🔮 Thanks for joining us on this cosmic journey as we delve into the secrets of the universe with Harry Cliff! Watch the full talk here: iai.tv/video/the-secrets-of-the-universe?UA-cam&+comment& 👍 Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated with our latest videos and join the conversation in the comments below!
If you guys want to learn about gravity I suggest you take the local gravity calculator and you look for anomalies in nature of an equalization of opposites that could cause a symmetrical diffraction that would be the link to e = mc squared... You guys really did forget the energy is neither created nor destroyed and the problem with getting further away from nature while trying to explain it is you're not submerging yourself in nature to try to explain it.. gravity branch is out like a tree. And then gobbles you up through a delay
In the photograph shown of the particle physicists reacting to the announcement of the Higgs-Boson, 5:05 , the man in the foreground to the right with the black shirt, looks just like a scientist from many a Far Side cartoon.
Oddly enough I think its all revealed in Kashmir Shaivism. From about two thousand years ago, and probably passed down by word of mouth for several thousand years before that.
@@stefanschleps8758 Yes. Kashmir Shaivism is spiritual knowledge par excellence. I'm particularly fond of the exposition which is the Shiva Sutra by Jaideva Singh.
@@Corteum Me too. If you are familiar with his Shiva Sutra's you might enjoy his other works as well. I can recommend the Spanda-Karikas and the Vijnana Bhairava . I have as yet to buy a copy of his Pratyabhijnahrdayam, but I'm certain it is of the same scholarly quality as the other material. I am currently looking for a copy of Tantraloka, by the esteemed Yogi Abhinavagupta, to add to my collection. While we are at it. I usually advocate those interested in these subjects the W.Y. Evans-Wentz series of text on Tibetan Buddhism, including the Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, and Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines. And lastly Swami Muktananda's ground breaking work "Play of Consciousness". All the best to you and yours.
On what grounds is your conclusion based? For it to be true you would need to compare "almost nothing" to something of the contrary, but what we know is actually everything when you compare it to what we don't know simply for the fact that what we don't know can't be quantified as being more or less than what we know.
Every scientist was taught one theory. They weren't taught how to come up with their own. When faced with a fork in the road, they go the way they were told rather than have to argue with "peers" -they all get to agree and be social. If charge changes when crammed into a nucleus, then there was no need to "invent" the Strong force. AND, if inertia is determined by space, meaning a single mass can look different in differing conditions of space, then all forces are just manifestations of a single causal space/mass relationship. You can scoff and act like I'm wrong, but my point is that NO ONE HAS TRIED IT TO RULE IT OUT! Everything in the Universe looks as if nature tries to consolidate mass for some reason. -To release tension perhaps? That tension would be everything from energy to the cause of all force manifestations. It's not far away if you try stepping away from the crowd long enough to actually think about it.
And while we are on the subject exactly how un-green are the lives of Schwab, Lagarde et alia. Could someone do an inventory and publish it WIDELY please.
For all these to have formed in one big bang is amazing. What is more amazing is that the properties of all these particles were designed in a way that would result, 13 thousand million years down the line, in an organism that is not only interested in this, but can actually uncover the mechanisms. Such abilities could not possible contribute to the evolution mechanisms necessary for our ancestors to have survived. Whilst there is no doubt about its existence, there are just absolutely no way that evolution on its own can explain us.
What Big Bang? .... the Monopole is a black body curve ... you need a physical lattice to produce that!... where was there a Lattice BEFORE this alledged non sense??
For as far as you can understand. People tend to see patterns where there very well might be none. Stay away from medieval thought patterns if you want to progress.
@@MrFDdude the same could be said for you in your 'medieval' assessment. Feel free to keep chasing your tail. Science is an instrument limited by thought, it has its uses but ultimately dividing things down further and further into yet smaller and smaller components is only going to help so much in understanding the totality of it all. Einstein himself reminded people that the logical mind is the offspring and instrument of the intuitive mind, which is a force all of its own.
It is not. Two points: 1. Apart from the discovery of Higgs, the world wide web was invented at CERN, the whole reason you are able to watch this video. (You can look up anything and all the useful things have come out of research and experiments at CERN on the internet, thanks to CERN) 2. Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) is a great success only because of the experimental evidence (gravitation lensing, blackholes etc). Nature doesn't care about any Einstein or any such Einstein's theories, the only way we know the theory does describe nature is to rely on the expiremental evidence. As Netwon said, theorists and experimentalist are like the 2 sides of the coin. When, some crackpot tries to sell you their theory, look up whether it's backed by experimental evidence if not until we find any, all it is just a theory (crackpot or not)!!
The most terrifying concept to me is the one that claims that everything can be reasoned and understood. The most comforting one understands that this can not be; that all of this is a process; a happening in the perfection of balancing known and unknown; thing and no-thing; being and non-being …
I know nothing, but i have an LHC engineering question: How do they control many magnets, to make hadrons move so fast? The ring is so big, and to control a magnet on the far side of the control-room, you need to send a signal. That signal is perhaps traveling slower than the hadrons inside the tube. At least, it takes some time for the signal to be received. And with those speeds close to c, how do they synchronize all the magnets? Or is one magnet(-module) sending a signal to the magnet right next to it? (but still you have that signal to send and receive processing time).
Did he say anything new? That sounds like a promotion event for building a larger collider, since LHC is a flop. How much sigma? Far away from any verification, that's fixed at five sigma, no 'new forces'.
Money pit or not I’m still interested.The theory that certain knowledge is impossible, still make you think about the things that have puzzled every human being since the dawn of time .
Adding a 5th force, then larger particle accelerators and more data, and a 6th ... seams like a perturbative approach to Physics Theories; it avoids incorporating in the SM what we already know: what quark flavors are, why there are only 3 generations, and mostly, that Gravity emerges from quark fields ... instead we "renormalize" GR to match data ... The breakthrough is still awaiting :)
Slightly tongue in cheek: perhaps the possible new force is somehow related to Hindu fifth element, namely aakaasha (almost always you'll see that written as 'akasha'). The root verb (dhaatu) for that noun is kaash, to shine. There are lots of verbs derived from that root, e.g. pra-kaash, vi-kaash, etc, but none seems to be with the prefix aa- , which is a rather common prefix, even in the case of verbs. In some verbs, prefix aa- changes the direction, for instance gam (to go), aa-gam (to come). So, if there was a verb aa-kaash, it might mean something like 'to shine backwards', whatever that would mean! 🙃 -- Greetings from the Land of Käärijä, first runner-up of ESC! -- Perhaps it's worth mentioning, that the so called "yogic flying" (aakaasha-gamanam), as taught by MaharSi Patañjali (c. 200 BC?) in the Yoga-suutras, is mainly based on aakaasha!
Particle accelerators are part of cancer treatment such as the gamma knife, and the magnet tech used in MRI machines came from the need to confine particle beams. AI for all it's pitfalls will probably be most beneficial in cancer research in the (fairly near) future.
CERN is a monumental tribute to our faith that machines will deliver us. For those who like science and math and the other esoteric sciences this is like the biggest, most fantastic cathedral ever built. And it is. But it's not going to solve our inherent problems of isolation and alienation and anger, not in any sense. Machines are going to be our demise, not our salvation. The idea of a threat of artificial intelligence running amuck is only half the problem. We're already subsumed to machines--automobiles and buildings and computers. That they become smarter than us is only a matter of time. The fuse was lit in the industrial revolution.
Weren't these anomalies sorted out? I have heard that the corrections to g=2 are insanely complicated and that it is more likely a calculation mistake than new physics.
Unfortunately, LEHD is unlikely to find anything beyond it already has. The standard model is complete, and no sign of any of the more exotic particles theorized has been seen.
I wonder how the standard model can actually calculate or predict the magnetism of a single electron. I thought the standard model named the e l elementary particles of nature and that's all.
There are 12 fundamental particles in the standard model plus the force carriers (photon, Z, W ...) which supposedly constitutes 5% of the universe and the there is dark matter and dark energy for the rest . So dark matter (which we have not ever detected) and dark energy (which we have no explanation of) are around 2/17ths of the explicit particles we know off so how does 2/17th constitute 95% of what we know about the Universe. Don't confuse the amount of something as a percentage of what we know or don't know about the universe. That aside, the full nature of the so called 5% may have physical properties yet to be discovered that correctly explain the "dark issues" e.g. MOND etc. Don't accept the complete and utter speculation put forward by would be Einstein's.
Except the reality is not partial. So to fully understand reality you need to know everything. Without knowing anything about dark matter and dark energy, you can try to know everything there is to know about 5% and still be way off. Because 95% affects the 5%. They're interacting. Dark matter interacts with matter and dark energy is a part of space. So you really cannot hope to understand 5% without understanding the 95%. Hence we call it as "we don't know anything about the 95%". MOND? Try modified gravity and it still doesn't work. Micro black holes? Still don't work.
The problem is" you don't know what you don't know". How do you bend two immaterial concepts, space and time? I'd love to hear the explanation. People believe in Einstein's theory's like it's a religion, which is why we have spent nearly $20 Trillion on try ing to find the magical forces of dark matter and dark energy. In 3rd grade I learnt that you can't divide by zero. But in your religion it creates a black hole. No wonder only 5% has been explained. The left side of your brain won't let you see past what you have learnt. Cognitive dissonance. Thats what I see. Until that changes, the explanation remains magical.
Believing in mysterious dark matter is no different than believing in ghosts. Actually, if ghosts have a mass, it explains both mysteries. Nothing is too crazy for lunatics.
Personally, I'm of the view that when a model does not match observations, without the need for invisible phenomena, then that usually suggests that there are deficiencies in the model...
@@antonymossop3135 It's not really invisible though. It's basically vacuum energy, which is experimentally shown (see Casimir effect). It's just not very well understood, and very much smaller a value than what we expect with QM.
Within the boundary sciences there always will be uncertainties and unclear things because most of the time it's understanding relies on theories and conjectures.. if only we get access to an 'outdoor source ' of science which could help us with its overlooking abilities.. 🤔
I am currently trying to assemble our Universe with just three “forces” that manifest in different ways depending on how they are combined, phenomena or forces emergent - as per Per Bak - as forms of self-organizing criticality in the chaos inside the event horizon. The fundamental “forces” are angular momentum, spacetime distortion, and electromagnetism - three forms of energy that are also generalized forms of the only information that survived as they initially comprised the since evaporated Black Hole that is - in this theory - our Universe. I sent a form of this concept to many people at the beginning of this month, including Penrose, Smolin, Witten, and others, including family. I need help with the computer modeling. We’d need a team, really, a Santa Fe type thinker for the chaotic and emergent phenomenon angle, an astrophysicist, theoretical mathematician…a Bernoulli, a Faraday the list could go on, but funding…. The geometry gets crazy. At this time a physicist at NOAA is reviewing my abstract. No one else has shown interest, though Penrose seems to have reached a similar conclusion in the meantime, at least regarding the Black Hole origins. I’ve got a mechanism. Conservation of angular momentum in Coriolus frame dragging of spacetime, spaghettified electromagnetic quanta spiraling and contracting, fields of energetic reverberations like the ringing of a bell and a multi-dimensional Escher-print of cyclones and anticyclones impossible to plot with certain precision but perfectly efficient in their compaction and storage of energies. The scale of the next “universe” bubble is irrelevant and perhaps unknowable but likely very different from ours. Universes flower, give birth to multiple child universes, each of which might birth its own universes with their own resonances, which are its laws. It sort of goes like that. Fun to think about even if wrong - but possibly right. Anyway, I’m going to plant a stake here and see what comes of it. It’s new terrain. In Appendix A of The Meaning of Relativity, Einstein says what is needed is a basis for uniting his continuum based theory and quantum reality. But,” he says, “nobody knows how to obtain such a basis.” I am proposing such a basis.
Hi, I don’t see an explanation of how quantum, point like particles, and spacetime are related. So, I’m curious, what do you think the relation is? It’s very hard to really think about these things because there’s so much complexity and so much we don’t know, so we have to come up with different theories, even multiple variations of the same/similar theory, and all that can be hard to try to think about.
@@parallaxcrafttale First, there are no point-like particles, per se, only waves and layered quasi-cyclonic and anticyclones poly dimensional whorls in complex webs of fields, all with specific resonances. To spacetime, a Black Hole is a taffy pulling machine. Cc
Hej stvn, coincidence or synchronicities are just another way of saying déjà Vu. The scientist themselves have done studies about it, testing themselves, and finding high rates of déjà Vu has occurred. It can be attributed to a higher level of consciousness or awareness and control of thought. The dark matter they are looking for is just electrical magnetism, ie the aether.
One must at some point ask what are we learning? If we have confirmed a theory to 12 significant figures, it is time to start looking in other areas for fiurther development. I am fully in favor of scietific research but, unless I am completely wrong, these funds could be more constructively used elsewhere.
We have no quantum gravity. There's a reason we're looking for these things. Two biggest theories of science are incompatible. Which means we can't explain reality. Standart model doesn't mean anything if we cannot have a quantum gravity. The presenter is simply saying, which I thought was super obvious, we have this precise measurement and yet there's still something wrong. Obviously standart model is somewhat true but something beyond SM might explain quantum gravity or we might be completely missing something. If anything, more funds needs to go here, because this is the most important thing in human history. Not only it's looking answers for the greatest questions, but it also has the potential for greatest inventions.
In time the knowledge gained by people doing this work will result consumer devices. Envisioning what these devices might be is akin to those that lived in the times of Faraday, Hertz, Volta and other early physicist envisioning a smartphone with internet connection.
Very interesting even to a non scientific person like myself. However as much as I am intrigued by the discoveries so far, I am a loss to see how this will benefit mankind. Off course we will know more but what is the end goal. I assume we will find out how we, the earth and other planets evolve but how will that help our present and future outcomes? Also is there also a risk that we may "undo" what is already created. Please someone explain, in simple terms so that I may understand. Thanks.
One day in the distant future for human survival we'll have to travel the vast distances across space, the more we know about the universe and how it works the greater chance of success, really our only chance.
Magnetic fields are material fields that can give mass to protons and increase their speed. Kinetic energy can't make mass. It is a represents of high speed mass. Electron's charge is its magnetic number. Thank you.
SETI, CERN, we seem to be using the wrong tools. Perhaps we should try to expend the least amount of energy for the greatest result, instead of the greatest amount of energy for the least result.
"Linear partial differential equations that govern the wave function of the quantum-mechanical system of chicken noodle soup include get-rich-quick schemes implicit in the dimensions of the Planck constant. Neutronium tater tots formed from magma rich in silica are directly related to the probability distribution of phased tachyon beams in search of adventure. I can't express how important this is for situational awareness. The relativistic variants of the Schrödinger equation explore the mysteries of yellow crazy ants in the vast landscape of scientific advancements without going through the rigmarole of dumpster diving for seaweed. But if you're under eighteen, get your parents' permission first. The brightest star has its imperfections of quantum chromodynamics, but it locks in stuffing instead of potatoes. This phenomenon is often reinforced by a cultural tendency to allow reality to operate for a change. So, take that to its logical conclusion of harmonic oscillators defining symmetry for zero-point vibrational energies. Relativity makes it inevitable. Even a broken clock is right three times a day. Breathe and look up. Time is timely because it's timed with timeliness." ---Albert Einstein
There indeed is something wrong. If you toss a (German) euro, the models do not predict that you'll get the head of Queen Elisabeth as an emergent property.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible: truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
if magnets are used on particles for acceleration.. how do they calculate the actual magnetic field of individual particles? Don't magnets add to energy/magnetic weight (?)
I'm just guessing, so I might be completely wrong. My guess is that the field being used to accelerate particles is a known quantity, a known value, and so I would think they can subtract this value, leaving the value of the magnetic field of the particle.
I keep forgetting how sensitive our instruments detectors have become so I apologize for bouncing my Saturday night love off the moon like a back board sending all those high energy particles and waves down upon earth. Its cool that we can measure secondary lines of evidence this way tho. DON'T STOP get it, get it , hehehe
I do see better now, thanks. Now here is a thought that I had, it could be interesting. Is it possible that the two founding events of the universe, the Big Bang followed by Inflation, were quantum in nature? Perhaps the Big Bang could be more easily understood as being a "1" while the second, instantaneous inflation (space) as "0". This is just a binary construct, which could be simple enough to encompass a brand-new universe. By the 'time' it's expansion included higher dimensions, these initial digits of 1 and 0 were repeated so innumerably as to express a vast spring. Thereby encompassing forms of several dimensions, the universe's impetus of expansion speeds. Yes the expansion itself is speeding up!
IMHO The collisions that give off 2 muons are merely more direct head on collisions resulting in a greater total energy of created particles . With the muon being more massive it has a higher internal current of virtual photons than the electron thereby adding to the magnetic field and moment at any particular distance. Additionally the dimensions being greater for the muon the all important distance at which the magnetic moment is measured is shorter to the surface of the muon thereby being subject to the inverse cube rule to give a higher result, hypothetically.
What if the standard model is wrong?! and and anything doesn’t fit they add it as a new alleged discovery to their eggs box ! Isn’t that possible too?!
If there's a standard model, how many non-standard models are there? Also if there are no non-standard models, then you don't need to call it 'the standard model'...it's just 'the model'.
9:00 that doesn't mean that all you have to do it a ten thousand times and see how the particles decay and then look for outliers according to the mean: oh ok he kinda conceded that 😊
well then everything should change very soon! we just found a brand new super conductor that works at room temperature! and we can make this one fairly easy! so every one will have perfectly efficient electric cars and flying cars in the very near future. if we can get along and not go to war that is. but the biggest problems are cleaning the ocean and pollution in the air we breath. all electric everything can be so much cheaper and last ten times longer than combustion motors. the new room temperature super conductor will save us all if they can make enough and incorporate it into all cars and motors and factories would be a challenge but well worth it for the cost savings and power increase we will get! i am exited for the future again now!
I never understood what the point of Cern was and the experiments they do there. Is it a quest for Energy? Weapons? What do they ultimately hope to achieve and why?
Standard model failing to explain 95% of observed/guesstimated universe mass and fudging that with hypothetical dark matter isn't sound science. Aka, quantum vacuum catastrophe problem. Standard model is oblivious to gravity. "Standard model is extremely accurate" and "shut up and calculate" are slogans of statistics, as one can fit a polynomial curve accurately to match any observations with naturally accurate interpolation. Polynomial curve fitting exhibits explosive uncertainty outside the convex hull of the training dataset and that is what we observe with the standard model - it doesn't extrapolate beyond data it was fit to match. Physics must yield interpretable geometric models that are scale-invariant, so that they extrapolate accurately from sub-atomic to galactic scale.
It cost $4.75 billion to build, split between 4 countries. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things. Compare that to the $2 trillion the US spends on its military budget every year! The LHC has already advanced our understanding of the universe dramatically, and continues to do so. The fact of the matter is that the LHC provides a return on investment to the tune of $1.80 for every dollar spent on its operation - including both daily costs and build/upgrade costs. Much of this return on investment comes from the development of new technologies created for the LHC project. It's really not a money pit.
They have to justify the next BIGGER ACCELERATOR, right? Considering how little the LHC has validated which doesn’t even get to the lack of new discoveries. If you have a bunch of bright people trying to justify the expenditure of future resources, you are almost assured to bump into some “ANOMALIES”!!
@@jessicaheger1880 agree, but anyhow there must be sense in what you do, a new collider doesn't, since it's clear that it has to be larger, than humanity is able to construct (solar system diameter, or larger) for the found of new physics.
What Is the Difference Between God and Nature? “It is best for us to agree and accept the words of the Kabbalists that ‘the nature’ (Heb. ‘HaTeva’ [‘הטבע’]) has the same numerical value as ‘God’ (Heb. ‘Elohim’ [‘אלהים’]-eighty-six. Then, I will be able to call the laws of God ‘nature’s commandments [Mitzvot],’ or vice-versa (God’s commandments [Mitzvot] by the name ‘nature’s laws’), for they are one and the same.” - Kabbalist Yehuda Ashlag (Baal HaSulam), “The Peace.” There is nothing besides the system of nature, which Kabbalists equally refer to as “nature” or “God,” and we are integral parts of this system. Therefore, when we say that there is one God, it means that there is nothing besides one force acting in this single system we are parts of. The desire of the single force acting in reality is to bring us into connection with it-not via coercion, but through awareness in a positive manner. As much as we understand, feel and attain this force as one that is good and benevolent, then we can adhere to it and reach its level of complete awareness.
Interesting, I am finding as a PhD student on information theory that the missing particle must be information. All particles contain information and it is information in the form of human perception which by which people observe and therefore alter quantum wave functionality. Information is physical and demonstrates(to us, people) the functionality of the universe. Even if you find dark matter, those results will also consist of information because we can't disconnect mind from matter.
@@MrFDdude But what does a neuroscientist know about the universe and how it functions? What I can tell however is that life functions according universal laws by the exchange of information.
@@arendpsa if your hypothesis is even remotely true, and since we are the result of the same universe, we need to define what is raw data, and what data comes from our perception. From what I have seen on UA-cam (sry, not always the most scientific source) that discussion is far from over. Making that distinction should be IMHO part of your DMAIC cycle.
Interesting and just as were moving towards a man made big bang bc no one will stand up to America, makes all this rather pointless unfortunately but thank you interesting and educational shame we won't be around to learn more 🙁
🔮 Thanks for joining us on this cosmic journey as we delve into the secrets of the universe with Harry Cliff! Watch the full talk here: iai.tv/video/the-secrets-of-the-universe?UA-cam&+comment&
👍 Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated with our latest videos and join the conversation in the comments below!
If you guys want to learn about gravity I suggest you take the local gravity calculator and you look for anomalies in nature of an equalization of opposites that could cause a symmetrical diffraction that would be the link to e = mc squared... You guys really did forget the energy is neither created nor destroyed and the problem with getting further away from nature while trying to explain it is you're not submerging yourself in nature to try to explain it.. gravity branch is out like a tree. And then gobbles you up through a delay
In the photograph shown of the particle physicists reacting to the announcement of the Higgs-Boson, 5:05 , the man in the foreground to the right with the black shirt, looks just like a scientist from many a Far Side cartoon.
more BS by modern day charlatans
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Sir Arthur Eddington
Terrence McKenna loved that quote!
Oddly enough I think its all revealed in Kashmir Shaivism. From about two thousand years ago, and probably passed down by word of mouth for several thousand years before that.
Well said. 👍
@@stefanschleps8758 Yes. Kashmir Shaivism is spiritual knowledge par excellence. I'm particularly fond of the exposition which is the Shiva Sutra by Jaideva Singh.
@@Corteum Me too. If you are familiar with his Shiva Sutra's you might enjoy his other works as well. I can recommend the Spanda-Karikas and the Vijnana Bhairava . I have as yet to buy a copy of his
Pratyabhijnahrdayam, but I'm certain it is of the same scholarly quality as the other material. I am currently looking for a copy of Tantraloka, by the esteemed Yogi Abhinavagupta, to add to my collection.
While we are at it. I usually advocate those interested in these subjects the W.Y. Evans-Wentz series of text on Tibetan Buddhism, including the Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, and Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines. And lastly Swami Muktananda's ground breaking work "Play of Consciousness".
All the best to you and yours.
I am always impressed by human audacity in believing that we can understand it all. Right now, we understand almost nothing.
🧂🧂🧂
Well said
On what grounds is your conclusion based? For it to be true you would need to compare "almost nothing" to something of the contrary, but what we know is actually everything when you compare it to what we don't know simply for the fact that what we don't know can't be quantified as being more or less than what we know.
@@alterecho8261 Let's talk again in fifty years and see if I was right.
Arh the universal "we"... speak for yourself.
Every scientist was taught one theory. They weren't taught how to come up with their own. When faced with a fork in the road, they go the way they were told rather than have to argue with "peers" -they all get to agree and be social. If charge changes when crammed into a nucleus, then there was no need to "invent" the Strong force. AND, if inertia is determined by space, meaning a single mass can look different in differing conditions of space, then all forces are just manifestations of a single causal space/mass relationship. You can scoff and act like I'm wrong, but my point is that NO ONE HAS TRIED IT TO RULE IT OUT! Everything in the Universe looks as if nature tries to consolidate mass for some reason. -To release tension perhaps? That tension would be everything from energy to the cause of all force manifestations. It's not far away if you try stepping away from the crowd long enough to actually think about it.
What an amazing presentation. Thank you.
Why|? Are you also on the advertising and marketing team to procure more funding?
How much C02 was generated to build this thing?
And while we are on the subject exactly how un-green are the lives of Schwab, Lagarde et alia. Could someone do an inventory and publish it WIDELY please.
For all these to have formed in one big bang is amazing. What is more amazing is that the properties of all these particles were designed in a way that would result, 13 thousand million years down the line, in an organism that is not only interested in this, but can actually uncover the mechanisms. Such abilities could not possible contribute to the evolution mechanisms necessary for our ancestors to have survived. Whilst there is no doubt about its existence, there are just absolutely no way that evolution on its own can explain us.
What Big Bang? .... the Monopole is a black body curve ... you need a physical lattice to produce that!... where was there a Lattice BEFORE this alledged non sense??
For as far as you can understand. People tend to see patterns where there very well might be none. Stay away from medieval thought patterns if you want to progress.
@@MrFDdude the same could be said for you in your 'medieval' assessment. Feel free to keep chasing your tail. Science is an instrument limited by thought, it has its uses but ultimately dividing things down further and further into yet smaller and smaller components is only going to help so much in understanding the totality of it all.
Einstein himself reminded people that the logical mind is the offspring and instrument of the intuitive mind, which is a force all of its own.
5th force is that which binds the "ether"
In Short Cern was a GIANT waste of money Sobering when you realise all Einstein needed was a black board and some chalk
It is not. Two points:
1. Apart from the discovery of Higgs, the world wide web was invented at CERN, the whole reason you are able to watch this video. (You can look up anything and all the useful things have come out of research and experiments at CERN on the internet, thanks to CERN)
2. Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) is a great success only because of the experimental evidence (gravitation lensing, blackholes etc). Nature doesn't care about any Einstein or any such Einstein's theories, the only way we know the theory does describe nature is to rely on the expiremental evidence. As Netwon said, theorists and experimentalist are like the 2 sides of the coin.
When, some crackpot tries to sell you their theory, look up whether it's backed by experimental evidence if not until we find any, all it is just a theory (crackpot or not)!!
For as long as physics keep chasing objects. Dark matter will remain a complete mystery. Hay Ho !!!
Is it safe and effective?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 It is! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 So is your microwave!!
Quick question ... 🤔 ... any Bermuda Triangle like storms or events occur during your experimenting?
12.04 in the video: the question "why we exist" cannot be answered via measurements in the LHC, I think. 5 june 2023.
My dear boy... you have the surprise of many lifetimes heading your way.. October of 2041.
What is the real purpose of this research?
Energy weapons
To find the limits of knowledge. They are close.
The most terrifying concept to me is the one that claims that everything can be reasoned and understood. The most comforting one understands that this can not be; that all of this is a process; a happening in the perfection of balancing known and unknown; thing and no-thing; being and non-being …
I know nothing, but i have an LHC engineering question:
How do they control many magnets, to make hadrons move so fast?
The ring is so big, and to control a magnet on the far side of the control-room, you need to send a signal. That signal is perhaps traveling slower than the hadrons inside the tube. At least, it takes some time for the signal to be received. And with those speeds close to c, how do they synchronize all the magnets? Or is one magnet(-module) sending a signal to the magnet right next to it? (but still you have that signal to send and receive processing time).
Truly fascinating discoveries, and even MORE fascinating new questions arise from our findings!
Fascinating stuff and handsome presenter!
Great presentation!!! Lively and informative!!!
Fascinating presentation! 👍🏾
The universe is being created for us as we explore it.
Would you not expect less muons to be produced from beauty quark decays as they have much higher energy than electrons?
Thank you for this! This is a great way to explain a new concept!
What an obcene waste of money 🥺...
Secrets of the universe? Aye Ive got it covered mate. The Great pyramid told me EVERYTHING.
Very interesting! Go team!
Very interesting!
Did he say anything new? That sounds like a promotion event for building a larger collider, since LHC is a flop. How much sigma? Far away from any verification, that's fixed at five sigma, no 'new forces'.
they will theorize another virtual particle, another dark energy, another entanglement, another action at distance, another scam.
Money pit or not I’m still interested.The theory that certain knowledge is impossible, still make you think about the things that have puzzled every human being since the dawn of time .
Wow 😲!!
put out the Peter Hitchens debate please
Adding a 5th force, then larger particle accelerators and more data, and a 6th ... seams like a perturbative approach to Physics Theories; it avoids incorporating in the SM what we already know: what quark flavors are, why there are only 3 generations, and mostly, that Gravity emerges from quark fields ... instead we "renormalize" GR to match data ... The breakthrough is still awaiting :)
Slightly tongue in cheek: perhaps the possible new force is somehow related to Hindu fifth element, namely aakaasha (almost always you'll see that written as 'akasha'). The root verb (dhaatu) for that noun is kaash, to shine. There are lots of verbs derived from that root, e.g. pra-kaash, vi-kaash, etc, but none seems to be with the prefix aa- , which is a rather common prefix, even in the case of verbs. In some verbs, prefix aa- changes the direction, for instance gam (to go), aa-gam (to come). So, if there was a verb aa-kaash, it might mean something like 'to shine backwards', whatever that would mean! 🙃 -- Greetings from the Land of Käärijä, first runner-up of ESC! -- Perhaps it's worth mentioning, that the so called "yogic flying" (aakaasha-gamanam), as taught by MaharSi Patañjali (c. 200 BC?) in the Yoga-suutras, is mainly based on aakaasha!
aa-cool
Verb generation at CERN
To shine backwards.....dark matter??
Or as John Lennin put it, "All you need is Love.. " etc
Quite a wonderful Dark Matter Quantum Physics meets Flying Yogic reply❣
What exactly is energy ? 🤔😉😁
The motion of a single particle. Stop every particle in their tracks and you have no energy.
Seems we need CERN level scientists working on cancer
Particle accelerators are part of cancer treatment such as the gamma knife, and the magnet tech used in MRI machines came from the need to confine particle beams.
AI for all it's pitfalls will probably be most beneficial in cancer research in the (fairly near) future.
Once, just once, I'd like y'all to try to talk to me in person.
CERN is a monumental tribute to our faith that machines will deliver us. For those who like science and math and the other esoteric sciences this is like the biggest, most fantastic cathedral ever built. And it is. But it's not going to solve our inherent problems of isolation and alienation and anger, not in any sense. Machines are going to be our demise, not our salvation. The idea of a threat of artificial intelligence running amuck is only half the problem. We're already subsumed to machines--automobiles and buildings and computers. That they become smarter than us is only a matter of time. The fuse was lit in the industrial revolution.
Bah! Hate predictions. This may or may not be but be it as it may, I see it's like the old man said: what you use you become. A tool's logic.
On geological/cosmic timescales we are but a blip. A rather noisy, messy and overcrowded one, but a blip nonetheless.
Most recent word is that signs of new particles and forces have vanished from most recent data.
Interesting we don’t have news these days.
Weren't these anomalies sorted out? I have heard that the corrections to g=2 are insanely complicated and that it is more likely a calculation mistake than new physics.
A rounding error in Particle Physics ?!
@@greyangelpilot Why not? If energies are high, the number of possibilities can grow faster than an exponential series.
That's what I thought, too.
What does psychology have to do with modern physics?
I don’t know
Everything
Are they chasing missing matter at CERN?
e.g. 2 protons collide and nothing comes out or
a lot less mass comes out than predicted?
Great presenter!
Superb. I'll have another please.
Have we figured out 3-D Time yet?
What an amazing presentation providing great insight and updating us on the progress thus far.
Unfortunately, LEHD is unlikely to find anything beyond it already has. The standard model is complete, and no sign of any of the more exotic particles theorized has been seen.
Is the beauty quark the same one as the bottom quark?
I wonder how the standard model can actually calculate or predict the magnetism of a single electron. I thought the standard model named the e l elementary particles of nature and that's all.
Why do you use the term particle; it is linguistically misleading because it suggests independence of observation.
There are 12 fundamental particles in the standard model plus the force carriers (photon, Z, W ...) which supposedly constitutes 5% of the universe and the there is dark matter and dark energy for the rest . So dark matter (which we have not ever detected) and dark energy (which we have no explanation of) are around 2/17ths of the explicit particles we know off so how does 2/17th constitute 95% of what we know about the Universe. Don't confuse the amount of something as a percentage of what we know or don't know about the universe. That aside, the full nature of the so called 5% may have physical properties yet to be discovered that correctly explain the "dark issues" e.g. MOND etc. Don't accept the complete and utter speculation put forward by would be Einstein's.
Except the reality is not partial. So to fully understand reality you need to know everything. Without knowing anything about dark matter and dark energy, you can try to know everything there is to know about 5% and still be way off. Because 95% affects the 5%. They're interacting. Dark matter interacts with matter and dark energy is a part of space. So you really cannot hope to understand 5% without understanding the 95%. Hence we call it as "we don't know anything about the 95%". MOND? Try modified gravity and it still doesn't work. Micro black holes? Still don't work.
The problem is" you don't know what you don't know". How do you bend two immaterial concepts, space and time? I'd love to hear the explanation. People believe in Einstein's theory's like it's a religion, which is why we have spent nearly $20 Trillion on try ing to find the magical forces of dark matter and dark energy. In 3rd grade I learnt that you can't divide by zero. But in your religion it creates a black hole. No wonder only 5% has been explained. The left side of your brain won't let you see past what you have learnt. Cognitive dissonance. Thats what I see. Until that changes, the explanation remains magical.
Believing in mysterious dark matter is no different than believing in ghosts. Actually, if ghosts have a mass, it explains both mysteries. Nothing is too crazy for lunatics.
Personally, I'm of the view that when a model does not match observations, without the need for invisible phenomena, then that usually suggests that there are deficiencies in the model...
@@antonymossop3135 It's not really invisible though. It's basically vacuum energy, which is experimentally shown (see Casimir effect). It's just not very well understood, and very much smaller a value than what we expect with QM.
Within the boundary sciences there always will be uncertainties and unclear things because most of the time it's understanding relies on theories and conjectures.. if only we get access to an 'outdoor source ' of science which could help us with its overlooking abilities.. 🤔
When you reach the limits of physics , the question changes from “what” to “why”.
I am currently trying to assemble our Universe with just three “forces” that manifest in different ways depending on how they are combined, phenomena or forces emergent - as per Per Bak - as forms of self-organizing criticality in the chaos inside the event horizon. The fundamental “forces” are angular momentum, spacetime distortion, and electromagnetism - three forms of energy that are also generalized forms of the only information that survived as they initially comprised the since evaporated Black Hole that is - in this theory - our Universe. I sent a form of this concept to many people at the beginning of this month, including Penrose, Smolin, Witten, and others, including family. I need help with the computer modeling. We’d need a team, really, a Santa Fe type thinker for the chaotic and emergent phenomenon angle, an astrophysicist, theoretical mathematician…a Bernoulli, a Faraday the list could go on, but funding…. The geometry gets crazy. At this time a physicist at NOAA is reviewing my abstract. No one else has shown interest, though Penrose seems to have reached a similar conclusion in the meantime, at least regarding the Black Hole origins. I’ve got a mechanism. Conservation of angular momentum in Coriolus frame dragging of spacetime, spaghettified electromagnetic quanta spiraling and contracting, fields of energetic reverberations like the ringing of a bell and a multi-dimensional Escher-print of cyclones and anticyclones impossible to plot with certain precision but perfectly efficient in their compaction and storage of energies. The scale of the next “universe” bubble is irrelevant and perhaps unknowable but likely very different from ours. Universes flower, give birth to multiple child universes, each of which might birth its own universes with their own resonances, which are its laws. It sort of goes like that. Fun to think about even if wrong - but possibly right. Anyway, I’m going to plant a stake here and see what comes of it. It’s new terrain. In Appendix A of The Meaning of Relativity, Einstein says what is needed is a basis for uniting his continuum based theory and quantum reality. But,” he says, “nobody knows how to obtain such a basis.” I am proposing such a basis.
Hi, I don’t see an explanation of how quantum, point like particles, and spacetime are related. So, I’m curious, what do you think the relation is? It’s very hard to really think about these things because there’s so much complexity and so much we don’t know, so we have to come up with different theories, even multiple variations of the same/similar theory, and all that can be hard to try to think about.
@@parallaxcrafttale First, there are no point-like particles, per se, only waves and layered quasi-cyclonic and anticyclones poly dimensional whorls in complex webs of fields, all with specific resonances. To spacetime, a Black Hole is a taffy pulling machine. Cc
Admit it, they are pushing us between parallel universes and timelines. Why do I always have dejavu?
Sounds like you're confusing reality for Steins Gate again. 😂 Why can't a good show ever just be a good show, why's everything gotta be a conspiracy?
Hej stvn, coincidence or synchronicities are just another way of saying déjà Vu. The scientist themselves have done studies about it, testing themselves, and finding high rates of déjà Vu has occurred. It can be attributed to a higher level of consciousness or awareness and control of thought.
The dark matter they are looking for is just electrical magnetism, ie the aether.
Now we know the Muon is behaving exactly like it should and no new secrets are hiding there
Please cite sources.
One must at some point ask what are we learning? If we have confirmed a theory to 12 significant figures, it is time to start looking in other areas for fiurther development. I am fully in favor of scietific research but, unless I am completely wrong, these funds could be more constructively used elsewhere.
We have no quantum gravity. There's a reason we're looking for these things. Two biggest theories of science are incompatible. Which means we can't explain reality. Standart model doesn't mean anything if we cannot have a quantum gravity. The presenter is simply saying, which I thought was super obvious, we have this precise measurement and yet there's still something wrong. Obviously standart model is somewhat true but something beyond SM might explain quantum gravity or we might be completely missing something.
If anything, more funds needs to go here, because this is the most important thing in human history. Not only it's looking answers for the greatest questions, but it also has the potential for greatest inventions.
The Electric Universe Model explains the other 95% without inventing dark matter.
Tachyon energy
But don't you dare to discover a force that can bring us free, zero emission energy! 🤪
Don't worry, that'll never happen because there's no money in it -- just like preventing diseases and curing cancer.
@@runestone1337 👍👍
Nice to see Dr Harry with new findings and proper context.
Thanks for the effort and keep up the good work.
From Hker worldwide
In time the knowledge gained by people doing this work will result consumer devices. Envisioning what these devices might be is akin to those that lived in the times of Faraday, Hertz, Volta and other early physicist envisioning a smartphone with internet connection.
Very interesting even to a non scientific person like myself. However as much as I am intrigued by the discoveries so far, I am a loss to see how this will benefit mankind. Off course we will know more but what is the end goal. I assume we will find out how we, the earth and other planets evolve but how will that help our present and future outcomes? Also is there also a risk that we may "undo" what is already created. Please someone explain, in simple terms so that I may understand. Thanks.
One day in the distant future for human survival we'll have to travel the vast distances across space, the more we know about the universe and how it works the greater chance of success, really our only chance.
What if the space you speak of isn't there?
When he says "you" does he mean "it"? As in the LHC device? I had a hard time following Mr. Cliff.
I heard they want to give machines and ai rights as compatible to human rights.
So maybe they will be known at “its”🤖👈🤘
Greatly done!
Magnetic fields are material fields that can give mass to protons and increase their speed. Kinetic energy can't make mass. It is a represents of high speed mass. Electron's charge is its magnetic number. Thank you.
SETI, CERN, we seem to be using the wrong tools. Perhaps we should try to expend the least amount of energy for the greatest result, instead of the greatest amount of energy for the least result.
"Linear partial differential equations that govern the wave function of the quantum-mechanical system of chicken noodle soup include get-rich-quick schemes implicit in the dimensions of the Planck constant. Neutronium tater tots formed from magma rich in silica are directly related to the probability distribution of phased tachyon beams in search of adventure. I can't express how important this is for situational awareness. The relativistic variants of the Schrödinger equation explore the mysteries of yellow crazy ants in the vast landscape of scientific advancements without going through the rigmarole of dumpster diving for seaweed. But if you're under eighteen, get your parents' permission first. The brightest star has its imperfections of quantum chromodynamics, but it locks in stuffing instead of potatoes. This phenomenon is often reinforced by a cultural tendency to allow reality to operate for a change. So, take that to its logical conclusion of harmonic oscillators defining symmetry for zero-point vibrational energies. Relativity makes it inevitable. Even a broken clock is right three times a day. Breathe and look up. Time is timely because it's timed with timeliness."
---Albert Einstein
There indeed is something wrong. If you toss a (German) euro, the models do not predict that you'll get the head of Queen Elisabeth as an emergent property.
😅
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible: truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
The problem of Standard Model is the precision, the deeper you go the more you lose the overview
its the new star gate
Mind over matter ! If you don’t mind it don’t matter.
particles created 'from energy'...whoa
Gravity is pre virtual particles sliding against each other.
Think an edge dislocation of atoms of metal.
Everything means something, but nothing means anything.
if magnets are used on particles for acceleration.. how do they calculate the actual magnetic field of individual particles? Don't magnets add to energy/magnetic weight (?)
I'm just guessing, so I might be completely wrong. My guess is that the field being used to accelerate particles is a known quantity, a known value, and so I would think they can subtract this value, leaving the value of the magnetic field of the particle.
The spin is measured.
I keep forgetting how sensitive our instruments detectors have become so I apologize for bouncing my Saturday night love off the moon like a back board sending all those high energy particles and waves down upon earth.
Its cool that we can measure secondary lines of evidence this way tho. DON'T STOP get it, get it , hehehe
I do see better now, thanks. Now here is a thought that I had, it could be interesting. Is it possible that the two founding events of the universe, the Big Bang followed by Inflation, were quantum in nature? Perhaps the Big Bang could be more easily understood as being a "1" while the second, instantaneous inflation (space) as "0". This is just a binary construct, which could be simple enough to encompass a brand-new universe. By the 'time' it's expansion included higher dimensions, these initial digits of 1 and 0 were repeated so innumerably as to express a vast spring. Thereby encompassing forms of several dimensions, the universe's impetus of expansion speeds. Yes the expansion itself is speeding up!
When we finally understand the laws of quantum gravity it will most likely be in computational terms.
IMHO The collisions that give off 2 muons are merely more direct head on collisions resulting in a greater total energy of created particles .
With the muon being more massive it has a higher internal current of virtual photons than the electron thereby adding to the magnetic field and moment at any particular distance. Additionally the dimensions being greater for the muon the all important distance at which the magnetic moment is measured is shorter to the surface of the muon thereby being subject to the inverse cube rule to give a higher result, hypothetically.
Out of memory, if you placed a container over the Eiffel Tower the air would weigh more than the iron used to construct it.
What if the standard model is wrong?!
and and anything doesn’t fit they add it as a new alleged discovery to their eggs box !
Isn’t that possible too?!
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
Well it is wrong isn't it? I does not predict gravity.
@Alex Batsis it does at a large scale. Just can't explain it at the small scale
📍10:23
If there's a standard model, how many non-standard models are there? Also if there are no non-standard models, then you don't need to call it 'the standard model'...it's just 'the model'.
what about the sun's activity?
neutrinos striking cern as your firing it. simple sun's activity is up.
9:00 that doesn't mean that all you have to do it a ten thousand times and see how the particles decay and then look for outliers according to the mean: oh ok he kinda conceded that 😊
What was so interesting about his cell phone?
Do Scientists know that they will find ever smaller particles endlessly!? It is the "Nature of God"!
well then everything should change very soon! we just found a brand new super conductor that works at room temperature! and we can make this one fairly easy! so every one will have perfectly efficient electric cars and flying cars in the very near future. if we can get along and not go to war that is. but the biggest problems are cleaning the ocean and pollution in the air we breath. all electric everything can be so much cheaper and last ten times longer than combustion motors. the new room temperature super conductor will save us all if they can make enough and incorporate it into all cars and motors and factories would be a challenge but well worth it for the cost savings and power increase we will get! i am exited for the future again now!
12:07 These questions have been answered. Many people simply reject it.
I never understood what the point of Cern was and the experiments they do there. Is it a quest for Energy? Weapons? What do they ultimately hope to achieve and why?
Standard model failing to explain 95% of observed/guesstimated universe mass and fudging that with hypothetical dark matter isn't sound science. Aka, quantum vacuum catastrophe problem. Standard model is oblivious to gravity.
"Standard model is extremely accurate" and "shut up and calculate" are slogans of statistics, as one can fit a polynomial curve accurately to match any observations with naturally accurate interpolation. Polynomial curve fitting exhibits explosive uncertainty outside the convex hull of the training dataset and that is what we observe with the standard model - it doesn't extrapolate beyond data it was fit to match.
Physics must yield interpretable geometric models that are scale-invariant, so that they extrapolate accurately from sub-atomic to galactic scale.
It's 15 meters in height. 20 meters long.... and weighs 14,000 tonnes?...... How????
Yes sounds a bit odd considering a cubic meter of steel is about 8 tons.
@@Omegaman1969 Yeah it should work out to be more around 1,400 tonnes. not 14,000 tonnes.
I have a question about a red mercury turbine... and incredibly high speeds
I thought just observing it changed the whole reaction.
What I would like to know is......has cern discovered any particles which have been detected in meteor impact sites ?
What... does this even mean?
@@AdamTFinch buddy’s on one definitely, wtf
When is the next sacrifice to Shiva?
Does he have a bird in his sleeve?
Trying to keep the funders interested because the whole project is a giant money pit
It cost $4.75 billion to build, split between 4 countries. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things. Compare that to the $2 trillion the US spends on its military budget every year! The LHC has already advanced our understanding of the universe dramatically, and continues to do so. The fact of the matter is that the LHC provides a return on investment to the tune of $1.80 for every dollar spent on its operation - including both daily costs and build/upgrade costs. Much of this return on investment comes from the development of new technologies created for the LHC project. It's really not a money pit.
They have to justify the next BIGGER ACCELERATOR, right? Considering how little the LHC has validated which doesn’t even get to the lack of new discoveries. If you have a bunch of bright people trying to justify the expenditure of future resources, you are almost assured to bump into some “ANOMALIES”!!
Money is an artificial resource. Knowledge of our universe and the components of matter is of much more interest than a horde of dollar bills.
@@jessicaheger1880
Some of those resources are not financial. Resources come in various flavors.
@@jessicaheger1880 agree, but anyhow there must be sense in what you do, a new collider doesn't, since it's clear that it has to be larger, than humanity is able to construct (solar system diameter, or larger) for the found of new physics.
Compared to an advanced
'type 1'civilisation (Kardashev scale) they don't really know what they're dealing with.
What Is the Difference Between God and Nature?
“It is best for us to agree and accept the words of the Kabbalists that ‘the nature’ (Heb. ‘HaTeva’ [‘הטבע’]) has the same numerical value as ‘God’ (Heb. ‘Elohim’ [‘אלהים’]-eighty-six. Then, I will be able to call the laws of God ‘nature’s commandments [Mitzvot],’ or vice-versa (God’s commandments [Mitzvot] by the name ‘nature’s laws’), for they are one and the same.” - Kabbalist Yehuda Ashlag (Baal HaSulam), “The Peace.”
There is nothing besides the system of nature, which Kabbalists equally refer to as “nature” or “God,” and we are integral parts of this system.
Therefore, when we say that there is one God, it means that there is nothing besides one force acting in this single system we are parts of.
The desire of the single force acting in reality is to bring us into connection with it-not via coercion, but through awareness in a positive manner.
As much as we understand, feel and attain this force as one that is good and benevolent, then we can adhere to it and reach its level of complete awareness.
Interesting, I am finding as a PhD student on information theory that the missing particle must be information. All particles contain information and it is information in the form of human perception which by which people observe and therefore alter quantum wave functionality. Information is physical and demonstrates(to us, people) the functionality of the universe. Even if you find dark matter, those results will also consist of information because we can't disconnect mind from matter.
Hi Arend, the information you MIGHT be lacking is how we form information. Ever thought about talking to a neuroscientist?
@@MrFDdude how do we form information?
@@arendpsa ask a neurologist or neuroscientist for the latest updates. It never hurts to expand your network.
@@MrFDdude But what does a neuroscientist know about the universe and how it functions? What I can tell however is that life functions according universal laws by the exchange of information.
@@arendpsa if your hypothesis is even remotely true, and since we are the result of the same universe, we need to define what is raw data, and what data comes from our perception. From what I have seen on UA-cam (sry, not always the most scientific source) that discussion is far from over.
Making that distinction should be IMHO part of your DMAIC cycle.
Interesting and just as were moving towards a man made big bang bc no one will stand up to America, makes all this rather pointless unfortunately but thank you interesting and educational shame we won't be around to learn more 🙁