Well I believe what this video shows is that you can speak for almost four minutes without saying anything
@labidifaycal3185
4 ай бұрын
The idea he want to say is : Why inventing many kinds of hypothetic interactions rather than trying to understand the deep source of any phenomemon observed in the microscopic level??? : that means these interactions are not really what it is hapening but just a mathematical approximation ( gauge theories).
@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT
Жыл бұрын
Thank you Dr. Unzicker! As usual, very interesting and thought provoking.
@TheMachian
Жыл бұрын
My pleasure!
@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time
Жыл бұрын
@@TheMachian Could each one of the four fundamental forces have their own individual part to play in the process that form temporal existence and this is why they vary so greatly in magnitude and behaviour? The electromagnetic force that is carried by the photon forming the movement of charge creating the flow of electric and magnetic fields. in this theory this interaction between the photons and the electron probability cloud of the atoms form the ever-changing world of our everyday life that we see and feel as the passage or continuum of time. This might sound very farfetched! But the electromagnetic force is responsible for all macroscopic properties of the chemical elements, including all chemical bonding. The strong nuclear force holds the nucleus of the atom together being a short-range force that only works inside the atomic nucleus. This is just what we need if we have an interactive process relative to the electron probability cloud that surrounds the nucleus.
@KittyBoom360
Жыл бұрын
I like Edo Kaal's Structured Atomic Model (SAM), in which there is no strong force because there is no neutron, which is instead replaced with a coupled proton and electron. Thus, no newly exotic invented forces or particles. Instead, his model uses well-established electromagnetism and geometry based on this coupling to explain the elements. It's quite the elegant theory compared to the garbled mess of pop theory. "See The Pattern" channel has a playlist exploring SAM in depth if you're interested.
@christophershelton8155
Жыл бұрын
thanks for sharing this
@marcv2648
Жыл бұрын
I was going to mention this. It would be nice if Unzicker would comment on this, even if he isn't familiar with it.
@BlackMasterRoshi
Жыл бұрын
big if true. I'll look into it
@bessokeks4006
Жыл бұрын
could not agree more
@paaao
Жыл бұрын
Neutron decay seems to be a good point to delve into here... Living processes need constant energy in, energy out to maintain homeostasis. Atoms are likely "dynamos" at their own scale in a similar regard.
@rayfleming2053
Жыл бұрын
Using the proximity force approximation of the Casimir effect between two proton sized spheres it happens to have the same energy and range as the strong nuclear force. Specifically the range is about 3 femtometers and it is about 100x stronger than Coulomb repulsion between protons at 0.5 fm. So if you want to model the strong force you must include the Casimir effect. Thanks for another great video.
@ian_b
Жыл бұрын
So does that imply that the Strong Force is the Casimir Effect, Ray?
@culture-jamming-rhizome
Жыл бұрын
@@ian_b Here is his video on the strong force. kzitem.info/news/bejne/sWmbr6alp3yTmHY
@rayfleming2053
Жыл бұрын
@@ian_b The math shows that the major cause of the strong nuclear force is the Casimir effect. I wrote about it in my book The Zero Point Universe and in a paper. There are still particle exchange interactions going on that may contribute to the strong nuclear force. But I agree with the Fermi-Yang model of virtual proton-antiproton pairs being responsible while electron-positron pairs are also responsible. Gluon theory is not needed to explain the strong nuclear force.
@TheBarowner
Жыл бұрын
When are you going to make more videos?
@ian_b
Жыл бұрын
@@rayfleming2053 Thanks for the reply Ray!
@christophershelton8155
Жыл бұрын
Very true. I like how you mentioned something very important in a subtle way "the strong force is nothing that advances physics". It seems there are two type of physicists: One that want to 'discover' 'new' forces, and one that wants to simplify forces as we know them already. It seems one keeps adding more variables and confusion into the mix, while the other attempts to size it down...
@manuelcastaneda7838
Жыл бұрын
I'm with you. I figure if you don't have an instrument to measure it , it doesn't exist.
@jimvozheer3744
Жыл бұрын
same in cosmology
@benjaminbeard3736
Жыл бұрын
@@manuelcastaneda7838 how do you get the first measurement instrument?
@atmanbrahman1872
Жыл бұрын
You should do a show with Sabine and discuss all these.
@Naomi_Boyd
Жыл бұрын
I have been watching a lot of your videos lately, and I feel I must ask a question. You bring up the Fine Structure Constant quite often in relation to quantum gravity. With a force difference of 39 orders of magnitude, do you really thing that gravity is related to charge? Why would you suppose that a theory of quantum gravity should solve for charge? Afterall, + and - fall at the same rate.
@joegillian314
5 ай бұрын
I think positive and negative just indicates the orientation of the flow, or propagation of the charge carrier. Similarly, anti-matter are identical to regular matter particles, but for exactly counter oriented to regular matter. When they collide they "annihilate" because they exactly and perfectly cancel out the momentum of both particles. If true, it would be a much more intuitive understanding of what's really going on.
@paulwolf3302
Жыл бұрын
More study should be done of the internal structure of the nucleus. Not just how many proton and neutrons, but where they are located in space.
@gregmonks
Жыл бұрын
The problem can be described in two words: direct observation. Anything less is supposition. Inference has led to endless bootstrapping, when instead we should have been sticking close to primary-source information. The type of reasoning we have today is very 19th century.
@johnlord8337
5 ай бұрын
Electro-gravitics shows that the Strong Nuclear Force has the electron with the electron composites held by a graviton + core, while the positron composites of the positron are held together with a graviton - core. The Weak Nuclear Force has the electron and electron composites held by a positrino + core, and the positron and positrino composites are held by an electrino - core. This makes this electro-static core weaker, and be the Weak Nuclear Force.
@bessokeks4006
Жыл бұрын
"we do not know" - rare words in a time when everybody belives to know everything
@teberer3246
Жыл бұрын
Have we measured the weak or strong forces in the lab, is this possible to measure with our current measurement technology, or are these forces mathematical constructs of convenience ?
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
Because protons and electrons have a particular charge when freed from atoms does not prove they have this charge when they are in an atom. Why are there certain combinations that are particularly stable? Well things orbiting around things just aren't stable, but lattice structures are, in that some are better than others, so this immediately tells us that the atoms are lattice structures and we just have to diddle around with lattice arrangements to match the strongly stable states or organization. Those 4 you mentioned will give us the outline of the lattice arrangements to fill in the others. Magic combinations are called particularly stable lattice arrangements. Then socalled electron orbital states become dissociation lattices from the rest organization.
@trescatorce9497
Жыл бұрын
What is holding protons against Coulomb's force?
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
You don't need math to model an atom construction, you need a model that explains all the behaviors on a large scale we see and then the structure of that model will show us small atomic structure.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
these are samples of old comment wrote many years ago: During that they can figure out how to connect speed, velocity, .. to momentum, space, energy, .... it's a long journey that will open the gate of science for mankind and essential for them to survive. better to focus on next generations and improve the education system, they must be ready and equipped with enough knowledge at early 20's that is the peak of mental capacity of human brain. good luck.
@husseinmohammadabouredabar2497
Жыл бұрын
Thanks
@ZahraLowzley
Жыл бұрын
EM/G Sediment displacement . Not weak. Somalumine , spect recursion at tensor tolerance
@hanszippert9468
Жыл бұрын
A lot of things to unpack here. The strong force or QCD actually provides an enormous simplification. In the early days of particle physics a gigantic particle zoo was discovered and these particles were thought to be elementary. Then with the advent of QCD these particles could be classified according to their constituents, the quarks, and grouped into patterns using group theoretic methods. Just to state the obvious, QCD is a consistent and predictive quantum field theory that has met every experimental test so far. But your biggest issue seems to me your reluctance to study QFT. You always keep referring to the bogous Oliver Consa paper claiming somehow that QED is a big conspiracy. Spoiler alert, it is not. But I guess there is no way of convincing you otherwise. Even after giving you the precise mathematical expression for the supposedly "missing diagram" in the g-2 calculation, which is not that difficult to calculate with modern methods, you would probably find excuses to cling to your beliefs. Otherwise you couldn't make your "contrarian" videos and assume the role as outcast physicist rejected by the "mainstream". Your classification of the strong force as "vague" precisley stems from your ignorance to actually study it.
@TheMachian
Жыл бұрын
Consa does not claim QED is a conspiracy, he just shows evidence that many calculations were made up to match the experiments. Regarding your "simplification" by QCD: to reduce a nonsensical number of about 150 particles to 36 of the quark model is not such a big accomplishment after all.
@hanszippert9468
Жыл бұрын
@@TheMachian Obviously Consa doesn’t provide evidence for that. And it’s not because Consa doesn’t have any fancy degrees or works in a renowned university, his “work” is just laughable and doesn’t make a shred of sense. But I am honestly interested why you would believe such nonsense. How do you think this calculation meddling came about? Who was behind it?, surely the Americans. It’s always nice to cater to the good old German anti-americanism. Wouldn’t somebody have noticed before you that something was wrong? Since the entire particle physics theory is based on QFT, every theorist working since the 50s would need to play along and continue the calculation meddling.
@giovannipiccoli5239
Жыл бұрын
@@TheMachian 36? when in the world?
@davidwilkie9551
Жыл бұрын
"Mediation by particles", or particles of e-Pi-i "vibrational" condensation by relative-timing positioning in Reciproction-recirculation pulse-evolution Singularity. Inside-outside holographic Simultaneity.
@joegillian314
5 ай бұрын
The idea that these physical interactions are unable to occur between certain constituents of matter, because they lack some nebulous property which facilitates the interaction is not intuitive at all. What even is "charge?" or quantum spin? (it's a type of intrinsic angular momentum, but why should it even exist? We don't know. We just know that there is something that looks like intrinsic angular momentum for particles, and we call it "spin.")
@RichMitch
Жыл бұрын
What defines a force?
@GeoffryGifari
Жыл бұрын
if we were to get rid of the nuclear/strong force, what do you think is the best explanation we can come up with right now for nuclear physics?
@absolute___zero
Жыл бұрын
The best explanation is very straightforward. the Universe is a computer and the forces are the computing processes which calculate coordinates of the particles. Einstein didn't discover the curvature of spacetime, he discovered a computing lag. Why in the presence of gravity time slows? Easy explained with "Universe is a computer" model: the processors of the Universe have more work to do, therefore time slows in a similar manner it slows on your laptop when you start rendering a video with lots of effects. For the same reason, antigravity doesn't exist because the computing processes of our Universe are static and are running permanently.
@FunkyDexter
Жыл бұрын
Well, it's hard to say, because to do that we would need to understand the exact nature of protons and neutrons. The quark model is a "best fit" of experimental parameters, so it's only natural that it is the best theory we know of. But a model is a mathematical construct, we have never seen a free quark or gluon, and everytime something fishy comes up the theory simply gets slightly tweaked to include the new information. It's an infinitely adaptable "theory", that notably lacks any fundamental understanding and onthological basis of the inner workings of particles. If we stick to the experimental evidence, we can see that the plot of the strong force with respect to the distance between nucleons is extremely similar to the van der Waals plot between molecules. The scattering plot of proton-proton collision goes elastic-inelastic than back to elastic with increasing energy, meaning there's some sort of "solid core" inside them. Both these result highly suggest the proton has an inner structure. Then there's proton-antiproton collisions which generate the particle zoo, but all these particles are ephemeral and decay to either photons or electrons and neutrinos (and their anti-particles). But if we look at low energy electron-positron annihilation, the results are always photons. So we can conflate the proton annihilation to just photons and neutrinos. My bet is the actual structure of protons does not involve quarks but photon confinement. The ephemera are just transient topologies of these photons struggling to reach a more stable configuration, and while interesting they shouldn't be involved in the strong force at all. A cool hypothesis is that the proton has a double trifoilknot structure (you can look that up), which makes it appear to have 3 "lobes" (which can easily be identified as quarks). These lobes could then be pulled and stretched by neighboring nucleons. These are not the only reasons to be believe in this topology, but it's quite a long comment already.
@thatchinaboi1
Жыл бұрын
@@absolute___zero I hope you don't think The Universe is actually a computer. 🤦
@absolute___zero
Жыл бұрын
@@thatchinaboi1 it is. if you would be a software developer you wouldn't have any doubts. It is not a Von Neuman computing model obviously, and discovering this new model would be the biggest challenge for humanity. You can read this paper for info: _The emergence of the physical world from information processing_ by *Brian Whitworth*
@kasel1979krettnach
Жыл бұрын
I always wonder how Uranium could have been formed at all, given the fact that U235 was the by far more abundant isotope at it's formation ? it must have all been fissioned immediately + where are the fission products ? So I wonder if the strong force mediating all of this is really well understood.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
there is something very important: constants are not just a number and how they solved the problem of infinity "partially" and how important to connect them together, I have noticed that when I was a little child 12-14 years old maximum (calculus) there was more details, I have wrote that on Dr. Brain Keating youtube channel, I couldn't find that too, but I have noticed that he hide some comments, the number of comments, part is hidden, it could be mine one of them, usually I write separate comments. that is important too, to understand what is constants. it very important: better understanding of the fundamentals of physics such as speed, space, time, ...... etc because there is no chance anymore for any real scientific progress without deeper understanding, that was in the past but not anymore and that patching techniques will never work (needs real scientists). I have nothing to do more !
@ReadersOfTheApocalypse
Жыл бұрын
look for Structured Atom Model (SAM)
@kafalonitis
Жыл бұрын
"Novel quantitative push gravity/electricity theory poised for verification" is an alternative approach to address the issues discussed here.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
yeah I have talked a lot about consciousness type one and type two (they wrote books based on my comments "no exaggerations at all") they used both thievery as patching techniques and blunt theft ! a lot about human logic and mathematics (very important)
@doctorhongo5146
Жыл бұрын
what about the weak force? does it make sense?
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
oh yes, there is something very important, I have wrote that many years ago to but probably has been deleted too for theft purposes: that was a model of connecting subatomic level with cosmological level: the triangle of constants (Plank, Pi, .... cosmological constants) how to connect them, how all the starting points of all triangles point to the starting point, how I told them to rotate the triangles to understand the relationship between constants and space, time gravity,..... how those triangles generated, rotating them, momentum,....... there was more details: that was very important, unfortunately the thieves have deleted that too !
@Kurd05
Жыл бұрын
I’ve also heard that the strong force can just be explained without quarks via the Casimir force, what’s your view on this?
@TheMachian
Жыл бұрын
There are alternative ideas, though I cannot endorse a specific one. No easy problem.
@brankozivlak3291
Жыл бұрын
On one occasion, our well-known publicist announced: "One hen in town laid a black egg". Everyone commented on it, and the newspaper was successfully sold in the country and outside the borders of our country. The situation is the same with "strong force".
@markmartens
Жыл бұрын
"Let's say that we don't really understand the nucleus, ok? There is no quantitative theory that predicts any of the energy states. We have wonderful theory of the atomic shell, of quantum mechanics, predicts you all the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom, but we have nothing that does a quantitative prediction for the nucleus. We can't even explain the so-called magic numbers, the appearance of 20 protons, or 20 neutrons which make the nucleus very stable. There are 20, 50, 82,...Nobody can really quantitatively explain these numbers. So what you observe is a very vague messy model which is based on this strong force, and nobody of the great pre-war physicists like Einstein or Schrodinger would even mention the idea of a 'strong force'. So it's nothing that really advances physics." Alexander Unzicker, 'Misleading Concepts: The Strong Force'.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
it is not a new imaginary particle, it is about deeper understanding of space and time that will solve the problem of the rest. Unfortunately I lost my chance and hardly I can think and focus. better to rely on future generations by improving the current education system and must be ready at early 20's because the peak capacity of human brain is at twenties. Is not easy at all (doable for sure) But science is a long Journey that takes time and a lot of work, it is not the job of one generation to accomplish that!
@ready1fire1aim1
Жыл бұрын
Is zero the most important number? Zero is the most important number in mathematics. Zero functions as a placeholder. Imagine a number, e.g., 5 and put as many zeroes behind it as you can think of. Zero drastically changes the value of the number from a mere 5 to 50, 500, 5000, 50000 and beyond. Which is the greatest whole number? There is no 'largest' whole number. Every whole number has an immediate predecessor, except 0. A decimal number or a fraction that falls between two whole numbers is not a whole number. Why is it impossible to divide by zero? The short answer is that 0 has no multiplicative inverse, and any attempt to define a real number as the multiplicative inverse of 0 would result in the contradiction 0 = 1. Is 0 a rational number? Yes, 0 is a rational number. Since we know, a rational number can be expressed as p/q, where p and q are integers and q is not equal to zero. Thus, we can express 0 as p/q, where p is equal to zero and q is an integer. Is 0 A whole number? The whole numbers are the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on (the natural numbers and zero). Negative numbers are not considered "whole numbers." All natural numbers are whole numbers, but not all whole numbers are natural numbers since zero is a whole number but not a natural number. Why is 0 a good number? Zero helps us understand that we can use math to think about things that have no counterpart in a physical lived experience; imaginary numbers don't exist but are crucial to understanding electrical systems. Zero also helps us understand its antithesis, infinity, in all of its extreme weirdness.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
the thieves could not understand why I wrote that connecting both subatomic scale and cosmological scale are essential to understand superposition and gravity ! the current understanding of both space and time are wrong, and there is no chance to make any real progress in science without finding a solution for that. I know that the thieves couldn't digest how could both subatomic scale and cosmological scale are strongly related.
@realphysics5137
Жыл бұрын
In order for the proton and neutron in a hydrogen nucleus to be able to withstand nuclear power, they must run around each other at about the speed of light. If we know why they orbit each other at all, then all mysteries about nuclear power will be solved!
@johnwalczak9202
Жыл бұрын
that is the old Bohr's model that is flawed. If a charged particle moves in circle, then it radiates electromagnetic field - dissipates energy. in short period of time the particle would lose its potential energy and fall down from the orbit.
@realphysics5137
Жыл бұрын
@@johnwalczak9202 Yes, there is an important question: where does the energy come from? which is required for all movements. And force also needs energy. To answer this question we have to learn physics again from the beginning: Who can explain this physical phenomenon? - Introduction to Real Physics. (#1)** kzitem.info/news/bejne/qaClxaKnjaGQlqw
@buddysnackit1758
Жыл бұрын
More fundemental yet. How does a pull work. Even theoretically. A pull can not exist. So yeah I just blew your mind. BTW: I have the answers.
@husseinmohammadabouredabar2497
Жыл бұрын
Or might the ordinary laws Might Varying In The Nucleus As For As Example The Electromagnetic radiation in the case Of The electrons!
@crazy8sdrums
Жыл бұрын
I might have elaborated on how the definition of the 'strong force' has changed a lot over the last 100 years, as has the definition of Gluons. I wrecked a college professor with the idea of Gluons, to the point of her almost crying...and I was just asking simple questions like a child might...because I was. This was in the '80s...and the definition of gluons has changed a whole lot since then and it hasn't improved in resolution either. Science has become a grievous tragedy and I feel so let down. I had hopes, which is an incoherent word in today's science! FAITH IST VERBOTEN, BIGOTS!!!
@Hicks-cw8qw
Жыл бұрын
What if protons instead of being next to each other with their iondividual charges where fused together? no more repulsion and no more need for strong force. We know next to nothing about the real geometry/structure of atoms anyway... Where does the electric charge come from exactly?
@wesbaumguardner8829
Жыл бұрын
Men quite often get so lost in what they think they know that they cannot find what they do not know.
@sung-ryulkim6590
Жыл бұрын
What is more lacking than our understanding of the Strong Force? His communication skill!
@lorandhorvath4466
Жыл бұрын
What if the so-called "strong force" is only a direct effect of gravity at very short distances, i.e. quantum gravity in action?
@ordinarybloke6962
Жыл бұрын
Or, maybe, the short range electrostatic force with the nucleus made of protons and electrons. This is 10^38 times stronger than gravitation, or there abouts. Free neutrons decay to protons, electrons & anti-neutrenos within a few minutes, after all. See the structured atom model (SAM) on the See the Pattern channel. He shows plausible explanations for nuclear stability and decay patterns.
@paulg444
Жыл бұрын
I greatly appreciate these videos, but on this one I have to say the strong force provides an explanation for the most fundamental observation of atomic physics that nuclei exist in integer multiples of protons. This needs an explanation and the strong force provides it. It may be worth revisiting but it is not possible to avoid the issue.
@TheMachian
Жыл бұрын
I do not think that the strong force explains that. Integer nuclei were long known before.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
do you mean this: Equivalence principal seems weird because the current interpretations of gravity is incomplete. Imagine that gravity deals with each particle independently regardless it's location to others and try to move any object holding the same approach, then try to think why they are equivalent. both Newton's and Einstein's theories are wrappers, they did good and important work but not enough, even Einstein didn't scratch the surface regarding space and time time, and that is why time delays when it is closer to stronger gravity. a lot of work to do could take hundreds of years of continuous hard work regarding space, time and gravity. To concise: no need for a new imaginary particles, there need right now only to deeper understanding! hopefully it is the last round, it was so bad and hard experience!
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
there was more for instance so-called Dirac's cosmology ......
@doctorhongo5146
Жыл бұрын
Quantum mechanics doesn't need an extra force to explain why the electrons stay together in the atom. The nuclei could be a system such as an atom and you could describe it with only electromagnetic forces without the need for extra forces.
@giovannipiccoli5239
Жыл бұрын
yes, unless that protons tend to repel each other because of electrical forces and gravity is too weak in comparison. Nice try, but i would deepen my studies
@doctorhongo5146
Жыл бұрын
@@giovannipiccoli5239 electrons repel each other as well
@giovannipiccoli5239
Жыл бұрын
@@doctorhongo5146 correct, and so? Electrons repel each other but are attracted by the positively charged nuclei
@pauloilman831
Жыл бұрын
If you agree on the existence of protons and neutrons, there is the question what keeps them together. While the electric force keeps the electrons to the nucleus, you would expect it to repell the protons? It must be another force that is stronger than the electric one, so cant be gravity. So how can u say that nuclear force doesnt make sense? To me it seems to be necessary.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
take a look at Pi in circles for instance, think about the real role of by connecting that to calculus and infinity, there was a lot about maths, for instance how the zero and how they built sets of numbers and how they used that to build connected sets, ..... by the way ancient human civilisations knew that (constants) but I doubt that they connected that to infinity. take a look at how ancient Egyptians and Chinese,... were doing maths then compare that to current mathematics.
@BartvandenDonk
Жыл бұрын
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't talk about force on its own. Force is a verb that describes what we see happening. Maybe we should more talk about the direction of it. Is it really a straight line? For instance gravity is NOT a pulling force. Gravity bends.
@thephuntastics2920
Жыл бұрын
I würde gerne mal mit ihnen meine theory of the universe bequatschen, bei nem tee und nem stück kuchen.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
they are old emails, but most of the thieves got them from my comments on closer to truth youtube channel, mostly deleted for theft purposes, but I still keep old notes, screenshots, emails, ...
@SkyDarmos
Жыл бұрын
So you want to be stuck in 1920 or so forever?
@justinmurre5193
Жыл бұрын
Indeed the problem is with quantitative pre- or postdictions even about which nucleus compositions should be stable and which not.
@husseinmohammadabouredabar2497
Жыл бұрын
This is what we must think for !
@supergsx
Жыл бұрын
Lol your thumbnail makes this video look like a rap video.
@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591
3 ай бұрын
There's no such thing as a pull force, or attraction, these are holes which allow stuff to move into them.
@JerryMlinarevic
Жыл бұрын
You can think and talk about forces, but the fundamental dynamics underlying them are more... well fundamental and beautiful.
@BrianPSlee
Жыл бұрын
There is no strong force or weak force. The structure of the atomic nucleus and its stability are a function of the external dielectric pressure exerted on it by the aether. Correcting the invalid assumption that the atom is neutral yields mathematical proofs that result in balanced equations when populated with CODATA recorded measurements.
@denzali
Жыл бұрын
Good answer 👌🏻
@BrianPSlee
Жыл бұрын
@@denzali TY denzali. If you are interested in reading the complete theory and reviewing the math model feel free to contact me via the email address in the about tab on my youtube page and I will send you the latest updates. Cheers
@commonsense1103
Жыл бұрын
Everything is weird about the model except the strong force. Kind of makes you think the argument lies with the particles.
@husseinmohammadabouredabar2497
Жыл бұрын
Probabilistic And Statistical Interpretation???
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
wave function collapse and conscious intervention: humans must postpone this to the next step "too early", it is a very complex process, but it has nothing to do with so called alleged universal consciousness, it is related to the intervention of individuals and has nothing to do with so-called imaginary universal consciousness. (consciousness type one and type two are just a part of kind of very advanced coding system works at the core level of existence "not so called universal rather much deeper") it has to do with consciousness type two which just a part of what humans call: self concept, this is very advanced topic and too early for humans even just to think about that, right now it is better to focus on how to replace the current combustion engines with systems to generate computer controlled self-synchronized momentum pads probably electromagnetism is the best candidate right now, and focus on deeper understanding of the fundamentals of physics along with connecting both subatomic level with cosmological level for deeper understanding of space. that is the only solution for mankind to make a real progress in science unless they're insisting on their irrational hallucinations to keep mankind as a kind of apes.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
this was written years ago, rewritten once more later "it became a book of ..... !" there are more important things about time and space, but why! they steal then delete then pollute): Haroon Averroes 3 months ago time strongly related to space, humans need space as arena to calculate time, time travel to the past is not possible, why it is a long story, basically if that is possible humans in future would come to me directly ! unfair! your brain makes continuous calculations for dimensions and change thus "time", the cerebellum plays main role in that process, but you are unaware of that, that is why speed, acceleration, velocity,... are strongly related to space and time and how we measure them. reference, memory, ..... it is a long story! the clock and hour, minute hands are the reference and memory, ticking is the measurement, .... the story is in space itself, they have misunderstanding, there is a process of space creation and there are two cycles not only one cycle, still too early for that. that does not mean that time does not exist or just an illusion, it only means: there is no time without space. they can use thievery as patching techniques as usual "it is an old habit".
@dharmverma7595
Жыл бұрын
Could all these different forces be manifestations of distortion of space from ultra ultra small size to massive massive size , the latter being represented as gravitational force. First we propose that plus and minus attract each other. Then we make a discovery that there are particles that attract each other,so we name them positive and negative. Then we explain the phenomenon as follows- they attract each other because they are positive and negative. When you put positive and negative poles of magnets close to each other the force one feels is real and something very tangible I could never understand how transfer of photons between the two poles could create this?
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
"There is not the slightest evidence the gravitational force is mediated by particles." Okay, how about forces are not things of nothings that affect somethings, they are always a particles in motion. 1. The electromagnetic force and gravitational force operate on the exact same equation of state and therefore that proves they are the same thing, just on different scales. You cannot have two forces using the same equation of state because you cannot distinguish them without switching scales. 2. The solar system consists of planets not randomly orbiting the sun, they are all in the same plane with some perturbations by collisions. That plane of rotation is called the sun's equator and the sun's equator is the exact center between its north and south poles. Nothing in gravity relativity can enforce planar gravity. 3. All moons of all planets of our solar system, a few perturbations from collisions, but vastly most all orbit their host planets on the equatorial plane of their planets, exactly center between the two poles of the planets. 4. Globular cluster "galaxies" are just clustering from perspective, but spiral galaxies are a thing and they are all planar. 5. You can show planar gravity by always thinking of space in 2-D and show planets warping space on the plane, but this is not reality. Take 50,000 objects orbiting a planet in any random orbit and their planes of warping go everywhere, but the best approximation is that in 3-D there is space compression. How do objects compress space? 6. The rings of Saturn and Neptune are ice crystal of microscopic size so you are saying that a quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion of them warp space to be in an exact plane on the equator of their host planets, how exactly? The difference between mass of host planet and each grain must be billions of orders of magnitude, and yet, whoa, they follow the rule of moons. 7. Oh look, the rings of ice around these planets is not clumped, they are monodispersions. So what causes that? Random chance for you again, or how about electrostatic repulsion. Okay, so now we have a charged system responding to the planets where the particles are infinitesimally small, so all the things charged particles do in an electric field. 8. The universe has galaxies and outside of the galaxies, free stars are a monodispersion. Let us take out our tiny local physics toolkit and explain this absolutely uniform monodispersion across all space without talking about charge repulsion. Go for it. 9. There are auroras on all the planets at both poles that shows a what? A nothing? That is a charge force linked to the sun. I think your sweeping generality doesn't match a lot of observations. Your model that explains all these phenomena is what?
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
Relativity does not enforce structure in a system of two bodies, which disproves it right there. Ice grains around Saturn better be a fog not a planar sheet or relativity was just falsified or is too incomplete to use.
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
What is really neat about the ice ring of Saturn is that it also shows us the stable distance of the grains from Saturn, which of course, relativity cannot explain.
@donaldkasper8346
Жыл бұрын
Okay, 10. All the planets and all the moons of all the planets always orbit in the same direction, which I do believe is the same direction of the larger body they orbit. How does relativity enforce rotational direction so absolutely? And 11. How does relativity explain why our sun, all planets, and all moons, spin? Isn't spin an electric field behavior?
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
They are simple people, they have misinterpretations of so called multi-verse, because they don't think rather they use patching techniques! what can solve the problem of space, time, Gravity, entanglement, .... Is connecting both subatomic level and cosmological level, simply because they are strongly connected. that will solve the problem of constants automatically and more. there is a lot of work to do, that needs a real rational intelligent human entities to achieve, that will rebuild human history forever (turn the apes into real humans) that will take a time and a lot of hard work (not easy but deserve all efforts). hopefully they will be able to understand that only Humanity and intelligence "the pride of mankind) can build human civilization, and that humanity is not a luxury matter and it is not weakness at all, it is weakness only from the weak irrationals perspective.
@jaycorrales5329
Жыл бұрын
The protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus should repel all elements into free hydrogen based upon electromagnetic principles, but it apparently does not! For gravity at least there's an idea of a gravitational field, but the strong force what mechanism is at play was never clearly explained to me, other than it exists as a fundamental force. I hope that the so called physics experts of today realize how much is unaccounted for, and that there should be a codification of existential holes in the science itself.
@AlirezaAsgari270
Жыл бұрын
I have a model that builds atomic nuclei only on two real particles, Protons & Electrons. Without assuming electrons in the nucleus is not possible to attach protons to each other. There is no P-P chain activity anywhere in the universe because it is not possible. No evidence for that and only Arthur Eddington's imagination. It was accepted by scientific society at a time, which the science was under attack by the science expressionism movement, which originated from the main expressionism movement in Europe, the late 1800s to early 1900s.
@tensortrain1621
Жыл бұрын
How do you explain the different nuclear Spin of different isotopes?
@nathanielhellerstein5871
Жыл бұрын
So how do you explain the nucleus?
@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time
Жыл бұрын
It is hard to imagine a timeless world, but that is what we have within the Nucleus of an Atom that is governed by the Strong Nuclear Force. In many theories there is no explanation for the timeless nature of the Atomic Nucleus, but in this theory nothing could be more logical. Because in this theory the process we see and feel as the passage of time is formed be the light of the EM spectrum interacting with the electron cloud of probability the surrounds the Atomic Nucleus. This process of energy exchange is outside of the Atomic Nucleus and is not governed by the Strong Nuclear Force it is governed by the Electromagnetic force. This theory can also give us a reason why we have four fundamental forces that have such different characteristics.
@mossig
Жыл бұрын
@Unzickers real physics I understand that you have an KZitem career debunking main stream science and I agree a lot with you on subjects. But if you want the Nobel price your going to have to come up with a new working model instead.
@aminomar7890
Жыл бұрын
do you know that sometimes sentences are more important than books ? who understand does not need to write books ! only valuable sentences are enough. those have nothing usually talk too much with my respect to the minority.
@philoso377
Жыл бұрын
Just because we understand solar system (central mass sun and orbiting members) don’t constitute that atom should be surrounded by orbiting particles, electrons? No central mass? Right, no central mass was found in central location between Solar and Sirius yet each sharing a common “orbital” axis and angular velocity. Binary Stars? That is what Electric Universe folks advocate. For example, Solar and Sirius (appears to track one another under binary star principle) actually each were drag by (electro motive force) in one strand of a paired helix filaments known as Birkeland current. Yet no dominating mass were founded in the central location. Zooming out we can see a number of Birkeland current filament stranding up but separated from one another to form one spiral arm leading to the center of the galaxy. All member planets of spiral arm ends up at the galaxy center one at a time, by electric force but gravity. It takes time for a galaxy to gather enough material to make up a central mass or sun. The angle velocity of all material in each spiral arm is governed by a greater electric force of Birkeland current passing through the polar axis of that galaxy. Such Birkeland current has a diameter no less than the fringe planet of that galaxy. In that model dark matter or dark energy Is unnecessary to explain a constant angular velocity to each member in the galaxy. Just electric force and current.
@williambunting803
Жыл бұрын
This is where My thought model of the Nucleus starts. The primary constructional element must be energy, so what form does that take in the core of a Quark. I speculate that this is energy operating at above light speed. But light cannot travel above light speed, so why would energy within a particle be able to operate above light speed? Light in a vacuum is traveling through a field which by some interaction limits that speed, but that field also limits the speed of any other form of energy exponentially to the speed of light. So there is an interaction between the field and energy moving through the field. So for a large quantity of energy to be contained as a package of energy, that energy would be reacting with the field around it to form the confinement observed to prevent whole Protons from traveling at actual light speed. The important thing to note is that the field must be excluded from the interior of a Quark for this to be possible. That is the hub of the more probable reality. Matter Energy is a quantity of energy trapped in a field shell. If that is the case then the boundary condition must be one of intense energy interactions and the energy level of the field surrounding a Quantity of Matter Energy must be elevated, and most probably that Energy level dissipates away from the Reaction Zone (Strong Field Force) to produce a secondary feature … Gravity. The higher the concentration of Matter Energy in the form of Particles, the higher the Field Energy of that Mass. This thought model requires that Matter Energy (Particles deflect away from cold Low Energy Space towards a High Energy Field caused by a Mass of matter, or an area of Space might have an elevated level of Energy caused by a previous Cosmological event such as the collapse of a Neutron Star to create an area of Phantom Matter (Dark Matter). So that is what I speculate is the fundamental energy reaction that makes the Universe work. Dynamic Energy reacting with a Static Energy Field, and that containment reaction energy is the Strong Nuclear Force and Gravity and the Weak Nuclear Force, all at different scales dependent on the Distance from the Primary Reaction. If Dynamic Energy does operate at above light speed within the Quark, then the size of the quark and the energy value of the Quark are not necessarily proportional. The Energy of the Strong Force is derived from that energy of the particle it self. The Universe is one Energy Type in two different forms (Dynamic and Static (Loop Energy) … not controversial), it is that simple.
@quantumman4527
Жыл бұрын
If strong force doesn't make any sense, how gravitational and electric force makes sense sir???
@BlueGiant69202
Жыл бұрын
Well... I am not sure Dr. Unzicker is being fair to QCD. It's not quantitative? The argument given in this video is weak. There are also ideas coming out now to link SU(3) to Gauge Theory Gravity (R. Lasenby. C. Furey, Doran, A. Lasenby et al.)
@hanszippert9468
Жыл бұрын
Why is it that someone, who is supposedly keen on free speech, restricting the ability to make factual comments? Isn't that the type of censorship that you like to call out ?
@TheMachian
Жыл бұрын
The comment section is for people who use a fairly cultivated language. If you have a problem with that, leave.
@christophepatou1764
Жыл бұрын
If we accept to say that a proton is a scwartchild proton then protons are in perfect equilibrium between gravity and centrifugal forces in nucleus. Then no more needs of black matter and energy, as well as strong force. Quite spicy!
@haroonaverroes6537
Жыл бұрын
some one else talks about registering what he has stolen as a patent! he was in hurry! that was about replacing the current combustion engines with new engines to avoid wasting a huge amount of energy: computer controlled engines for generating self-synchronized thrust pads, ..... probably the best candidate right now is electromagnetism,...
@husseinmohammadabouredabar2497
Жыл бұрын
We need radical ideas In Interpretation of Strange Phenomena To Avoid Complexity
@paulbart7045
Жыл бұрын
Doesn't make sense? No need to explain why a Helium nucleus doesn't fly apart? None of the "great ones" from the 30's concerned themselves about the stability of the nucleus? Who needs a strong force? You sound like a flat earther -- check out Eric Dubay, you'll like him. After all, who needs a spherical earth.
@decadent.
Жыл бұрын
I love the image of Unzicker secretly watching Dubay videos !! :) Afterwards he paces around repeating "The earth is a globe" trying to stop his himself thinking about it ... Knowing deep down that he doesn't have any convincing arguments the refute the FE claim..
@larrytanner4725
Жыл бұрын
This video offers nothing. We have no knowledge and little upon which to base speculation.
@rajeev_kumar
Жыл бұрын
These days, nothing makes sense.
@markkaidy8741
Жыл бұрын
Sorry Man...you have got some interesting ideas on the speed of light but when you say that electromagnetic force is not mediated by photons, you lost my subscription. The strong force is the best unifier for all "forces" The color charge of quarks exists in folded space. When a quark is removed from a proton (or neutron) , space is torn and that is the reason for the antimatter pair meson to be created.... And since folded space exists in protons and neutrons this is the real source of gravity. Spacetime is curved on the micro level and manifests in the macro with large mass. Yes Virginia the Strong Force is real. Gravity however is a resultant phenomena of the Strong Force.
Пікірлер: 151