Yes! It’s the main reason I found this channel. It’s great, I sure hope he keeps going.

I'm impressed by the explanation of the repulsive force of magnetism. I was curious to see the explanation of the attractive force. As expected, no real explanation. To be honest, we know that magnetism still cannot be explained.

This answer is definitely a-lot easier to comprehend and picture inside my head. Especially if you are even somewhat familiar with The Casimir Effect.

What an elegant explanation. Thank you.

​@@brianpj5860right

​@@kevinpotts123exactly

​@blankvision2771dude, frequency just means something that repeats regularly over time.......

Probably the most confusing and abstract part of science to me

Thanks very much. Good to see you again. I need to catch up on a few of your videos too. I'll get on that, I always enjoyed your videos.

​@@LearningCurveScience is there a Soul particles exist?

@@raphaelflores9496no. The magic of life is that the chemistry creates the magic, we are chemical reactions and a soul isn’t something that has or ever will be a scientific fact as it literally is faith which by definition is the absence of knowledge

Actually time (by Einstein) holds it, read in "Unrealistic Einstein and Dogmatic Modern Physics".

Glad you enjoyed it!

yup, thought the same thing - negative charge created valley's, positives give peaks. similar will always add and repel - different will cancel each other out, meaning there is a lack between but not in any other direction - this would push the particles together.

Thank you very much!

Thank you!! 😊 It's good to be back.

You are so kind, thank you

Many thanks!

Glad you liked it!

Thank you! Cheers!

Thank you.

I'm glad you approve.

Correct answer this is.

Thank you very much.

Good I'm glad you enjoyed the video.

Time itself is a man made construction. Or at least our version of time. But since the universe can't say what time it runs on, we humans just assume it lines up with our idea of time.

if all of the universe was slowed down then was really anything slowed down?

@@Cookiekopter Great comment! I'm going to add on that, but a little less succinctly. 😁 To know if time itself was "slower" or "faster" accross the entire universe at a given point in time one would need to have an external frame of reference to compare that to. When taking the whole universe into account, there is no external frame of reference other than "outside the frame of the entire universe". To put it another way, in order to even notice this effect, one would need to have a clock to compare to that exists outside the universe. And it would only be in that frame that anyone could know if things ran "faster" or "slower" in the universe relative to their extra-universal clock. It would only be in this external frame that the relative speed of time in the entire universe has any meaning.

Thank you. You make an excellent point. I sometimes gloss over things if I can't find explanations that are easy to use. Apologies.

I'm kind of with you on that one, however I think that for some parts of quantum physics to work they need to exist. It all gets very strange

Effective quantum field theory 👌

There are no stupid questions. It isn't necessarily about energy though, gravitons just might not interact with matter much, a bit like neutrinos. To be honest, some parts of physics require them to exist (string theory I think). Other parts don't have them existing (Relativity If I remember correctly), so they might just be very elusive and even physics doesn't agree about them.

@LearningCurveScience Thank you for replying I think I understand a little more. Would you be open to doing a video on the electroweak force if possible. I wondered what effects it would have compared to the separate weak and electromagnetic force. Thank you again for answering, I do enjoy your videos. I might not UNDERSTAND them but that's a problem at my end! ;-)

That got really deep and fascinating. Thanks for such an interesting comment. As far as I understand it, the expansion of the universe is happening everywhere so your 1m of space is now 1.000000001 m of space. At distances less than universal scales the changes are irrelevant. I also like to believe in the idea of the multiverse even if I don't understand the physics.

Space (and time) don't exist as distinct separate things... well, let me back up a bit... At the moment, there are two big theories which, separately, describe almost everything we can measure in the universe. Quantum Field Theory with the Standard Model Lagrangian, and General Relativity. The standard model is written in terms of energy, and general relativity (gravity) is written in terms of geometry! Literally, the only thing that GR ultimately tells you about is the distance between two points. That's the only thing we're sure about when it comes to gravity. There are at least a hundred other theories of gravity, and most of them have been experimentally disproven, or give the exact same results as we get from GR in every experiment and astronomical observation made so far. You know how people say that "gravity isn't a force"? GR literally says that when something falls down, the amount of space between the center of mass of one object and another object shrinks. The objects are standing still, but there is less and less space between them. It's geometry, not a "force". Anyway, at the moment, there's no experimentally verified quantum theory of gravity. (But there are a lot of different theories... and nobody is sure if any of them are correct.) All that pre-big-bang stuff and parallel universe stuff kinda falls into this category. Anyway, so, technically, space is not a real thing. 4D Spacetime is a thing, but which parts of it that you choose to call "space" and which part you choose to call "time" is arbitrary. For example, your one meter cube only appears to have that size from your arbitrarily chosen point of view. For someone moving at any velocity in any direction, relative to you, that one meter cube of "space" will not be one meter in length along all of its sides... because the sides of your box exist at different points in time. Using terms like "space" is a historical accident going back to Newton et al. We can not directly measure space or time; we can only measure the movement of objects relative to other objects. When people say: speed is distance divided by time, or v=dx/dt, it makes it sound like there separate things called "distance" (space), and "time"... but we can only measure velocity, and velocity is the only thing that exists. We work backwards from measured velocities to calculate "space", and "time", not the other way around! And since velocities are relative, so are space and time. Four numbers are enough to describe any and all velocities, everywhere in the universe, so that's why spacetime is four dimensional. Energy (and linear momentum) are functions of velocity. (And yes, also relative) The standard model is entirely written in terms of kinetic and potential energy. Sticking gravity in there is not very easy. So... that whole "curvature of space (or spacetime)" thing... it's literally that two points in space and time will have one particular distance apart, and two other points will have a different distance apart... that's it... that's basically the theory. The more mass-energy you have in an arbitrary volume of spacetime, the closer together space (and further apart in time) nearby locations will be. I forgot to mention, there is no universal clock. Even without movement, every point in space is located in the past of every other location in space. (And moving around makes it even worse, you can't synchronize moving clocks.) Everyone likes to attempt to describe spacetime like a bunch of movie frames stacked on top of each other, but those planar slices through spacetime are completely arbitrary, and anyone moving at any other velocity will have their movie frame slices dividing up the block of spacetime at a different angle. So things in the past and the future of the stack of frames in the first construction, will appear at the same time in a single frame for the moving observer. Length contraction will actually make 3D objects appear to rotate, because the front and back ends of an object are located at different points in time, just like how they are located at different points in space. So at high (really any) speed, the light coming from the back of the object can be seen, because the front of the object moved out of the way before the light would have been blocked by itself. Lookup Terrell Rotation. I'm rushing because I need to go right now.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and informed reply. This stuff is hard! If I give up my 1m cube of 'space' (and I am willing to go along with the notion of it being a bit arbitrary and an outmoded concept) I am still puzzled about what is actually expanding. The relativistic distances between objects is growing, perhaps driven by the velocity of the initial expansion from the Big Bang and inflation. We have data to suggest that the expansion is accelerating. Equally we have a theory of quantum fields that give rise to the forces (electromagnetic, nuclear, Higgs). So I guess the question is: How are these quantum fields affected by the expansion of the Universe, or are they a constant and the Universe expanded into the quantum fields? "What came first, the Universe or quantum fields?" As I understand it one theory is that the fields distilled out of the initial inflationary phase of the Universe; but that would seem to cancel out the possibility of anything outside of the Universe.@@juliavixen176

Thank you for your reply. My box is getting bigger! I guess the question is: How are these quantum fields affected by the expansion of the Universe, or are they a constant and the Universe expanded into the quantum fields? "What came first, the Universe or quantum fields?" As I understand it one theory is that the fields distilled out of the initial inflationary phase of the Universe; but that would seem to cancel out the possibility of anything outside of the Universe.

i find that thinking of virtual particles as "static" really helps. The closer 2 same charges get, the more "static" is produced that keeps them apart; and in turn, when 2 opposite charges are coming together, it "creates" more of a vacuum of virtual particles that "draw" them together

Ah, yes, I like that. Very good analogy! @@OvalTBandit

Thank you

"We all assume there's a vacuum outside the universe" Nah, a vacuum is still a region of spacetime, which is inside the universe. It's debatable whether "what's outside the universe?" and "what came before the universe?" are even valid questions, since "outside" and "before" both involve spacetime.

I think they call it fundamental because it can't be explained by a simpler force.

Yes you're quite right. I did downplay the electroweak force, and I wanted to put in more detail, but the video was getting quite long as it was, so I truncated that bit a little. Also yes I maybe should have spoken about the observable universe. I'm making these videos for non-scientists, and sometimes I just use shortened forms for ease. You have a valid point though.

Supposing up and down quartks are observed, is an atomic nucleus just a large sum of up and down quartks, or are there individual discrete neutrons and protons? Or both or neither?

Such a good question. My next video is about quarks, hopefully you'll find some answers then.