The subatomic world is governed by three known forces, each with vastly different energy. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln takes on the weak nuclear force and shows why it is so much weaker than the other known forces.
Wow, I think I actually understood this. And I think I also now understand a lot more about uncertainty.
Still don't understand why the weak force is a force, though. Nothing seems to be attracted or repelled.
What's clear is the weak force can become the strongest force. Like how strong is weak force in a black hole? When it can rip matter apart and cause light to exceed light speed. The actual force for magnetism and gravity is inertial.
pardon my ignorance, but what effects does a photon have on anything if it doesnt carry a charge? how does light affect the electromagnetic force?
im not a scientist, just an enthusiast so again, pardon my ignorance and thank you for the video
Why is it we can send a signal million's of miles always with a slight pause? And we are still using AMPS. to get cable across town? Why do we need so many cell towers if there are so many satellites in space?
Because it can (actually must) have kinetic energy. But dont make the mistake and use the formula T=1/2 m v^2 from Newtonian mechanics to calculate the kinetic energy, as this of course would yield zero for the massles case m = 0. You have to use the relativistic equation which also works for m=0.
Each part of the diagramm essentially represents the propability for the depicted process to happen. So the lines represent the propability for free propagation of the particle, a vertex stands for the propability for the interaction and so on. The propability for the whole diagram is then the product of the individual propabilities. If you want to convince yourself that this is true take a coin and flip it once. The propability for heads is 1/2. Flip it twice, and the propability for two times heads is 1/2*1/2 = 1/4.
Right, so if I understood correctly, the weak force is called _weak_ because it's not as strong as the strong or the electromagnetic force at proton range. And that's because it's very rare that the decay happens. So, if it happened more frequently, it would be stronger?
So, I understand the concept of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for momentum and position. I can't quite grasp it for time and energy.
Delta-t being a span of time, but what would be the start-end points?
When you talk about describing a Feynmann diagram as an equation, I'm with you. Then you put up "EQUATION = (stuff...)"
Then suddenly I have lost all confidence in your video. Now you have a graph of the mass distribution of the Z boson, and from context I gather the horizontal axis is mass in GeV. OK. What do those numbers on the left represent? Probability? No, because then the mass of a Z is 91 GeV with probability 1 (meaning all other possible masses have probability 0!). But then what?
This is my complaint, and I think the late Dr. Feynmann would make the same one: when you use numbers or "equations" in a way that prevents them from having any clear meaning, you're basically sending the underlying message that math is hocus-pocus, that you're just putting numbers up and we're supposed to believe you just because we saw numbers on a screen.
So why is the weak force called the weak force because gravity is the weakest force, so much so that it is irrelevant in all but the most edge of edge cases when looking at the subatomic scale god gravity is even irrelevant on the molecular scale and a bit up from there as well even to very small bugs gravity is irrelevant and surface tension is the biggest factor, and surface tension is just the manifestation of the electromagnetic force playing out on the macro / micro scale
I'm just a layman here, so this might be silly (though not bleeping silly, I hope!) but if the creation of the low-energy W particle is so rare, does it follow that its occurrence is random? That is, are there decay events happening all the time, shooting off normal-energy W particles and every once in a while it just happens to throw off a low-energy one?
I have a dumb question. can red ,blue and green laser beams be combined in to a white laser beam? since white light has red blue and green in it. or would it not be laser light anymore? I never got into this in school. I have been wanting to experiment with laser light. but haven't the time. or the lasers.
However free neutron decay is not rare at all. They have a half life of about 10 minutes. If they were rare than free neutrons should be stable? Neither are radioactive isotopes that exhibit the same decay. The only thing that makes sense is there is a fundamental difference in magnitude between what 'we' are thinking as rare or neutron decay is different free than from the nucleus.
But with only Z and W Bozons ( I believe that is the one with the charge, yes?), in conjunction with the single electron hypothesis, might explain why we only see matter, and not anti matter. For this would seem to indicate that antimatter, moving backward through time, is not subject to gravity in the same way matter is. Only when we stop anti matter in its mad dash backward through time, does it become subject to gravity, and then only for a limited amount of time (we have captured anti particles for as long as 17 minutes currently). If anti matter is not subject to gravity in its native state then it is unlikely that the particles would congeal into larger, gravity affected structures. This then can be used to describe Dark matter/engery, as with the photon described above, which will have mass intermittently during certain circumstances. This description, when applied to anti matter out in open space, may indicate a transient interaction with a con current positive/negative time flow and thus an intermittent gravitational field. The anti matter would then interact weakly with both space and time in the forward temporal aspect, as well as implying gravitation in concert with its vibrational characteristics. It would be difficult to observe, because technically it is still in its native form and moving in a temporally inverted state, but would still have significant physical affects on the universe at large. Since we know that anti matter reacts to photons in similar fashion to matter, then we can surmise that high energy photons moving through the void supply the necessary energy for the interaction. Hmm. Shine intense enough light on antimatter and it will gravitate? Very interesting hypothesis. To bad I can't test it.
Hi, I have a question. In this video, you're describing particle mass with units of energy [eV], in hindsight it's slightly obvious, due to Einstein's mass equation, so why doesn't the SI system define the kilogram in terms of energy, or vice versa?Does it have to do with the "hidden" (usually skipped) momentum term in Einstein's equation?Thanks
It's purely a convenience thing. Technically, the mass unit is eV/c^2, but scientists drop the c^2, as it is implied. And particle physicists operate in a system in which c = 1 (e.g. all speeds are just listed as fractions of the speed of light). That also helps.
Probability of energy levels aside and keeping in mind conservation of energy... where did the energy that should have made up the W boson go? Is it being internally transferred to other quarks/subatomic particles?
In short, what internal circumstances could cause a neutron's W boson to lose so much energy and force it out, thus changing the neutron's structure to that of a proton?
Since there appears to be a continuous range of mass the Z boson can have, does that mean the Z boson is not quantized like a photon is? Are there interactions in which any quantized particle can be temporarily unquantized? Also is he basically just saying that the weak force is weak for a similar reason to why low pressure exerts a 'weak' force (as in particles in a chamber interact with the chamber walls less often and thus exert less average force when compared to a more pressurized chamber)?
Now I am more confused than before. I thought that fundamental particles were called that because they are the building blocks of reality and all of them are the same. So how can they have varying mass? Is that extra mass actually different speed?
In the situation where the neutron decays into a proton by emitting a W boson, it happens with an extremely unlikely energy. What happens when there's a W boson with a more "normal" amount of energy? And wouldn't this be more common?
I've never understood the word "the." Please, explain it to me. "The" is not a noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a pronoun, a preposition, a conjunction, or an interjection. What *is* the word, "The?"
Hmm, seeing those probability distributions for the masses of Z and W bosons made me think they should (as this is physics :-) ) be perfectly symmetrical, but then we would have to very rarely observe something that could be considered a boson with a negative mass, and I don't think that happens...?
Yep, like the story, but the plot is always confusing. Maybe another couple of years of watching.
The shortest answer to why the Weak Force is weak depends on the context or sub context of the question.
If it's a Universal state of fitting the phase-states into the eternal continuity of Time, then WYSIWYG for the apparently Anthropic Principle of bio-requirements that would seem to be learned or evolved in the conditions of Planet Earth. (That's a "How many Turtles down?", type of indirect/perception answer)
Or a Mathematical Physics answer would require the detailing of constants, of primes and cofactor compounds, (actuality of Quantum Chemistry), multiples of e-Pi-i=> QM-TIME, Universal Quantum-operation, => logical mathematical-mechanism formula of inclusion and exclusion connection, ->phase-state integration of pulse duration phenomena.
Really not explained or supported well. Just a bunch of stuff thrown at the viewer that we're supposed to accept.
1.) Why would all 7 parts of a Feynman diagram form an equation which multiplies all 7?
2.) What evidence justifies the claim that all fields require a force-carrier and where's a depiction of how this happens?
3.) Were you TRYING to imply that observed frequency of long half-life isotope decay (such as C-14 decay) is governed by the probability of W bosons existing in very unlikely energy states? How would you discount opposing theories?
4.) All of our measured particle interactions occur on or near Earth, orbiting the sun which is supposedly emitting so many neutrinos that 65 billion pass through every square centimeter on Earth, every second. That's a lot of neutrinos. To me, this fact is a huge problem when trying to prove the cause of nuclear processes, especially ones that may have interactions with neutrinos. How do you know that "rare" neutrino impacts don't influence isotope decay?
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.