A french version will come

I did this video to share and illustrate the real scale that exist in between ATOM and QUARKS. I found really interesting to grasp in one video the vast scale of Orbitals against Proton-Neutron and Quarks.

White blog background impact the viewing, consider wathcing it FULLSCREEN

Special thanks to Professor Derek Leinweber, CSSM, University of Adelaide, for discussions on the structure of the proton.

http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theory/staff/leinweber/VisualQCD/Nobel/

Thanks to Derek from Veritasium for inspiring us, I'm a big fan of such Youtube Channel!

- Empty space is NOT empty: https://youtu.be/J3xLuZNKhlY

DOWNLOAD High Quality Version. 2.79GB
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1avt893Ghl-Sadzhov2ZU80Q4z3IXz3xD?usp=sharing
I did export the video at 1440 in MPEG Quicktime, much better resolution than the re-compression of youtube.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE TO USE:
Feel free to share it, use it in your presentation. Simply don't forget to credit me :)

HIRE ME:
If you need something, ask dapratojoce@gmail.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here the things that are maybe not perfectly fit the real behaviors but still worth the graphic:

• On the speed down of Gluons & Quarks, we can notice an obvious rotation, maybe the erratic movement or the Quark changing and exchanging is not so clean and predictable 
• The Orbitals swap spontaneously and maybe not in a proper order... 
• The usage of "video noise" here represents more an imprecision to a fake-scan device than real possible point-positions of particles, that not exist really in quantum. 
• Quarks are just a bit too big, even when drawn as simply dot. In fact, rendering this video at 1080p doesn't give enough resolution to display Quarks  at the same time framing a proton. Quarks are like 2 or 3 times bigger, but still, really small :)
• Quarks have a better scale in the Wallpaper JPG below.
• I did "blobby" fractal noise in background to represent the vacuum (quantum fluctuation), maybe the scale could be bigger when I'm looking at the work of Prof Derek Leinweber, but I found this scale more comfortable when chaotic speed applied for this video. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did 15 wallpaper of 1920 x 1200, feel free to use and share them :)

 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/m4lg1lwspczvtm2/AACRIerV2-Ei9HHIKpRnGon_a?dl=0

Here just a few

Chaos game - Sierpinski triangle

Thx to numberphile that inspired me with their video on a chaos game, revealing fractal. https://youtu.be/kbKtFN71Lfs

I did a little code in Gamemaker that renders 3,000,000 dots in a triangle. Rules are really simple. Check this out : (View it fullscreen)

and here the same basic rules, but with 5 vertices moving around.

3 gravitational points

Trying basic physic simulation in 3dsmax. It's a 3 gravitational points. All particles are colliding against themselves. It took me days finding out the proper values of friction, damping, attraction falloff to get them confined in a system, not loosing them to void.

Vortex at home

FR: Émily et Laurent jouant avec un vortex d'air. Assez impressionnant de voir la grande quantité de ballons pouvant être pris. Même s'ils retombent, ils se faisaient aspirer dans le flow.

EN: My daughter Émily and son Laurent playing with a squared vortex. Impressive how much balloon can hold and been trapped by this system.

Experienced the “Electromagnetic Energy Levels” at Home !

English below

C’était en 1905, Einstein aida d’autres physiciens à découvrir la nature « particulaire » de la lumière; le photon. Basé sur des modèles mathématiques d’ondes, les physiciens de ce temps essayaient d’éjecter des électrons « moins soudés » de la surface d’une plaque de zinc en la bombardant avec une très forte lumière (spectre visible du champ électromagnétique) mais alors sans succès. C’est Einstein qui est arrivé avec une théorie proposant que la lumière pouvait aussi comporter une nature « particule ». Peu importe la quantité des ondes envoyées sur la plaque, il fallait aller au-delà du spectre visible et choisir une longueur d’onde particulière; les UVs.

Cela m’a fait penser lorsqu’à chaque mois ma fille Émily nous demande de changer les batteries de sa veilleuse coccinelle. Lorsque les batteries sont faible, seulement la couleur rouge est encore visible, le vert un peu perceptible et le bleu absent, mais pourquoi ? C’est le même principe de la nature des niveaux de l’électromagnétisme : Depuis un même système, ça prend plus d’énergie pour obtenir des couleurs vers les verts et bleus que les oranges et rouges.

EN

It was in 1905, Einstein helped other physicists to unveiled the « particle » nature of photons. According to the wave models of light, physicists of this time tried to bombard a zinc surface with strong light (visible spectrum) to bump-out “less hooked” electrons. But they needed the Einstein intuition to solve the problematic that making the light stronger doesn’t do anything; thinking about Photon in a particle way. By been particles too, photon should carry more or less energy base on theirs familiar “wave length”. Einstein proposed to use UV light, more energetic than the visible spectrum ones. No matter how much of low-energy particles you bombard, it’s not the quantity of visible spectrum light that is in count, but the energy carried of each one.

That reminded me a case that I’m encountering each month or so: my daughter Emily came to see me with its Beetle-Night-Light that is missing Blue and Green light, but Red works fine. Batteries were down to death, just enough energy to lighten Red, but not the other more “energetic” electromagnetic ones.

Same thing with Einstein, needed more energy to kick off electrons, lighting of the same nature needs different level of energy to liberate different color light simply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

DIY | Single Slit + Pin Hole

I captured the Wave Nature of light!!!

Here are my first "ok to good" results of my DIY Single Slit Diffraction Experiment & Pin Hole Diffraction Experiment. Still noisy and polluted by my non-scientific equipments, but still really impressive and better that the other DIY on the web.

These experiments are well known and were created in the past to illustrate the fact that Photons have a Wave Nature easily noticeable when you reach a certain point for the Uncertainty Principle. What you're seeing here are basically photons (green laser) that are passing through a tight slit or tight hole, projected on a white cardboard. The shots below represent ~2 feets wide, this board was at ~8 feets from the slit/hole. In resume, the Uncertainty Principle is that there's a limitation for a system (quantum scale) to know precise position and precise momentum at the same time. When one is "increasing" in precision to know it, the other one falls in the "uncertainty". The principle is based on the Planck Lenght, the smallest values of all Lenght/Energy, nothing can be/go below it.

Further down more links [VIDEOS]!

I'll create a DIY video and possibly an Instructables step-by-step of these two fabulous DIY experiments. STAY TUNED !

VERITASIUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA

Old MIT (single slit) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgW7qaOZD0U

Old MIT (pin hole) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmg1XyOSAk0

I'll try for sure the Double Slit Interference Experiment. But I'll be sure that I can use 2 slits with a length that is not "alone" creating a diffraction pattern. What I notice throughout the web is that you can find a lot of banky DIY of the Double Slit Experiment: the problem in their tests is that they used 2 slit too narrow already, taking only one of their slit and you'll get diffraction anyway. To reproduce a more pure result, I think, we have to create the Double Slit Experiment with 2 slits that each one, alone, doesn't create interferences.