Now I know how the dog watching TV feels.

dr lincoln i hope you read this because i want you to know that i love you and you are awesome !

I think you should start including links to where to buy your T-shirts!

Thanks Dr. Don for your teaching style (Humility) which allows mere mortals to glimpse His mind. When any subject is studied at the limits of our knowledge, our choice is always humility or frustration, working out the puzzle of apparent contradictions. Thanks for your all your Videos.

I don't have physics classes anymore, and even then these topics weren't covered, but dr Don, you have a special spot in my heart!

This is the best explanation of the weak force I have ever found

I love these videos so much. They're just not LONG ENOUGH.

This is such an excellent channel, I am proud that my tax dollars go toward this.

It feels good when you finally get to learn something new about quantum physics. The weak force is so wonderfully weird.

To Dr. Lincoln; Thank You! With your series, I haved learned more about particle reaction.

Brilliant video! An excellent way of connecting the concepts of the videos that you have created. Well done!

Even though I'm a mathematician, I love the qualitative explanations. I've seen some good videos on how magnetism is a relativistic force and essentially the same thing as the electric force. Is it possible to explain the unification with the weak force in such a qualitative way? I would love to "understand" how that works.

Excellent video Dr. all your work I find super interesting, engaging and very well explained. Thank you.

Really cool videos, Dr. Lincoln...!!!!... keep up the fantastic work!!!😇😇👍🏻👍🏻

I liked his honesty as he accepts what he doesn't know... Thanks sir

THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!

More of the weak force, please.

Nice narration sir, Thank you,

Doc Lincoln, you 'da best!

Wonderful lecture

It might be helpful to explain charge conservation by stating that the W boson has a charge. Most people might already know this or infer it from the video, but I had to quickly google it. Hopefully I didn't miss you explaining it in the video. Thanks for making this content!

Talking about fundamental force, what would be required to prove or disprove the existence of Graviton particles?

t-shirt and blazer combo is undefeated

Dr Lincoln, will there be a video about the electroweak force above the unification energy?

♫ Quantumquantumquantumquantumquantum chameeee-le-oooon! ♫

Flavor changing property of weak interactions is indeed interesting and probably have to do something with the fundamental property of the quantum field that produce virtual particles.

Given that Z0 and W+/W- appear to have somewhat different properties, should there be two weak forces, not one?

excellent!!

Force (physics) does not exist physically in the same way that an object with mass, thus making it “not” the initial cause of pushing, pulling, shaping objects, motion, work or being a Vector Quantity (Magnitude + Direction). In physics, the word, “Force” as we know it, turns out to be nothing more than an expression to express an idea, like one would use the word “Love” to express one's feelings. But, physics and in mathematics, still use “Force” as thou it were something physical that could enable the initial cause of motion making it counterintuitive. Example: Without applying the Energy from within you, choose an object of your choices to push and pull by simply applying “only” the Force or Net Force. Meaning that Energy (applied energy) is the origin of motion and not “Force”. Once Energy (E) is applied, it creates what is known as Momentum (p). When this Momentum (object in motion) comes in contact with another object(s), it makes a surface contact that will enable you to push and pull. Example: Ep=ma, Ep=mv and so on. Note: Ep is not to be confused as Kinetic Energy in any way. Momentum represents things like work, wave, gravity, light, lightning, tsunami, earthquake, current, electricity, motion, magnetism, hurricane, etc. Without Energy, there is no Momentum. Without Momentum, there is no surface contact on an object(s) to push, pull, work, shaping objects, motion, etc. Momentum does not and cannot exist without the applied Energy that creates it. Energy and Momentum or “Ep” is the one and only common denominator that links all fundamental forces of nature. Without Ep, all fundamental forces of nature would be inert and non-existence. Energy is energy, but it’s when Energy (E) is being applied that creates the Momentum (p) making it the initial cause of motion. Example: Ep. By applying the right amount of Energy, nothing is immovable or unstoppable. ~ Guadalupe Guerra

Love your shirt!

I see Don. I like.

Could you make a video on the new particles that the Large Hadron Collider beauty experiment discovered?

These Fermilab videos are great, and very much appreciated. But hearing "zee" for z (zed) takes some getting used to. So it goes.

AT 6:09, these pictures seem to have a lot of information within them, do they repeat exactly in detail and when a v.p. changes might it also retain its information before said change along with its new description?

I was already planning on going into particle physics but now I have a goal Study the weak nuclear force and name an interaction flavour blasting

Does the W boson having charge have anything to do with quark changing flavor from top to bottom?

Don't ever stop making videos. For the sake of science.

are there any other physics newbies that love watching these videos? I'm not even in undergrad yet (I start in the fall) but I love trying to learn more about the universe

[01:01] plus, technically, also the pion for the "residual strong force" e.g. proton collisions; [02:59] emission of a Z⁰-particle is curious as the Z⁰ is the third-option in electron-positron collision {γ-ray pair, ν anti-pair, Z⁰ single (assuming reversibility of Z⁰ decay→e⁻+e⁺)}; [03:09] emission of W⁺/W⁻ looks curious too-Do t-particles cycle t→b→c→{s/d}→...

so the colour of the quark doesnt change when it emits a photon y? When does the spin change?

One of my persistent problems along these lines is this: In the first example with the top-quark decay, if the top quark has any finite mass it will be traveling at less than the speed of light; therefore is has a rest frame. So I place myself in that frame. Now I see the top quark spontaneously emit a photon and then travel away. But the top quark hasn't changed, it still has the same characteristics. So apparently energy has been created from nothing. Dr. Lincon says to ignore this? I find it hard to do that. Does the top quark has excited and unexcited states? Does the top quark just go on through life, admittedly a short one, emitting a continuous series of photon's and changing direction and speed?

Is there a place we can go to find a list of these lectures in chronological order so that we can follow these in a chronological order? Thanks.

what causes weak interaction to change quark flavor in radioactive nuclei, and why it is not happening in non radioactive nuclei.

How can the top quark emit a photon without changing its state in some way? That seems to violate energy conservation...

neither bright nor young ... still enjoying your videos, though

Why would a quark bother with emitting bosons? Why doesn't it just stay as it is? Why does a proton bother to change into a neutron? Energy states of electrons in an atom I understand and the subsequent emission of photons make sense. So do the fermions also have energy states?

Yeah, right! I wish I was up to the challenge. Maybe in another life. 😎

So what use is the Z boson? Seems like a fancy photon.

May I ask the fate of the emitted boson? Do they decay or do they hang about?

Can an electronic decay by the w bozon and transform to an electron neutrino?

Thank you Doc ! (fascinating material)

If it's so unlikely to produce the W or Z bosons then how does it become "a certainty" when a neutron leaves the nucleus? An unbound neutron has a half-life of just 10.3 minutes.

question: can the double slit experiment be performed in a cloud chamber with the particles that form the trails? if the cloud chamber is off is there interference?

What if a W boson slams into a quark? Can they fuse? Into what?

but... don't the quarks have different masses? what about energy conservation? and how can a top quark be discovered individually, while it has a color charge?

Why are Weak interactions classified as a force? I have seen snippets about a Weak potential function, but no concrete explanation. What two particles experience a force (attractive or repulsive or even lateral) when W-bosons are exchanged? Separately, is a W- the anti-particle of a W+ boson?

I still think space is moving and relativity influences that, resulting in empty space (slow moving) and (apparent) solid particles (fast moving). The movement is some sort of spin, resulting in patterns/structure forming with properties we observe. gravity magnetism.

Because so little is being told about Z-Bosons, I tried to do a bit of online research to find out if there are any important reactions with them. The only one I think I can think of is in supernovae where neutrinos help to jumpstart the explosion. Can anybody confirm this (that these are indeed Z-Boson interactions) or tell of other important Z-Boson reactions?

Where do I find those T-shirts???

So what's the importance of monopoles to string theory?

Wait; the exception made for W bosons exists for what reason? -- and I am attempting to appreciate the charge. Almost certainly unwisely, I make habit of incorporating the pauli exclusion principle and how it relates to spin, into anything new learnt of physics, this despite an admittedly tenuous grasp.

So whar is the Z boson good for. What does it do?

One of your contemporary physicists on YT, David Butler, referred to electrons as a standing wave, rather than orbiting the nucleus. How would an electron shell hold position as a standing wave in a spherical form? Would all free electrons exhibit this behavior if stripped from their nuclei in a larger volume of matter?

5:42- that means quak t to b or c to s are forbidden but not t to c which have the same charge, b ut Not in pair.

At the end, you state that quarks come in matched pairs and that FCNC is forbidden (5:40). How come a bottom quark can change to a charm quark then (3:40)? Is it allowed for a quark to change into another quark that it is not in matched pair with? How come FCNC isn't possible then?

So where does the energy needed to make a photon come from if the particle does not change? :/

Just in case someone else is wondering what his shirt says, "It's All Fun And Games Until Someone Divides By Zero" Hahahahahaha!

I imagine the scientist creating those names: "You know what? Since I'm the first, I will name this property the 'flavor of the quarq' and everybody after me will have to repeat this in public, this will be great!".

Why is a color change considered the "same" particle with a different color, but a flavor change considered an entirely different particle, instead of "the same particle with a different flavor"? Are flavor and color fundamentally different or is that just convention?

Challenge accepted!

can an electron neutrino turn into an electron and emit a W boson?

Quantum flavor dynamics!!!

Dear Sir: I believe you made a video mentioning the odd fact that there in no antimatter around. Here is a factoid I have not heard mentioned: Why are there the same number of electrons and protons? Brainstorming, based on no actual knowledge... Are there the same number of these 2 charged particles? Is there any evidence that matter we see doesn't have a net charge? Would galaxies look different if they had a non-zero charge? If all particles originated early in time, from a much more energetic environment, and we expect the same number of electrons and anti-electrons, them perhaps there WERE equal numbers. Perhaps they later found one-another and annihilated one-another. Perhaps the electrons we see came from some other process, which resulted in an equal number of positive and negative particles, although not of identical types. Or perhaps antimatter was important in the formation of protons, (and internal charged quarks). So they were consumed while producing an equal number of protons and electrons. I hope there is at least an interesting question in my blathering. Why is there a proton for every electron?

Shouldn't color charge be conserved? 2:18 red=blue+yellow=0???

The math is tough. I never found a QFT book that explains stuff like Griffiths does!

But why does this behaviour make it a "force"? Shouldn't the word force denote a property which is either attractive or repulsive or both?

yea!

It's been three years so nobody will read this, but isn't FCNC impossible because weak isospin is related to electric charge by the weak mixing angle?

Can anyone give any insight as to why the photon and gluon in the simulations follow a spiral-like pattern? I dont feel like this is an arbitrary detail, but rather a principled one.

I truly believe that the weak nuclear force should be called the strong. it was mankind's first real intuition of antimatter.

(?) muon and tau leptons decay into a W boson and a neutrino ... and then .... the W boson decays into ... electron/positron + neutrino ... So two neutrinos are emitted during the breakdown? (??) W boson involved in flavor changes ... but not color changes ... (???) is "flavor" real ... it looks like an excited state ... because it always decays.

neutrinos probably orbit quantum particles like electron does for atom constructions

thats why these quantum particles have particle to emit these smaller sub quantum particles can be magnetically bound to orbit these quantum constructions like an atom

Why does the weak force have to be so vague and confusing!?

Guessing isn't the way to do science, so I'm not going to say it's 3 combinations of 3 states conforming to the wave-particle shape of quanta, (every identity looks like either a neutron or Hydrogen atom bound in some combination of structures), pivoted on harmonics, am I? Not when there are millions of physics students who have the qualifications to elaborate the detail.

Challenge accepted! ...on second thought, maybe not.

But I thought it becomes a down Quark and not a bottom ?

I just want to say that you have about 5 months left to prepare your report on gravity

neutral particles are just balanced electrical charged particles with no dominant charge to measure the other particles that are positive or negative are unbalanced charged , with a dominant charge you measure and a minor opposite charge you can not measure in the particle with your instruments , .666 is the positive quantum mass 1.0 is the negative quantum mass so a neutral particle is a combination of this 3 positive and 2 negative equal a balanced charge in its construction of quantum mass particles of a neutral charges

No challenge there. It's magic. Next?

It's like we know the answer is 42.

I know it's proved by experimentation and everything but dont you feel like the universe works in a different,much simpler, way?

I can SORT OF follow all the quantum physics stuff, but, there comes a point where it just sounds like people chanting "HASTUR HASTUR HASTUR" Like... I'm SURE there's a reason, I just feel like bits are missing, and those bits are incredibly complicated quantum mechanics. (And before you ask, I had to take quantum mechanics in my course work for electrical engineering. Still baffling.)

PBS spacetime said virtual particles really arent real.

Ohhh so now a photon has mass ...

To your surprise, the people who solve these problems in the future must be the laziest people in the universe

Why can't you say "phenomenon?"

If had bright young mind would be up for challenge.

Why can't a bright "old" mind be challenged to solve the flavor-change problem? Actually, I'm one of those old ones, but I don't have the math background plus I'm too busy dealing with more mundane stuff. Maybe I'll have my descendant, AI, work on it.

Googled virtual particles. Now I have stripping leptons on my desktop and I'm pretty sure it's a virus. Thanks anyways.