Yes sonnet I try to watch that video about once a week just to drive what he is saying into my small brain.
I kind of see particles a lot different now. I like to think of them as like where two waves in water collide with each other and cause a little bump or node in the water. Kind of simple I know but it helps me see a little clearer.
It's not simple at all, and it's the correct way of thinking. For instance, the "mass electron" we know is actually two waves (left-chiral electron field and right-chiral anti-positron field) trapped within a wave (Higgs field)... in short, a standing wave.
Does anyone else find it ironic that physics has gone from denying the existence of the quantum vacuum (ie: aether) to everything
being composed of the quantum vacuum (ie: fields)?http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2962.msg43977#msg43977
Quote from http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2962.msg43977#msg43977
The elementary particle known as an 'electron' is a spin 1/2 (the measure of its quantum spin, or its resistance to perturbation when interacting with other elementary particles), charge -1 lepton which is left-chiral. It has the symbol e-L.
But when e-L interacts with the Higgs bosonic field, it flips its chirality, turning into the chiral-doppelganger of the electron, the anti-positron, with symbol e-R, spin 1/2 and charge -1. That's known as quantum mixing.
Then it interacts with the Higgs bosonic field again, and flips back to e-L. That interaction is what gives the "mass electron" its mass, as the universe attempts to keep the "mass electron" from moving backward or forward in time beyond the current temporal frame. This quantum mixing happens about 100 trillion trillion (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times a second, according to theoretical physicist Matt Strassler.
You'll note that while the electron (e-L) and anti-positron (e-R) have the same charge and spin (and are thus otherwise indistinguishable), they have opposite chirality, which makes them different particles. This type of particle is known as a "Dirac Mass" particle.
This further implies that the "mass electron" (and all other invariant-mass matter) has a resonance which sustains its mass... if we could destructively interfere with that resonance, we could cause it to transform directly into energy, per Einstein's equation e2
. But in order to do so, we'd have to be able to generate extremely high-frequency waves (at least ~50 trillion trillion Hz) with an extremely sharp gradient... anything longer-wavelength or more gradually-sloped, and the standing wave that is invariant mass matter will just 'ride' upon it like a ship on a large wave. Think in terms of how a high frequency wave and low frequency wave interact... the high frequency wave will 'ride' along the slope of the low frequency wave, making the low frequency wave appear to be 'bumpy'... but we're not really disrupting that high frequency wave at all. Now think how a high frequency wave interacts with another high frequency wave... you can get them to destructively interfere.
And of course, the above is the entire basis as to why there are 'quanta' of energy in the first place... only certain wavelengths in these fields of the quantum vacuum can interact constructively to create standing waves, which we sense as photons, the EM field's magnetism (which is
quantized, but is so finely pixelated as to seem continuous) and invariant mass matter.