I was looking for Hank Green, but I got Brian Cox. I'm not in the least disappointed.

Thank you Brian, for showing enthusiasm in these wonderful discoveries!

Imagine having Geiger as one of your students. You could always count on him.

@baruchben-david4196

5 жыл бұрын

He always offers a ray of sunshine...

@johnm2558

5 жыл бұрын

Your coat, sir.

@pintificate

5 жыл бұрын

I'll pay that one.

@allosaurusfragilis7782

5 жыл бұрын

blogtwot your lessons would always click with him.....

@sakadabara

5 жыл бұрын

There were two scientists who simultaneously developed such counters - Geiger und Müller

One thing about Cox, he's a scientist and a poet, so he really understands how to drive the point home to those who don't quite grasp the mathematics.

What a great video! My 15 year old will love this! Thanks to professor Cox for making particle physics so interesting and easy for the lay person.

@urnormalnutshellanimator6606

3 жыл бұрын

you still here?

Thanks for pointing out the speed of electron, i will do more research, thats why we need each other to learn more

Fantastic this man is a born educator, I wish I had access to this when I was at school.

Brian Cox is the ultimate popularizer of empirical reductionism. To him, everything can be reduced to some kind of material property. Still explaining the physical nature of reality to 8-year-olds.

Instructional strategies are cognitive and appreciable. Thanks.

I fine this so amazing in what you are telling the world!...the alarm bells are now going off!!! Thank you

Dr. Brian Cox is as gifted a teacher as Michio Kaku, Neil D. Tyson and the late Carl Sagan.

Hm particle accelerators give me a hadron.

@pellepop100

9 жыл бұрын

he he he!

@ArrowsOfAthena

9 жыл бұрын

Your clever wit pulls me to you like a Hydrogen atom to the nearest Carbon. ~

@nwgaming7305

8 жыл бұрын

+Katherine C. funny I have the t shirt that its from:3 www.amazon.com/Particle-Physics-Gives-Hadron-Accelerator/dp/B00LW3YCR6

@Lumix_Corrupt

5 жыл бұрын

I like to imagine this guy is just dyslexic and this is the most fitting spelling mistake of all time

@oregondude9411

5 жыл бұрын

Sure is a Large Hadron too! I wish we could collide our particles.

He is the Carl Sagan of our time.

@bipolatelly9806

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. Both junk science guys.

@jasonspades5628

2 жыл бұрын

@@bipolatelly9806 what do you mean?

Good teaching of the method of experimentation that is basic to the science of measurement. (Favorite physics stories, plus the Faraday RI demonstrations and all)

Just love Brian cox, articulate intelligent distinct and a hero for me. I am in India

brian cox is one of the best popularisers of physics we have. he's great. and a fellow mancunian, too.

Amazing!

Simply lovely "A Crash Course In Particle Physics" on youtube by Prof Brian Cox. Thank you - Neo 1978

That ending really clicked well with me. Forces and I think he said "forces stack" which makes me believe that's why gravity becomes stronger the more mass any object has. I mean we know that there's a direct correlation between mass and gravity. The earth's gravity is strong enough to keep the moon in orbit. While the Sun, being the mass of like 98% of the whole solar system, keeps all the planets in orbit AND all the far off dwarf planets that orbit the Sun. More like Asteroids and exo moons. And lastly- the black hole at the galactic center keeping the incredibly huge galaxy spinning. I think, gravity stacks from the smallest to the largest.

Brian Cox is the Davey Jones (of the Monkees) of physics. I love his passion and exuberance for curiosity. He reminds me an awful lot of Carl Sagan in that his love of science bubbles forth and makes you love it too.

@uttaradit2

7 ай бұрын

and now I'm a believer

When I said I felt billions of tiny particles constantly bombarding and passing through my brain and body I was committed...

I think that JJThompson did not discover the mass of the electron. But he did find the ratio of mass to charge. It took some later experiments with electrons on oil drops to separate the two. This was by a bloke called Millikan in the USA?

Great man Brian Cox...great tutor.

Probably the best video on particle physics that I had seen........Gave me the missing links in the chain XD

I've got absolutely no understanding of any of this whatsoever, but still mind blowingly fascinating nonetheless.

Paul Dirac: Dirac established the most general theory of quantum mechanics and discovered the relativistic equation for the electron, which now bears his name. The remarkable notion of an antiparticle to each particle - i.e. the positron as antiparticle to the electron - stems from his equation. He was the first to develop quantum field theory, which underlies all theoretical work on sub-atomic or "elementary" particles today, work that is fundamental to our understanding of the forces of nature. He proposed and investigated the concept of a magnetic monopole, an object not yet known empirically, as a means of bringing even greater symmetry to James Clerk Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.

cool vid thanks. just been trying to understand what the heck this stuff is that comes off my plasma reactor. alpha, beta gamma,or some type of vibration in ,around or above the microwave frequency,

2:20 - the device is known as a Crooke's tube. Sort of a forerunner of the cathode ray tube.

The fabric of space does not provide the reactions associated with vacuum mechanics. It is, in fact, a compression derivative. Non-diatomically coupled hydrogen, to be precise. Atomically separated matter deserves a place in these discussions, however, it needs to be done outside of classified institutions and agencies. The electron is not a particle. It is a light wave response to opposing electromagnetic fields colliding. The photon, ion and graviton are all based on differing views of this reaction.

can anyone make out what JJ Thomson says? Edit: I have found a transcript of this video The electron owes its practical utility to its smallness. It might parody Shakespeare to say my use is great because I am so small.

Why do people keep making religion and science polar opposites? It just so happens that I'm a nuclear engineer and a christian. Just because I'm a scientist doesn't mean I believe in this extremely hypothetical big-bang theory, and just because I believe in God doesn't mean I don't believe in the standard model and scientific reasoning. Stopping making a war out of them.

@TomInterval

2 ай бұрын

Because religion and science _are_ polar opposites. The former is based on belief, the latter on evidence.

@navneetrout8193

15 күн бұрын

Science isn't a belief!🥴

brian cox great sci.

Very informative and interesting.

Love it!

In Kenneth W.Ford's "101 Quantum Questions" 2011 edition,p.186, he said"...what myriad other experiments confirm---is that a particle acts as a particle when it is created and annihilated (emitted and absorbed) and acts as a wave in between.......we just have to give up the idea that a photon is a particle at any moment other than the moments of its birth and death." For a Muon, the period of birth and death is 2.2 x 10^ -6 second. For Pion, this is 2.6 x 10^-8( + & -) and 8 x 10^ -17 (0), similarly short for Lambda, Sigma, Omega, Eta and Kaon particles (Table A.1 and A.4 of Ford's book) So, are these particles or waves,and should we call it waves physics instead of particle physics?

good vid

Thank you for this video!

Dr. Cox, your name ROCKS!

This is gold!!!

Hi there: The point: inside star cores the protons fuse H to He, DESPITE their mutual homo electrostatic repulsion: time, density and pressure force them to. How come in the same places the protons DO NOT fuse with electrons because of their hetero electrostatic attraction: all the right conditions are proven by the proton-proton fusion chain. Ultimately at the Chandrasekhar boundary the electrons fuse with protons: Pauli principle cannot prevent that, on those conditions. But why doesn't this happens in main sequence star cores ? What is the barrier that prevents proton & electron fusion before the Chandrasekhar mass/gravity boundary ? Could it be that the Coulomb law is somehow invalid for proton to electron interaction, at densities present into mid sequence star cores ? Despite the fact that proton to proton interaction exists ? I imagine one proton precisely standing between to diametral opposed electrons: could it be that electron to electron exclusion force is higher at range X then the electron to proton attraction at range X/2 ? Could it be that the "exclusion repulsion" between the electrons is higher than the electrostatic attraction between the electrons and the proton ? We all know that plasma is electrically neutral, as proton population matches electron population. The Coulomb law is requisite for survival of the atoms as we understand them. It proofs that minimal range of its validity is on the order of magnitude of the atomic nucleus ( nuclear fission ). So what is wrong about the proton to electron attraction at ranges smaller then the radius of the H atom ?

Donna Blakeney has included this two part video in a 60 part playlist called "Crash Course Physics. Unfortunately and although the playlist probably has all the useful components of a crash course in physics, it doesn't seem as if it has been compiled in any particular order which is a shame. I am looking for a decently interesting (not some university course) playlist I can refer to my daughter to encourage her interest in physics. I think that she is kind of losing interest because she can't get a sense of continuity in all the information that seems to be bombarding her in the class, media and on the web. So, if any one knows of a one or a set of playlists that help, please let me know.

@JLukeHypernova

8 жыл бұрын

+Babak Kamali i'll look for one for you.

@ennmatien9941

6 жыл бұрын

Babak Kamali ha, simple, search for the "symphony of science" mix

I'm an amateur physicist and no matter how rudimentary the lesson, I still gain new and exciting insight. If I could start all over again I'd pursue a life of science. I love this stuff..... love it!!!

Thank you for this video🌹

Warning: Viewers coming here to learn should be warned to ignore comments. All but one or two of the last ten are from crackpots.

@rexjames0015

4 жыл бұрын

I would think you are the one to ignore

Einstein intelligence sends chills on my spine...how a human mind can come up with this counter intuitive ideas of curved space-time fabric...waw.

@handsfree1000

5 жыл бұрын

Einstein was married to a brilliant scientist. Her contribution has been almost totally ignored.

@baruchben-david4196

5 жыл бұрын

@Roger Baker No, he was not. Einstein was a fully-qualified teacher of physics. He couldn't find a job teaching because he acted like a jerk in school, and couldn't get a favorable reference from any of his teachers. If you take the trouble to read a biography, you might learn something. If it pleases you to believe bullshit, then you probably won't learn anything.

@baruchben-david4196

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, Einstein's genius was remarkable. He wrote five papers in 1905, any of which would have made him a respected physicist. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for one of those papers. Einstein had a knack for following non-intuitive paths.

@mr.evasion

5 жыл бұрын

The work of Einstein and co. has been born out in modern technology , like Tinterweb, for all to see. But that doesn't mean we understand Spacetime Or Life on Earth

@mr.evasion

5 жыл бұрын

@Roger Baker 😁😂😃😀😄😅😆😁never mind copy cat Einstein Do you really believe the moon landing was fake LMFAO

Professor Dreamboat.😍 I could watch and listen to him forever!

Well done! I think Brian Cox he is good politician, he explain things with out of adding his own opinion.

On the site: vk.com/id215823556, you can read nexts articles: 1. "The Universe from the Birthday and till present time" - was published on October, 25, 2015; 2. " About the photon which has the distinguishable from zero rested mass " - was published on January, 10, 2016; 3. "Universe after Big Rip" - was published on August, 15, 2016.

I need an answer... Can we unite everything in terms of subatomic particles??

yes, i agree :)

Fascinating

Really good documentary.

#33 A Crash Course In Particle Physics: SPIRAL GALAXY @ 9:40 - 13:00.

the electron is traveling around the proton at the speed of light so it appears everywhere at all times, so it is as Rutherford said, it is like our planetary system

As much as I like this guy I was expecting a crash course in particle physics and not the history of particle physics.

@-Zevin-

10 жыл бұрын

learning the history puts things in context, at least for me. I used to be a person that said, I love science, but I'm bad at Math, Then i started learning the history of math, It made it easy to understand and retain. I learned more math in 1 month then i did in 12+years of public education. That's just my take on it anyway, everyone learns different too. -Peace.

@Slarti

10 жыл бұрын

Zevin X Very well put, we learn in different ways and school tends to be aimed at learning in one particular way.

@jamesduke1330

4 жыл бұрын

If you didnt know the history .... youd think you had figuered somthing ....

when he says they shoot particles into/at something how is this done, where do these particles come from...sorry if its a stupid question.

The experiment at 3:00 cannot determine the electron's mass, because the deflection just depends on the ratio of the accelerating to the deflecting voltage, electron charge and mass cancels out. You need a magnetic field to measure the electron mass.

Why are there 3 quarks in a proton or neutron? Why not 2 or 4? Is there an upper limit to the size of an atom, before gravity starts combining protons and neutrons? I've heard in here that quarks don't make up all the mass of a neutron/proton, if so what does?

@KT189

5 жыл бұрын

The difference is the energy in the strong nuclear force. Mass is another form of energy e=mc2. See the book Mass and the associated video on YT.

@grumpykitty3464

5 жыл бұрын

Robert Clare what happens when we reverse E=mc2 in a cell? Where does all this energy and information go?

I have passed the Advanced Level physics examination in England in 1958. That is ALL the physics l know. Therefore, the way you explain the physics here is billions of miles above my poor head. Question: ls there a way to make someone (at my level in physics) understand the material you are presenting here? Meaning: Can you use my level and build on that so l could understand? I hope l have not not been inappropriate In humbly requesting this?

Would it be David Attenborough we see in 8:54+?

ah man gonna need to look that up next time I need unique new mmo name, sigma could totally work, wonder if there all that freaken magical

Big question what happens to particles smashed in to a point of 0

It blows the mind to think the discovery of the electron is so new that we can watch original film strips on our smartphones. How quickly will we have practical applications of Higgs and CERN discoveries...

@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid

4 жыл бұрын

Doesn't it depend on what is discovered? Wouldn't it have been hard to predict television during the plum pudding era? We definitely will use gravity waves to peer inside where photons can't travel now that we have discovered them, although that's not a CERN thing.

@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid

4 жыл бұрын

@Dirk Knight Bro I think you're reading too much into my original comment. Besides I don't think the way technology is marketed into practical applications has any bearing - the television would've been invented regardless, but not before the cathode ray tube was well understood. It's that progression that I was wondering out loud. The example I used of Ligo not only confirming Einstein but quantitatively measuring gravity waves, will lead to new ways of "looking" inside the sun and other stars. Anywhere photons are blocked, gravity interferometry will be useful. We're planning to put a larger interferometer into orbit which will open the doors to really good observations. Gravity waves should help immensely in understanding dark matter, and dark energy, since light doesn't interact with it gravity is the only game in town --how much do you think anti-gravity technology would be worth? However again my point isn't about making money but improving our lives (like television lol).

@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid

4 жыл бұрын

@Dirk Knight Did I say I know all about it? I kinda said the opposite by wondering out loud how today's discoveries will affect us in 40 or 50 years time +. However I'm pretty sure gravity waves and gravitational waves are the exact same thing. If pressed I think you'll agree that's a pedantic objection to the overall conversation. You don't know shielding from gravity or antigravity violates anything in nature. Since we don't understand how dark energy works, which is a repulsive force mediator. For eg. But thanks for peppering my original point with opportunities for follow-up points!

@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid

4 жыл бұрын

@Dirk Knight Wow, you really think a lot of yourself. I thought you had recognized what a pedantic statement that was and I wouldn't need to press the issue... You're full of shit there is no difference between "gravity waves" and "gravitational waves" - and you're the one who is making the claim so why don't YOU look up 2 distinct definitions and post them here. You can't because you're wrong. And you are now refusing to follow the line of thinking here also. You insist on being the guy who says "heavier than air flight is impossible for obvious reasons." Usually that is true, except for when it's not: after the *invention* of the international combustion engine and the aerodynamic wing. You call yourself a science geek but you can't even envision localizing dark energy which permeates spacetime, the stuff which is accelerating the universe faster than light. All we "simply" need is a lens that can focus dark energy and you'd have the rudiments of antigrav. The POINT is that we don't yet know how future tech will work. I don't understand why you're going all in that there won't be any.

Wait howcme runefords muffin model, the one where there were no gaps suggests no bounce back, should it jt be all bounce bac

@Somerandomdude-ev2uh

9 жыл бұрын

Not runeford thompson sorry

@ebonyl9312

9 жыл бұрын

Somerandomdude4.2526 Because it placed a tiny TINY amount of mass in a HUGE area, the alpha particle should pass through. Imagine in this video that the apple had been broken into tiny pieces and spread across a kilometre - you would expect everything to go through it! BUT if it was all concentrated into one apple in the middle, other things would bounce off it.

@CayLundberg

9 жыл бұрын

The key word is "amorphous". It's the difference between a solid and a gas. If you throw a drop of water at a cloud of room temperature water vapor it would pass right through. Do the same against a block of ice and it would "bounce" (or at least not pass through). The muffin model imagined the positive charge of atoms as a cloud of charge in which the electrons move around. If that is true then a positively charged object such as particles from radio active decay should always pass right through. Later experiments showed that this isn't true and that particles sometimes bounce hence it can not be a cloud. Make sense?

years ago, (i can comfortably say that as I turned 75 this year in February) I read that if you could expand model of a hydrogen atom till the nucleus was the size of a basket ball, the lone orbiting electron would be the size of a pea and that it would have an orbital radius of 20+ miles.. Then the author of the statement went on to say that there is (at that time) was nothing that explains why the electron continues to orbit?? Does that hold any water. Did it ever!! It sure helped me to see why hydrogen is soooooo light!!

I know nothing here but Dr Cox always interests me :)

@Raych666

4 жыл бұрын

🍆

What was the first clear evidence of glutons and quarks your referring? What did this guy come up with exactly?

our planetary system, the stars are formed by the same force that form the atoms or sub atomic particle, it is just space time moving mass around

sir roger penrose's books like 'the emperor's new mind', 'shadows of the mind', and 'the laws of the universe' are pretty maths-heavy, but they are fascinating and make complex mathematical graspable........kind of!

i've read the former book he wrote (with jeff forshaw) and one of it's great strengths is that it does not shy away from equations and explaining the meaning and joy behind them, such as the standard model. dumbing down is so condescending, and, well, dumb....

Vector Radius Mass/Field Velocity acting upon accelerated mass from a distance radius, forming spherical ring series wave-front's compressing+/-decompressing eXpanding sphere's dissipating gravity dividing time, at the same ratio, information is being multiplied generating volume within mass, at the expense of gravitational potential. There are only two combinations of these two wave-front's they have opposite vectors and spin forms the positron (input) and the electron (output) Physics is easy!

I have never understood the logic of concluding that by breaking up certain definitive coherent sub-atomic particles like electrons or protons and seeing them splitting up into smaller parts in a particle accelerator ...this automatically means that these smaller particles are DIFFERENT types of sub-atomic particles. Should we not just consider that these are mere smaller fragments of the SAME particle ? If you split up a BRICK and it breaks into thousands of pieces, those little pieces are pieces of the same brick material...are they NOT ? I am hoping that someone here will respond by telling me that when these particles are broken up in an accelerator that we eventually see the exact same type of smaller particles and that therefore this suggests that these are their own, separate, " defined " and different sub-atomic particles. If not...then my question remains and the significance of this would be that perhaps the constitution of matter is far simpler than what we think

@ 10:13 Murray Gell-mann blurts out the most important thing so many folks ignore on their way to some kind of lalala land snowflake symmetry hexagonal star of david bliss ... "broken symmety" Broken symmetry is clearly the KEY, thanks Murray, and thanks for your theory called the 8-Fold way, it shows a beautiful convergenence with eastern thoth thoughts!

i remember the failure i had burnt eyes that lasted for hours i think that the best thing that happened was that it failed that way..not another

with Robbie no one wakes you up we can now to find more particles like particles smaller than a quark that would be undetectable by their size but by their masks we could detect them that'd be very slow moving particles because the slower the particle moves The more mass it has

Everything from the atom up is a mini me of the Universe.

thank you

Does anyone know what the piano music that plays in the background is from?

@Billy2011C

5 жыл бұрын

A piano.

@Luckylady77777

5 жыл бұрын

That’s a BIG help! Wanted to know what song it’s from.

Michio Kaku is just as awesome :D

What is the force that propels scientists to believe that there will be a fundamental understanding to anything in the future?

@libraryquiet

4 жыл бұрын

+John Feesey+ The name of that force is "Tenacious Curiosity."

Good job

Cannot find a reference for this on the Web. NO YEAR?? its sort of old now...

awesome vid :)

What did Rutherford think alpha particles were? Obviously he didn't know they were two protons and two neutrons. I guess he knew they were positively charged, but I don't understand how he deduced from firing them at a thin gold sheet that the positive charge of the atom had to be in the nucleus and that it was so much smaller the atom itself. Wouldn't an atom as proposed by Thompson produce similar results?, i.e., the bouncing back of some of the alpha particles?

If Order is Elegance. Chaos Must be Freedom! There's Nothing Perfect! Was It Worth It ?

@ankeunruh7364

4 жыл бұрын

Elegance is simply some point of view of some outcome... but, yes: only chaos (better: uncertainty) can be the foundation of freedom... it's a value by itself, no need to construCKt dependencies!

I assume by "inner structure" we're merely talking about the order/regularity of experience. Finite beings need inner structure because that's what makes the universe predictable. That predictability is necessary for the survival of al things. Arguably it also has an aesthetic value too. Secondly, the classic, western view of a supreme being posits God as existing "outside" of time or as existing in an eternal present. That would be merely one reason why boredom would not apply.

6:04 but why were they "expecting" anything in particular? Why would they think that it was mostly empty space? That's not intuitive!?

9:10 --- Brian has just got off his Manx Norton but forgotten to take his helmet off --- notice how he pronounces 'quarks' correctly ( quark rhymes with Mark -- James Joyce)

Brian, if you're detecting traces of radioactivity in the desk draw, should you have your nuts near it?

Yes. This... yes.

Can anyone tell me where this is from and what its name is?

Great

Thank you for explaining, it must have taken a great deal of thought and effort to produce this.

@devilgod136

4 жыл бұрын

You do know who he is, right?

lol how i like to learn is to speculate about something then have a debate with someone knowledgeable and the will often point me in the right direction

@kryrins

3 жыл бұрын

the word "lol" existed 7 yrs ago!!! LOOOOL

What made you say that?

How did Rutherford know that the alpha aprticles were not bouncing back because they hit the atoms themselves (and that atoms were indeed solid spheres)? And that particles that went through maybe pierced the atoms, or went around them? His interpretation is so amazingly significant for such a simple experiment, it almost seems a bit far fetched. Today we know it isn't far fetched, but how did they know then?

Great video!

@nb12406

9 жыл бұрын

You look like you know literally nothing, like you are brain-dead

......FOR REAL THIS ARE PROFESSOR ?????????

Oh Brian cox

Yes it was an honorary degree all he got was an 'O' level in art during his schooling.