The LHC's Record Energy at CERN Will Just Produce Record Nonsense
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Ten years after the so-called "discovery" of the Higgs Boson, we have to fear the next cycle of self-deception in high energy physics.
Hossenfelder's take on particle physics: • Particle Physicists Co...
I have a gut feeling that CERN wasn't built for physics purposes so much as it was made for esoteric reasons; something extra dimensional, I fear.
I unfortunately feel the same way about it. To much secrecy and conspiracy, Although what is the point? It's already done its job. Why must man do the things we know w3l shouldn't anyways??? I'd rather be a Lemar, whale or Evan a monkey. Having technology and stupidity is way worse than having simply neutrality and instinct...
@@kellyjohns6612 the actual conspiracy is unfortunately a lot more boring tbh
I quit physics in the early 70's because I wasn't convinced by the dogma (such as quarks, gluons, etc) and wasn't interested in wasting my one and only life going down the rabbit hole with everyone else. All these years later and a matter from those days has resurfaced- the quark model of the Proton is that same old dogma, not fact. When I called up an old friend from my college days, he cut me off, saying, "I was expecting to hear from you. You're calling about that article in Forbes. You're going to tell me that the quark model itself is wrong, that they're still bootstrapping." "Actually," I replied, "I live in the country now, and I have a few horses. D'you have any idea what became of the cart?"
Explain how its dogma
@@ixinor All they know is what they can do to the proton and neutron, not what they're actually made of. Until you've nailed down your findings, you have no proof of anything. No one yet has nailed down the interior of either except for a few vague generalisations. Quarks are an hypothesis, not actual evidence pertaining to something real, aka they're dogma. We're expected to take their existence on faith. That's not how science is done. Just as suspicious are neutrinos, which display similar characteristics to quarks in terms of colour. The only other time I came across this phenomenon was in Linear Arithmetic Multi-Timbral Sound Technology, where you needed three Partials to make a Sound. How this works where quarks are concerned I have no idea, but suspect something similar is at work.
Nice schizopost, dud
Did you mean “down the dead end”?
Cool story bro. We don’t miss you
Particles will keep popping up, but without context.
"If you dream particles, you will see particles".
"Continuing group think to ask for money"
Literally what you're doing with this bullshit.
I am doing fine, thanks, happy to send you a free pdf - if you show me the group I am belonging to :-)
@@TheMachian ideological white supremacists whom are currently trying to refute the necessity of error and correction in the scientific method. I don't need any pdfs.
@Inner Worlds I simply don't waste time with gaslight, and use corse language to shock the readers nervous system so as allow them (if they're not turned away altogether obviously) to be able to comprehend my points without the readers subconscious defenses of their preconceived notions overriding the sound data and logic I always try to resolve thru the scientific method.
But you're not wrong, I'm rude as fuck.
And what group does Unzicker belong to?
As an undergraduate in the late 1980s I remember being asked to accept without argument the findings of a HEP graph where the error bars were bigger than the axies, talk about a noise in data! High Energy Physics lost all glamour for me then and I pursued interests in Solid State instead... Thanks for all you do.
Don't feel bad. We get shown a map of the background radiation of the universe with the declaration this random noise is from the big bang. What it does not show is a contour map of concentric temperature rings with the hot spot at the point of origin of the bang.
Im not a scientist and my lay person's perception was always like this.
@@donaldkasper8346 it's because you don't understand what the big bang theory even states. the universe was never a single point in space that expanded. the so-called singularity WAS all of space-time (i.e. there's no other space it was embedded in), so everything was of infinite density in all directions. that's why the cosmic microwave background is homogeneous across the universe (slightly shifted depending on your velocity through space)
@@sereysothe.a Of course that is what it was, then no it wasn't when it was shown to be totally stupid. There was nothing and then suddenly there was a formed universe. Bada bing. CMB as random noise proved there was no point of origin so the model morphed. There are no singularities like black holes and points of origin. Got it. And I agree. There are infinities in mathematics but not in the natural world.
@@sereysothe.a The socalled singularity was called a singularity until the stupidity of the idea became apparent. Whoa, Harvard Millenial now going to change the meaning of the words. Like we have a universe of protons, electrons, and neutrons we can measure and manipulate. They cannot be compacted. You cannot compact a marble to a singularity much less a universe. That is, you need several trillion levels of matter to make an infinity small thing but alas, we are stuck at PENs to observe and squiggles in hydrogen chambers to theorize about quarks. But since we can never test a quark we don't call that real. Real is something we can actually study. Now one trillion more levels of compaction to go minus two. Oh I see, having trouble. Hey, the next super duper really super and duper goo smasher might find one more level. See the problem? Yeah, it will takes more energy than the universe has to compact it to say 10 levels much less one trillion levels and it appears to get exponentially harder (more energy) to get to each next level. This is a model of kaka bullshit and just needs to stop. But at PENs of our known universe, just no, you are compacting nothing and there are no infinities as black holes or universe singularities to compact back to. It just does not work. I know, who cares, just scream.
This analysis is poor to say the least. 1) Up to and including the LHC, CERN has made lots contributions to the establishment of the standard model, which is one of the highlights of 20th century science. 2) CERN is more than the LHC, 3) the diagnostics of the crisis of particle physics (I agree there is a kind of a crisis) is poor to say it politely. To say that everything coming out of the field since the 1930s is bogus is just stupid. A couple of nuances to the diagnostic: I ould say much of physics is affected by the same tendency to oversell its benefits - take the nano bubble some years ago, and presently the quentum technology bubble. Another element of a proper analysis must be the changing role of physics after WW2 starting from the cold war, the end of it, and to the climate crisis and now finally the Ukraine crisis. Where this will lead is hard to predict.
I would suggest that the LHC's most remarkable achievement has and remains the bringing together of a wide range of disciplines, a wide range of technologies, a wide range of national interests. The LHC is unique in the world of representing the power, utility and example that human cooperation can achieve. While I think a touch of humility and reality (and I mean that in the very real sense of the word...) would not go amiss in the LHC booster community, they do good work.
7 mins are not intended to go deep into the matter. You start from the premise that the standard model is reasonable, I don't. You appear to have some slight scepticism, this is not bad. I can only recommend Pickering's book for particle physics. For the general development after WWII, there will be a translation of this book: www.amazon.de/Alexander-Unzicker/dp/3864893372/
@@TheMachian The book you all need to be reading is the BIBLE.
MAN ALWAYS trying to do and live outside his God made purpose. Wasting time
@@triciaperry2234 LOL
@@triciaperry2234 lmao
I feel similar. When Sabine started voicing her opinions on the matter and gave good examples of how they do things wrong, I was jumping up and down inside with excitement that i wasn't the only one seeing it.
Courageous Woman. I like her a lot
Yeah... Given the unreachable energy requirements involved which might hint at new Physics, I personally feel that budgets would be best served in Nuclear Fusion research or Space Exploration.
Indeed, if we crack Fusion and Space, then that would fundamentally change our entire civilization anyway so that new, more powerful particle colliders could be constructed, perhaps in space, which could probably reach the energy requirements to further this endeavour.
But yeah, time to put the breaks on new colliders for now. We are NOT going to find the answers here on Earth... But in the Cosmos Itself. So it's about time we focused our efforts to make this so!
@@sdwone dude. they wash money and do nasty stuff in there. Control. Nothing about helping the civ. Psychopaths.
They kicked her out for these sorts of scientific opinions.
The universe itself is already the grandest laboratory ever existed with which we can't compete.
Particle physics is part of Clown World.
Thanks for addressing the biggest elephant in the scientific room.
So CERN and the listeners are like those ghost hunters listening to radio noise to hear ghost voices in the static eh.
Yes lol, the higgs boson was never detected, they came to a conclusion based on a tiny bump on a chart. I didn't even know about this until I saw Cern's documentary about it. They were so excited and happy about a freaking little bump on a piece of paper, which meant nothing by the way, because according to their math, there's a very tiny probability about it being the higgs boson, they don't even know, but they still claim that it was detected.
Stand-up maths just had a video about playing with 2 dice.
ua-cam.com/video/X_DdGRjtwAo/v-deo.html
Rolling multiple dice and picking the highest gives a huge bias.
So if 2 experts have the same bias, they will get a far higher chance to confirm their bias.
This will affect particle physics, where they try to confirm their theories with millions of tries.
smashing rocks harder produces more shinier sparks, aristotles classical elements confirmed yet again - physics cant seem to stop winning
... you'll have to excuse me for I am new to the comment section. I don't think I've ever really dug too much into comments on any video before today. I had no idea there was such a community that was against particle physics. The more I learn about all the people in the world and the more I hear the things that come out of their mouths and the things that they type on keyboards then more I realize that the biggest lie we've ever been sold was that everyone matters and everybody's voice counts. After reading the comment section of a couple videos related to the LHC I no longer believe in democracy and will now advocate for a monarchy or dictatorship of sorts. I would gladly give up my vote if it meant people of this mentality weren't able to have a say in how things are ran.
In America, your “vote” doesn’t mean much, anyways
@@heckinbasedandinkpilledoct7459 fair enough.
The best question ever. When did the BS start? Thank you!
Big Bang did not happen. The universe is eternal.
When the need for more and more funding was realized they could create a cottage industry doing it....LOL..LOL. One that most couldn't understand because they would baffle you with BS..
The BS usually starts where the real world applications end.
exactly 😂
Lifetime employment is good enough.
Feynman Diagrams seem to be the source of a lot of nonsense. Have you ever looked into now they "identify" particle from the collider, based on these diagrams? Seems as much unscientific guesswork as economics. Squiggle to the left, then it's one thing; squiggle to the right, it's another particle. Seriously. So, if I were standing on the other side of image, then the particles are now the opposite of what they were when I was standing over there. Stupid. It's really bad bad 'science'.
You are right. You may want to watch the video about Oliver Consa's findings on QED.
Most of science nowadays is just a pointless waste of money and/or money laundering, sadly. Over half are inventing ludicrous theories and then 'work' on proving or disproving them, and doing other monkey business to justify the expenses and wage. And about another quarter are working on miniscule to small improvements to already existing stuff! Another rough quarter is working on 'sustain' science - things that are needed daily but that don't actually change anything, just aid doing daily tasks... And the amount of people actually trying to discover, change, considerably improve and generally drive humanity forward are in a stupidly tiny minority, worse than that, some of them are unable to do so because they don't have the degrees, papers and equipment... And/or some dogmas go against what they theorize and they get laughed out the water and ridiculed away from working on it! Sad, then again, its basically how the scientific world has always been, now its just much bigger, more well funded and recognized.
They were plannng to build one in Tohoku just to make 10,000 academics jobs so all this science is just jobs !
Thank you for sticking your neck out Alexander!
I’ve been pondering on planck’s energy equation for some time and I can get over the fact that the frequency term in Hz really means “cycles per second” but we never really think of planck’s constant as “Energy per cycle”.
I think this has caused massive misinterpretations in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics.
If we interpret h as the energy of each wavelength of light then it gives us a path forward to define a quanta of _energy_ which is really just planck’s constant in joules as opposed to joule seconds.
I’m pretty sure planck’s energy equation is hard coded to a one second measurement time as well… the equation should be E=htf where h is in joules per cycle t in seconds f in cycles per second.
If you follow that path of reasoning further you’ll find that the fine structure constant actually has units- cycle*second
What are you trying to say here? There is always a dimensionless number, no matter how you define the relevant parameters of your physical problem. Redefining h simply amounts to working in a different system of units. Nothing fundamental here.
@@tomfritz2431
"There is always a dimensionless number..." Can you tell me how that comment is relevant to this discussion? I get that there is always some equation that somebody can pen down that will spit out a dimensionless number. What I am stating is that if it is indeed true that the units of planck's constant should be in Joules or Joules/Cycle then the fine structure constant has units of seconds or cycle*seconds if you balance units in other equations that involve the two constants.
"Redefining h simply amounts to working in a different system of units."
Redefining h does not simply amount to working in a different system of units. It changes the interpretation of quantum mechanics completely. No more mc^2=h*f nonsense, since the units don't balance. In the system I am proposing, the mass of a single oscillation of light is h/c^2. Light has mass. Nothing fundamentally different here?
What I am trying to say here is that E=hf in the traditional units is actually calculating the energy emitted by a light wave of frequency f _over a period of one second_, and that photons do not exist. A photon is an arbitrary unit of account of energy that was accidentally interpreted into existence by getting the units of Planck's constant wrong.
Light is a wave. Ignore the amplitude of the wave for now: Each wavelength of light carries the same energy, regardless of frequency, and the amount of energy carried by each oscillation of light is 6.26e-34 Joules.
Now you don't have to tell people "welp the universe is super spooky" when they ask you why single photons interfere with themselves when they pass through a double slit.
I would predict socalled quanta are artifacts of undersampling (aliasing) and impact on the object being studied interacting with the energy we study it with, that is, interference makes quanta. Recall, most of the universe is in deep space near absolute zero and we have quanta in a world far from it. Then based on our no where near absolute zero observations, we make all these conclusions about quanta in a near absolute zero system.
@@donaldkasper8346 right, observations of how light interacts with matter shouldn’t necessarily shape our understanding of how light propagates through the medium.
@@zwiguy9494 Medium is matter.
I really think that you and Sabine are producing lots of nonsense. Some criticism is good, rethinking what should be done is good. But not from this type of mentality.
Finally a voice of truth in the wilderness of bs.
I always find it interesting when the math does not fit observations, something is invented to make the math fit. This is called a "prediction", and we can test for this prediction, if we can have another billion dollars. Any real scientific discoveries will lead to technology that we do not already have. How long did it take for electrical applications to become a reality after the work of Faraday and Maxwell? I believe true scientific discoveries creates wealth not squander it.
what can you do when small mistakes of great minds of the past have compounded enough to build you a foundations that can rival mc escher works, combined with specialization utilized to offset deficiencies in cognitive faculties, throw in dysgenic drift and you end up with few snakeoil salesman running the church and bunch of aspiring clowns panhandling for pittance
Indeed, as they say: 'The proof is in the pudding'.
@@dinf8940 Well the first step is to acknowledge mathematics is not physics. Mathematics is a useful tool that has limits. If a conjecture, hypothesis, or theory is correct the math will be there, not the other way around. Kurt Godel knew mathematics is incomplete and inconsistent. Shut up and calculate does not work. Logically speaking, mathematics is used as a sort of reverse strawman argument. We should be looking at the interpretations of theories and testing correctness by predictions. If observations are misinterpreted, the math will match the misinterpretation. We also should be looking at interpretations of results. If something is fundamental it does not decay. Also, if fundamental part can be turned into different fundamental particles, then it seems like those wouldn't be fundamental either. This is why scientist are not calculating the mass of an electron. It seems people are wrapped up in dark matter and dark energy so much, they are biased to the point of failure. More speculative papers being published is not going to make it better. It would appear that the peer reviewed process has become a speculative process where checking math is all that counts, followed with big words that no one understands. The burden of proof falls on those that make the claims. Stop tweaking math and look at what it is supposed to represent. A model can never be what it represents, so start there. Time for real science and not bad philosophy. Don't talk about hidden dimensions if you can't measure them, either directly or indirectly. I have seen so many scientists claim that questions are not valid. Perhaps the interpretations are not valid. The scientific method would fare better, if it were a little more open source. No one is allowed to question the interpretations; this is where we fail as humans.
I agree. Though I think it's very important to not confuse this to mean that math itself is subjective. I mean the language and symbol conventions we use to describe mathematical objectives, abd relationships can be changed to whatever we fancy, but the thing it is describing is objective.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Biased mathematics is subjective. So is arbitrary mathematics subjective, as well as imaginary mathematics. Equivocations in mathematics are also subjective. I am not saying mathematics is not useful, there is no algorithm for truth, and mathematics can represent something that does not exist as well and what exists. I am saying mathematics has its limits. There is always an epistemic barrier between mathematical proofs and truths. Just because a bunch of people agree on a convention does not make it true. I have yet to see anyone actually explain QED, QFT, or QCD without arbitrary representations or explain what the mathematics is representing in every step of the calculations in a nonmathematical way. Example: QCD "color charge" painfully obvious that that isn't what goes on. QFT, electrons are oscillations of the electron field. Ask what the electron field is, and you will be told it is a fundamental value in space. The farther one digs, the more subjective and speculative things become, but it is ok because we have the "F" word (fundamental) or an analogy that reverse strawmans the argument. I feel that science doesn't even understand what space is, or causality. Quantum mechanics isn't an explanation for anything, just a bunch of measurements and interpretations. It is not valid to even place QM in the same category as GR. If QM was correct about anything GR would be an emergence of QM. I am just saying, don't be fooled by the Mathamagicians, or wore down by the Mathathletes. It would appear that Physics seems to have philosophical issues that cannot be solved by math. Not everything is going to work out to some pretty equation. Forget finding a GOD Equation like Michio Kaku wants. We cannot even find an equation for the perimeter of an ellipse. I have yet to see any one definitively explain what a fundamental particle actually is, (Yes, I watched many videos on this including Sabine's), without using QFT (which hasn't been observed). The standard model of particle physics is a mess. If space can be curved, it is quantifiable as mass. Square one, figure out what space really is, because space at its smallest quantity will emerge into GR. It makes more sense for space to be causal mass at its lowest energy state. I am aware of what this implies, and the implication does not conflict with any observations. It also explains the universe without dark matter, because space itself is not a zero- mass quantity. This is the explanation behind inertia. I said enough for now, lol.... sorry for the rant (sort of).
Looking for things, and not sure what they are... This is the opposite of how most scientific experiments were conducted for in the past. Sadly this has also translated into the Fusion energy builds. Get a load of money / funding, build it and see if it works..
Also creating a mini black-hole is probably a very bad idea.
The end of knowledge will be the simple realization that the purpose of life is love.
Sometimes, theorists have a hard time chasing the mathematical equations.. it doesn't necessarily mean the experimentation process failed... if you didn't know what to observe or verify to begin with. I highly doubt Edward Witten is wrong as he's definitely no dummy, and he's stated several times he had been wrong in previous years.
They will find whatever the computer models tell them.
Also, David Gross was on a curtain island
When one human disagrees with the achievements of many, he or she most likely is a fool. When one human is critized by many while creating something entirely new, he or she most likely is a genius.
I think You forgot to say, that if they build a lager collider it will "prove" that they need funding for a even larger collider;-)
:-) That's how it works for decades ...
A lager collider? Undergrads work with those every day...
@@crinolynneendymion8755 but is it as large as planet earth? no? then we need a bigger one.
0D = (point); exact location only; zero size;
non-composite substance.
Not a thing. Not a part. Monad. Soul.
'Represented' (in 1D-9D contingent universe) by a 'dot' in a theoretical circle.
1D = line, straight; two points; composite substance; physical
1st four dimensions are 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D ✅.
1st four dimensions are not 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D 🚫.
Human consciousness, mathematically, is identical to 4D quaternion algebra with w, x, y, z being "real/necessary" (0D, 1D, 2D, 3D) and i, j, k being "imaginary/contingent" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk).
1D-9D 'contingent' universe has "conscious lifeforms" (1D xi, 2D yj, 3D zk)..."turning" 'time'. We're "turners", "to turn".
[Contingent Universe]:
3 sets of 3 dimensions.
The illusory middle set (4D, 5D, 6D) is temporal. Id imagine we metaphysically create this middle set similar to a dimensional Venn Diagram with polarized lenses.
1D-3D set/7D-9D set creating the temporal illusion of 4D-6D set.
1D, 2D, 3D = spatial composite
4D, 5D, 6D = temporal illusory
7D, 8D, 9D = spectra energies
1D, 2D, 3D line, width, height
4D, 5D, 6D length, breadth, depth
7D, 8D, 9D continuous, emission, absorption
Symmetry:
1D, 4D, 7D line, length, continuous
2D, 5D, 8D width, breadth, emission
3D, 6D, 9D height, depth, absorption
Our universal constants have convoluted answers. Leibniz Law of Sufficient Reason fixes this.
FUNDAMENTALS > specifics
Our calculus is incorrect.
Leibniz calculus > Newton calculus
0D = (point) non-composite substance
1D = line, straight; composite substance; two points (now ends of a physical line in physical space)
《0D (point) is exact location only; zero size; not a 'thing', not a 'part'; Monad》
"He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. A being can have a relationship with a God but not the Monad as that would be a contradiction."
- The Apocryphon of John, 180 AD.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the monad as an elementary particle.
It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right-especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong - Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell?? Exactly what I expected from this channel's viewers as to who they would quote 🤣
Most of cern is just a money pit run by crazy materialists
thanks for communicating these issues to the general public
Third run, is currently just a bit below 14 TeV. Between every run, they improve the superconducting magnets and enlarge the power supply.
They are asking the billions of euro necessary to construct a bigger ring by building a completely new facility, in order to achieve 100 TeV and so discover Dark Matter...
They are building a bigger and better Cathedral, with an unshakeable Faith in Science, while achieving the objective of replicating a Star on Earth.
In contrast, I believe we need to develop a more advanced method of reasoning. Learning is made mostly of feedback, and a particle accelerator provide small amounts of it to the few people who design the experiment with the accelerator. A team of scientists with pencil and paper can achieve better results, just because of the great quality and amounts of feedback they provide to each other...
‘They are building a bigger and better cathedral, with an unshakable faith in science, while achieving the replication of a Star on earth ‘ . OUCH !
A long time ago, Universities were about Education and Scholarship. Education - there is a curriculum, and the masters who know it teach it to students who don't - and Scholarship - masters wondering if the curriculum is true and complete. Starting in the US in the 1960's, Universities became an instrument for pushing social, political, and economic policy goals. Education doesn't matter any more; the important thing is getting a credential for your CV. Professors used to write papers when they had something to say; now, you write scholarly articles in a desperate attempt to fill a work quota for one of the rare Tenured professorships remaining. I assure you that it isn't just the Humanities and the Social Sciences that have been flushed down that toilet, and because the US is so big and influential, other countries followed us down the same path.
Totally agree. It's not just physics. Big money institutions are governed by FEAR. When money, and fear become your motivation then creative ideas, and learning is destroyed.
Us ?
Universities always pushed social, political and economic policy goals, if you think they didn't that's because you were aligned with the social, political economic policy goals they were pushing. What changed was the fact the US went down the route of commercializing Universities. Higher education became a profit centre and big business. The US let the profit motive enter the equation and corrupted the concept of a University.
@@crinolynneendymion8755 "Commercialize" is a propaganda buzzword. The US had 3.4 million college students in 1960, 1.9 percent of the population. In 2010, there were 22M students, 6.85 percent of population. Crank politicians sold college as a Cure-all medicine to all manner of policy issues - especially economics and globalization. Easy student loans led to a collapse in academic standards; most college students aren't qualified to be at a real school. Couple that with a complete take-over of college administrative posts by mercenaries and the complete loss of power by faculty, and college turns into a scam for administrators to feather their nests. "Commercialize" my foot, this is a racket, pure and simple.
USA now has more Nigerian women in university than European males. Anyone who understands race iq history, who provided all the advances , knows that this is a disaster
Just to understand one simple experiment would be more than all colliders, past, present and future, could contribute to physics.
What is that experiment?
Double slit!
Huygens optics UA-cam does an excellent demonstration of Young’s double slit experiment ... including oft ignored subtleties and mapping the diffraction pattern out in 3 dimensions
Less whizz bang technology and more parsimony and Occam's razor.
I see your point but in my opinion even though they are probably chasing ghosts it is not just about physics. It is about collaboration. Many invetions have been made due to LHC like the internet you're using now (a direct consequence of the need for the data collection and visualisation). Superconducting magnets and multiple other technologies are researched and may be used in other fields. Money spent on collaborative research (non zero sum game) are better than money spent on the war (zero sum game). And after all they may find something unexpected. You may still argue that the money could be spent in a more wise way which is a probably true.
Well said
Please just stop spreading BS like that the internet was invented at CERN. It was not!
So what they do is make an experiment like colliding particles, or taking pictures of things and trying to look for invisible stuff in those pictures, they analyze some data, make some calculations according to the standard model, if the math doesn't add up they come to a conclusion, either the laws of physics are wrong, or there's a missing particle that explains the error, obviously it must be a new particle. Do I get a nobel prize now?
We live in a postmodern world. Most of people do not even understand what that means.
We live in certain cultural and econo-politico-socio-technical circumstances. The world we live in is a virtual creation of pseudo-intellectual elites. Their thinking is based mostly on principles of philosophy that have roots yet in Kant, Marx, Hegel, etc. They do not know the history of philosophy, however they were eager to adopt their thinking to what was is convenient for them to preserve the control over societies.
Science functions for ages as a mixture of two components: 1) desire to control magic and 2) searching for the truth.
At our times science converts back to magic. Truth is not needed anymore.
A good example is using computers in science. When I was student of physics in around 1980, my choice of the subject was desire to search for the truth and understanding.
Understanding means "what are relations between things". Now, around, AI (Artificial Intelligence) is used for that. All understanding of underlying physics is lost. Computer results are supposed to replace entire search process for finding relations and replace it by results. It does not matter what is behind. While for me the beauty is still behind finding these hidden relationships. It does not even matter much that what computer results may be contradictory to common sense.
I work as a physicist. I see around a destruction of thinking. A degradation. A sort of return to Middle-Ages. Science controlled by the state, by state or international organizations. Teaching controlled the same way. And now we have even globally imposed fear control over disease that dos not obviously exists.
We were at war. A war to destroy humanity. And we’ve very nearly lost. Smart populations are crashing into extinction. Humanity has an enemy and if you study the younger dray, this has happened before...
50s Birth of "Big Science" Headline of Article Physics paper sets record with more than 5,154 authors.
That is history repeating in scenario 1:1 it is so De Javu it makes me terrified, in 17 century Christianity thinkers (preachers and priest) was individual people they were the backbone of the community but in 19 entry Christianity became a super corporation with franchises everyone must think under one dogma all most pro must wear one UNIFORM and make Sunday mass as it was an assembly line of Henry Ford factory, religion from the philosophy of life became "BIg religion" big organization with one goal expand the franchise and make more money from the flock (sometimes) with missionaries in India China and Africa conversion with local population extortion, religion became big business. Newton was a prophet in my eyes he was one against corrupt religious superstition and in eyes of religion, institutions were competition for flock for worshipers. But the same exact thing happened to science. Individual scientists Lavoisier, Newton, Euler, Bernoulli, and Science philosophers Leibniz, Pascal, and Spinoza (who was rejected by the Dutch church and by the Jewish church simultaneously) argue and compete with each other for ideals. They are not shepherded mentally scientists sorry 5,154 authors I think one or two scientists must disagree with the findings but a mass of authors power in numbers against hungry wolves who attack scientists research, that other category scientist celebrities Einstein (created by mass media) Tyson de grass, Nye, etc whom words have such weight that what they say everything is true. People who go and categorize people real scientists as pseudo-scientists. Celebrities and scientists are also big fans of Big scientists, collective minds of NASA, Space-X, ROSSKOSMOS, Eurokosmoss, CERN, etc. Is sad we living in an age without individual thinkers, your always must rely on references produced by mas and mass publications, you are not allowed to think outside box. Death of theoretical physics, theoretical physics became 3 billion enterprises, reference to CERN or 1 trillion dollar astrophysics of NASA from its establishment in1950s till today.
Cosmic microwave background information gathered measured in tons of hard disk Terabytes is too small a measurement unit. and Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille left independent thinkers said only 0.1% of information measured and stored in HD are used to describe the "Big Bang" theory rest of 99.9% are noise, how scientists can predict what frequency is necessary to support the big bang theory no scientific criteria exist, they randomly make decisions to fit their imaginable model. And you can ask how the Flat Earther conspiracy was born?
modern Physicists don't even know Newton's Constant of Gravity to a sufficient precision. BTW there is too much echo in Your room/microphone. interesting talk.
The Politician's fascination with nuclear bombs explains all that fantastic funding!!
Hey, particle physicists! Stop wasting my money!
CERN is utterly pointless. CERN can only find an infinity of even smaller particles. Our research needs to focus on a better understanding of magnetism. We have virtually no understanding. Of magnetism.
❤❤❤❤❤❤ hooray for Sabine and for Unz ….. remember the hypocritical oath = “first do no harm to our funding” ………… Let’s all go to Sugar rock Candy Mountain
We know that particle physics is correct to some extent. We have discovered new "things" which don't seem as if we can break them down any further. We have an equation for everything based up on the standard model. So why would we abandon a theory when there are only a few loose strands? While I can agree that you need to pace the upgrade to LHC with the upgrades in technology, saying that these searches are unscientific is not true. If you have a theory that works so well in the known cases, you either A.) need to provide a theory to replace it and provide the evidence or B.) you need to have thoroughly exhausted all other options. Since we are still waiting on A.) we continue on with B.). Not to mention the fact that the discovery of new particles is a tiny fraction of what actually comes out of particle colliders. The innovations that are needed to capture and evaluate the data effectively are honestly amazing, and at the very least the LHC provides a lot in those regions.
Particle physics is BS....
@@peteparadis1619 How so?
"The innovations that are needed to capture and evaluate the data effectively are honestly amazing"
This sounds like a good point. Tech is being driven forward at a faster pace now than ever before, and use-cases like LHC do help with that.
If we understand the smallest units that make up everything and how the universe works it could change the way we live if it’s big enough a discovery but we do need much more technological developments to aid their search the use now and “upgrades” isn’t worth the money it should go to other areas of science or at least another major project.
It took me a long time to understand that it is not sufficient if a theory is "correct". Unfortunately it is no surprise/success to find a theory that describes all obervations that you have observed. From an epistemological point of view it is trivial to find such a theory: Most dully one could just define a theory by collecting and listing all done observations, which by construction would be a theory that describes all observations. With this consideration one realizes, that it is not sufficient to find a theory, that describes all your observation if you allow unlimited complexity to it. This is - lets say - the theoretical physics analogue of the phenomenon of overfitting.
And this is exactly what happens with the standard model. If you count the number of independent parameters that are used to define it, you are not surprised that one can describe a bunch of observations that are done in experiments. But the only point where the standard model is better that this "we just write a list of all observations"-theory, is the ability to conceil that it does reflect absolutely no understanding about all these observations. Just as a 50 order polynomial fit of 40 measurement points does not reflect any understanding of them. If you add another point at the boundary, you can easily include this observation by adding another order with a further parameter. This is, what happens in a slightly more complex way with the standard model. You can not predict any mass of some of the new particles. But once you find something which you declare to be the new particle, you can adjust its mass to be the detected energy, by inserting another parameter.
Einsteins success e.g. was not to formulate a theory, for which you need to add a parameter for the perihelion shift and another parameter for the light deflection, and another one for the red shift and so on. The success was to find one theory with one parameter (the gravitational constant), with which one is able to CALCULATE all these values.
String Theorists Go Brrrrrr…..
a money funnelling exercise with people so invested they cannot admit they are totally wrong.... so they just make stuff up.
Thanks for the video. The powerful used to build enormous churches to impress and control. Same 'sheet' different religion
Think of the economic benefits of investing all that money looking for black holes and the particles which constitute dark matter...a bit like digging holes in a road provides wonderful opportunities for further economic activities.
I got the idea, after listening to a physicist, that most collider results produce nothing that can be interpreted and all theories are based upon the few collisions that produce something that can be followed and therefore interpreted.
Now I don't know if that is correct, or just my misunderstanding of what was said. If it were true they wouldn't be keen to tell us.
IT'S ALL BS...
They pick and choose what fits ready made assumptions from data that has all but the characteristics of random noise well below the level of any true discernibility. Is is higher order BS.
Exactly exactly exactly 💯💯💯💯
I think they’re using this to fund their lifestyle.
There are problems with particle physics, but the LHC is far from useless and the Higgs was certainly discovered. Poor signals are detected and rejected all the time. The Higgs detection turned up after all such filtering and at the right energies. Particle physics discoveries and measurements have been vital for physics. The detection of neutrinos from the Sun and cosmic events are examples. The nature and size of future detectors is certainly an issue, but that accelerators can produce vital results should be beyond doubt.
May you give an example whcih of the discoveries were "vital", i.e. of any use for humanity except for keeping an academic field busy?
@@TheMachian your filter for good physics is value to mankind? Seriously? You are against exploration?
Ok - value to mankind. The discovery of neutrinos and how the Sun works has been vital for understanding fusion, and so a potentially vital energy source. The discovery of the positron was initially very obscure, but PET is now a vital medical procedure. The nature of neutrino and high energy particles from cosmic events tells us about some dangers to life on Earth, such as supernovae and gamma ray bursters. The discovery of the Higgs has philosophical impact - it confirms that we are beings constructed of the Standard Model. It explains the nature of the world we are familiar with.
You might as well ask what the value of palaeontology is. How is it vital to humanity to discover yet another relative of Tyrannosaurus? Fundamental discoveries are a source of life-changing excitement for millions.
The issue should not be about easy to predict benefits, or even if it’s “make work” for scientists but if it’s good science. There are valid questions about expense, I agree. But fundamental research should surely continue. Without general relativity there would be no GPS many decades later.
@@sjzara The only current application of nuclear fusion came a long time before the "detection" of the neutrinos. Yep. It is the H bomb. So don't lie telling that it was something vital.
@@rosomak8244 I didn't mention practical energy generation. I was talking about the detection of neutrinos being vital for physics. Examples have been the confirmation of our theories of fusion processes in the Sun, the understanding of beta decay, and the recent discovery of the R-process in neutron star collisions - the main source of elements above iron.
First build an experiment ( or write a book ! )that can discover Higgs boson and then you make the video about the future.
The claim that "particle physics as practiced since 1930 is a futile enterprise in its entirety" is nonsense! Since 1930, the Standard Model was developed and accurately describes nature. It has been used for such futile endeavors such as PET scanners, cosmic ray understanding, the discovery of neutrinos, etc. This kind of hyperbole casts doubt on your entire video and understanding of nature. You are doing a disservice to the public by misleading them.
You have to distinguish between useful technology such as PET scanners (that have nothing to do specifically with the standard model) and pointless model building (such as neutrino flavors) that will never have a real impact on the world.
@@TheMachian Neutrino flavors have real impact. Knowing how neutrinos behave is used to understand supernovas, where a lot of the energy is emitted via neutrinos rather than radiation. Supernovas have been seen before their light arrives since neutrinos interact less with the interstellar medium.
You don't know that their models don't have a real impact. It is very arrogant to think an entire field is not useful nor or ever.
I've been thinking and saying this for years.
An awful lot of Great Physics has been done w/out a billion dollars!
Newton's gravity, Faraday's electromagnetism (backed up by Maxwell), Einstein's Relativity, calculus, Euler's work, etc.
@@SoloRenegade Yes! Somewhere else I joked that that money would be better spent cloning Einstein, or...
@@markdstump yes, I saw that post 😃
Vielen Dank, daß Sie auf diese unzeitgemäße und dogmatische Herangehensweise in der heutigen
"modernen" Elementateichenphysik hinweisen.
Auf mich wirkt die CERN-Forschung eher so, als wenn jemand um an einem beliebigen Erdfleck riesige Goldmengen
zu finden immer und immer größere Sprengungen durchführt, obwohl hierauf keinerlei Hinweise existieren.
Die Gründe liegen wahrscheinlich daran, daß ich damals mein Physikstudium nicht durchgezogen und
die Forschung solchen Einfallspinseln wie David G. und Edward W. überlassen habe. 🙂
I just put out a book. Please search the title: Blind Men’s Elephant and Schrodinger’s Cat: Know Yourself and Your Enemy. If add to my credibility, I have a math Ph.D. from Stanford U.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
@@davidrandell2224 Thank you!
I can already hear the headlines, "new particle discovered; new force discovered, etc.."
That's what is to be expected, alas...
To which point is today's physics true ? I mean we use super technologic particle physics devices in everydays life , e.g. MR devices in medicine, What part of physics is behind them ? My English is bad , I hope I told what I wonder.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for answers.
There is a video "On evidence", 2017.
So HIGGS and SUSY are fake. Germans are better physicists? What's wrong with eastern mystics/ TAO of PHYSICS?
While the case for CERN being somewhat a waste of money, and time being pretty solid, I myself particularly double check anything Sabine puts out, because unless she's changed she has stated some very ridiculous stuff she nor anyone else has the sufficient evidence for as fact, such as the universe being purely deterministic.
Underrated comment
@Inner Worlds i can agree with that.
Sooooooo, lets keep throwing protons at each other adding ANOTHER .0000000000009 c to that speed FOREVER, you'll NEVER EVER find what you're looking for because you can NEVER get to c.. The particles will just keep getting smaller and smaller FOREVER.. Particle physics is just a lot of BS, it's like a WPA project for physicists, AND, the contractors building these waste of money machines.. Put all this money into fusion or increasing solar panel efficiency to 50%, or ANYTHING else I can use in the next 20yrs.. PLEASE.. l don't need any more of this pie in the sky it's for the sake of science BS..
When I first watched an official documentary about CERN, I became a skeptic. The documentary was in favor of CERN, but what I seen in the documentary made me question the validity of the measurements. Similar to Mach's skepticism of the atom, I have an opinion that I need to see the standard model's particles till I believe it. I am a skeptic of the standard model and its just woo to me until they can show me solid proof of each and every one of those particles. Even if the standard model is true, I am left with questions, questions such as why do these particles have color coding, why is there strong force in the first place, etc.
just because you're not educated enough to understand something doesn't mean it's invalid. lay-people always expect that everything can be presented at their level but that's simply not the case with highly specific or complex experiments. I don't work in physics but I work in chemistry, and you just simply wouldn't understand the titles of papers I've worked on or be able to make any judgement about their validity. this has nothing to do with intelligence btw you just haven't spent a decade in my field, like I haven't in yours
@@sereysothe.a, it's like Feynman said. If you can't break down a topic to your grandmother, then you don't know your subject material. If you can break down your theory to a journalist, then it's not Nobel prize worthy. - Surry Virginia
@@vincentrusso4332 I’m sorry, but I have to push back on your statement. That quote only applies to high-level summaries of a topic. You can’t just explain brain surgery to your grandma without the prerequisite topics 🤦🤦🤦
C'mon Alex, when you've got a cash Cow you milk it for all it's worth! :)
Maybe I'm just drunk and I don't understand what you're saying but that s*** felt weak to me
That explains a lot indeed.
I love it when nonsense physics gets Unzikerd :)
Alexander and Sabine are my two favourites on UA-cam
May the upgrades yield more significant digits?
you invested in a good mic. But your audio is horrible. either you’re not connected to this mic, or you have incredible echo in your room.
I still agree with this, mic has bad resonance on some frequencies. Maybe look at getting a AT2020 usb mic when recording indoors.
I admit I am not the aodio expert. I have two soundtracks, mic and cam, but left both for this mixdown. Will take out the cam next time.
If you don't see all the data that was created by the large hardware and collider than it's not the the collider it's you because you can't see all this data this is a gold mine for summertime particle physics, and he thinks it's useless I can't comprehend this right now
Money corrupts.
Had wonderful heated arguments with the planks at CERN.
sounds like there's no sense of ETHICs in the field.
Now do the hunt for dark matter. Another huge waste of money.
Am no physicist, but I always had this view
Since reading angels and demons by Dan Brown
As just a normal Taxpayer, with a genuine love for science, one would like to believe they are getting more for their investment than a multibillion dollar hamster wheel.
It's an ultra-relativistic hamster wheel!
@@5678plm I did pretty well on the Physics GRE.
I'll have to try that one as well.
my thoughts for years... collider is kind of Monty Python machine that goes- Ping!
It amuses me that guys like Sean Carrol and Lenny Susskind are promoting the innovative ‘ math tools ‘ that sprang from String Theory rather than the field itself. Holographic Universe Theory is the only appealing variety to emerge in the last 40 yrs ( thank you, Lenny ) that just might be tested …. Sort of …. By studying black holes. However current particle physics is at a stand still, because in my humble view, Copenhagen requires revision.
Particle physics is an extraordinary attempt to describe interactions at the microscopic level. It is doing a good job at that, just recall the success of the Feynman diagrams best described in Veltman’s Diagrammatica. However, it is only a set of (very accurate) rules, and suffers from constructions such as renormalization and the like. Therefore, unfortunately, it is not a theory like General Relativity.
I am skeptic with respect to Feynman diagrams (see video about Consa), Veltman and renormalization. Not useful concepts.
Talk about begging the question…
And the Feynman diagrams are good for what actually?
@@TheMachian No cree usted en esos diagramas, que calculan con tanta precision el tiempo de emision espontanea de tres fotones por el atomo de hidrogeno?
A fair smattering of crazies in the comment section…
High up in the Tibetan Plato is monetary occupied by an elite body in science study, as time went on this body was drifted into philosophy study, a kind of study we call religious study. If we don’t take care of CERN now it could also drift into a next religious. Value is our money drop is partly because it produce no economic or scientific value.
Sounds like narrow minds joining together.
All the data that we were able to collect from the large hard drive collider it's a lot of energy we generated energies that's never been created on Earth before only in space for quasars and all these other stars and everything like this but the able the energy that we're able to create we're able to see the fundamental particles that put all this stuff together maybe he missed something, I think when these scientists they miss certain things all they need to have is a martini common sense and have a good date that night and all the data will come together
Now you're starting to amuse me. I wouldn't mind to go out with you to the hard drunk collider and have a few martinis common sense. Do they have data martinis? I love stack data in a tooth pick.
Hossenfelder ist schwer zu ertragen wegen ihrer vielen Grammatikfehler.
The Hicks Ball song and I even calculated that it would be generated at least $7,000 to 14,000 egv and it felt in the proximity of the calculations that were done but mathematicians much more smarter than me and scientist, the Higgs boson Discovery in my opinion and my thinking was designed it was recognized it at 208, but the other particles that we found while we were searching for the Hicks, it was even Beyond anyone's comprehension and any scientist that doesn't recognize all the data that we crunched we crunched trillions of terabytes of data and if you look at the data on the way to the Higgs particle, and it's not a particle it's a wave and it's a particle at the same time it's writing Einstein's thanks and you know what I got to think the hypothetical the theoretical scientist that worked on this project if you don't look at it you can't understand what this is
It is useless for us, but there was one collider installed in the SII project in Ohrdruf, so it is not useless for them. The LHC must play a larger part in the "Wunderwaffen" program of the NATO 🙂 .
Most people who become "scientists" do it for the money. That is their mistake. Science is the uppermost difficult job in the world. Without real interest you will achieve nothing. I was a real scientist, I didn't go to school to become one. I started at home when I was only 6. And I did find the answer. I found proof for dark matter and much more. I published my work years ago. Unfortunately there are not so many people this kind of intelligence. I'd be already famous if there were. I think in 10 years the world will know. But basically what cern project tried to find, I found.
So the guy who came up with the big bang theory was a priest and scientist are still trying to find God using particle accelerator? 😹😹😹😹
"God particle" was a journalist's sensationalist misquote of Gell-Mann, who groused about "that God-damn particle".
What will they find out? Absolutely nothing, but that is what they are HOPING to find so that they can gen up a justification for additional billions (trillions?) for yet another shiny new toy that won't really accomplish anything save keep countless physicists employed with very handsomely paid sinecures and not have to find actual employment.
If papers were written to communicate ideas and results, instead of trying to show how incredibly large the writer's vocabulary is, and how amazingly smart the researchers are, things would be different.
I swear, after reading some papers, I feel less informed than when I started reading. The language is arcane and ridiculous. Communicating using short simple words and short simple sentences is a rare artform, apparently.
But not for you, Dr. Unzicker. Thank you for cutting through the rubbish.
1) my Teleportation formula in vaccum is :- ExB = T * m;
T is teleportation constant, E and b is electric & magnetic field, m is mass. ExB= E*B *sinΩ
2) free fall height of planet and stars :- R^4 / (V*n) = H ,
R radius - V volume - n a unknown number we have to find , n=15 for earth , Teleportation possible between two free fall boundaries
Wow, someone, a physicist even, finally admitted it! I always suspected CERN was in reality a retirement home for unemployed scientists. The whole outfit should be shuttered immediately and the management charged with proton abuse.
He's totally lost this guy isn't a bad place and you know what I just want to understand why he's thinking this, it's not consistent with the data that's being receive and you know what maybe I'm drunk maybe I don't know I'll talk about but you sound like Dr Smith but you're just not being loud about it, you doing it in the way that, do you realize how much data was collected from the large Heartland collider do you realize that we are able to understand fundamental and many aspects of nature to a degree that was incomprehensible to us and you coming out if you got some p**** maybe you wouldn't be like that I think that's what your problem is
So, a full-blown funding and glamour grift based on severe disorientation of students, the public and institutions for decades. Well done, grifters🤦🏻♂️
Hilarious title! Compared to Biotechnology or material physics, they just produce science-fiction news-snaps which just show how little "we" understand of the building blocks of the Universe.
Can you make a video on how Anton Zeilinger who works on Teneriffe, and beams particles and stuff. He seems to quite competent and presents results. Are these results true, when he beams and sends pictures over the ocean and through Vienna? He's convinced about the quantum computer. Or is this just a scam?
Zeilinger is a serious guy, I know him. That business however is not in my expertise.
@@TheMachian thanks for the answer. So quantum entanglement is is possible and also beaming. It's not a hoax or misinterpretation of other physical events; and Dr. Zeilinger is maybe so convinced that he gives this interpretation. Well I will watch more about it, sounds really weired but interesting as well. 🙂👍🏻
At least they found out, that an Electron is made out of Electron.
They have a hard time even to figire out this... :-)
@@TheMachian The conceptional problem behind all these "measurements" is that all the can measure is some electric potential of voltage and current. The machine is made out of atoms and electrons and they use ions in the machine accelerated by electrons current causing magnetic forces etc. Later on they claim they have found complete new fictional "particles" albeit they just used ions, protons and electrons doing all the fancy stuff.
It's utterly ridiculous!
I am baffled that there are institutions that even pay for this nonsense
@@yaoooy It's tax payers money.
The definitions of new quantum physics words match up (by definition) to Leibniz's "contingent/not-necessary" universe.
Quark/0D point/Monad "no spatial extension, zero size, location only".
It's like we chose the wrong guy.
Update Leibniz's lexicon to 2022 quantum physics words and add Hamilton 4D quaternion algebra, again updated, starting at 0D (not 1D) and BAM we have a workable Theory of Everything.
It is true that the standard model as a lot of flaws and so does particle physics. But you need to recognize the discoveries made by physicists at CERN.
Tryna open gates of hell 🔥