According to the Standard Model, neutrinos shouldn’t oscillate from one flavor to another at all, so the very fact that these oscillations occur is already evidence that there is physics beyond the Standard Model. On the other hand, right handed (i.e. sterile) neutrinos are not necessarily a violation of the Standard Model, as it has for a long time been suspected that they exist.
@@sterotacromycopheno exactly! And the reason we know they have mass, is because of neutrino oscillations! I will try to explain why, but hang on because it requires concepts from both quantum mechanics and special relativity! It works like this: all massless particles travel at the speed og light (special relativity), if a particle traveled slower then light, it would mean that there exists a frame in which it would be moving backwards with respect to you. In quantum mechanics this is reflected on the probability to measure the particles to be "rotating" either one way, or the other. If the particle traveled at the speed of light, you would only ever measure its spin in 1 way. But we dont see that. Therefore, since we can infer that neutrinos can change their spin, or "oscillate" back and forth, it means that they don't travel at the speed of light, and therefore have mass! I tried my best, did it help?
Neutrinos are not a proper quantum particle, they are made up to balance energy equations and can have many values, not a fixed quantised value... They are a mathematical artefact of an erroneous understanding of Beta+ emissions and what up quarks are (positrons).
Great coverage, as always! It makes this neutrino physicist very happy 😁 Now, two comments are in order: 1) The sterile neutrino you mentioned is one possibility, but not the only one. It could be a fourth generation neutrino, one that just happens to be invisible to weak interactions. It doesn't even have to be a neutrino as we know it. It could be any number of neutrino-like states predicted from beyond standard model theories, as long as it is light and its mass state mix with the neutrino we know. 2) You always mention when a future experiment may solve a conflict, but you didn't do it this time. The Short Baseline Neutrino program (SBN, for short) is made of 3 neutrino detectors in the same beam. They all use a different detection technology than MiniBooNE and LSND, which serves as a way of excluding some possibilities of miss identification of events. From these 3, MicroBoone is already in operation, SBND is under construction and positioned very close to the beam source, acting as a standard, and the Italian detection ICARUS was moved to the US to serve as the third one. Together, these detectors have a better chance to look for the same signal with much more accuracy and a different approach all together. Only then, if we stilll see the same signal, a discovery of some sort can be claimed. If you ever pass by Fermilab, come see us =)
Hey neutrino physicist, do you think "Standard Model Neutrino Mechanism" by Hayes has any merit? The idea is that neutrinos are massless and oscillate as they pass through matter analogously to how massless photons can rotate polarization as they pass through some crystals. Hayes has somewhat relevant qualifications, being a nuclear physicist, but unfortunately the paper was not published in the best journal. Hayes says he did get actionable feedback from reviewers. I can't understand the paper yet. Someday hopefully.
@tim57243 🤔 Never heard of this proposition before. I can understand if he gets some criticism, though. Firstly, because it's part of the process, but most importantly, because oscillations are pretty well understood nowadays and an "as if" explanation is basically irrelevant at this point since we have the model described from first principles and it works beautifully. For instance, by proposing that the oscillation comes from something analogous to polarization, then we would have to use this explanation also for quark oscillation, which are not massless. Actually, truly massless neutrinos are harder to explain since they would be the only leptons like that. Regardless, the mechanism that gives them their masses is not understood, and every new proposition deserves a fair shake.
@@GustavoValdiviesso Thanks. I suppose this implies that the Standard Model isn't the consensus anymore. Which model do you find most plausible that has massive neutrinos?
@tim57243 It is still the Standard Model, but it has been extended to include the masses and their mixings. What it doesn't have is a mechanism for such masses to arise, unlike for every other particule, which has its mass granted by the Higgs Field. There are candidate models for Higgs-Neutrino interactions, but at this point, it is unclear exactly how this would work. It is possible that the neutrino masses come from a completely different source.
@@GustavoValdiviessoJust to be clear, Hayes received the feedback and incorporated it into the paper and it presently has no known significant bugs. It is published at: Journal of Modern Physics, Vol.12 No.11, September 2021 The struggle is getting anyone to notice the paper; the struggle isn't getting it past review.
@@alohathaxted so the density of ABS plastic is about 1.07 g/cm^3. The density of lead is 11.36 g/cm^3. So you'd need about 10.62ish times as much plastic for a similar amount of matter to be in the way. So about 10.62ly of Lego plastic. However Lego plastic is not solid and is roughly 20 (this is a rough estimate as there's many different types of blocks and stuff so I'm assuming a relatively basic block) less dense because of all of the gaps giving us a total of 212.4 light-years of Legos. . . Your welcome
"Ok, got it. No, wait...oh, ok. Gotcha. Wait, what now? You lost me. No wait, I remember that, nope lost me again. Wait, alright that makes sense. Nevermind, lost me again. Oh wait, you're speaking english again. Aaaand you lost me. Oh, is it over now? Wow, I'm getting so smart from these! I can't wait for the next one!" Me every Wednesday.
Luka Stefanovic oh, don't mind me, I'm only brushing up on my understanding of this universe's physics as I formulate my plans to annihilate all these filthy ningens and their well groomed beards.
Diogenes D'Sinope toil in service? You think too highly of yourself. All mortals are disservice to the universes they infest. All your achievements make you so proud, and yet you cannot detect dark matter? How fitting it is that you would call it such. What you seek is in reality the realm of the divine, but your small mortal minds and weak senses are incapable of telling divine light from darkness. (Man, this is too much fun. I should probably stop before I start convincing myself, lol)
joaquin vega you would reduce a GOD to a MEME?! Truly, the insolence of mortals knows no bounds. Though I am not surprised. Simply skimming the comments made by humans on this site makes me sick. I know not which is a greater failure of the Kais: that they would give knowledge to beings so petty and foolish, or that they stand by their decision when said beings boast about the speed at which they left pornhub to watch video blogs made by fellow idiots.
Yes, especially the part where it looks like he's staning on his tippy toes for the entire video. and the fact that they use a mic that's really good at picking up all thoses sssppspss noises he makes on the end of every word, great job.
1. just a joke, dont science it(even though its space time) 2. since im not using anything to manipulate the cursor its speed is relative to my mouse and for it to reach a speed higher than the speed of causality my mouse would have to reach a similiar speed
It can be, the problem is defining exactly which ones with no result 'count'. Right now I can average LIGO's detections to say that we ahven't detected gravitational waves, but for most of its runtime it wasn't sensitive enough to detect what it's detecting now, so it's not really fair to include all that null time. This particular addition makes sense in that there aren't actually many experiments out there set to detect this particular kind of particle that CAN be treated this was.It's still not as good as a high sigma by itself, which is why it was mentioned instead of being glossed over.
So either it is 5 sigma or not. Which is it? In physics, expressions such as "...not as good as...." usually have very precise meaning by comparing quantifiable (in S.I units) attributes of two or more things. What aspect or quantity in one set of experiments is 'not as good as' which other quantity in the other set of experiments. You see where I'm going? In short, adding up sigma's like that is at best useless, and at worst misleading.
Well then, if we want to be ironclad about it, the situation is as follows. The combined experiments show a significance that is exactly as good as 6.1 sigma. The logic behind this is the same as taking two independent samples of 50, testing for something then treating them as a single sample of 100. In the basic maths there's no issue. Such combination is not by itself bad science and is regularly done on the scale of the example above, where different samples or runs in a single experiment are combined. (Then there's meta-analysis...) It CAN be used to do bad science but then so can things like p-values or modelling. This is why we should exammine the method and reasoning behind such mergers since there's the possibility that it might be flawed. In this case it's not, not least because if it were cherry picking the physics community would have blasted the team off the face of the Earth for such foolishness. This is not some minor study on mice in an obscure journal, it involves two world-leading experiments. Simply fudging that is not an option. The issue rather lies with the things you raise 'feels' 'wants'. It LOOKS suspicious Such things COULD be bad science. It's a flaw of appearances and accusation, where an ignorant mind might well yell 'cherry picking' and dismiss it without attempting an understanding. The only real solid objection perhaps is the possibility that both experiments are flawed in the same or a similar fashion, but if that is the case then said flaw will result in a false positive in any such experiment which will reach past the five sigma level given time. In that case combination is a positive development since the question of a shared flaw can be asked and possibly addressed before further effort is wasted on a dead end.
Gathering data is expensive and takes time. It will happen, but not for a while, at least a year and probably several. This paper itself is more a space filler, something interesting that can be done with the data now. In a few years it'll either be a brilliant preliminary discovery, a hint before confirmation, or an irrelevant bit of suggestive but ultimately misleading data. It's almost physics' version of hope; 'This could be something, it *could*'. The 'proper' experiment will be done in time but for now... isn't this neat?
I do not have an educational background in physics, chemistry, or astronomy but I watch these quite often and it's pretty mind-blowing that we can figure things like this out. I sometimes get chills lol. Also, "nerd responsibly" is hilarious.
Ohh .. how cute. Has it already been decided what primary school little Higgsy is going to attend ? Bohr school, Bohm school, Everett school or Hogwarts ?
I started watching the space time videos a few months ago and it rekindled my interest in becoming a physicist. The video on the Higgs mechanism got me thinking about dark matter and how it’s chirality could have effects on its interactions with the forces in a similar way to how left handed electrons can interact with the weak force. The mass of dark matter could also be tied up in the Higgs mechanism. I’m probably missing a lot because i haven’t even finished high school yet but I just wanted to share my ideas.
I recently learned of Prof Erik Verlinde's theory of emergent gravity and though it's not exactly ground breaking for journal club, I think the concepts in that would light your viewers brains on fire. I haven't the confidence to dive into the paper but with you guys in my world line, I think I'd be ok!
I get so excited when I hear about this stuff I spout it off to everyone who has the patience to listen. After a few minutes of explaining what I've learned, I notice the head or eye rolls and then I slowly back off realizing that they aren't quite so enthusiastic about it.
Much like One needs Wave functions and Wave operators to understand and form a Standard Model of the Universe, One requires Warp functions and Warp operators to "understandardize" and transForm & transverse a SpeciAl Mode(l) of the Multiverse; encapsulating and cataloging all Universe Mode(l)s. Consistent with polysemiotic information systems of holographic projection and thus distribution.
This is a really good episode, and I feel like the explanations were really well written. I often get a little distracted and wind up lost on certain concepts in some of these videos, but this one was a lot easier to follow. I think it had more to do with the verbiage used rather than the topic, ie, the script writing.
I've found that if I watch this on constant loop, taking notes a little bit every time, I can actually comprehend it. It's amazing and I thank this channel so much. I just now for the first time grasped the meaning of chirality and the way particles acquire mass, and I'm not even a science or math major. It's an astonishing feeling to understand just a tiny slice of the complexity of these concepts through the hard "dumbing-down" work of so many others to visualize it and make it intuitive. Many many thanks!
13:33 That's Feynman! He also learnt how to crack safes and pranked a fellow Los Alamos physiscist once: The man thought the russians had broken in his safe and stolen the top secret equations! He also shared encrypted letters with his sister for fun and while at Los Alamos, had to provide the Secret Service with the solutions to the encryption so that they could confirm he was not sharing secrets. He also refused Honorary degrees and resigned from the Academy of Sciences. He always knew what his true passion was: In a letter to his parents, he once wrote "I have other desires and aims in the world. One of them is to contribute to physics as much as I can. This, in my mind, is of even more importance than my love for Arlene." We love you Dick
SlimThrull Yes you are right and even if he battled with alcoholism, this wouldn't diminish his scientific research and just showed that he had personal problems. I just wrote that, because many people nowadays try to make him look like a superhuman genius, which he certainly was not. He was one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century and, definitely earned his Nobel prize, absolutely no doubt about that, but he was imho not in the same league as Einstein, Gauss or von Neumann.
The first question at the end that you answered was greatly appreciated.I'm glad somebody noticed a paradox that I couldn't catch. So the hosts simply takes the answer and makes it his own while seemingly like he already knew it already knew it
The discovery had a 6.1 sigma level of significance, dude, it's not unverified. Regardless, that doesn't mean for sure that sterile neutrinos exist. Like he said in the video, it could mean that there's some physical process that happens that we don't understand yet. Regardles, it definitely means _something_ is happening.
Upon confirmation of the dark matter candidate being the sterile neutrino or something else, aside from Nobel Prizes being awarded there should be a celebratory range of Skittles or m&m's released. Each with their own flavor colors and Elementary Particle symbols, with the chart on the pack. That would promote more public interest, particularly for young students. At the very least, they'd be tasty :)
I can imagine the structure of the ice having an effect on the interactions with the Sterile Neutrino. This is one of the best explanations on expanding the standard model.
I really enjoy trying to wrap my brain 'round the ideas in your excellent informative videos. Thank goodness for the 'pause' (let's hear that again) function though.
Oh yes, those faster than light neutrinos, I remember them well. Personally I never believed it for a moment, but a lot of people who knew absolutely nothing at all about physics and probably cared even less were well impressed by them at the time.
My biggest reason for wanting to meet aliens is to compare field notes on fundamental physics. Immagine how much we could advance science by having an outside input like that...
You should make a video explaining ALL the different properties that particles have including helicity, chirality, charge, spin, etcetera... And also phase shiting, that sounds really interesting too!
Sorry to correct you but the Majorana of "Majorana Effect" was actually an Italian Mathematician,misteriuosly disappeared after some brilliant contributions and collaborations to Enrico Fermi's studies; so the right pronunciation of his name sounds as "Mayorana". Regards from Italy 🇮🇹
8:28 Ah! I was reading some article on these experiments and did not understand why more electron neutrinos meant sterile neutrinos. But after watching and listening to this three times, I finally got it. Thank you, from a physics student.
I so love the shirt in the end segment, that could be a very long running series and probably still slightly more interesting that some shows lve seen, even if the end is predictable.
Good question Sawbonz. I always thought that the q field and the particle were inseparable, two aspects of the same thing, waves/particle duality etc. etc. Now different q fields would imply the possibility of a morphing - a neutrino to an electron or a neutrino to a black hole...that would be novel! My illumination required please!
But that is not really testable, for the conversation we are having now, QFT just does the best job describing the quantum weirdness we experience in the real physical world. That is exactly the portion of the conversation being expanded. What exactly is happening. We have a new idea, now for years of rigorous testing to narrow down the possibilities. Then more fun stories... Yay for stories.
Robert McGarry You're right I wasn't paying attention to his question that great but isn't the fact that it is a quantum field meaning there's duality? would there not be a unique almost inverted version? I look at it yin yang or if you don't understand Buddhism like a battery negative and positive charge so for everything that we have that is positive there's gonna be a negative right? Refraction/ diffraction . I'm actually gonna do some more research on this topic in a little bit so will see what I can find. And id even put my neck out and say it has something to do with frequency of the gravitational field and maybe even dark flow has something to do w it?
Dear Sir, you said that neutrinos and their antimatter counterpart have the same mass and no electric charge so what differentiates them is their chirality! But that only differentiates between left hand neutrinos and right hand antineutrinos or vice versa. What’s the difference between say a right hand antineutrino and a right hand neutrino? Aren’t they same since they both have same chirality?
Rishiraj Acharya No, there is also interaction with the Weak force to consider. Left neutrinos and right antineutrinos interact with the weak force. Right neutrinos and left antineutrinos would be the same as their chiral anti counterparts in all ways except that they wouldn't interact with the weak force. This is what I got from the video, anyway.
Antimatter counterparts in essence 'reverse all charges'. Mostly we think of this as electric charge, since that's the easiest to measure, but it also includes things like color charge (A blue quark will only properly annihilate with an antiblue antiquark.) chirality and 'weak charge'. So a right antineutrino and a right neutrino of the same flavor will have opposite 'weak charges' and not cancel.
I enjoy when Matt O'Dowd hosts, I would highly recommend to whoever edits, mixes and masters this audio to run his audio through some dessers and depoppers - dessers specifically. Helps takes the bite out of the unnecessarily long and loud aspects of the "s" when he speaks from one s word to another. Its incredibly amplified when listened to in headphones or a decent soundbar. Good videos and great series all around regardless. :)
man, that was a REALLY good episode. I thought that the information was thorough enough to keep the point going forward without being so overwhelming that I couldn't follow...and I am certainly no particle physicist!
Sheldon This is the closest I've found www.symmetrymagazine.org/sites/default/files/styles/2015_hero/public/images/standard/Hello_Kitty-s.jpg?itok=QJ7ri8p8
How can you say that this is a "new neutrino that breaks everything and expands the standard model" (Forgive my oversimplification, but that's basically the point.)? Sounds to me like all this is, is the potential evidence of something our theories have been *predicting* this whole time, not something that breaks them...
But wouldn't it just confirm the other half of the neutrinos that logically have to exist because of the stuff he points out in the start of the video? Or am I really missing something?
As always seems to be the case with stuff like this, it creates as many problems as it solves. Sure, it makes sense, and helps out with the opposite chirality neutrinos... but it makes the CMB data a problem. If sterile neutrinos exist, the CMB should look different, but it doesn't. So, have we misunderstood the CMB? Are our observations of it somehow incorrect? What about all the other work that has been done based on the assumption that there were only the 3 previously known neutrinos? Does any of that hold up any more? What about further work based on those results? And so on, and so forth. And why do other neutrino observatories see no corroborating evidence? They are using very similar methods to detect neutrinos, but don't see the extras that the reporting team did. Is that because the reporting team are seeing something that isn't there, or is there a problem with the observatories that *don't* see the excess? And why did the chicken cross the road?
I see what you're saying and all, but it just doesn't seem like a new Neutrino at all. Just the other chirality I would hope we assumed was there this entire time. I mean, did we really spend all our time studying the CMB using an idea like, "Our theories predict the other half of the neutrino, but since we haven't proven it's there, we'll just pretend it doesn't exist."? That seems like a pretty poor way to do scientific research to me.
Ok, please correct me where I got this wrong, but if you first define an anti particle to be the reverse polarity & chirality of a particle (same mass), and then say neutrino's don't have a charge, aren't neutrinos with left & right handed chirality their own anti particles? What is the difference between a left chiral neutrino and a right chiral anti-nutrino?
That's not the definition of antimatter, those are just properties that anti-particles need to have. For example, a neutron and an anti-neutron are definitely not the same thing. The fact that neutrinos don't have an electric charge means they MIGHT be their own anti-particles, but its only a possibility.
The various fundamental particles have other properties - lepton number (+1 or -1 for any lepton or any anti-lepton respectively, zero for anything else), strangeness (+1 or -1 for s or s-bar quarks, respectively, zero for all else), charm (try to guess!), and so on. Muons have a special muon "flavor" making them different from electrons. Of course, this comes as +1 for muons and muon-neutrinos (either chirality), -1 for anti-muons and anti-muon-neutrinos (either chirality). So it's not just chirality of the non-sterile neutrinos and anti-neutrinos that's opposite. BTW, I'm a physicist, worked at SLAC, so I know a bit about these things :)
spin is just a quantum number, just like all the other (e.g. s, l, m etc). It can be interpreted as a particle that is spinning either clockwise, or anticlockwise around its rotational axis. This works quite well, but be warned: this is just an interpretation of the spin and not physical reality. In reality the spin is a quantum number, describing a quantum state. It was "made up" / required to explain that 2 fermions (e.g. electrons) and not just one can co-exist in the same orbital -> because of the Pauli principle they must differ in some state and thus the spin was invented, and interpreted as the electrons rotation (clockwise or counterclockwise).
NDD well an elementary particle is NEITHER a wave NOR a particle, it's something incomprehensible for us that, depending on the experimental environment, either behaves like a wave or like a particle. It's important to understand, that it's not either this or that, but something different that exhibits different properties depending on how it interacts. Wave - particle dualism shouldn't be taken literally, as it's wrong (although pretty useful). Michael Bishop pointed out polarization, i'd rather say it would be circular polarization, where the e and the H vector of the electromagnetic field circle clockwise or anticlockwise around the direction of movement. It's a good analogy, but I wouldn't take that too seriously. In the end spin is a quantum number and the only thing we REALLY know is that the math for QM works perfectly. Trying to understand it (e.g. imagining it to be either a particle or a wave, or the rotation of a little ball) are not correct and sooner or later fail.
+NDD You are correct that the particles do not spin like tops, however, the property is real, and it does have units of angular momentum, so it was called spin.
Having been in the PhD program for physics, yes, the 'J' is sounded like an 'H', as if Mexican or certain other langauges. I've always heard 'Maharana' all the 'a' being like in 'father'. Unless I had dumb professors...
"Maharana" is also wrong, however. The problem lies in the weird use of J in our regions: the letter J isn't part of the Italian alphabet but is occasionally used in many words, typically within the context of southerner dialects, as if it was a Y.
Sgt. Skitters it has to do with sample size. The basic formula (I believe) is ((sample mean) - (null hypothesis or what you would expect if nothing weird was happening))/(sample standard deviation/sqrt(sample size)) Or you can write it (x-mu)/(Sx/n^(1/2)) If you want to learn more, take a statistics class or google “single sample t-test”
Sgt. Skitters it's as if you combine the two experimental results into one final conclusion. The statistical significance is based on the bell curve with each extra sigma being anouther standard deviation from the mean. So you don't simply add the two numbers, but I am unsure exactly how they arrived at 6.1 sigma
It's a logarithmic scale, I think. A 3.8 sigma would be like 0.9%(i think) chance for mistake and a 4.8 would be around 0.03%. You multiply them, so it's the 3.8 sigma(1/110) times the 4.8 sigma (3/1000), 1/110 * 3/1000 which is about 0.00027 (just over 6 sigma).
Goddammit! My girlfriend wrote out the entire standard model on my birthday card (Yup, she`s a keeper). Now I`m going to have to return it for amendment. She`ll be pissed.
Reminds me of this quote: “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not, ‘Eureka! I’ve found it,’ but, ‘That’s funny!’ “
Is combining the sigma levels from multiple experiments like that as dodgy as it sounds? Because ti sounds as if that's some serious potential for cherry picking going on (deliberate or otherwise).
The two experiments are related, one essentially being an extension of the other. This sort of thing can be done as part of a 'meta analysis' (Which in essence looks over all experiments in a subject to see if they show some sort of trend.) It CAN be quite dodgy, to disprove anything simply add a bunch of bad experiments with null results, so the relevant question in any case this is used is 'Is it valid to combine these results?'. Here it works out, but still has to be mentioned since it's not as good as a 'true' 6 sigma result. There's a big asterisk there.
Yeah, they'll change it into a NEWtrino model. HAHA GOT EM EDIT: OH SHIT, SOMEONE ELSE GOT EM ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES BEFORE ME, DAMN WEW LADS, I'M LEAVING IT UP ANYWAY
Don Solaris Curiositystream has a class of videos by a leading expert in the field on how to make your own sterile neutrinos at home in your kitchen, just from heavy water a banana peel, 5kg of plutonium and a portable fusion reactor. If you use the tag: Spacetime when signing up, you'll get 10% off of your first month's payment. The first pi subscribers will also get 1 kg Pu for free.* *If private possession of Plutonium is illegal in your country of residence, we retain the right to not do so.
It's cool that this research is happening just down the street from me. FermiLab to me is just that funny shaped building in the middle of a field, I had no idea they were researching something so cool under that field! I thought all the cutting edge research was being done in Switzerland now.
CERN with LHC gets to far higher energies than everybody else, so they can do stuff that nobody else can do, but that doesn't mean all other globally existing accelerators (and there are a lot) are useless junk. Each of them just specializes on a different research topic. E.g when you just need some synchrotron radiation for your experiments you don't need to have the worlds most powerful accelerator, Just like you don't have to have the worlds biggest chainsaw to slice bread. But yeah, Fermilab is one of the best renowned institutions in particle physic research.
The Standard Model is so hilariously riddled with errors, yet “scientists” continue to keep a straight face. Hey, gotta go after all those grants studying things that don’t have a prayer to be true! #Science
I love how critically scientists think. They don’t blow fundings out of proportion and they don’t believe everything they read or find without healthy skepticism. On the same note they don’t deny truths for which we have profound convincing evidence. Keep up the good work PBS SpaceTime !
Harambe's Ghost O I'm not worried. In fact its my most preferred way for the fate of the Universe. If there were some new change to the Standard Model of particle physics that would entirely rule out vacuum decay from ever being a possible thing I would be very much sad. Vacuum decay is such a cool concept.
Exactly no; neutrinos are... a little distant from the Higgs mechanism and it's the Higgs field that is the major concern in regards to vacuum decay at present.
1:42 should be W+ to conserve charge Expl.: W "takes away" +1 to leave −1 for electron. W then "gives" −1 to a Down-Quark (charge −1/3) to create an Up-Quark (char +2/3) thus changing the neutron to a proton.
anyone else get a tingly face and something wringling behind your eye balls as you watch these kinds of PBS discovery theorem videos. - love to be mind blown..
I love this channel because it really does teach me, and its fantastic to be able to keep up with university degree level conversation. also makes me sound really smart and i love talking back to the tv , saying NO that is wrong, wormholes do not work like that... , DOWNSIDE , knowing the standard model and interactions of the weak nuclear force , when you try and explain mass to someone , they get annoyed at how dumb they feel , some people will always be intimidated by knowledge.
If I'm understanding correctly, chirality should be related to randomness and for radioactive decay. Because only the left-handed versions of fermions interact with the weak force, you never know if a fermion is going to be left handed or right handed, so if there's a weak force applied, the randomness of the fermion handedness informs whether or not a weak force interaction will happen.
If I ever feel like I've started to understand the world or feel at peace with my knowledge, I just have to watch one of these to be put back in my place. I know nothing and will die this way.
OK I wrote that crap BEFORE I watched the whole video, this was AMAZING and I and so grateful you broke it down for me in byte size pieces my brain can handle. Thank you to the power of Infinity.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
According to the Standard Model, neutrinos shouldn’t oscillate from one flavor to another at all, so the very fact that these oscillations occur is already evidence that there is physics beyond the Standard Model. On the other hand, right handed (i.e. sterile) neutrinos are not necessarily a violation of the Standard Model, as it has for a long time been suspected that they exist.
Isn't PMNS matrix (as well as CKM matrix) a part of Standard Model?
Love your videos, btw!
According to the Standard Model, neutrinos should not have mass but apparently they do ? (Although, it's very very very small)...
@@sterotacromycopheno exactly! And the reason we know they have mass, is because of neutrino oscillations! I will try to explain why, but hang on because it requires concepts from both quantum mechanics and special relativity!
It works like this: all massless particles travel at the speed og light (special relativity), if a particle traveled slower then light, it would mean that there exists a frame in which it would be moving backwards with respect to you. In quantum mechanics this is reflected on the probability to measure the particles to be "rotating" either one way, or the other. If the particle traveled at the speed of light, you would only ever measure its spin in 1 way. But we dont see that. Therefore, since we can infer that neutrinos can change their spin, or "oscillate" back and forth, it means that they don't travel at the speed of light, and therefore have mass!
I tried my best, did it help?
@@svendkorsgaard9599 yes actually, thanks dude :)
Neutrinos are not a proper quantum particle, they are made up to balance energy equations and can have many values, not a fixed quantised value... They are a mathematical artefact of an erroneous understanding of Beta+ emissions and what up quarks are (positrons).
Great coverage, as always! It makes this neutrino physicist very happy 😁
Now, two comments are in order:
1) The sterile neutrino you mentioned is one possibility, but not the only one. It could be a fourth generation neutrino, one that just happens to be invisible to weak interactions. It doesn't even have to be a neutrino as we know it. It could be any number of neutrino-like states predicted from beyond standard model theories, as long as it is light and its mass state mix with the neutrino we know.
2) You always mention when a future experiment may solve a conflict, but you didn't do it this time. The Short Baseline Neutrino program (SBN, for short) is made of 3 neutrino detectors in the same beam. They all use a different detection technology than MiniBooNE and LSND, which serves as a way of excluding some possibilities of miss identification of events. From these 3, MicroBoone is already in operation, SBND is under construction and positioned very close to the beam source, acting as a standard, and the Italian detection ICARUS was moved to the US to serve as the third one. Together, these detectors have a better chance to look for the same signal with much more accuracy and a different approach all together. Only then, if we stilll see the same signal, a discovery of some sort can be claimed.
If you ever pass by Fermilab, come see us =)
Hey neutrino physicist, do you think "Standard Model Neutrino Mechanism" by Hayes has any merit? The idea is that neutrinos are massless and oscillate as they pass through matter analogously to how massless photons can rotate polarization as they pass through some crystals. Hayes has somewhat relevant qualifications, being a nuclear physicist, but unfortunately the paper was not published in the best journal. Hayes says he did get actionable feedback from reviewers.
I can't understand the paper yet. Someday hopefully.
@tim57243 🤔 Never heard of this proposition before. I can understand if he gets some criticism, though. Firstly, because it's part of the process, but most importantly, because oscillations are pretty well understood nowadays and an "as if" explanation is basically irrelevant at this point since we have the model described from first principles and it works beautifully. For instance, by proposing that the oscillation comes from something analogous to polarization, then we would have to use this explanation also for quark oscillation, which are not massless. Actually, truly massless neutrinos are harder to explain since they would be the only leptons like that. Regardless, the mechanism that gives them their masses is not understood, and every new proposition deserves a fair shake.
@@GustavoValdiviesso Thanks. I suppose this implies that the Standard Model isn't the consensus anymore. Which model do you find most plausible that has massive neutrinos?
@tim57243 It is still the Standard Model, but it has been extended to include the masses and their mixings. What it doesn't have is a mechanism for such masses to arise, unlike for every other particule, which has its mass granted by the Higgs Field. There are candidate models for Higgs-Neutrino interactions, but at this point, it is unclear exactly how this would work. It is possible that the neutrino masses come from a completely different source.
@@GustavoValdiviessoJust to be clear, Hayes received the feedback and incorporated it into the paper and it presently has no known significant bugs. It is published at: Journal of Modern Physics, Vol.12 No.11, September 2021 The struggle is getting anyone to notice the paper; the struggle isn't getting it past review.
I tried building a one light-year thick lead wall to stop half the neutrinos but it collapsed into a black hole and now stops all the neutrinos.
VegetaRabbit that's legit funny
I want to know how thick the Lego wall would have to be.
@@alohathaxted so the density of ABS plastic is about 1.07 g/cm^3. The density of lead is 11.36 g/cm^3. So you'd need about 10.62ish times as much plastic for a similar amount of matter to be in the way. So about 10.62ly of Lego plastic. However Lego plastic is not solid and is roughly 20 (this is a rough estimate as there's many different types of blocks and stuff so I'm assuming a relatively basic block) less dense because of all of the gaps giving us a total of 212.4 light-years of Legos. . . Your welcome
So about half of all Lego bricks in existance then. Thanks.
@@Grimsace False. One lego is enough to stop a fully grown adult, so I doubt it's not enough for a tiny neutrino.
"Ok, got it. No, wait...oh, ok. Gotcha. Wait, what now? You lost me. No wait, I remember that, nope lost me again. Wait, alright that makes sense. Nevermind, lost me again. Oh wait, you're speaking english again. Aaaand you lost me. Oh, is it over now? Wow, I'm getting so smart from these! I can't wait for the next one!"
Me every Wednesday.
Gideon Jones dont listen to him he is a fuckin ningen
Luka Stefanovic oh, don't mind me, I'm only brushing up on my understanding of this universe's physics as I formulate my plans to annihilate all these filthy ningens and their well groomed beards.
Diogenes D'Sinope toil in service? You think too highly of yourself. All mortals are disservice to the universes they infest. All your achievements make you so proud, and yet you cannot detect dark matter? How fitting it is that you would call it such. What you seek is in reality the realm of the divine, but your small mortal minds and weak senses are incapable of telling divine light from darkness.
(Man, this is too much fun. I should probably stop before I start convincing myself, lol)
Gideon Jones hahahahaha no please coninue, you could be THE new meme
joaquin vega you would reduce a GOD to a MEME?! Truly, the insolence of mortals knows no bounds. Though I am not surprised. Simply skimming the comments made by humans on this site makes me sick. I know not which is a greater failure of the Kais: that they would give knowledge to beings so petty and foolish, or that they stand by their decision when said beings boast about the speed at which they left pornhub to watch video blogs made by fellow idiots.
As a video editor and motion graphics artist, I really love the aesthetics of these videos! Great job PBS team!
Steven Utter He didn't promote his channel in any way. He just complimented them.
Yes, especially the part where it looks like he's staning on his tippy toes for the entire video.
and the fact that they use a mic that's really good at picking up all thoses sssppspss noises he makes on the end of every word, great job.
You never fail to spam. You reek of desperation
You never fail to spam. You reek of desperation
You are bragging about those things?
new Space Time Video, cursor moves faster than speed of causality confirmed
Joey Gratzer another explanation is your computer watched so many Space Time videos, it became sentient and it's now clicking on new videos by itself
So, it has begun... We must protect Sarah Conor, she's our only hope.
1. just a joke, dont science it(even though its space time)
2. since im not using anything to manipulate the cursor its speed is relative to my mouse and for it to reach a speed higher than the speed of causality my mouse would have to reach a similiar speed
So you clicked the video before it was uploaded.
yes
Adding together the experiments that show the correlation while ignoring the ones that don't is indeed an easy way to get a significant result...
Richard Braakman almost feels as if they *want* to be right
It can be, the problem is defining exactly which ones with no result 'count'. Right now I can average LIGO's detections to say that we ahven't detected gravitational waves, but for most of its runtime it wasn't sensitive enough to detect what it's detecting now, so it's not really fair to include all that null time. This particular addition makes sense in that there aren't actually many experiments out there set to detect this particular kind of particle that CAN be treated this was.It's still not as good as a high sigma by itself, which is why it was mentioned instead of being glossed over.
So either it is 5 sigma or not. Which is it? In physics, expressions such as "...not as good as...." usually have very precise meaning by comparing quantifiable (in S.I units) attributes of two or more things. What aspect or quantity in one set of experiments is 'not as good as' which other quantity in the other set of experiments. You see where I'm going? In short, adding up sigma's like that is at best useless, and at worst misleading.
Well then, if we want to be ironclad about it, the situation is as follows.
The combined experiments show a significance that is exactly as good as 6.1 sigma. The logic behind this is the same as taking two independent samples of 50, testing for something then treating them as a single sample of 100. In the basic maths there's no issue.
Such combination is not by itself bad science and is regularly done on the scale of the example above, where different samples or runs in a single experiment are combined. (Then there's meta-analysis...) It CAN be used to do bad science but then so can things like p-values or modelling. This is why we should exammine the method and reasoning behind such mergers since there's the possibility that it might be flawed. In this case it's not, not least because if it were cherry picking the physics community would have blasted the team off the face of the Earth for such foolishness. This is not some minor study on mice in an obscure journal, it involves two world-leading experiments. Simply fudging that is not an option.
The issue rather lies with the things you raise 'feels' 'wants'. It LOOKS suspicious Such things COULD be bad science. It's a flaw of appearances and accusation, where an ignorant mind might well yell 'cherry picking' and dismiss it without attempting an understanding.
The only real solid objection perhaps is the possibility that both experiments are flawed in the same or a similar fashion, but if that is the case then said flaw will result in a false positive in any such experiment which will reach past the five sigma level given time. In that case combination is a positive development since the question of a shared flaw can be asked and possibly addressed before further effort is wasted on a dead end.
Gathering data is expensive and takes time. It will happen, but not for a while, at least a year and probably several. This paper itself is more a space filler, something interesting that can be done with the data now. In a few years it'll either be a brilliant preliminary discovery, a hint before confirmation, or an irrelevant bit of suggestive but ultimately misleading data.
It's almost physics' version of hope; 'This could be something, it *could*'. The 'proper' experiment will be done in time but for now... isn't this neat?
I do not have an educational background in physics, chemistry, or astronomy but I watch these quite often and it's pretty mind-blowing that we can figure things like this out. I sometimes get chills lol.
Also, "nerd responsibly" is hilarious.
Today is the 6 year anniversary of the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs Boson.
Tony James
In this day and age, my only reason to celebrate the 4th.
Lol happy 13,700,000,006 bday higgsy (or so...) Who's lighting all the candles?
Ohh .. how cute. Has it already been decided what primary school little Higgsy is going to attend ? Bohr school, Bohm school, Everett school or Hogwarts ?
+CloudGirl7 -- Edgy.
Harambe's Ghost
But only if you promise to not look.
I started watching the space time videos a few months ago and it rekindled my interest in becoming a physicist. The video on the Higgs mechanism got me thinking about dark matter and how it’s chirality could have effects on its interactions with the forces in a similar way to how left handed electrons can interact with the weak force. The mass of dark matter could also be tied up in the Higgs mechanism. I’m probably missing a lot because i haven’t even finished high school yet but I just wanted to share my ideas.
I recently learned of Prof Erik Verlinde's theory of emergent gravity and though it's not exactly ground breaking for journal club, I think the concepts in that would light your viewers brains on fire. I haven't the confidence to dive into the paper but with you guys in my world line, I think I'd be ok!
"Nerd Responsibly" definitely needs to be a T-shrt
I get so excited when I hear about this stuff I spout it off to everyone who has the patience to listen. After a few minutes of explaining what I've learned, I notice the head or eye rolls and then I slowly back off realizing that they aren't quite so enthusiastic about it.
omegahunter9 I relate to this a lot
Nerd responsibly! 😂
AdlockHungry I enjoyed that line!
That needs a t shirt
#nerdresponsibly
We need a shirt with this quote! :D
It is decided. We demand that a shirt be made! And we won’t take “No” for an answer!
No advancement in physics for decades and just as I'm printing the standard model to put on my door, suddenly it's outdated
xD but didn't we just recently discovered the higgs?
at least you didn’t get the tattoo
Plenty of advancements in physics but mostly not within the field of fundamental physics
Much like One needs Wave functions and Wave operators to understand and form a Standard Model of the Universe,
One requires Warp functions and Warp operators to "understandardize" and transForm & transverse a SpeciAl Mode(l) of the Multiverse; encapsulating and cataloging all Universe Mode(l)s.
Consistent with polysemiotic information systems of holographic projection and thus distribution.
I think you should print it more often. We need more advancements :D
Thank you for this amazing particle physics episode, hope more are coming!
This is a really good episode, and I feel like the explanations were really well written. I often get a little distracted and wind up lost on certain concepts in some of these videos, but this one was a lot easier to follow. I think it had more to do with the verbiage used rather than the topic, ie, the script writing.
oh how i love your public service announcement to "Nerd Responsibly!" 👍
So sterile neutrinos may be fertile ground for new physics. Noice.
+
As long as they don't breed and further mess up speculative physics.
I've found that if I watch this on constant loop, taking notes a little bit every time, I can actually comprehend it. It's amazing and I thank this channel so much. I just now for the first time grasped the meaning of chirality and the way particles acquire mass, and I'm not even a science or math major. It's an astonishing feeling to understand just a tiny slice of the complexity of these concepts through the hard "dumbing-down" work of so many others to visualize it and make it intuitive. Many many thanks!
Tell me I'm not the only one saying "space time" when Matt says it at the end of the video.
Bearded dude at 4:58 "Still with me?"
ME: "no"
Bearded dude: "Good"
ME: (,╯︵╰,)
13:33 That's Feynman! He also learnt how to crack safes and pranked a fellow Los Alamos physiscist once: The man thought the russians had broken in his safe and stolen the top secret equations! He also shared encrypted letters with his sister for fun and while at Los Alamos, had to provide the Secret Service with the solutions to the encryption so that they could confirm he was not sharing secrets. He also refused Honorary degrees and resigned from the Academy of Sciences.
He always knew what his true passion was: In a letter to his parents, he once wrote "I have other desires and aims in the world. One of them is to contribute to physics as much as I can. This, in my mind, is of even more importance than my love for Arlene."
We love you Dick
michael eli
Feynman didn't choose the thug life. The thug life chose him! 😀
michael ell
His prime passions were (in that order): 1) being an alcoholic, 2) playing bongo in strip bars, 3) being a brilliant physicist
To be fair, he did give up on alcohol several times over his life.
SlimThrull
Yes you are right and even if he battled with alcoholism, this wouldn't diminish his scientific research and just showed that he had personal problems. I just wrote that, because many people nowadays try to make him look like a superhuman genius, which he certainly was not. He was one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century and, definitely earned his Nobel prize, absolutely no doubt about that, but he was imho not in the same league as Einstein, Gauss or von Neumann.
Feynman is the equation of swag
The first question at the end that you answered was greatly appreciated.I'm glad somebody noticed a paradox that I couldn't catch.
So the hosts simply takes the answer and makes it his own while seemingly like he already knew it already knew it
The model won't change for unverified discoveries; it has standards.
The discovery had a 6.1 sigma level of significance, dude, it's not unverified. Regardless, that doesn't mean for sure that sterile neutrinos exist. Like he said in the video, it could mean that there's some physical process that happens that we don't understand yet. Regardles, it definitely means _something_ is happening.
April r/whooosh
April Swing and a miss...
Oops :(
Newton law won't change due to some weird unproven theory of "Maximum Speed" of light...
Watched several recent versions on the subject. This earlier presentation has by far, the most clarity. Thumbs up!
Hey, this probably just means the Standard Model may need to be revised, UA-cam comments section. Not rewritten completely
The way amateur physicists defend it, the two may as well be identical, in the mathematical sense
No, change can only mean THROW IT ALL OUT! When you change your underwear, do you just ‘revise’ them? Checkmate
But it will be done IN the youtube comment section, right? Here's my theory:
Great production values and the presenter is the Prof I always wished I had. I could almost understand this difficult subject. Almost.
Upon confirmation of the dark matter candidate being the sterile neutrino or something else, aside from Nobel Prizes being awarded there should be a celebratory range of Skittles or m&m's released. Each with their own flavor colors and Elementary Particle symbols, with the chart on the pack. That would promote more public interest, particularly for young students.
At the very least, they'd be tasty :)
What would be the charm in that? I mean who would want to eat a strange m&m?
I see what you did there :)
MusicalRaichu haha.
Well quark you pal. I dunno.. I told my girlfriend about it,
she lepton the idea.
I can imagine the structure of the ice having an effect on the interactions with the Sterile Neutrino. This is one of the best explanations on expanding the standard model.
Is it really hard to stand on your toes for 15 mins straight like that ?
sugershakify those leg muscle are denser than a neutron star
He’s actually kneeling. Diamond hard kneecaps.
I really enjoy trying to wrap my brain 'round the ideas in your excellent informative videos. Thank goodness for the 'pause' (let's hear that again) function though.
Is he standing on his toes the whole time? 5:25
Yep hes only 5 feet 2
I love him anyways ❤️❤️❤️
LOLOL!! "Nerd responsibily." 😂 Love this channel! It gives a place for nerds like me to hangout, learn, share, and question. Keep up the great work!
Nerd Responsibly. THAT is a tee-shirt slogan if I've ever heard one.
Excellent presentation. I appreciate the work and keep these videos coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh yes, those faster than light neutrinos, I remember them well.
Personally I never believed it for a moment, but a lot of people who knew absolutely nothing at all about physics and probably cared even less were well impressed by them at the time.
Thank you for the journal club! It's my favorite part of this channel
My biggest reason for wanting to meet aliens is to compare field notes on fundamental physics. Immagine how much we could advance science by having an outside input like that...
If we just don't disturb Archimedes' circles, we should do okay.
Great video! You kept the review section short and concise without sacrificing depth :D
A neutrino and a photon walk into a bar and for next 60 nanoseconds neutrino is complaining about how dark it is.
and the photon about how sterile he is
You should make a video explaining ALL the different properties that particles have including helicity, chirality, charge, spin, etcetera... And also phase shiting, that sounds really interesting too!
Sorry to correct you but the Majorana of "Majorana Effect" was actually an Italian Mathematician,misteriuosly disappeared after some brilliant contributions and collaborations to Enrico Fermi's studies; so the right pronunciation of his name sounds as "Mayorana". Regards from Italy 🇮🇹
I am a layman in the world of physics, but I am drawn to it. Thank you so much for doing this. I have learned so much about the universe.
Hey! Wanna hear a joke about a neutrino? Nah, nevermind. It will probably pass right through you anyway. ;)
No, it missed. It went way over my head.
@The Snark No, it didn't go over you, it went through you ;)
Joshua Penner hahahaha
@@sandhiprakashbhide
That joke had no noticeble effect on me
8:28 Ah! I was reading some article on these experiments and did not understand why more electron neutrinos meant sterile neutrinos. But after watching and listening to this three times, I finally got it. Thank you, from a physics student.
Got some notes? I'm still fuzzy on that point.
interesting topic
I so love the shirt in the end segment, that could be a very long running series and probably still slightly more interesting that some shows lve seen, even if the end is predictable.
If particles like neutrinos can change into other neutrinos, does that mean that there is one quantum field for all the neutrinos?
Well not because of the fact they can change. But yes, QFT asserts one such field for neutrinos, perhaps with more degrees of freedom.
Good question Sawbonz. I always thought that the q field and the particle were inseparable, two aspects of the same thing, waves/particle duality etc. etc. Now different q fields would imply the possibility of a morphing - a neutrino to an electron or a neutrino to a black hole...that would be novel!
My illumination required please!
Sawbonz quantum unified field theory
But that is not really testable, for the conversation we are having now, QFT just does the best job describing the quantum weirdness we experience in the real physical world. That is exactly the portion of the conversation being expanded. What exactly is happening. We have a new idea, now for years of rigorous testing to narrow down the possibilities. Then more fun stories... Yay for stories.
Robert McGarry You're right I wasn't paying attention to his question that great but isn't the fact that it is a quantum field meaning there's duality? would there not be a unique almost inverted version? I look at it yin yang or if you don't understand Buddhism like a battery negative and positive charge so for everything that we have that is positive there's gonna be a negative right? Refraction/ diffraction . I'm actually gonna do some more research on this topic in a little bit so will see what I can find. And id even put my neck out and say it has something to do with frequency of the gravitational field and maybe even dark flow has something to do w it?
Just discovered this channel. Absolutely love the level of detail given!
Dear Sir, you said that neutrinos and their antimatter counterpart have the same mass and no electric charge so what differentiates them is their chirality! But that only differentiates between left hand neutrinos and right hand antineutrinos or vice versa. What’s the difference between say a right hand antineutrino and a right hand neutrino? Aren’t they same since they both have same chirality?
Rishiraj Acharya No, there is also interaction with the Weak force to consider. Left neutrinos and right antineutrinos interact with the weak force. Right neutrinos and left antineutrinos would be the same as their chiral anti counterparts in all ways except that they wouldn't interact with the weak force.
This is what I got from the video, anyway.
Antimatter counterparts in essence 'reverse all charges'. Mostly we think of this as electric charge, since that's the easiest to measure, but it also includes things like color charge (A blue quark will only properly annihilate with an antiblue antiquark.) chirality and 'weak charge'. So a right antineutrino and a right neutrino of the same flavor will have opposite 'weak charges' and not cancel.
After listening to things well beyond my learning I was amazed that I understood why this points to the existence of Sterile Neutrino .
10:34 "Either way we'll have peed just a little."
I enjoy when Matt O'Dowd hosts, I would highly recommend to whoever edits, mixes and masters this audio to run his audio through some dessers and depoppers - dessers specifically. Helps takes the bite out of the unnecessarily long and loud aspects of the "s" when he speaks from one s word to another.
Its incredibly amplified when listened to in headphones or a decent soundbar. Good videos and great series all around regardless. :)
Maybe it's a very old new neutrino.
man, that was a REALLY good episode. I thought that the information was thorough enough to keep the point going forward without being so overwhelming that I couldn't follow...and I am certainly no particle physicist!
NEUTRINOS ARE LOVE. NEUTRINOS ARE LIFE.
kawaii nutrino girls when????
AND THEY STERILE SO YOU DON'T NEED CONDOMS
Sheldon This is the closest I've found www.symmetrymagazine.org/sites/default/files/styles/2015_hero/public/images/standard/Hello_Kitty-s.jpg?itok=QJ7ri8p8
Sheldon Robertson Give me that Tau neutrino. “T”.
Frahamen Great content. +1
Did you get all that? Whew ... particle physics has sure come a long way since I left college decades ago.
How can you say that this is a "new neutrino that breaks everything and expands the standard model" (Forgive my oversimplification, but that's basically the point.)? Sounds to me like all this is, is the potential evidence of something our theories have been *predicting* this whole time, not something that breaks them...
If the observation is correct, this *specific* thing was not predicted. Another Higgs with a higher mass, yes, a graviton even. But not a neutrino
But wouldn't it just confirm the other half of the neutrinos that logically have to exist because of the stuff he points out in the start of the video? Or am I really missing something?
I thought the same. It fits neatly into the picture.
As always seems to be the case with stuff like this, it creates as many problems as it solves. Sure, it makes sense, and helps out with the opposite chirality neutrinos... but it makes the CMB data a problem. If sterile neutrinos exist, the CMB should look different, but it doesn't. So, have we misunderstood the CMB? Are our observations of it somehow incorrect? What about all the other work that has been done based on the assumption that there were only the 3 previously known neutrinos? Does any of that hold up any more? What about further work based on those results? And so on, and so forth.
And why do other neutrino observatories see no corroborating evidence? They are using very similar methods to detect neutrinos, but don't see the extras that the reporting team did. Is that because the reporting team are seeing something that isn't there, or is there a problem with the observatories that *don't* see the excess? And why did the chicken cross the road?
I see what you're saying and all, but it just doesn't seem like a new Neutrino at all. Just the other chirality I would hope we assumed was there this entire time. I mean, did we really spend all our time studying the CMB using an idea like, "Our theories predict the other half of the neutrino, but since we haven't proven it's there, we'll just pretend it doesn't exist."?
That seems like a pretty poor way to do scientific research to me.
The flow of time got it. Thank you. Good video. You are outstanding.
I was wondering what is the generally accepted explanation for Venus's rotation being in the opposite direction from the other planets?
I think it’s a big impact
Aaah, finally, I have been waiting for a video on sterile neutrinos. Thanks guys (PBS SpaceTime team)
Ok, please correct me where I got this wrong, but if you first define an anti particle to be the reverse polarity & chirality of a particle (same mass), and then say neutrino's don't have a charge, aren't neutrinos with left & right handed chirality their own anti particles? What is the difference between a left chiral neutrino and a right chiral anti-nutrino?
That's not the definition of antimatter, those are just properties that anti-particles need to have. For example, a neutron and an anti-neutron are definitely not the same thing.
The fact that neutrinos don't have an electric charge means they MIGHT be their own anti-particles, but its only a possibility.
Thank you for the reply @Reddles37. As you point out, the definition of antimatter in this video is incomplete.
The various fundamental particles have other properties - lepton number (+1 or -1 for any lepton or any anti-lepton respectively, zero for anything else), strangeness (+1 or -1 for s or s-bar quarks, respectively, zero for all else), charm (try to guess!), and so on. Muons have a special muon "flavor" making them different from electrons. Of course, this comes as +1 for muons and muon-neutrinos (either chirality), -1 for anti-muons and anti-muon-neutrinos (either chirality). So it's not just chirality of the non-sterile neutrinos and anti-neutrinos that's opposite.
BTW, I'm a physicist, worked at SLAC, so I know a bit about these things :)
6 quarks + 6 antiquarks + 6 left leptons + 6 right leptons + 6 left antileptons + 6 right antileptons + photon + gluon + W+ + W- + Z + Higgs boson = 42 particles
Is particle "spin" some easy to understand analogy for a weird property? How can a wave (a particle) have spin?
NDD from my understanding it's not actually spin, it's not like spinning a tennis ball. 'Spin' is a mathematical property
spin is just a quantum number, just like all the other (e.g. s, l, m etc).
It can be interpreted as a particle that is spinning either clockwise, or anticlockwise around its rotational axis. This works quite well, but be warned: this is just an interpretation of the spin and not physical reality. In reality the spin is a quantum number, describing a quantum state.
It was "made up" / required to explain that 2 fermions (e.g. electrons) and not just one can co-exist in the same orbital -> because of the Pauli principle they must differ in some state and thus the spin was invented, and interpreted as the electrons rotation (clockwise or counterclockwise).
NDD
well an elementary particle is NEITHER a wave NOR a particle, it's something incomprehensible for us that, depending on the experimental environment, either behaves like a wave or like a particle. It's important to understand, that it's not either this or that, but something different that exhibits different properties depending on how it interacts. Wave - particle dualism shouldn't be taken literally, as it's wrong (although pretty useful).
Michael Bishop pointed out polarization, i'd rather say it would be circular polarization, where the e and the H vector of the electromagnetic field circle clockwise or anticlockwise around the direction of movement. It's a good analogy, but I wouldn't take that too seriously. In the end spin is a quantum number and the only thing we REALLY know is that the math for QM works perfectly. Trying to understand it (e.g. imagining it to be either a particle or a wave, or the rotation of a little ball) are not correct and sooner or later fail.
+NDD
You are correct that the particles do not spin like tops, however, the property is real, and it does have units of angular momentum, so it was called spin.
+Frank Schneider
Not _Ulysses_, but _Finnegan's Wake_, and neither work is an abomination. "Three quarks for Muster Mark."
Batteridge's Law of Headlines says an unequivocal, "NO!"
Thanks for preventing wasting 14 minutes of my life.
At 06:58 the correct pronunciation of "Majorana" should sound more like "Mayorana". That's after Italian scientist Ettore Majorana, right?
Yes, you are right
Having been in the PhD program for physics, yes, the 'J' is sounded like an 'H', as if Mexican or certain other langauges. I've always heard 'Maharana' all the 'a' being like in 'father'.
Unless I had dumb professors...
"Maharana" is also wrong, however. The problem lies in the weird use of J in our regions: the letter J isn't part of the Italian alphabet but is occasionally used in many words, typically within the context of southerner dialects, as if it was a Y.
ua-cam.com/video/PVs8FmSiOMs/v-deo.html#t=00m29s at second 30 you will hear the right pronunciation.
(just first random video i found)
I am Italian. The "j" letter is unused nowdays. When it was used, it would sound as a regular italian "i"
Thank you Family that is beautiful and I love the direction research is going, peace and love, Doug:)
So, how do sigma ratings get merged? Surely 4.8 + 3.8 doesn't equal 6.1.
I've noticed 4,8^2 + 3,8^2 ≈ 6,1^2 so maybe like that.
Sgt. Skitters it has to do with sample size. The basic formula (I believe) is
((sample mean) - (null hypothesis or what you would expect if nothing weird was happening))/(sample standard deviation/sqrt(sample size))
Or you can write it (x-mu)/(Sx/n^(1/2))
If you want to learn more, take a statistics class or google “single sample t-test”
Sgt. Skitters it's as if you combine the two experimental results into one final conclusion. The statistical significance is based on the bell curve with each extra sigma being anouther standard deviation from the mean. So you don't simply add the two numbers, but I am unsure exactly how they arrived at 6.1 sigma
It's a logarithmic scale, I think. A 3.8 sigma would be like 0.9%(i think) chance for mistake and a 4.8 would be around 0.03%. You multiply them, so it's the 3.8 sigma(1/110) times the 4.8 sigma (3/1000), 1/110 * 3/1000 which is about 0.00027 (just over 6 sigma).
I checked a chart to get my approximate numbers, but the math adds up.
10:12 "Remember the faster than light neutrinos ? Yeah, we don't talk about that anymore" I lol'd
It shouldn't. The standard model is incomplete anyway.
Holy cow! At 8:20, it becomes clear that Matt has been hovering on his tiptoes, on the verge of levitating, the entire time! I'm awestruck.
Goddammit! My girlfriend wrote out the entire standard model on my birthday card (Yup, she`s a keeper). Now I`m going to have to return it for amendment. She`ll be pissed.
twobyfour Such a *charming* man
Reminds me of this quote: “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not, ‘Eureka! I’ve found it,’ but, ‘That’s funny!’ “
Is combining the sigma levels from multiple experiments like that as dodgy as it sounds? Because ti sounds as if that's some serious potential for cherry picking going on (deliberate or otherwise).
The two experiments are related, one essentially being an extension of the other. This sort of thing can be done as part of a 'meta analysis' (Which in essence looks over all experiments in a subject to see if they show some sort of trend.)
It CAN be quite dodgy, to disprove anything simply add a bunch of bad experiments with null results, so the relevant question in any case this is used is 'Is it valid to combine these results?'. Here it works out, but still has to be mentioned since it's not as good as a 'true' 6 sigma result. There's a big asterisk there.
That explanation for why neutrinos have mass is wild and I love it!
Yeah, they'll change it into a NEWtrino model.
HAHA GOT EM
EDIT: OH SHIT, SOMEONE ELSE GOT EM ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES BEFORE ME, DAMN
WEW LADS, I'M LEAVING IT UP ANYWAY
Favorite part of my week. Get baked, watch my PBS videos and pretend I understand what I'm watching. Thanks PBS
.
Hey Matt! I need 10^9 grams of the sterile neutrinos to finish my Borg's cube project. Any ideas where i can grab some? KTHANXBYE!!!
In the sun, just grab em, you lazy bastard.
Don Solaris
Curiositystream has a class of videos by a leading expert in the field on how to make your own sterile neutrinos at home in your kitchen, just from heavy water a banana peel, 5kg of plutonium and a portable fusion reactor.
If you use the tag: Spacetime when signing up, you'll get 10% off of your first month's payment. The first pi subscribers will also get 1 kg Pu for free.*
*If private possession of Plutonium is illegal in your country of residence, we retain the right to not do so.
Don Solaris Call your pusher, it's probably gonna be about 10$ per gram
It's cool that this research is happening just down the street from me. FermiLab to me is just that funny shaped building in the middle of a field, I had no idea they were researching something so cool under that field! I thought all the cutting edge research was being done in Switzerland now.
CERN with LHC gets to far higher energies than everybody else, so they can do stuff that nobody else can do, but that doesn't mean all other globally existing accelerators (and there are a lot) are useless junk. Each of them just specializes on a different research topic. E.g when you just need some synchrotron radiation for your experiments you don't need to have the worlds most powerful accelerator, Just like you don't have to have the worlds biggest chainsaw to slice bread. But yeah, Fermilab is one of the best renowned institutions in particle physic research.
Was it really my free will to write this comment?????
are you a body or do you have a body?
Both I'm in a super position
Windhelm Guard
WOW!
Windhelm Guard Follow Sam Harris. He goes through some effort to dispell the notion that we are some entity trapped in a body
"Nerd Responsibly" please put this on a T-shirt, I'll buy two!
The Standard Model is so hilariously riddled with errors, yet “scientists” continue to keep a straight face. Hey, gotta go after all those grants studying things that don’t have a prayer to be true! #Science
I love how critically scientists think. They don’t blow fundings out of proportion and they don’t believe everything they read or find without healthy skepticism. On the same note they don’t deny truths for which we have profound convincing evidence. Keep up the good work PBS SpaceTime !
Does this new neutrino prove the universe is stable and that vacuum decay is still mere speculation?
No.
Harambe's Ghost O I'm not worried. In fact its my most preferred way for the fate of the Universe. If there were some new change to the Standard Model of particle physics that would entirely rule out vacuum decay from ever being a possible thing I would be very much sad. Vacuum decay is such a cool concept.
Exactly no; neutrinos are... a little distant from the Higgs mechanism and it's the Higgs field that is the major concern in regards to vacuum decay at present.
Thank you for the clarification.
The "Space Time" signoff _never_ gets old.
As of this comments posting, not a single person has finished watching this video.
Sgt. Skitters do patreon supporters get early access?
...I'm not sure.
yeah they do
I have completed !
why complete it to the end when you've had to watch it 16 times.... standard!
1:42 should be W+ to conserve charge
Expl.: W "takes away" +1 to leave −1 for electron. W then "gives" −1 to a Down-Quark (charge −1/3) to create an Up-Quark (char +2/3) thus changing the neutron to a proton.
anyone else get a tingly face and something wringling behind your eye balls as you watch these kinds of PBS discovery theorem videos. - love to be mind blown..
That tunnel animation is really catchy! Approved!
The first time I see the left/right electron mentioned in popular science. Jeah!
Please more on Chirality.
I love this channel because it really does teach me, and its fantastic to be able to keep up with university degree level conversation. also makes me sound really smart and i love talking back to the tv , saying NO that is wrong, wormholes do not work like that... , DOWNSIDE , knowing the standard model and interactions of the weak nuclear force , when you try and explain mass to someone , they get annoyed at how dumb they feel , some people will always be intimidated by knowledge.
If I'm understanding correctly, chirality should be related to randomness and for radioactive decay. Because only the left-handed versions of fermions interact with the weak force, you never know if a fermion is going to be left handed or right handed, so if there's a weak force applied, the randomness of the fermion handedness informs whether or not a weak force interaction will happen.
I do not truly understand a single gd concept in any ST video, but trying to has made me a better person.
I feel like Socrates still says it best: "To acquire knowledge, one must study; but to acquire wisdom, one must observe." ~ Socrates ~
Is there an update on this?
If I ever feel like I've started to understand the world or feel at peace with my knowledge, I just have to watch one of these to be put back in my place. I know nothing and will die this way.
OK I wrote that crap BEFORE I watched the whole video, this was AMAZING and I and so grateful you broke it down for me in byte size pieces my brain can handle. Thank you to the power of Infinity.
this information just passing my head like neutrino.
think i need a year of this episode
The humor and delivery of said humor continues to impress.