"Access denied You are not authorised to access this page."

@@giftmanoff It seems the website is being modified at the moment, the link should be working a few days from now I hope

Sir please tell how you edit your videos by the way your videos are really intresting and everything is understood there is a clarity of all topics

@@physicschemistryandquantum810 I think he mostly uses After Effects to make the animations.

@@hyperduality2838 Hm.. I won't say you're "wrong" per se, but that's a very sloppy and inconsistent set of uses of the term "dual". A few examples of different uses: - "Syntropy". No idea what that is. A bit of Google gives the only (real) definition as being related to psychology, not physics. Using "dual" to try and tie some (I'm guessing) metaphysical woowoo to real physics. - Gravitation is not "dual" to acceleration. Einstein's equivalence principle states that gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass. Both types of mass are related to acceleration in the same way (that's the whole point of the principle). Using "dual" just straight up incorrectly. - Potential energy could be thought of as "dual" to kinetic energy I guess, in the sense that they're typically written as opposite sides of an overall energy equation. Using "dual" in a slightly questionable but not totally incorrect manner. - Positive charge vs negative charge (and N/S magnetic poles and similar). Using "dual" to mean negation. - "Photons or light are dual". They're literally the same thing. Using "dual" in a rather non-sensical manner. - Bosons vs Fermions. This is probably the closest to the common (physics) use of the term "dual" you've got listed, at least if you subscribe to the ideas of supersymmetry. - Except that you claim Bosons are waves and Fermions are particles. Both types of objects are waves _and_ particles. What that means in any sort of intuitive fashion is anyone's guess still (all of those "interpretations" you hear about), but your assertion isn't quite right. What _is_ true is that Bosons have a symmetric wave function while Fermions have an anti-symmetric wave function. We can also state that Bosons are "force carriers" while Fermions are "matter particles", but that's starting to shift the intuition back to your original not-quite-right definition. The type of wave function is the important distinguishing factor. This particular little rant has nothing to do with your use of the term "dual" though. So yeah.. again, you aren't necessarily "wrong". Each use of the term "dual" you applied could be considered valid in their own contexts. The problem is that by listing a whole bunch of different contexts together, you're implicitly asserting that they're all equally meaningful and that simply isn't the case. (Though its a common trope among woowoo artists to try and convince people that their nonsense is relevant without doing the work that would prove otherwise by making implicit contextual associations to real work that has been done by real scientists).

That 5 minute spinning logo cracked me up 😂

Sciencephile AI? Pretty enterteining.

Maybe you could learn to make a compliment in a constructive way.

@@joaodavid2001 maybe you can learn what "constructive" mean. My comment was very constructive, unlike yours.

Your savings the world 😜

Is pure gold

@@antoniocotarodriguez5732 Just because you turn up yr radio at the end of yr video, does not mean that u have made any sense, or that I have understood u. Try to concentrate on yr academic content, rather than just thinking yr some kind of flashy showman.

@@LegendLength The laws of physics have certain local gauge symmetry. This kind of symmetry is "stronger" that what you know as classical symmetry (which are called global symmetry), it is called local symmetry: even if you change the gauge differently depending of where you are in spacetime the laws must be invariant ! And for fields with the phase symmetry (called U(1) gauge) it is possible only if you add another field (the photon field) connected to others fields to "correct" local change of the gauge in the laws of physics !

@@hyperduality2838 name checks out... REALLY likes duality

can i be a grammar nazi ? the spelling of physict is wrong.

Agreed

Man! This series blows my mind! And I have an MSc in Theoretical Physics too! Excellent stuff... Well presented and easy to grasp by those outside the field! Let's hope that these uploads inspires the next Einstein, Hawking or Feynman!

@@sdwone your looking at him

Yeah, I find it fascinating now, in my 30s! My school didn't make physics and math very interesting at all

If you're a physics student physics alone should be enough to motivate you.

Hi. Perfectly said. Old uk duffer here, enjoying the ride :)

What is pedagogy

@@sawc.ma.bals. pedagogy is teaching something in a way that is easy to understand basically

what software and plugins does he use for his videos? How is this style of animation called?

😂😂😂💪💪💪✨✨✨

He didn’t get into supersymmetry at all. This kind of comment is really dumb and getting old

ok yapstein

Great. Want upgrade to VR Google to flight myself throught the video and see the laws of Physic. This animation education is great next step could be "Seeduction" to be a part of the animation. Thank you very much for your pioneer work. Florian

Thank you very much for the compliment, I am glad you like my approach. I hope you'll enjoy the future videos !

That quote you’re referring to came from Richard Feynman

+1

Ahah thanks, glad you enjoy the music :)

@@ScienceClicEN The music puts my brain in a very specific 'trance' if you will. Not sure how, but it makes it so I can process what's being explained and follow everything. Your pacing in these videos are also ON THE DOT. You give enough time to process but quick enough to the next thing so we don't lose our train of thought. This seriously needs to be shown to teachers and academics to show them the best way to throw information at our spongy brains! Maybe it's just me, but I've mostly had TERRIBLE teachers that either thought we would just get everything in the first explanation, or explain things in WAY too many different ways and going on tangents. That and my ADD brain don't mix well, however your videos + my ADD brain DO.

While we're at it: Does anybody have a link to this music?

It's on my SoundCloud : soundcloud.com/aroussel

Yes and this guy needs it

If he doesn't get it I'll sue 😇

Eagan L • For what "education"? Indoctrination with BS?😏

@@mikel4879 you're the world champion for that

He might get Nobel peace prize

I can't believe this one didn't get a thousand likes!

Thank you very much! I hope you'll like the future videos

Actually, he has more than 250k suscribers in his french channel with the same content.

except he just made a video going on about assumptions as if they were fact. Physics does not appear to work the same everywhere in the universe, which is why there is a dark matter theory and the expanding universe theory to try to explain why things we observe dont appear to work how we would expect them to

It certainly is! No. 5 is one of the more popular floral fragrances. it makes a fine gift for someone special if perhaps we could interest you in this 50mL bottle?

@@razeezar 😂😂😂 best way to point out a typo ever! I'm going to keep it as it is so whoever will read these comments will still understand it and have a big laugh 😂 (you're welcome guy reading funny comments 💁)

assuming this symmetry stuff is how our universe truly is. I can only think that broken symmetries are just us having a wrong understanding of the bigger picture.

@@MouseGoat Ever seen ice crystals form in water? That is a symmetry breaking.

Thank you :)

@@ScienceClicEN cambridge?

Funny how the first thing we call out to is “god”

yes!

Not enough theories have been falsified to show that supersymmetry is the least false theory.

So until everything else is proven wrong, we can't know if it's mostly-kinda-probably-true?

@@Ivi-Tora Yes. That is how science works. You do not put effort into showing that something works, but that it explains something that otherwise would not be explained. By falsifying other theories, you prove that yours is objectively more accurate to reality than others. You can prove that many things work with a certain theory without it being right, but you have to find just one flaw to know that it is wrong.

A rotating frame of reference is a form of an accelerated frame of reference. GR's equivalence principle says this is the same as a gravitational field, ie a force acting on objects.

I think we can say they are real. In this video, he doesn't mention it but photons have a self-interacting term too. So even if the photon field looks like a mathematical artefact, there are in fact other assumptions on its behavior which implies something on the electrons' behavior too. On example is that energy levels in are quantized in photon fields (hence photon is a particule), you would not expect that if it was just a mathematical artefact to change reference.

@@theopantamis9184 No, photons do not have a self-interacting term. They only way a photon can interact with another photon is if it has a very high energy, high enough to interact with another quantum field, like the electron/positron field, and we're talking gamma rays here. Regular light, radio waves, UV, etc, to not interact with each other.

@@ozzymandius666 you are right I didn't express myself well :) I was referring to the last free propagation term of the QED lagrangian. This term only involves the electromagnetic tensor (I badly used self-interaction here) so it tells us something about how the photon field must behave independantely of electrons. That's why I think we should say that electromagnetic field is not just an mathematical artefact, it has its own way to behave even in the absence of everything else.

@@theopantamis9184 Yes I think what can be considered as "being real" in this context is the existence of a kinetic term for the gauge field itself in the Lagrangian. This is what allows the gauge field to be a dynamical entity with its own equations of motion and propagation. The kinetic term is what gives rise to Einstein's equation for the curvature of spacetime, or to Maxwell's equations for the EM field.

For electric charge you can think of it as the "angular momentum of complex phase". And for energy relativity tells us that it's the temporal component of momentum, the time symmetry is a translation through time, and energy is the tendency that objects have to move through time.

I think that's also kind of where the experts are at though, they just have the confidence of familiarity with the language and knowledge of what's come before. Their higher denominational coins are theorems that predict behaviours and tie together pieces that disagree. But at the end of the day, as a species, we just don't fully understand how the universe works. I just think that's so cool

If you multiply the Lagrangian equations of a charged particle by a phase change (ie e^i*theta), the equations of motion that one derives from the Lagrangian must remain unchanged; the only way for them to remain unchanged is to postulate that the electric charge is conserved.

@@ozzymandius666 Thanks

The electron field is like a field of little clocks, the clocks are bigger where the electrons are. The angle between two clock's hands physically matter on electrons behavior but where one clock's hand is doesn't matter. So you can rotate all the clock's hands by the same angle without changing anything on the physics law. This implies that the "overall speed of clocks' hands rotation" doesn't change: this is your electric charge which is preserved.

@@3Space1time If you're interested, if you make the phase angle change theta a function of location( ie a local symmetry, as opposed to a global one), then in order for the equations of motion to be unchanged, a new term that corresponds to the electromagnetic field must be added to the Lagrangian.

Ahah thanks ! Nice profile picture btw :p

@@ScienceClicEN Stole from your video only 😁 Looked very nice

Thanks :)

yes, but her name is spelled with a german ö, like in bird (a little bit), not like an o ;)

In the sense that she was never paid for her mathematical work, or brief sojourn into physics where she contributed probably the single deepest idea we have. Spare in that sense. She was teaching university students, and collaborating on research with Hilbert at a university, so in all ways except pay she was a professional academic.