It’s like trying to teach someone AI/ML and only ever showing them vendor logos as illustrations and never the code or even pictorial representations of the models.
It’s absurd, yet 99% of such presentations for physics look like this — unnecessarily — because it is possible to show a rendering of fields, their various properties changing over time and space, etc…
You can’t learn anything from a thousand such videos that already exist, so what’s the point of a thousand and one? It adds nothing.
PS: To gauge if the content is meaningful or valueless, just ask yourself if anything would change about its educational value if you arbitrarily but consistently replaced the icons and/or their labels. If you’re still exactly as mystified as before, then their information content was zero. “The three quarks, rock, paper, and scissors have a three-way symmetry, blah blah blah”. Congratulations, you now know the quantum theory of roshambo!
If you want a long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
That is exactly what this video is about. If you want something to be more in-depth, this video is not going to help you. But that's okay.
Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_th...
Physics beyond the Standard Model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo...
Story of the LaTeX representation of the standard model, from a comment re: "The deconstructed Standard Model equation" (2016): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41753471#41772385
Can manim work with sympy expressions?
A standard model demo video could vary each (or a few) highlighted variables and visualize the [geometric,] impact/sensitivity of each