someone to explain that second half to me about the neutrinos
ChinaRuler 7 months ago
Hey, I smell money here! Where is the Quark diet or the neutrino detox?
glytzhkof 7 months ago
"Normal matter." Which is, interestingly enough, the minority of stuff in our universe.
MetalSpiral 8 months ago
Yes! Do what snake47810 said!
tabbykatification 8 months ago
I've got a question though:
If an Electron and a Positron collide, why is it unsure if there are photons bursting out from that... or other particles might as well?
Is there any way to tell?
TheDigitalStone 8 months ago
@TheDigitalStone If an electron and positron collide they annihalate completely and the result is gamma radiation (photons). You calculate the energy given off using e=mc^2. One electron and positron therefore release energy equal to two electron masses multiplied by the speed of light squared.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 Thanks for responding.
But what i meant was the last sentence of the video where he said:
"If a particle collides with it's corresponding anti-particle, then they would annihalate. The resulting pulse of energy may be emitted as photons or converted into other particles.".
Notice the word "or" in there.
Essentially it says that it can convert into *any* particle.
Why isolate one particle (photon in this case) and then tell that the other particles can also be the outcome just as well?
TheDigitalStone 7 months ago
@TheDigitalStone Think of a photon as a force carrier [called a gauge boson] rather than a particle. Another gauge boson is the gluon, so called because it carries the force that holds quarks together in the proton or neutron.
It is only at very high energy annihalations that other [ exotic and short lived ] particles are created and these are often observed to decay very quickly through stages to some combination of electron and neutrino.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 I think i see what my problem was.
I thought of a photon as a solid particle only.
Now i have again questions about this new knowledge, but i will search myself for how photons work.
I get the rest of your explanation.
Thanks for your time :)
TheDigitalStone 7 months ago
@TheDigitalStone I would not get stuck on the idea of any particle as being solid. Atoms have protons, protons have quarks, quarks have ??.
But yes, photons and gluons are a different beast.
Start by googling "the standard model" and get a handle on what the different particle groups are. Have fun.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 quarks we think is made by "strings" considering em, or string theory
AceArcaner 7 months ago
@AceArcaner And electrons?
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1 ... yes those as well.
AceArcaner 6 months ago
@AceArcaner A nice idea but we shall have to wait for the maths to become physics before we know.
Huttate1 6 months ago
OH! now I understand! XD
Animeguy208 9 months ago
song .... song .. song .. song
323dj 9 months ago
@323dj : the song is "Come Home" by Findlay Brown.
1987ojazzwi 7 months ago
wats tte song at the end of the video?
323dj 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@323dj : The song is - Come home by Findlay Brown
1987ojazzwi 7 months ago
Gotta love subatomic particles. :) seriously though, I love science and learning about it all.
Soc245 9 months ago
Hmm, what's that song at the beginning. Sounds familiar.
13Klevis 9 months ago
@13Klevis ya sounds familiar .. did u get to know where its from?
323dj 8 months ago
@13Klevis : The song is - Come home by Findlay Brown
1987ojazzwi 7 months ago
now look up the song strange charm by hank green
--DFTBA!~
snake48710 9 months ago
You explained this better than my physics teacher did in a whole term even though you went through it really fast :P
Jiminibobster 9 months ago
This is only simple if you already know it. -.-
therealjordiano 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it was very simple thank you
SunnyShawFilms 10 months ago
I will understand one day.
rickitickidicki 10 months ago
love the cheeky way he says "only ofcourse it collides with its antiparticle..." aaah but thanks that gave me better insight.
dtm876 10 months ago
lost you at 0:12 "the"
harvard7089 10 months ago
How the hell people find this math, I solute them lol.
iPlayWithPhysics 10 months ago
Can't see the size of it, Quakes is 10^-how much?>
iPlayWithPhysics 10 months ago
spell check fail
MorrisonEnterprise 11 months ago
Why would anyone want to create such an abstruce and complicated theory around the atom that students have a difficult time digesting when the atom is actually a very simple weave of energies?
Atoms are made up of weaves of energies that come by way of conduits of families of frequencies that are cut off at the end of a cycle of evolution and leave an energy field of EMERs which serves to bind to other atom's weaves and produce molecules. Intricic lattices of matter can be synthezised.
jqs1943 11 months ago
Protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, positrons, quarks, leptons, byrons mesons, pions, kaons, gluons, valence orbits, energy levels, electrons spinning arround the nucleos at 5 million orbit per second. COME ON PEOPLE, LET'S BE REAL!
An atom measures an average of 9 quintillionths of one millimeter and they are produced from the weave of frequencies within a cycle of evolution that can last slightly less or more than one second.
Different arrays of frequencies produces variable weaves.
jqs1943 11 months ago
hooray for science!
ericon52168 11 months ago
fuck off!
MrMadness87 11 months ago
every time we discover a new form (smaller) OF evergy, we say its the smallest, til we discover a smaller form. thre is no end, they shouldnt say smallest, there is no smallest. there is quarks, then if u break those up into neg. and pos charges, smaller energy. an atom is like the number 1. there is no end to deviding it. there is less visable number, such as 1 to the neg. 9th to the posotive 9th power. but there is always, 1 to the neg. 10th to pos. 10th pwr. Ther4 there is alwys smllr energy.
iMedAndMore 1 year ago
@iMedAndMore . René Descartes (who didnt believe in "final' or basic structural uni) , said , on XVI century, that space doesnt really exists, because where is extension, there is ( at least) the possibility of space division.Sleep with all that Jazz
miguelmouta 11 months ago
@miguelmouta thats not what im talking about. and space is relative, its not there. there4, it cant be wrong or right. said by Albert E.
iMedAndMore 11 months ago
@iMedAndMore We are talking the same thing. And from the redundancy born on yout conclusion, we begin to
tear a fractal of paradoxes quarrel. WE ARE DESCRIBING THE SAME ELEPHANT.
miguelmouta 11 months ago
whats the song at starting of the video?
323dj 1 year ago
whats the song at the starting of the vid?
323dj 1 year ago
yo this guys voice put me to sleep -_________-
saqiewenny 1 year ago
it makes sense but how do we put this into practical use...like if we were using chemistry to make a product? and will the possibility of these quarks being duplicated by humans get us closer to the next step?? building new alloy elements such as a making water that can burn for energy at a productive rate.? its exciting none the less
TheRhayden 1 year ago
Hey I got this interesting thing here. Is it possible to make a uuu baryon? If yes, then it's cool because it will have a +2 charge in one particle (2/3 + 2/3 + 2/3 = 2). Could they form atoms? Like 2 electrons would spin around it to obtain octet.
Another interesting thing - three down quarks = -1 charge baryon. Is it possible to form an atomt-ype particle of those when there are these minus charge baryons in the nucleus and positrons spinning around them? Would they annihilate? Or be stable?
Mostwantedo 1 year ago
Thankyou for this. It's very clear. Made a lot of sense. <:3D~
alfiestoppani 1 year ago
This is As level stuff
brutalfool 1 year ago
-2/3, +1/3 anti
death2opposeme 1 year ago
Hey, I'm getting it! :D
MarkArandjus 1 year ago 28
@MarkArandjus
So you're saying you understand quantum theory? Wouldn't that mean that you don't understand quantum theory?
eshnajizzle 5 months ago
@eshnajizzle I'm understanding the theory being explained in this video, that's all I said.
MarkArandjus 4 months ago
@MarkArandjus
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -Richard Feynman
Just making a joke on a well known quote... =)
eshnajizzle 4 months ago
@jonnaSKATE If you can't follow this you're a bit thick. There's no calculations or anything difficult in this, just names of things with no actual information about them.
9hello123 1 year ago
the information in this video is like making me eat something that I like in increasingly larger quantities while asking me to do that in a decreasingly small amount of time...
dilibau 1 year ago
I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!! SO GOD DID IT!!!!
IlovemyGlock21 1 year ago
@IlovemyGlock21 - Just kidding..... LOL
IlovemyGlock21 1 year ago
i wonder how far it goes what makes up quarks and what makes up that and so on
smithr24680 1 year ago 6
@smithr24680 quarks are made up of energy, energy isn't made up of anything.
9hello123 1 year ago
@smithr24680
the edge pf the universe, galaxies and solar systems :)
tougenokaibutsu 5 months ago
@smithr24680 Well probably nothing, which is why we call them elementary particles.
Ichvyenichalster 4 months ago
@Ichvyenichalster You can't be sure of that. Atoms were called elementary particles not too long ago.
Aviatorsmith 4 months ago
@Aviatorsmith Yeah, that's why I said probably. I certainly agree that we shouldn't be too sure of our selves, but based on how complete the physical model looks when these particles are elementary, the chances are pretty good that they cannot be broken down. But that doesnt say we've found it all, because there are several elementary particles missing from the model we have yet to find I'm sure.
Ichvyenichalster 4 months ago
@smithr24680 ................ maybe there made up of energy and strings and maybe even extra hidden dimensions did u know that it could go on till infinite there is no such thing as the smallest thing cuz it could keep on going forever!!
6043231041 4 months ago
@6043231041 no.....you got to accept something came from nowhere, cause everything has to come with some first thing, and where did that first thing came from......its a headache, where did the big bang come from....i say that 2 universes collide with each other and form a new universe with similar things of both universe, like a child with a mom and a dad, but if those universes came from the same things, where did the first universe came from...haha its a puzzle we will never be able to solve
XxThEfCkxX 4 months ago
@XxThEfCkxX ....... u talking about the multiverse theory....dude this has nothing to do with parallel universes...wtf......did u know if a quark was the size of the sun....then a string would be the size of a tiny grain of sand!!!
6043231041 4 months ago
@smithr24680
quarks are made of preons. i think.
ben1996123 4 months ago
I think quite the opposite- Hank's video was intresting, but I wanted to understand it deeper, so I came here. (: This is the kind of thing I'm intrested in learning anyway.
Chocohall 1 year ago
All I had to hear was Positron and annihilate and instantly I think of transformers.
candiedbones 1 year ago
quarks I kinda get, but leptons are to confusing
pokecon14 1 year ago
to the 43 who has hands up for 8DX, please think...
ModernFuturism 1 year ago
I understood this and I am 12. :) It helps if you watch Hank Green's video, because it makes it simpler.
tabbykatification 1 year ago
the Vlogbrothers made a song for it! its great.
TeamxAlpha 1 year ago
Thanks, this is really helpful!
theXylinder 1 year ago
nice video.
LUXITANIE 1 year ago
Okay, now I understand Hank Green's song "Strange Charm" a bit better. I thought when he was saying "Oh, Up, Diwn, Strange, Charm, Top, Bottom" that he was just saying random words to fill in the gap.
balletrules101 1 year ago
The anti up and down quarks are just as stable as their matter counterparts.
bphysicsguy 1 year ago
Why the hell did i chose molecular biology instead of nuclear physics?
I love physics so mutch, kidding i love biology too :P
chrisgeorgakis 1 year ago
Er, what the hell did I just watch?!
LightmanTruth 1 year ago
GOD,......and this is for beginners???
stevebenbob 1 year ago 41
@stevebenbob Or just a simplified version of it, the way that fits best for you. Think about it, he didn't went to indept the topic, he just mentioned some names and facts, which by themselves, make a lot of sense.
W4R 1 year ago
@stevebenbob yeah man jeez, good thing didnt take uni physics.
REALSLIK 1 year ago
@stevebenbob Well I'm 15 and I understood MOST of it.
I still need to research a bit more of mu + tau particles, leptons, and some others
xseb5x 11 months ago
@stevebenbob i'm brazilian, and I understood all, lol
KillerFuckinJuice 9 months ago
@KillerFuckinJuice Who cares what's your nationality.
Gytax0 9 months ago
thank you so much!! this video helped me so very much for my research paper!
DGianB7 1 year ago
love the accent
jessjess240 1 year ago
he says "quarks" like "quooaaaurks"
stumpyman101 1 year ago
so the image of atom we have been shown as a sphere is not what it really looks like ? if we can become the size of atom would we see those three quarks juggling around ?? instead of sphere ?
or would we see something even smaller ?
Canihazcheezburgerz 1 year ago
@Canihazcheezburgerz If you were the size of an atom you would not see a quark at all.
Let's swap it around and make a Hydrogen atom 2 metres across. The proton in the centre is now 1/100th of a millimetre across. The electron is 1000 times smaller than the proton and orbiting at a distance of about 500 metres.
The figures can be argued about - but I hope you get the idea.
And of course none of them exist except as our interpretation of what is going on. A quark is as real as fog.
periwest 1 year ago
@periwest i meant if i were the size of proton then i would see quarks in my very eyes.
Canihazcheezburgerz 1 year ago
@Canihazcheezburgerz We do not consider quarks to have size. Do not think in terms of particles. At the quantum level it is better to think of energy and forces interacting. We only use 'particle' in lieu of a better label. Were you able to zoom in it would be interacting energy you see - not tiny particles.
A proton is not a particle. It is composed of three quarks and their interacting forces. A proton's size is really the field of interaction of the forces and energies within it.
periwest 1 year ago
I think he should also have mentioned supersymmetry! ...just to confuse the viewers a little bit more ;)
HubertCumberdale22 1 year ago
Again I see the electron described as a fundamental particle. However it appears during beta decay of a neutron, which consists of 3 quarks. So there is nothing fundamental about an electron, is there?
periwest 1 year ago
@periwest Fundamental just means it isn't made up of any other pieces, I don't understand what you're saying.
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto What part of a neutron (3 quarks) turning into an electron [plus] proving that an electron is made up of something smaller do you not understand?
And of course a top quark decaying into a bottom quark [plus] proves that quarks too are not fundamental.
Or is that not clear?
fleas have smaller fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And smaller fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
periwest 1 year ago
@periwest No need to get snarky, asshole. All you could prove is that the NEUTRON was made up of different bits, not the electron.
And there is NOTHING which states that fundamental particles cannot decay into other particles. There is a gauge boson. a mediator, involved. Also, fundamental particles don't "break up" into their constituents, because they have no constituents. When they decay, BRAND NEW particles emerge. What part of that do YOU not understand?
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
Comment removed
periwest 1 year ago
@Juxtaroberto You kiss your children goodnight with that mouth?
periwest 1 year ago
@periwest Congratulations on completely ignoring what I said. I'm glad you realized you were wrong, but it'd be better to apologize for being a cyberdouche instead of changing the conversation to speculation as to whether or not I have children (I don't).
Juxtaroberto 1 year ago
@periwest fundamental means it's not made up of any smaller matter, which it isn't.
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 What a strange thing to say! Until very recently 'we' thought the atom was indivisible. We know better now and I would doubt there is any sober physicist who would state that the electron is indivisible. Science continually shows us more in both directions. I would suggest that our continued confusion over gravity and attempts at shoehorning theories utilising multiple dimensions point to the fact that there are levels below what we can currently see.
periwest 1 year ago
@periwest Until very recently we didn't know if the atom was indivisible and had no way to test if it was and physicists didn't say one way or the other what it could be broke down into. Now we do have the technology to thanks to de broglie and einstein and every time we have tested if the quarks and leptons can be broken down the results have came back that we can't.
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 You obviously see different results than I do. If you can explain beta decay [for example] without resorting to smoke and mirrors and without conceding that something is going on at a sub-quark level then you will convince me. Otherwise you are determining that quarks spontaneously convert into quarks of another flavour. I would suggest that quarks being composed of something else would much better explain their behaviour and interaction.
periwest 1 year ago
@periwest What does beta decay have to do with anything? A high energy, unstable neutron loses energy by transforming a down quark into an up quark and emits an electron and electron antineutrino to balance the charge and lepton number.
That has absolutely nothing to do with how fundamental an electron is.
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 "transforming a down quark into an up quark" Is smoke and mirrors! Surely you can see that. You cannot have both quarks as fundamental particles and then have them being destroyed and created during an event.
periwest 1 year ago
@periwest You are joking right? Have you took a physics class?
The down quark is destroyed into pure energy and then recreated as an up quark, please atleast no the absolute basics (E=mc^2) before bothering to argue about something you know nothing about.
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 "Have I[ took] a physics class" !!! "At least [no] the absolute basics" !!! I think I am ahead of you on the basics by evidence of your reply, and I would suggest that pitting your qualifications against mine will only see you embarrassed. So a down quark becomes pure energy and an up quark is created from pure energy? No smoke and mirrors at all there then!
periwest 1 year ago
@periwest Sorry I forgot I'm typing in an essay and not on the internet. Oh wait!
Please. Matter becoming pure energy is the absolute basics of physics, you can't pretend to understand anything in physics if you say that matter and pure energy aren't equivalent.
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 You have answered your own question. Now if you can just think outside the text book you will see the obvious extension of what you have stated.
periwest 1 year ago
@periwest I didn't have a question. Unless of course you mean I answered your question.
9hello123 1 year ago
@ATBisthebest1 That's why it's called quarks and leptons for beginners I guess. At least he did mention the photon, it's the boson everyone loves.
As for gravitons... well, you can't be sure they even exist now can you?
noxure 1 year ago
wow... Americans are really smart.......
I love to all the particle in the universe.....
even the gravity....
genericboy888 1 year ago
Hardly "for beginners". Not much in the way of explanations, but a good basic outline.
Techroach 1 year ago
@Techroach
well when it says "for begginers" it means for people who have already studied physics enough to even chance at comprehending these fundimental particles, besides, thats about as simple as you can possibly make quarks and leptons
MAGNUMandBARRETTA 1 year ago
wait what...
rathat48 1 year ago
i like up and down
jmm1233 1 year ago
DAMMIT, what's the name of the song? anyone?
DragonCuber 1 year ago
Why do they persist in defining fundamental particles?
A free neutron undergoes beta decay. fact!
i.e. The Neutron - consisting up 1 up and 2 down quarks (fundamental particles!) decays into A Proton - consisting of 2 down and 1 up quarks, plus an electron, plus an electron anti-neutrino
QED something supposedly comprising three fundamental particles changes by one of thosefundamental particles disappearing and being replaced by three new fundamental particles.
periwest 1 year ago
so
quarks are made of future?
errr
twisterfield651 1 year ago
@twisterfield651 you must believe in god...
adamtheskunk 1 year ago
@adamtheskunk
no im an atheist
twisterfield651 1 year ago
what about bosons??????????????????
xbakano 1 year ago
@xbakano Mesons consisting of 1 quark and 1 antiquark are bosons (because they can have spin either 0 or 1)...A meson is for example the Kaon, or the most renowned pion...During the first days of nuclear physics it was believed that the mesons(pions) were the mediators of strong force. Afterwards came the idea of gluons which is more foundamental.
Generally put the elementary particles are devided into Bosons(spin=0,1,2,3...) and Fermions(spin=1/2,3/2,5/2,...). Fermions interact with the fields
MorgothResurrection 1 year ago
@xbakano ...they create and bosons are the particles that mediate the fields. So for example electrons are the fermions, and interact with the Electromagnetic field they create, by exchanging photons which are the bosons of the electromagnetic force.
So we have the flavor(quarks or leptons) charge that interacts by weak force(W or Z bosons), colours(quarks) that interact with strong force(gluons), gravity (mass) that interacts by graviational force(Graviton) and electric charges using phtons.
MorgothResurrection 1 year ago
Thank you for the short and well explained video
haxor98 1 year ago
wow, can we just settle on the idea that everything is made out of strings?
sayno94 1 year ago
WHY THE FUCK ARE QUARKS NAMED LIKE THAT??
rufus1690 1 year ago
Thanks this helped a lot. :)
jexx10 1 year ago
Are they teaching this stuff in school? Or are they too busy teaching kids political correctness and how to feel good about themselves?
luno44 1 year ago
@luno44 So true. In Britain it is taught in A-Level Physics (16-18), but almost all the interesting stuff has been dropped from the syllabus at lower levels.
DolphinLover381 1 year ago
Some scientist think there could be a googol quarks in the universe
faithie70 1 year ago
so one of the primary mission of CERN is to find the HIGGS fields and the particle that has mass. but where did the first 2 original protons come from that collided to create the universe?
sharmadiwakar1982 1 year ago
well it got eplained as far as i'd already know :p
TheRolemodel1337 1 year ago
this is TOTALLY wrong, god revealed to me the contents of the atom. they are full of jelons and quillens.
this guy is a noob.
mikesomething 1 year ago
that's really clever...and very well explained. thanks very much. i've always been curious about this but never concentrated on sciences in school. Now I understand much more.
NothingDefamatory 1 year ago
What about Pelosium...the densest matter in the universe.
thisucks2 1 year ago
@thisucks2 i tthought the densest matter yet discovered was Palin-ium... smells fishy, and is highly unstable...
jeebersjumpincryst 1 year ago 9
@jeebersjumpincryst i lol'd (out loud)
DrLsw 1 year ago
what mke up quarks? neutrinos?
matataka 1 year ago
very nice
kbr2001 1 year ago
if 3 quarks balls make a proton / neutron they wont be exactly round right? like it will just be like putting 3 soccer balls side by side?
44USELESS44 1 year ago
little question
how does the neutron turns into a proton
neutron = 1 quark up + 2 down = charge 0
proton = 2 quarks + 1 down = +1 (positive charge)
but when a neutron turns into a proton it gives up a part of its negative charge so that would be 1 quark up and 1 down = + 1/3 thats impossible is it?
strass59 1 year ago
Wow I learned something and I didn't have to take all the math classes required to take an introductory physics class.
atmatheprophet 1 year ago
I'm confused.
Sidowse 1 year ago
Thansk for the very imformative video, this helps with my physics.
iceblitzyt 1 year ago
trhx for the upload
Cunelito 1 year ago
You say "Meson" in a funny way (':
Suziessoliloquy 2 years ago
charm quarks are also stable
Uglefaen 2 years ago
AAAAAAAAAARGH
*brain explodes*
8DX 2 years ago 48
@8DX Hahahahahaha!!!
heroalif 1 year ago
@8DX Do people genuinely find this difficult? It's got virtually no information in it at all.
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 I just rewatched the video(s)... YES they fuckin' do! When someone says "oh you have this particle that behaves like this, but there's some more fuckin' particles and these other ones behave different, but then there's some MORE and they're unstable (because they're anti) and then you have some more particles which are anti, but stable...
ordinary people DON'T understand this I tried and I'll try again many times... but this is