so the simplest case in an electron scattering event is mainly from the one photon transferr situation but how much does that contribute? cause it sounded like it only contributed a percent of the propability

When a photon exchanged during an electron pair scattering produces particle- anti-particle pair, the pair lasts for “some” time before annihilating. If they are going to last for some time, they could not move in the same directions in space or they would not separte and hence not last for a certain defined time. But if they diverge and have to converge again, a certain kind of force or interaction should be acting or the gemometry of their path of travel should agree with the the diverging and converging (by the influnece of some other field.

Now this is related. A non-random behaviour of a particle in a system is when its interaction agrees with the behaviour of the system. When a particle inside a system interacts or behaves in such a way that it does not agree on the properties of the system, the behaviour of the particle can be called random. Eg: A series of 4 particles in a sytem are such that their kinetic energy configures as 10 degrees celcius, 20 degrees, 30 degrees and 40 degrees (the particles are in one dimensional arrangement according to their order of listing) . Considering the 20 degrees particle, its energy flows towards it from the 30 degree particle through it towards the ten degrees celsius. But if the 20 degree particle acts as isolated from the 3 other particles rather as a separate system relative to the system consisting of the other 3 partciles (which to the system of 20 degree particle acts as a system with energy configuration of 27 degrees (plausible), energy will now flow from the system of three particles toward the isolated system of 20 degree particle.

So when one (actually both from each’s perspective) of the particle pair acts a separate system to the remaining system, a potential energy to interact with the rest of the system converges the two to annihilate again. If it’s confirmable that such a particle-antiparticle pair can not be extracted from electron pair scattering in a time interval greater than 1 planck time, the property randomness can be defined and extrapolated: interactions below the planck scales are random because below the planck scales, an element acts as a system isolated from the rest of its neighbourhood (rest of the universe) and interacts as per some form of energy potential of the rest of the universe. Elements acting in such way below the planck scales can be used to define maximum energy density of a planck unit.

As it is presented here, I could have done this. Just say: Ah, everything is possible! Oh, that results in infinities? Well, just measure what is, and skip that from your formula's and it will work out…. I know it must have more to say, but from this episode I would have said to Feynmann: Go and find another job, you clearly are uncapable of being a theoretical phycisist.

I don't get the jump from the field of electrons interacting through the virtual photons. Is that just a term used to describe a quantity of energy or degree of change between the electron states going in and coming out, or are they somehow using the photon field to change the vibration in their field?

"All infinite integral events".., are happening, as this solid instantaneous sum of all history.., the space of universal constants containing the potential possibly locus-location.., of all probability according to the inherent relative-math possibilities of liquid-change-now, QM-Time.

This presentation is well done in the nomenclature for the purpose of physics communication. Mine is not, ..still a matter of converting images back into the generating quantum function/operations. So IMO RF used Wheeler's one electron in the universe idea as the basis of the drawings, consciously or not, and the frequencies-amplitudes time connection is the general context. This nomenclature review is a job for actual Physicists who understand that Feynman Diagrams are symbolic representations of infinity.

This actually sounds a lot like how we solve equations in chemistry. In any chemical reaction, there are a number of different things actually happening, but the more complex an interaction, the less it contributes to the total character of the system, so we ignore all but the few simplest interactions that contribute the most to the outcome.

The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory on the Formation of the Universe When the Universe started to fall . When did Motion Start ? (1) The expansion of the universe is a result of the " heat ' contained therein; (2) The source of the " heat " is the cosmic microwave radiation background at 3 kelvin, wherein; (3) The microwave electro magnetic-nuclear energy was formed as a result of the interaction of two different static gravitational vacuum fields, causing gravitational instability and the motion, void of matter, at this time,

wherein; static gravitational field (1) began to go into "motion".

Therefore; the interaction of (2) motionless / static gravity vacuum fields, could eventually create dust particles in the Universe that later form into stars, galaxies , planets, moons and other objects in or about their current locations.

When did motion first start ?

Science knows the formation of matter in our universe was caused by the forces of the

universe.

These forces are:

(1) The Force of Gravity

(2) The Force of Electro Magnetism

(3) The Strong Nuclear Force

(4) The Weak Nuclear Force

At some point in time, motion within the universe, had to begin. The paradox would be, what force could cause motion to begin, without moving in its present space-time ?

The Gravitational Cosmological Theory was developed from an is rooted in the Einstein Steady State Theory and the Bondi-Gold-Hoyle Steady State Theory,

Wherein the Steady State Theory the universe, contains more protons than electrons that create dust particles and galaxies formed in their current locations and the cosmic matter is recycled therein at the center of the galaxy furnace. ———— When the Universe started to fall: The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory on the Formation of the Universe. The Theory: (1) The expansion of the universe is a result of the " heat ' contained therein; (2) The source of the " heat " is the cosmic microwave radiation background at 3 kelvin, wherein; (3) The microwave electro magnetic-nuclear energy was formed as a result of the interaction of two different static gravitational vacuum fields, causing gravitational instability and the motion, void of matter, at this time, wherein; static gravitational field (1) began to go into "motion".

Therefore; the interaction of (2) motionless / static gravity vacuum fields, could eventually create dust particles in the Universe that later form into stars, galaxies , planets, moons and other objects in or about their current locations.

Q: When did this motion start? A: If a neutral particle is able to resist the universal motion, in theory, that particle would go back in time. Going back in time the neutral particle would then enter into (1) of the (2) motionless-static gravity vacuum fields void of motion, and cause an unbalance and gravitational instability and this interaction would create motion and energy particles. Q: What causes a gravitational static vacuum field in the first place ? A: Pressure force is used to create a vacuum on Earth, perhaps an exotic something 100,000 times weaker than the force of gravity decays, causing a static-motionless gravity vacuum field.

Q: What created the motionless gravity vacuum fields in the first place ?

A: Vacuums are created by pressure so the only answer I can think of is a created vacuum pressure from the future to start motion in the past.

( DRI 2002, the theory needs improvement – help yourself )

Feynman integral of all possible path add up equal to vacuum energy at every scale E*L=c*h=299792458*6.626*10^-34=118*(1.67*10^-27)=(4.9)^3 time proton's mass,E=ch/L=chR=13.6 ev, R=1/L=1/(4*3.14*137*5.3*10^-11), as sum zero of zeta function which only one prime number(p) difference at p^2 take as A^2 (A is amplitude of probability wave), both it's sum is 1.

I thought photon energies were limited from being arbitrarily large by the fact that the smallest wavelength possible is the Planck length. energy = Planck's constant * frequency, speed of photon = frequency * wavelength, speed of light is constant so if the frequency (energy) increases the wavelength decreases, so the highest energy photon possible has a wavelength of a Planck length. Is that incorrect?

Replybenjamin estradaSeptember 1, 2018 at 10:51 pm

do the vertex ineractions affect the photon diffraction patterns?

The whole "self-energy" problem (maybe relating to quantum gravity) had my head spinning. I can never get enough of theoretical physics, but I'm just going to go to bed.

ReplyMichael Michael MotorcycleOctober 2, 2018 at 5:05 pm

The secret is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but elaborating further on that the particles of measurement also along with its energy it's borrowed from the future and it's like moving through a soup of these particles and using 1 using using one only once we going to the next one

The secret is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but elaborating further on that the particles of measurement also along with its energy it's borrowed from the future and it's like moving through a soup of these particles and using 1 using using one only once we going to the next one

The secret is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but elaborating further on that the particles of measurement also along with its energy it's borrowed from the future and it's like moving through a soup of these particles and using 1 using using one only once we going to the next one

ReplyAditya Das. Mr.COSMOSOctober 7, 2018 at 5:30 pm

Why would a virtual photong come into existence between an approaching pair of particles? What governs the origin point of such. Can virtual particles be something other than photons?

I got rather confused at the beginning when you talked about the exchange of one virtual photon between the two electrons. There are two electrons which cause two excitations in the electron field, therefore shouldn't they cause two excitations in the electromagnetic field, which means that the pair of electrons would exchange not one, but two virtual photons in one repulsion? Would really appreciate it if someone can answer this. My head hurts.

I would like to say thanks PBS spacetime. You guys are on it. I wanted to request something. I have seen a lot of lectures and salons about the many worlds interpretation and how it works. They seem to always say "Then the universe splits in two." This seems really counter to the idea. I always thought it was always many worlds. No plitting needed. In fact the case for the many is already there I think. One has to remove worlds to make a "split" If it's all quantum, then wouldn't it be more about wich worlds one "sees" and not what world is created? That way it can all be quantum just not all observable. I get that some folks think this is useless as it can't be proven, but I think it's important to show that observation shows us some possible particular state of the universe, not THE state of The Universe. Like, say all quantum systems in the whole are in superposition but connected through likelihood. Maybe even entanglement. I don't think it's useless just misunderstood.

I mean what if you can only "see" one chunk of time and no others. Just your chunk. Your chunk is a lifetime long and as big as all that you see in that time.

Like if you take the whole city of New York and every possible thing in a day that can be observed without any filter. You have nonsense. Just random junk everywhere. Add a video camera and we limit our perspective. Now we see objects interacting though time. That's how it seems to me. I would love to see a more indepth look at these ideas. We can't prove what happens inside a black hole but we still try, and that work has been very revealing.

The electrons don't bounce off each other, they actually just pass through each other like waves but 4-dimensional wave crests smack into each other and affect their source waves. The math works out. 9:30 The math works out if you calculate mass(time). Yes, infinite kinetic mass energies are possible but they last for so little time that they average out to the known electron kinetic mass. It is actually why an electron increases in mass as it goes faster and faster: the electron's time dilation makes the infinite kinetic mass last longer from our pov and thereby creating relativistic mass.

What if you impossed the rule that the total energy of a particular Feynman interaction is constant. Hence the sum of an electrons self energy plus it's remaining mass must be constant. I don't know what forces govern an electron to emit and re-absorb a photon with, say, an energy equivalent to half it's mass, but I think it's safe to assume that it doesn't happen very often (otherwise electrons would give off heaps of UV light). So this a wild guess, but could the relationship between the sum of the self energy be explained by an inverse probability relation (i.e. 1 – (photon energy)/(total energy of electron))?

Hypothesis: In a universe containing nothing but one electron, the mass of that electron is infinite. The absorption of many of those photons by other particles is what limits the mass to a finite number.

I have a question. How can I calculate my own (approximate) mass in electron-volts? Assume I'm at-rest, because that's the truth — I'm sitting on my ass watching YouTube.

Referring to the QFT: They tried to proof the Plank units in space by measuring the crispness of light from verry distant objects and the pictures were to crisp. Could it be, that the photons don't have to pass the real Plank units in space but could travel as field exitationes – so to say: under the radar- to us and materialize in our telescopes?

If light is our medium of information exchange, and that our intimate knowledge of the universe is limited to that which interacts with light, how can we definitively claim those other possibilities don't actually exist if they don't interact with light? Those other fundamental fields must also be mediums of information exchange, but how does one wrap one's mind around how they really are? Must one be familiar with the raw data? Is there any living human being who could legitimately do that given our short life span? I imagine that's what a Feynman diagram really is, a conceptual model that agrees with the data. If we must use our imaginations to perceive these things as they really are, isn't the rabbit hole of analogies that approach the real meaning an inevitability, even between those with PhDs? In the game of signifier and signified, are you sure you're all on the same page? Is that why Feynman preferred to use so many examples? With more examples of concept comes more clarity of concept, i.e. the more descriptive one becomes the more precise one becomes?

In August the eclipse is? Really????? Which YEAR????, Do you even understand that you do not exist in time? Please specify the time you are referencing too when talking on your videos, sigh. and yes I mean the pun psi

Nice video. Just a little moment to clarify. When you were giving examples of higher order diagrams contributing to the scattering amplitude of two electrons (or 4-point electron correlation function), you included the diagrams corresponding to the dressing of external electron lines. These diagrams should not be included for any correlation function. It is what's called amputation of external legs. Technically, it's seen from the definition of correlation functions where you take the vacuum average from the T-ordered product of the operators in the interaction representation which can be rewritten as the T-ordered product of the Heisenberg operators (bare operators) and the S-matrix (and do not forget to divide the result by the vacuum average of the S-matrix). It is easy to show that only connected diagrams with amputated external legs contribute to the interaction part of the correlation functions. Thank you.

Wow, I am your biggest fan! You probably hear this a lot, and it must be very tiresome. But hey, I am here now, so it will be a easier from now on. Anyway keep up the good work. And at least you have one person who can understand what you are trying to do.

Feynman Diagrams get closer to a systematic way of showing the external properties of the "Pacman" dimension and Renormalization = instantaneous to eternal zero-infinity range of Temporal Superposition Holography?

You said that superluminal paths add little to the probability – but not zero?

ReplyThe Truth of the MatterJune 18, 2019 at 11:15 pm

If we lived in a One Electron Universe then the electrons would have infinite mass right? Maybe that's why the equation keeps giving us an infinite electron mass.

Anyone else see a problem with, "physicists have geniously solved the problem of the 'inconvenient' mathematical infinities by folding in a term to correct for these errors" … i.e. something has gone horribly wrong … But it could be literally ANYWHERE from our base assumptions starting at the very beginning of the foundations of QFT to now … But let's stick with our current path and "throw in an error term" i.e. a term to soak up all the error we've accumulated so far" ?

I think in both worlds of mathematics and physics we need to stop using the words 1) infinite 2) infinitely many 3) infinitesimally etc and replace them with words like "unbounded". Doing so will mentally change our perspective to a MUCH more logical, grounded approach to all these subjects, starting with calculus. Not only would students benefit, but professional physicists and mathematicians as well and even the progress of all these subjects

"this renormalization trick can be used to eliminate many of the infinities that arise in QFT" … I.e. this trick of making up terms to soak in all the unexplainable errors is wonderfully useful ?

Clearly, Feynman who lived in the 20th century was a modern quantum physicist. I don't understand how some caveman from prehistoric times was able to make this video about him.

You could consider a kind of virtual photon that has zero energy. It could still have frequency, energy, wavelength and momentum states. It would have c and h built into it, but zero energy, zero energized quantum states.

ReplyBarrack Obama VlogsAugust 23, 2019 at 6:41 pm

I can't believe how much we still don't know, we make up theories on top of theories and still can't explain what gravity is?! We know the effects and can measure it but from the largest down to the smallest can't say what it is.

I have a question… so can we think that all of electric forces interaction that happens in the macroscopic level that seem to be continuous and smooth are all just emerged from exchanging virtual photons or many other quantized interactions in quantum level??

Who else watches something completely different, falls asleep, then wakes up to this guy having talked for hours…….I'm not complaing, just happens a lot.

## 100 Comments

Is self energy how an electron can be a muon. and is that also true for Tau.

so the simplest case in an electron scattering event is mainly from the one photon transferr situation but how much does that contribute? cause it sounded like it only contributed a percent of the propability

I hope you guys re-issue the glasses in 2024…

An annoyingly loud intro and 4 minutes of ads at the end? jfc

Oh well, the video is pretty good.

When a photon exchanged during an electron pair scattering produces particle- anti-particle pair, the pair lasts for “some” time before annihilating. If they are going to last for some time, they could not move in the same directions in space or they would not separte and hence not last for a certain defined time. But if they diverge and have to converge again, a certain kind of force or interaction should be acting or the gemometry of their path of travel should agree with the the diverging and converging (by the influnece of some other field.

Now this is related. A non-random behaviour of a particle in a system is when its interaction agrees with the behaviour of the system. When a particle inside a system interacts or behaves in such a way that it does not agree on the properties of the system, the behaviour of the particle can be called random. Eg: A series of 4 particles in a sytem are such that their kinetic energy configures as 10 degrees celcius, 20 degrees, 30 degrees and 40 degrees (the particles are in one dimensional arrangement according to their order of listing) . Considering the 20 degrees particle, its energy flows towards it from the 30 degree particle through it towards the ten degrees celsius. But if the 20 degree particle acts as isolated from the 3 other particles rather as a separate system relative to the system consisting of the other 3 partciles (which to the system of 20 degree particle acts as a system with energy configuration of 27 degrees (plausible), energy will now flow from the system of three particles toward the isolated system of 20 degree particle.

So when one (actually both from each’s perspective) of the particle pair acts a separate system to the remaining system, a potential energy to interact with the rest of the system converges the two to annihilate again. If it’s confirmable that such a particle-antiparticle pair can not be extracted from electron pair scattering in a time interval greater than 1 planck time, the property randomness can be defined and extrapolated: interactions below the planck scales are random because below the planck scales, an element acts as a system isolated from the rest of its neighbourhood (rest of the universe) and interacts as per some form of energy potential of the rest of the universe. Elements acting in such way below the planck scales can be used to define maximum energy density of a planck unit.

Could this make sense?

As it is presented here, I could have done this. Just say: Ah, everything is possible! Oh, that results in infinities? Well, just measure what is, and skip that from your formula's and it will work out…. I know it must have more to say, but from this episode I would have said to Feynmann: Go and find another job, you clearly are uncapable of being a theoretical phycisist.

When your that guy who starts watching documentaries at age 5 about space and moves onto quantum physics by age 12

I don't get the jump from the field of electrons interacting through the virtual photons. Is that just a term used to describe a quantity of energy or degree of change between the electron states going in and coming out, or are they somehow using the photon field to change the vibration in their field?

"All infinite integral events".., are happening, as this solid instantaneous sum of all history.., the space of universal constants containing the potential possibly locus-location.., of all probability according to the inherent relative-math possibilities of liquid-change-now, QM-Time.

This presentation is well done in the nomenclature for the purpose of physics communication. Mine is not, ..still a matter of converting images back into the generating quantum function/operations.

So IMO RF used Wheeler's one electron in the universe idea as the basis of the drawings, consciously or not, and the frequencies-amplitudes time connection is the general context. This nomenclature review is a job for actual Physicists who understand that Feynman Diagrams are symbolic representations of infinity.

This actually sounds a lot like how we solve equations in chemistry. In any chemical reaction, there are a number of different things actually happening, but the more complex an interaction, the less it contributes to the total character of the system, so we ignore all but the few simplest interactions that contribute the most to the outcome.

Do you need Low or High radiation ,To Deform A particle ?

Why not be The First to Tell people There's No Up Or Down.Or Gravity ,just Centrifugal Force " everything's a Lie !

Why can we create a devise that probe beyond the obvervable universe using superposition of matter and entanglement?

Just taylor approximate the shit out of it and throw away the things you don't like.

Its a math/logic map. Im kinda surprised it is considered all that special.

superb

At 7:00 – it was said, "each new vertex reduces its contribution by a factor of about 100". From where this "100" comes from?

The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory on the Formation of the Universe

When the Universe started to fall . When did Motion Start ?

(1) The expansion of the universe is a result of the " heat ' contained therein;

(2) The source of the " heat " is the cosmic microwave radiation background at 3 kelvin,

wherein;

(3) The microwave electro magnetic-nuclear energy was formed as a result of the

interaction of two different static gravitational vacuum fields, causing gravitational

instability and the motion, void of matter, at this time,

wherein; static gravitational field (1) began to go into "motion".

Therefore; the interaction of (2) motionless / static gravity vacuum fields, could eventually create dust particles in the Universe that later form into stars, galaxies , planets, moons and other objects in or about their current locations.

When did motion first start ?

Science knows the formation of matter in our universe was caused by the forces of the

universe.

These forces are:

(1) The Force of Gravity

(2) The Force of Electro Magnetism

(3) The Strong Nuclear Force

(4) The Weak Nuclear Force

At some point in time, motion within the universe, had to begin.

The paradox would be, what force could cause motion to begin, without moving in its

present space-time ?

The Gravitational Cosmological Theory was

developed from an is rooted in the Einstein Steady State Theory and the Bondi-Gold-Hoyle Steady State Theory,

Wherein the Steady State Theory the universe,

contains more protons than electrons that

create dust particles and

galaxies formed in their current locations and the cosmic

matter is recycled therein at the center of the galaxy furnace.

————

When the Universe started to fall:

The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory on the Formation of the Universe.

The Theory:

(1) The expansion of the universe is a result of the " heat ' contained therein;

(2) The source of the " heat " is the cosmic microwave radiation background at 3 kelvin,

wherein;

(3) The microwave electro magnetic-nuclear energy was formed as a result of the

interaction of two different static gravitational vacuum fields, causing gravitational

instability and the motion, void of matter, at this time, wherein; static gravitational

field (1) began to go into "motion".

Therefore; the interaction of (2) motionless / static gravity vacuum fields, could eventually create dust particles in the Universe that later form into stars, galaxies , planets, moons and other objects in or about their current locations.

Q: When did this motion start?

A: If a neutral particle is able to resist the universal motion, in theory, that particle

would go back in time. Going back in time the neutral particle would then enter into (1)

of the (2) motionless-static gravity vacuum fields void of motion, and cause an unbalance

and gravitational instability and this interaction would create motion and energy

particles.

Q: What causes a gravitational static vacuum field in the first place ?

A: Pressure force is used to create a vacuum on Earth, perhaps an exotic something

100,000 times weaker than the force of gravity decays, causing a static-motionless gravity vacuum field.

Q: What created the motionless gravity vacuum fields in the first place ?

A: Vacuums are created by pressure so the only answer I can think of is a created vacuum pressure from the future to start motion in the past.

( DRI 2002, the theory needs improvement – help yourself )

The universe is out of sync with Man,I know why ,Keep fighting well get there !

why does quantum field be almost impossible for all scientist?

But what is a quantum field made of?

9:11 Sounds like the problem that lead to quantum mechanics!

Matt, you have the best tone, mood, wording,and rhythm for explaining these things I have heard up until now, Thank you (~8

Feynman. I wish I had met him.

Feynman integral of all possible path add up equal to vacuum energy at every scale E*L=c*h=299792458*6.626*10^-34=118*(1.67*10^-27)=(4.9)^3 time proton's mass,E=ch/L=chR=13.6 ev, R=1/L=1/(4*3.14*137*5.3*10^-11), as sum zero of zeta function which only one prime number(p) difference at p^2 take as A^2 (A is amplitude of probability wave), both it's sum is 1.

Why particles shown as oscillations in a field are always one-dimensional, rather then two-dimensional?

String theory = inventing extra dimensions(Gods) to make your math work.

W.O.W.

Thank you Family I love you too that is beautiful, peace and love, Doug:)<3. PS You are researching in the right direction.

I got addicted to your videos. They and you are great. Thanks Professor

I thought photon energies were limited from being arbitrarily large by the fact that the smallest wavelength possible is the Planck length. energy = Planck's constant * frequency, speed of photon = frequency * wavelength, speed of light is constant so if the frequency (energy) increases the wavelength decreases, so the highest energy photon possible has a wavelength of a Planck length. Is that incorrect?

do the vertex ineractions affect the photon diffraction patterns?

The whole "self-energy" problem (maybe relating to quantum gravity) had my head spinning. I can never get enough of theoretical physics, but I'm just going to go to bed.

I’d love to meet the designer of this system.

The secret is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but elaborating further on that the particles of measurement also along with its energy it's borrowed from the future and it's like moving through a soup of these particles and using 1 using using one only once we going to the next one

The secret is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but elaborating further on that the particles of measurement also along with its energy it's borrowed from the future and it's like moving through a soup of these particles and using 1 using using one only once we going to the next one

The secret is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but elaborating further on that the particles of measurement also along with its energy it's borrowed from the future and it's like moving through a soup of these particles and using 1 using using one only once we going to the next one

Very nice

Why would a virtual photong come into existence between an approaching pair of particles? What governs the origin point of such. Can virtual particles be something other than photons?

I got rather confused at the beginning when you talked about the exchange of one virtual photon between the two electrons. There are two electrons which cause two excitations in the electron field, therefore shouldn't they cause two excitations in the electromagnetic field, which means that the pair of electrons would exchange not one, but two virtual photons in one repulsion?

Would really appreciate it if someone can answer this. My head hurts.

Ha ha ha! What happened to Lambda!?

Electron go in and electron go out, you can't explain that without QED

wish u could just use perturbation theory in exams to justify ur answer lol

near enuf is good enuf 😀

I would like to say thanks PBS spacetime. You guys are on it. I wanted to request something.

I have seen a lot of lectures and salons about the many worlds interpretation and how it works. They seem to always say "Then the universe splits in two." This seems really counter to the idea. I always thought it was always many worlds. No plitting needed. In fact the case for the many is already there I think. One has to remove worlds to make a "split" If it's all quantum, then wouldn't it be more about wich worlds one "sees" and not what world is created? That way it can all be quantum just not all observable. I get that some folks think this is useless as it can't be proven, but I think it's important to show that observation shows us some possible particular state of the universe, not THE state of The Universe. Like, say all quantum systems in the whole are in superposition but connected through likelihood. Maybe even entanglement. I don't think it's useless just misunderstood.

I mean what if you can only "see" one chunk of time and no others. Just your chunk. Your chunk is a lifetime long and as big as all that you see in that time.

Like if you take the whole city of New York and every possible thing in a day that can be observed without any filter. You have nonsense. Just random junk everywhere. Add a video camera and we limit our perspective. Now we see objects interacting though time. That's how it seems to me. I would love to see a more indepth look at these ideas. We can't prove what happens inside a black hole but we still try, and that work has been very revealing.

This is a beautiful person.

The electrons don't bounce off each other, they actually just pass through each other like waves but 4-dimensional wave crests smack into each other and affect their source waves. The math works out.

9:30 The math works out if you calculate mass(time). Yes, infinite kinetic mass energies are possible but they last for so little time that they average out to the known electron kinetic mass. It is actually why an electron increases in mass as it goes faster and faster: the electron's time dilation makes the infinite kinetic mass last longer from our pov and thereby creating relativistic mass.

Why should light should travel why can't it be in one place

Damn, physics Jesus knows his shit

maybe there is a static underlying field, that particles interact with as we hurdle through space

9:00 I wonder if electrons have a weight watchers program for dealing with their infinite mass

What if you impossed the rule that the total energy of a particular Feynman interaction is constant. Hence the sum of an electrons self energy plus it's remaining mass must be constant. I don't know what forces govern an electron to emit and re-absorb a photon with, say, an energy equivalent to half it's mass, but I think it's safe to assume that it doesn't happen very often (otherwise electrons would give off heaps of UV light). So this a wild guess, but could the relationship between the sum of the self energy be explained by an inverse probability relation (i.e. 1 – (photon energy)/(total energy of electron))?

Hypothesis: In a universe containing

nothingbut one electron, the mass of that electronisinfinite. The absorption of many of those photons by other particles is what limits the mass to a finite number.Shoot me down.

The dude reminds me of Jesus

Not sure how I got here to this video but I'm glad i did

I have a question. How can I calculate my own (approximate) mass in electron-volts? Assume I'm at-rest, because that's the truth — I'm sitting on my ass watching YouTube.

What about PROTONS, u only talked about ELECTRONS

Fuck

Again this guy!

Can't watch this

I guess you can say he was a fine man?

Referring to the QFT: They tried to proof the Plank units in space by measuring the crispness of light from verry distant objects and the pictures were to crisp.

Could it be, that the photons don't have to pass the real Plank units in space but could travel as field exitationes – so to say: under the radar- to us and materialize in our telescopes?

So smug when he ends EVERY EPISODE by working in the last words "space-time"

If light is our medium of information exchange, and that our intimate knowledge of the universe is limited to that which interacts with light, how can we definitively claim those other possibilities don't actually exist if they don't interact with light? Those other fundamental fields must also be mediums of information exchange, but how does one wrap one's mind around how they really are? Must one be familiar with the raw data? Is there any living human being who could legitimately do that given our short life span? I imagine that's what a Feynman diagram really is, a conceptual model that agrees with the data. If we must use our imaginations to perceive these things as they really are, isn't the rabbit hole of analogies that approach the real meaning an inevitability, even between those with PhDs? In the game of signifier and signified, are you sure you're all on the same page? Is that why Feynman preferred to use so many examples? With more examples of concept comes more clarity of concept, i.e. the more descriptive one becomes the more precise one becomes?

In August the eclipse is? Really????? Which YEAR????, Do you even understand that you do not exist in time? Please specify the time you are referencing too when talking on your videos, sigh. and yes I mean the pun psi

Does anyone else notice all the background clicking?

Nice video. Just a little moment to clarify. When you were giving examples of higher order diagrams contributing to the scattering amplitude of two electrons (or 4-point electron correlation function), you included the diagrams corresponding to the dressing of external electron lines. These diagrams should not be included for any correlation function. It is what's called amputation of external legs. Technically, it's seen from the definition of correlation functions where you take the vacuum average from the T-ordered product of the operators in the interaction representation which can be rewritten as the T-ordered product of the Heisenberg operators (bare operators) and the S-matrix (and do not forget to divide the result by the vacuum average of the S-matrix). It is easy to show that only connected diagrams with amputated external legs contribute to the interaction part of the correlation functions. Thank you.

Poor Matt, having to balance on his toes all the time.

This video deserves more views.

Wow, I am your biggest fan! You probably hear this a lot, and it must be very tiresome. But hey, I am here now, so it will be a easier from now on. Anyway keep up the good work. And at least you have one person who can understand what you are trying to do.

If any path that can happen does happen, I'm disappointed they didn't call it Quantum Murphy's Law.

Feynman Diagrams get closer to a systematic way of showing the external properties of the "Pacman" dimension and Renormalization = instantaneous to eternal zero-infinity range of Temporal Superposition Holography?

"You are a hack!"

"Oh my, thank you very much."

You said that superluminal paths add little to the probability – but not zero?

If we lived in a One Electron Universe then the electrons would have infinite mass right? Maybe that's why the equation keeps giving us an infinite electron mass.

Anyone else see a problem with, "physicists have geniously solved the problem of the 'inconvenient' mathematical infinities by folding in a term to correct for these errors" … i.e. something has gone horribly wrong … But it could be literally ANYWHERE from our base assumptions starting at the very beginning of the foundations of QFT to now … But let's stick with our current path and "throw in an error term" i.e. a term to soak up all the error we've accumulated so far" ?

I think in both worlds of mathematics and physics we need to stop using the words 1) infinite 2) infinitely many 3) infinitesimally etc and replace them with words like "unbounded". Doing so will mentally change our perspective to a MUCH more logical, grounded approach to all these subjects, starting with calculus. Not only would students benefit, but professional physicists and mathematicians as well and even the progress of all these subjects

"this renormalization trick can be used to eliminate many of the infinities that arise in QFT" … I.e. this trick of making up terms to soak in all the unexplainable errors is wonderfully useful ?

I strongly recommend to all physicists and mathematicians to abandon this concept of infinities

can anyone guide me to find his videos in order, like from his 1st video

How many love knots can yourself actually make and move with it????

@14:40, the sum of the real and the sum of the IMAGINARY components, not complex 😉 – But of course great video!

Clearly, Feynman who lived in the 20th century was a modern quantum physicist. I don't understand how some caveman from prehistoric times was able to make this video about him.

existential angst screechThis T-shirt do not fit you.

Quando una persona muore se ne rende conto all istante perche' la mente e' quantica e' il pensiero e' cosmico

very very informative channel I like it

You could consider a kind of virtual photon that has zero energy. It could still have frequency, energy, wavelength and momentum states. It would have c and h built into it, but zero energy, zero energized quantum states.

Couloooooom

I can't believe how much we still don't know, we make up theories on top of theories and still can't explain what gravity is?! We know the effects and can measure it but from the largest down to the smallest can't say what it is.

2:35 if that's so, then we could use electrons as some sort of communication tool, or is that just the dumbest idea ever?

My son will solve this someday. Im too old now.

could the electrons constant effect on the EM field, tie in somehow to pilot wave theory?

I assume, (as a Layman) any radiated energy, would be inconceivably small. But so is an electron.

This is so fucking useful.

Why not just call them 'FEYNAGRAMS'? You can have that for free…

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/04/06/books/07feyn3.html

I don't understand, but it sounds so cool :v

Someone scienced this dude a bit more pectoral mass.

Who and when was the standard module created. Was it Feinman?

Great!! Thanks for giving me such deep knowledge in just 15 minutes instead of 1 semester lecture..

engineering-and-science.com/quantum-field-theory-nutshell.html

I have a question… so can we think that all of electric forces interaction that happens in the macroscopic level that seem to be continuous and smooth are all just emerged from exchanging virtual photons or many other quantized interactions in quantum level??

Who else watches something completely different, falls asleep, then wakes up to this guy having talked for hours…….I'm not complaing, just happens a lot.