YES! Albert Einstein said “I have spent my life studying them and yet I do not know what a photon is.”.

well maybe more people would take interest if electron weren't so negative all the time (I'm so sorry)

@@ACSReactions Just needs to break out of their shell.

Maybe I'm wrong and I don't understand something, but isn't it really an electron with a "positive" charge and a positron with a "negative" charge (or vice versa) and we made up a story about a sad electron for easier math 🤔

@@Hecarim420 what??

@@Hecarim420 no. Maybe lay off the 420.

The URLs in the comment have an extra ")" at the end each

Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: : "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damned good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.

Yeah, but what _is_ an electron.

Thank you. Suddenly the Pauli exclusion principle made a little more sense to me than before. And I just realized that this is also why quantum tunneling is occasionally possible. Right? When their probability waves overlap they cancel out each other. But there's still some tiny probability that one particle will if sufficiently close to the other to suddenly end up existing on the other side of it. As if it had tunneled through it.

Tunneling is actually slightly even simpler, as it is wholely explained with only one particle. A summary is that before observing an electron, it's wave function is never bounded in space. It extends everywhere just with vanishingly small amplitude. That means an electron you're working with here, may even turn up in the Andromeda galaxy in the next moment. (Things are a lot complicated since there's only one electron field of which all the electrons between here and there are purturbations, but let's for the moment imagine an universe with a single electron.) So when we place a barrier of some sort, the wave function never vanishes on the other side. The barrier just causes it to decay very quickly (exponentially wrt width of the barrier). This results in every once in a while when we make an observation to localize the electron, it appearing on the other side of the barrier - since the wave function can collapse anywhere it exists (albeit with different probabilities). A crucial thing to note when comparing with Paul's exclusion principle, is that the joint wave function is actually zero for us to find the two electrons there on top of each other - i.e. that will never happen. Whereas, for tunneling, it's never zero, it's just small in magnitude.

😞

@@denissemedina6023real

Glad you like him!

Really, I want more videos with him.

Firstly, I have no idea. But, if I were to guess... It has mass, so it must occupy some physical space, even if that space is a point of zero volume. So, it follows that it must have some mass density. But, it is also a quantum partical... So it will have a wave function defining it's position within a given region of space, or volume. I'd guess that if you were to integrate the probability of finding the electron across all points in that region you would have your volume to divide your mass by to find it's density. That also means that if you were to scale its density by the probability of finding the electron in a given position within space, and then add all of those up you would have it's mass.

Thou shalt not divide by zero.

The elementary particle mass density in [kg.m^-3] is estimated by m^4.{1/[pi^2.(b/a)^2.2.( htrans/c)^3] } ~ ~ m^4[kg^4].1E129[kg^-3.m^-3] It is ~ 5.E8[kg.m^-3] for electron and ~1.7E98 [kg.m^-3] for Planck mass elementary paticle. The parameter (b/a) is close to 0.039...for electron. And in first approximation it is supposed to be constant. More on Research Gate.

Space Time sent me too.

Same O/

Sorry, Uncle Habib shares his recipe with no one

First step is to create an universe.

Oh--we know.

@@ACSReactions Just to be clear... I thought it was an excellent review and the right place to stop before going down the "it may even be in two places at the same time, kinda!" quantum rabbit hole :)

Electrons are what you feel in your heart.

@@ACSReactions maybe the real electrons are the friends we made along the way

Well, I did write code to generate an antipromise.

What does " in the quantum electron field " add to the definition? You're defining the term by using the term. Can we just say it's a measure (value) of energy?

@@EarlLedden Quantum field theory explains things and maybe simplifies the account, into the bargain.

No, higher orbitals can have more than 2 electrons. This doesn't violate the Pauli exclusion principle though. It has to do with sub-orbitals. Each orbital is consisted of multiple sub-orbitals, each sub-orbital can have up to 2 electrons, with up and down spin. The first orbital has only one sub-orbital, thus it can only hold a maximum of 2 electrons. The second orbital though has 4 sub-orbitals, thus it can hold up to 8 electrons.

I just farted a huge cloud of electrons....

Except that it's a quantum, not an object. The difference is that objects have identity. Quanta only have a count.

Photons don't have rest mass, but they do have energy, and energy is mass for purposes of gravity.

An electron is a quantum of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges (one electric, one leptonic).

Pauli exclusion . It’s someone’s name. Also, cool point.

@@drdca8263 Ahh right, forgot that, thanks for the correction.

LOL

I think in his analogy the book is also made from photons

Photons aren’t so much reflected off a surface but absorbed by it and emitted back from the atoms absorbing the photon’s energy

Ever heard of then Planck length? It’s only infinite in a philosophical sense of infinitely dividing things in half or something.

Conservation of energy. It takes twice as much energy to cook two potatoes as to cook one.