That's probably because of quantum uncertainty: it is exceedingly rare to have an explanation with this quality, yet when it happens it is so good that is mind-blowing. ;D

@@LuisAldamiz hahahahaha

make him a cake

@@Tomaplen Or his students.

16,386. Where'd u learn howta fuckin count?? Lol

Yes... Measuring the mass less precisely is fairly intuitive to grasp but this seems to be saying that mass is probabilistic which is pretty amazing

good mention, probably that's because mass is also product of very mind blowing interaction with scalar higgs field. so to understand this we need to know how higgs mechanism and renormalization works

@@asuraKabuto But higgs field is defective or scalar field is incomplete!

hold my pepperoni pizza

Hold my grappa

That would actually be the top quark

Top Quark: Hold my beer

@@spudhead169 Right. You must quark that beer. I know it has nice flavor and colour but also it is very strange' it can give you a spin. If you fell don't complain; I tau you! :-)

I drink the type that has an emu on the label.

In a specific decay it's exactly the not so probable force, but in an aggregate scale the effect of 'weakness' is produced.

@@AlexIgSmith42 Yep. It's a side effect of having to name things before they're properly understood.

Or the not so probably but highly predictable force.

I think even force is bad name for this event

Yeah but, it sleeps for six days and then comes out to play for one day ( before going back to bed... it needs the rest)

He meant to say, "let the force be with you."

I would call it the Lazy Force. It hardly ever works and pays no attention. But when it does something, it makes a big fuss about it.

The weak force is responsible for destroying all the heavy quark matter

Robert Pruitt What matters is that it has good self esteem .

WHY AND HOW ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity IN A BALANCED FASHION CONSISTENT WITH E=MC2 AND F=MA (ON BALANCE): E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. THE EARTH/ground AND what is THE SUN are CLEARLY (and necessarily) E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! INDEED, TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.) The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. SO, consider the man who is actually in outer "space" in comparison with the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. This means that the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE is directly proportional to (or BALANCED with) the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Carefully consider the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !!! Get a good look at the BLUE SKY. THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. Get a good look at what is THE EYE !!!!! Consider the man who is standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Balanced BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is the reason that objects AND MEN fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!!!!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand !!! Think QUANTUM GRAVITY !!!!!!!!!!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Accordingly, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out EQUAL AREAS in equal times consistent WITH/AS E=MC2, F=ma, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky !!!) It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!! Again, also consider what is the speed of light (c). BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand !!! IMPORTANTLY, what is THE EARTH/ground (a PLANET) is a BALANCED MIDDLE DISTANCE form or relation; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider what is the speed of light (c). By Frank DiMeglio

Why Khan Academy? KA specializes in math and better stays in math. but it also tries to lecture on a bunch of other disciplines which to me is not a good thing. Don is good here because this is his expertise.

Gravity is the weak force

@@hubbletrubble7875 Someone published a paper in 2019 showing that ultra-relativistic gravity has similar properties to those of the strong nuclear force. I am no mathematician so I have no idea if what he is proposing has any merit, I asked Dr. Don but he hasn´t answered(yet)

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Got a link to the paper?

@@hubbletrubble7875 By far the weakest, and also the strongest.

@@sasca854 It's weak, but it can reach realllyyyyy far

I'd like to know why the weak force has two bosons as well.

I can try to explain the answer to your question, but I doubt it will be satisfactory. It will be unsatisfactory because there is not really a more fundamental physical process which explains the number of gauge bosons for a specific force. It is almost like asking 'why are there 3 generations of quarks and leptons (up, charm, top and electron, muon, tau)'. Nobody can answer that question in terms of a underlying process which will produce this magical number of 3. We can of course by experiment conclude that it has to be 3, but there is no theoretical explanation for this (yet). For this you need a more fundamental theory. However, In the case of the 3 gauge bosons of the weak force (yes 3, there are actually 2 W bosons and one Z boson) there is an explanation which a physicist would consider more fundamental. The weak force has 3 gauge bosons because it is a su(2) gauge symmetry (just as in the video I omit the fact that the weak force is actually a so called spontaneously broken symmetry from the more fundamental unified electroweak theory). The su(2) symmetry is associated to 3 mathematical operations (those correspond to your 3 gauge bosons eventually) under which the equations (or the Lagrangian to be more specific) of the weak force is invariant. You can turn the argument around and actually considered the symmetry as the starting point of your theory. You can show that, given this symmetry, there is no other possible Lagrangian that you can write down other than the Lagrangian that the weak force obeys. So the answer to your question is that nature has chosen to have this symmetry which than automatically leads to this interaction we call weak force and its 3 gauge bosons. Why does nature have this symmetry - we dont know. The whole situation is actually quite similar to the case of momentum conservation. Why is momentum conserved? Well I doubt you know a fundamental reason that dictates that momentum has to be conserved. You have just accepted the fact because you are used to it. But just as above you can show that momentum conservation is an immediate consequence of the translation symmetry of space. This symmetry is much easier to understand. It means that all physical processes work the same if you move (translate) them around in space. In other words, no matter where you conduct your experiment, the outcome will be the same.

CHECK OUT pbs space time!!!

@@theguy8521 you said here "I omit the fact that the weak force is actually a so called spontaneously broken symmetry from the more fundamental unified electroweak theory", are you Dr. Don Lincoln by any chance? Sorry if its a silly question

Yeah, quantum physics is like that. There is a saying in this field of study. "If it makes sense to you, your doing it wrong"

What about the muon and tau? Posituon and positau? I prefer anti-leptons: anti-electron, anti-muon and anti-tau.

@@houndofzoltan Asimov disapproves of you.

@@esvegateban Ha ha ha!

@@houndofzoltan I thought I heard somewhere that adding an S to the name was something people did.

These names are getting me insomnia.

Genius

The anthropic principle, as applied to particle physics. Brilliant.

Gravity is waaaaay weaker than the weak force.....so, duh on that comment

@@markburch6253 And then you get relativity which states gravity isn’t even a force but a property of curved spacetime

@@mekalcovic1553 actually it states gravity is the effect of unequal distribution of mass/energy in the universe. Nice try though

The video is titled why the weak force is weak, not how the weak force is a force

That's a question that has bugged me with every explanation of the weak force I've seen.

But that is a more interesting question, and a necessary precursor to the other. If this "force" does not repel or attract what does it even mean that it has a strength? You have one interaction that attracts and repels, and anoher that turns one particle into another. What does it mean that one is stronger than another? It is also a question that I have never seen answered.

If it doesn't have to be a "force", then why is it grouped with the other 3, which all attract and repel?

+Ryu Darragh Strong force binds protons and neutrons together. But protons and electrons are not bound in the same way, because protons and electrons cease to exist when joined together.

well.. because it's not though

An anti-particle is the same as a normal particle with the arrow reversed. So the version in the video with all the arrows pointing forwards and labeling them as particles and antiparticles is fine. The other option would be to reverse the arrows for the anti-particles, but then they should just be labeled as regular particles instead of anti-particles. Drawing a backwards arrow and labeling it as an anti-particle is basically a double negative.

And this is sadly done in many QM textbooks. The point of the arrows and only regular particles is that you can rotate the diagram, and you don't have to relabel all the particles.

thenorup What if particles are anti-particles?

Reddles37 This is not proper English. It is a diagram displaying a scientific idea. There is probably no such thing as a double negative but if there is, who are you to say it is not acceptable?

thenorup How about rotating the diagram and not relabeling everything?

ScienceNinjaDude Thanks!

... and antiparticles, which almost double the amount. Also the standard model has 17 particles, not 12. Still "thousands" sounds a bit unbelievable if by that they mean baryons and the like and not organic molecules (that would be outright cheating). I've also seen even Lincoln to use some imprecise exaggerations like "tons of pions", when he probably just meant "lots of pions... weighting some nanograms at best".

Dragons are rare. I suggest we rename it "Dragonforce".

Im sure you would have changed your mind once you saw the job listings for physics phds

@@NotApplicable555 lol ,sadly it's true

@@NotApplicable555 And the student loan repayment schedule...

@@T1Oracle just study in a civilized country, duh

Nope, you just do not have the talent.

Arek Krolak Yes, and in this case the blackboard is filled with fancy equations. Now if the board had “I will not chew gum in class”, written 100 times, some of the “smart” effect would be diminished.

Either the positron or the electron gets a refund.

If the neutron stays too long a proton will walk out instead

That's how i understood it...