yeah i already watched this video and i learned so much from it

..

sorry to be so offtopic but does anybody know a method to get back into an instagram account?? I was dumb forgot the account password. I appreciate any help you can offer me!

@Beckett Zakai I really appreciate your reply. I found the site on google and I'm in the hacking process now. Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.

@Beckett Zakai It did the trick and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy! Thank you so much, you saved my account :D

celestial body - UmaThurman

Nerd here -- he called Daniel, not Sam. And the clue was "Up, down, charmed, [blank]". (From Lost City, one of the best episodes of the entire series.)

Google Images for "preposterousuniverse what particle are you" and you'll have it.

its not dead right now, it links to a scam

i.pinimg.com/736x/a0/db/13/a0db13353e2223731adc8601cdf49e04.jpg

@@kylebowles9820 thank you!!

And then there's the bozo-on, the particle of which I am chiefly composed.

Actually, I would say anyone learning this stuff that chart is just a gestalt of confusion. Sorry Don.

NGC6144 The chart is not by Lincoln, but by the well known astrophysicist Sean Carrol. At least that's what the copyright on the bottom says.

Drat, the flow chart is lost!

Well gravity as you said is a product of a curvature of spacetime but it doesn't mean it magically happen it need something to carry this force wich is what we call graviton and hasn't been discovered yet. Gravity isn't instantly, it's not faster than the speed of light and so it's "just" another fundamental force like electromagnetism wich need photons to work. At least it's all I know on the subject (btw not all scientists agree that graviton exist so who now? I believe it does but that's not a confirmed fact ^^)

I've been down this road and you will hear explanations from both sides: Gravity as an emergent property(space-time curvature via mass) and gravity as a fundamental force-spin 2 graviton. Don't let it get to you. It hasn't been settled yet plus, Dr. Lincoln said he thinks it won't be for millennia until we confirm the graviton.

All you need to do is look at how spacetime curvature is expressed in einstein field equations of general relativity. It is a tensor field viewed from particular reference frame - the field describes how trajectories of particles in constant motion will appear warped from your point of view. By comparison, electromagnetic field is a vector field viewed from particular reference frame - it also describes how trajectories of (charged) particles in constant motion will appear warped from your point of view. They both describe some sort of break in symmetry of motion - deviations from Newton's 1st law - that is pretty much a definition of a force - something that causes particles to not move in straight lines at constant speed. Changes in electromagnetic field are propagated by electromagnetic waves and from quantum mechanics we know these waves are quantized into bosons called photons. Changes in curvature of spacetime are also propagated by gravitational waves. So we suspect that they too are quantized into bosons called gravitons, just like all other fields.

NGC6144 that settles it, we need a video on the subject

You have to understand that all scientific theories are just models that do a very good job at making predictions. In other words, when we try to model the behaviours of large objects due to gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity currently does the best job. This theory explains gravity as a curvature in spacetime, as you said. However, even if it explains gravity very well at large scales, the language we use to describe the inner workings of the theory might not necessarily reflect the true nature of gravity - in fact, one might never know what the true nature of any physical phenomenon is. Nevertheless, we can make a lot of theories that do a damn good job at making predictions, and one that does its best job at explaining how objects work at an extremely small scale is quantum mechanics. So far, all of the other forces can be thought of in quantum mechanics as consisting of force-carrying particles, so called force carries, that are transmitted between other particles such as electrons and protons. In short, it would seem a little odd then if interactions due to gravity between particles are the only interactions that cannot be described by force carriers. This is why scientist hypothesise the existence of gravitons, which are the force carriers of gravity.

There's a lot of interesting history behind names. A couple of favorites of mine: the original word to describe the cross sectional area of a neutron that represents its ability to be captured by a nucleus is the Barn. It came from the (Los Alamos, I believe) physicists saying that it was like throwing a baseball at a barn from some distance away and what the probability was that you would hit it. Another is the time that it takes, once a neutron has been captured by a radioactive nucleus like uranium, to decay which is measured in a unit called a Shake. The physicists appreciated just how rapidly that happens and one commented that it was faster than two shakes of a lamb's tail.

Seriously!

The reason they probably didn't make sense is because this is the first time you're hearing about a lot of those names. Others of us, have heard the names before but were confused about how they related to each other, so this video was meant to clear up that confusion. You would probably need a different video to explain what those particles actually did individually.

Think of the various particles as IKEA furniture parts and sub assemblies of that larger cabinet or semi-portable sliding glass closet unit. The funny wrench thingy would be one of the better super colliders.

I’m with you Robert it made no sense but was great to learn, let the patronising comments wash over you and enjoy the moment, boffins gonna boff and patronisers gonna look rude.....😉

I suspect it is because we sometimes need to look at particles functionally - and some elementary particles (electron) and some composite particles (proton) are important at the functional level (chemistry etc).

because it is not obvious which ones are which, from experimental point of view. They are classified by the properties they exhibit, not composition.

Bei Zhang Earlier on it wasn't known that composite particles were made up of smaller constituents and were originally thought to be fundamental. As the video showed Gell-Mann and Zweig both theorized Quarks(Aces) in the mid 1960s to better explain Hadrons(Protons, Neutrons, Mesons).

KohuGaly That's a mistake that should be corrected, then. It just makes the terminology more cluttered and cumbersome. Properties follow from the composition. It's the same thing with the difference between celestial bodies - stars, brown dwarfs, gas giants, ice giants, terrestrial planets, dwarf planets and so forth, which all more or less result from the same process with only mass distinguishing them, yet we keep inventing all these categories to put them in. At least in that astronomy case there isn't the same degree of overlap between categories... but it's still pretty bad and unnecessary.

I mean mixing them in our Venn diagram. At least it should be mentioned in the video.

Michael Dark energy primarily means that the universe is expanding. This means that the universe it not static. This means that the symmetry according to the Noether theorem upon which 1st law of thermodynamics is based is not strictly existing, which means the 1st law is no longer completely true. At least on very large scales. This doesn't mean that you can create your perpetual.motion machine, but it means that due to the expansion of the universe energy can vanish (on galactic scales), so that the 1st law is no longer completely true (same as with the second law, which is also not always true, but it's just extremely likely that it is not violated) Oh yes, you can also create energy out of nothing .. at least if you find a way to make the universe shrink instead of expand and if you build a machine that's the size of several billion lightyears

ScienceNinjaDude, so then, I gather you’re saying that this classification does not distinguish between any elementary particle and its anti-particle? That is, particle/anti-particle duality is a further distinction ignored here.

As is chirality.

Spin is just a property of particles that has the units of angular momentum; nothing is actually spinning. This book might help: www.goodreads.com/book/show/1349918.The_Story_of_Spin

Looks like no one else will answer you. I'll try. Here’s a simplified explanation, as simple as I can make it anyway. Spin specifies how far one rotation of a probability wave takes it towards the exact same state again (a state being its quantum phase in a complex plane). You can think of a probability wave as being a point particle if you like, just don’t think of it as physically spinning. ½ spin (fermions) means one rotation takes it only half way back to the exact same exact state (one rotation takes to an opposite state rather than to the same state, it needs to go around again to get back to the same state, a sign flips with each turn that changes the interference pattern). 1 spin (vector bosons) means one rotation takes it the whole way (simpler waves, no sign change). 2 spin (graviton) means one rotation takes it through the same state twice (related to it being a tensor rather than a vector). 0 spin (Higgs boson) means it is a scalar and looks the same no matter how it is rotated. Composite particles can have these and other spin numbers. Spin itself is an intrinsic quantum property of a particle making it resemble a magnet in the sense that the particle would be deflected if it was placed in magnetic field. A spin number is the number of fundamental units of angular momentum where each unit is h/2pi. www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-exactly-is-the-spin/

The measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the muon in the g2 experiment.

What Frank said

By combining them. In mesons you have a combination of a quark and an anti-quark results in either +2/3 + 1/3 = +1 ; +2/3 + -2/3 = + 1/3 + -1/3 = 0 or -2/3 + -1/3 = -1 in nucleons it is: 2/3 + 2/3 + -1/3 = +1 (proton) or +2/3 + -1/3 + -1/3 = 0 (neutron).

If you have a smartphone, you can use a screen shot.

i.imgur.com/OD5aFy6.png

We've added a link to the Venn diagram graphic in the video description. Here's the link: imgur.com/a/BY3SQqQ

Monkeybiznizz What? I can imagine how interesting the conversation will be when Dr. Lincoln is on a date with Monkeybiznizz. :)

Interesting for whom?

@ScienceNinjaDude that would mean that anti-quarks always have negative charge, as well as anti-color. But then, how about one with +2/3 charge and one with - 1/3 charge (and anti-color)? Or is that a forbidden combination? And if so, why? I am already wrestling more than a year with this problem. I should put it in a multi-dimensional spreadsheet. But which, how?

@ScienceNinjaDude It's a bit clearer now. But still peculiar that Electrons have precisely -1 (-3/3) e-charge (positive for anti-electrons). Someone should explain that once. Especially while electrons have such a small mass and quarks a much bigger. For me it doesn't all add up. There is still a piece of the puzzle missing.

Why? Because. Arbitrary? Yes. Explain that and get your Nobel....

i think the million dollar question is why a particle consisting of 1 red ⅔ quark, 1 green ⅔ quark and 1 blue ⅔ quark cannot exist

appearenly the answer is the pauli exclusion principle according to www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_baryons and that they *do* exist under some circumstances

ScienceNinjaDude we will great idea ! Thanks Ninja dude !

It's a quantum number (usually s), just like n, m and l. Every "classical" explanation is inherently flawed. So best take it as what it is: a property of quantum objects that can take on certain values.

Frank Schneider yep, that’s how I take it. A property I can’t understand that takes on some value... but I think a video to illuminate the topic would be great. Unless there’s nothing more to say

ofc, but it is still funny :D