@Paul Wolf "Germans need to fix those gas pipelines blown up by their so-called allies." That's never going to happen. The EU is heading for de-industrialization and probably resemble the 19th century
Just another 10 years...(been hearing that for a few decades) I remember reading a Popular Mechanics magazine when I was in high school in the 90s that said we were very close to a working reactor, just like how close we were to making life in a lab, or building a moon base...the money never stops, but the results never change...
@@allhopeabandon7831 And at the same time the maths department was screaming all the time: "Those underlying equations can't be tamed! We have actual proof for that!".
Lol. The recent news of fusion energy gain was a fundraiser too. The Department of Energy had a panel of the scientists in involved. They spoke about the experiment took questions. Lots of double talk about how great the experiment was. (You need an untold millions or billion dollar machine, held behind top secret national defense wall, to replicate the results.) And that the breakthrough will pave the future of fusion, but that the results are years away from having an actual commerical power plant. Because you need a 500 trillion Watt laser, that is basically used to make better nukes. As the fusion experiment only uses 10% of machine's operating budget. It was a side job. And who knows if it was created with the understanding the program was going to be cut, because we already have more nukes than we need.
The world is based on lies. Vedic texts knew all we needed to know. Thousands of years ago. Donald Hoffman has a video explaining how we hallucinate our reality. Survival drives evolution not truth hence your and mine dilemma. The answer is meditation
It is the same with climate science. Although the science is "settled", billions and billions of funding are out into it. You can not ask any questions. And yet every year, the IPCC selectively publishes vetted research in evermore catastrophic reports.
I'm really liking this trend of physics coming to youtube, following you right now, the work of Sabine woke me up of a lot of stuff is happening in the field.
The collider method is violence. Please keep that in mind. Its brute force isn’t exactly taking atomic nucleus apart, but more like smashing or shooting it into pieces. Therefore, its results will likely be fragments of elementary particles rather than the elementary particles themselves. At least, it is inaccurate or even dishonest, unintentionally, of course, whether the they are talking about reality or their wishful thinking, a dream, or lying unconsciously, such as sleepwalking.
There has been a trend recently for naming publicly funded projects and infrastructure by online polling. If this is the case with the new collider I'm going to resist the urge to suggest 'Collidie McCollideface, and go instead with 'ADG' (Ambiguous Data Generator).
You have acquired a new subscriber👍 . One that was happy for building the LHC. But now there are way more important science projects to build at present. ❤
I like both you and Sabine Hossenfelder for your knowledge, information and opinions that you've shared online and especially for your truthfulness in calling out the BS you've seen in physics.
Sabine is awesome. She just made a video about how it’s slightly possible the particle accelerators could open a blackhole on earth but in he usual joking manner. I always had a problem with the accelerator or ers since there’s already more than one since they began building the latest. Some of the claims didn’t seem to be coming from actual physicist, like when on one hand the particles were said to be colliding at the speed of light and on the other side it’s stated the particles travel at the speed of light which would mean the impacts force is liken more to twice or near the speed of light just like 2 cars traveling at 50 KPH or MPH the impact is measured at 100 KPH or MPH. Presently I feel the same or hear results could be observed in the same manner using the same methods being procured presently in fusion reactor development, create a dab of particles in a deep vacuum at near sub zero temps on a nano scale concentrated upon a micro pinpoint heavily coated with a form of high strength material to encapsulate and preserve the sample , even in the same manner artificial diamonds are made or even an epoxy base and shoot high energy lasers at it in a containment surrounded by sensors for review. , it that works then tens of thousands of experiments using multiple forms of particles could get performed in less time then what the hadron collider is capable of. 🤷♂️ ask a physicist 😁
@@rebellion-starwars It's not about comparing them, it's about the qualities that they share and which I like, mainly that they're both smart and honest about physics.
Large expensive projects which involve inscrutable financing are, quite understandably the only things politicians are comfortable funding. We need more such projects, the more the better … because the only other thing which lines the right pockets with any comparable efficiency is … good old War.
It's just money! But it's sinister that something like a huge potlatch is achieved by the largest detour through theoretical science. Scientific progress went along very well with the two world wars and the atomic bomb, but this comedy has all the signs of a scientific self-dismissal. Or is it just that the language of science has to serve all needs.
it's like the military industrial complex in America--the establishment ends the careers of critics so that those who make money off the system can continue to do so.
Isn't MIC at least a bit more rigorous and grounded in reality as even lay people notice whether superior firepower was actually achieved? If you want some American analogies, I'd rather look towards some pathologies in soft science that do metastasize towards more rigorous fields.
I majored in Physics as an undergrad, inspired by popular physics works like Hawking's and Brian Greene's books. You've articulated a lot of the doubts I had in school which caused me to eventually burn out and focus on pure mathematics.
It’s excruciating for you isn’t it? Love your delivery and the fact your not in the hive minded group. I don’t even know the extent of mathematics you know and I feel your pain just listening to it.
This kind of hubris is exactly why I pivoted from a degree in physics to a PhD in photovoltaics. At least what I'm working on now will have some consequence to the world.
and i, after a ph.d. in theoretical physics (not particle physics, but some arcana of filed theory) simply settled to teaching and appreciating undergraduate level physics....
My PhD is theoretical physics. I will be the one to usher in the paradigm shift, as well as other great people in this field. Gone will be the days of oafish quantum ways
Gratitude for your argument and the comments, as these defend the skepticists among us, non-physicists. Unfortunately, non-physicists are essentially muted against "recognized scientific boards", and can raise no voice of objection, if the rest of the Physics community remains idle, in view of "ground-breaking scientific advances". Some do suspect that data science has over-aided scientific validation.
Scientists is a relativistic term. Physicist is a proper title. Kinda like when a hurricane or a solar storm becomes the focus’s on mass media outlets and the anchor says “scientist say “a” is the cause of “c” upon examining “b” , could be a phlebotomist commenting about meteorological or Astronomy , a scientist told me 🤣
Looks like a lot of people who are interested in the natural world, are fed up with the nonsense coming out of modern physics. We should be building a new society of naturalists, to discuss ideas that make sense.
They talk in that weird way politicians do, where they just skirt around an answer instead of actually giving one. It seems odd to me for scientists to be discussing things with language like this
The title is so appropriate. These particle physicists are so much up themselves - how many of them at CERN? Over 2000 - don't worry about the poor, the hungry or homeless lets spend another 10 or 15 billion on a collider.
@@psyborg06 Very good logic. You don't spend 15 billion on a weird project and at the same time have poverty and homlessness. But don't worry about an equitable and well adjusted society - lets spend 15billion at Cern so 2000 employees can get excited about more powerful magnets.
@@IrfanAli-qp1gm What world do you live in, it happens all the time and at scales that make CERN look like pennies. That is my point, which you have missed.
That is a rather bullshit argument to make if you look at defense spending, which is orders of magnitude more. Elon musk paid roughly 4 times the cost of the LHC to buy Twitter!, and is now trying to convince the Tesla shareholders that he deserves roughly 4 times the cost of the proposed SCSC as bonus.
Usually most of my attention is on neuroscience..but for some reason, on this rainy Sunday morning, the mysterious driving force inside my head told me to click on this video. And boy II'm glad as hell I listened, it was the perfect way to start the day lol. This insanity had me cracking up all morning and the air of disgust in your commentary and on your face is so on point, i'm still dying😆 I thoroughly appreciate the glimpse into the lesser known world of Drama Physics... Thanks and you definitely got my subscription😁
Hello! I appreciate putting theories into question, thanks for the perspective. Anyway I dont see the contradiction of a theory being succesful yet incomplete. Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, but it still was a very succesful theory. Regarding the monetary question: There is so much public money spent on war, and probably other unfruitful endeavours I don't even know about, that investing in particle colliders might be one of the least harmful things to spend it on? And who knows, even if chances might be low, they could still discover something new!
His comments really show a lack of understanding of the theory of the Standard Model (SM). The SM is one of the most rigorously tested models in physics. It describes the universe and particle interactions with quantitative predicted outcomes. The derivation of the SM incorporates the interaction of the bosons and fermions. A number of these interactions have been tested. However, certain interactions or particle properties are not predicted by the original SM derivation. Therefore, these are the extensions which he referenced. And while he claims extensions mean "bad physics", it's simply that these interactions were not included originally. For example, if the SM initially included the assumption of massive neutrinos then we would call the massless version "an extension". Or, similarly with Dirac vs. Majorana. Anyway, long comment, but I appreciate your comment on the Newtonian mechanics success and incompleteness.
@@jamie11637 The Newtonian mechanics where not incomplete in any sense of the word. It is the extension of the observed realm several centuries later that has driven us to the development of augmenting theories. This is a significant ontological difference.
I can't speak for the rest of your comment. But you're implying that since huge amounts of money is wasted on useless wars, that means it's okay to spend huge amounts of money on other potentially useless stuff since it's less harmful. That's a silly argument. It's like saying oh well I just stole a 1000 bucks, the other guy on the news stole a million. Don't come at me. Make a case for how the money isn't being wasted. This whole concept of money is being wasted elsewhere so let's not complain about this waste is just... so silly.
We could also reduce taxes. Or diversify 10 billion into a thousand potential projects that only require 10 million of funding. Possibly fusion, thorium or battery related research.
'Epicycles...' at 25:04. Did you notice the seconds of silence before everyone burst into laughter. Funny... and true. Thanks Alexander. I'm rereading your book, Einstein's Lost Key, digesting the work of Dicke. Interesting, and I like that someone questioned General Relativity. What I find odd is that no one seems to have identified the oddity that the universe somehow knew it was going to require such complexity, at the origin.
The complexity is created by mankind and a lot of physicists seem to revel in it. However the basics must be unbelievably simple. And the conclusions inevitable.
@@janhemmer8181 No. It is well known in modern mathematics that in fact most of the questions out there don't have a solution, which can be encompassed by a relatively limited tool such as our mind. Non analytic functions are all over the place. Badly adjusted inverse problems with inherent instabilities are all over the place. Undecidability theorems are all over the place. And then add a plenty of unsolved fundamental questions on which whole disciplines are built in to the mix. It's not accidental, that we see already since at least two or maybe even three generations the stagnation of fundamental sciences. In my opinion this is one of the reasons more and more of science is drifting in to the semi-religious obscure. If you can't provide real results under pressure, you start to try to BS your way out. Fundamental human nature applies to everyone: scientist too.
@@rosomak8244and yet we see structure and order despite all the chaos we clutter ourselves with. Even black holes have their purpose. I agree with the above comment. The basics must be very simple.
ITER is another project which cannot possibly succeed at anything except a design for a reactor which can be built in about 8 locations in the world, and in order to produce the most expensive electricity of all time. No. ITER will produce a stack of PhDs taller than the reactor building, but no viable reactor can ever come from it. It's interesting science, but its main job is to justify the massive salaries of a huge number of people from a lot of countries.
Modern Physics is a new priesthood. Rather than counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin in Ancient Latin. We now have quantum particles in indecipherable maths. Instead of stain glass windows, we now have the Webb images of the universe, and colliders rather than Cathedrals. I'm already a huge Sabine fan. Subscribed.
@@florincoter1988 My degree is in physics and OP is right. Science has become a sort of deified religion. There is huge issues underlying a lot of physics, and science in general. Sun Scholar is a great channel; he points out the outdated notions of cosmology and astronomy that we still use only because those models were created 100 years ago and continuously built upon, so to start with something fresh and better always requires a paradigm shift. For instance, the claim that stars are gaseous bodies is almost nonsensical; how can gas collapse? The gas density they claim that collapse into stars is literally what we would call a vacuum on Earth. Stars are liquid, and their surface reflects that. You can see ripples, just like when a rock is thrown in a pond. Modern astronomers explain this away as an 'illusion' of which is caused by super complicated gaseous interactions. Occam's razor comes to mind I could go on and on and on, and I have direct access to a lot of stuff at university, since my major was in physics and my ultimate goal is getting a PhD in theoretical physics. LIGO is another joke; they aren't measuring what they think they are; the 'black hole' images are most jokes; no one can replicate their experiment, and when you read the methodology, you realize literally any image could've been extracted from the data they had. But they know the 'end goal' of what they want and adjust the mathematical coefficients until the desired image comes out. That is what is going on in a lot of fields; just straight up fudging data or being really sly with it. This is why meta studies show that over 50% of all published scientific papers cannot be replicated, yet are taken as fact. THAT IS HUGE
The Yellow. Sabines were witches. The nazis called the ancient Saxon Wivern (a symbol used by a Division of the British Territorial Army in WWII) the yellow devil.
I searched UA-cam for "physicists in fantasy world" to find exactly this kind of video, and it knew exactly what I meant. Glad to see I found another channel with a firm grip on reality.
Good tip. Searching for anything that disagrees with the mainstream is difficult especially with all the new clone channels that are “flooding the market”.
@@jay.u I agree. Divide and conquer, or is it compartmentalize and capitalize. The garbage it suggests for my kids is also disheartening to see. Nothing but distractions. The fantasy search didn’t have any decent results for me. But pseudo and out there did. Mostly still things that you have to read between the lines on, because it goes against the one telling the story.
Man you almost gave me the creeps! I'm also a physicist and struggle every day to understand this nonsense! Thanks God I'm not alone anymore! Now back to real physics! Thank you so much!
Yeah, the entire consensus of the field says the opposite of what this dude thinks. Along with the the same following of barely educated, obviously mentally ill followers saying "OMG THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO EVER YOU ARE THE BEST FAKE PHYSICIST EVER MAN!"
Hi Jon s. I haven’t got even a subscription to ‘Owl’ magazine to speak to my qualifications to discuss the substance of this UA-cam matter of importance, but I just like to pose the question here for consideration of other better trained minds; So they keep building these things, and creating all this justification in the public domain. When no real public support is probably necessary to secure the funding. But is there any other potential or actual use these colliders can be directly used for or maybe adapted to perform that would help clarify why ‘we’ need to produce more of them?? The posting here provided is of course very important to debunk the premise that we need them, but I’m just wondering if it is about more than just career advancing prestige or money to those groups who supply parts and do the build and operate tasks. They got that basketball spinning on one finger but all we are seeing is a blurry image of the surface not the mechanics (no pun intended?) of how this is possible. Posted day 3/23 from Jen in Canada
Your really call yourself a physicist? So much sarcasm and taking the worst possible meaning of words but actually not doing a critical review of the work you "cite". If you actually paid attention to the round table discussion, most of the people on it were skeptical of the new collider. Your entire MO seems to be anti-establishment BS which I guess must get you the clicks on your videos. This is just embarrassing.
Let them build jet another huge particle accelerator. It would be interesting to see what they do when the Higgs "signal" would turn out to be not demonstrable there. Wait a moment. I know already: such a confirmation experiment will be declared to be not cost effective and never done.
@@Squidlark Yes. A Particle has never actually been demonstrated. Just some noise in decay sequences roughly fitting assumptions and ignoring anything not fitting them was presented as actual discovery.
Wow! You have no idea how much I've enjoyed this, you are a breath of fresh air in the science landscape, and I'm sure you are considered an heretic by academia, which for me is always a sign of someone being a step ahead. I'm not a physicist by the way, I'm a self taught phylosoper and researcher on the origins of civilization, I'm a true skeptic, meaning I question everything and I'm ready to accept as much, as opposed to the cult of skepticism led by people like Shermer that questions anything that isn't part of the consensus, and accepts anything as long as it's part of the consensus. I loved every point you made here, it is pure common sense, everything you say I've said myself, and the usual response is that I don't understand physics and I should get a PhD before opening my mouth, a fantastic argument, that in real life would make having any conversation impossible, I mean, can we talk about cars without being mechanics? Can we talk about music without being musicians? Anyhow, I'm very happy I've found your channel, thank you for the great content and the honest approach to science.
Thank you for explaining why the two teams found different energy levels. Then even worse it turned out the two teams did communicate. Yet these things were waved off and the discovery was announced. So we are to understand that lack of rigor was allowed because their funding was at stake.
Wonderful video. I would say that all people involved in physics should read two books: On The Division of Nature by John Scottus Eriugena and A Theory of Natural Philosophy by Roger Boscovich. The former will show them how to use logic and the apophatic method; the latter shows a completely different way to look at the interactions of particles or fields, whichever you feel makes up the material Universe. I have only read Part 1 of The Theory of Natural Philosophy, which covers his theory completely, but it made me rethink all that I know about physical interactions. Fair warning, neither book is a quick read, both are highly intelligent and released in the 9th and 18th centuries, respectively. By the way, I have read and love the Higgs Fake and Bankrupting Physics, both wonderful books to read.
It would be interesting to check how much money we spent really per year e.g. for colliders, for astro physics, for nuclear fusion or for semiconductor research or maybe AI (by government and commercially). And compare it to lobbying and bureaucracy.
Very nice one, thank you for that point of view, this should happen much more often these days! It would be great fun to see you in the podcast "demystify science" ... If you want to have a thoroughly elaborate exchange, this is a place to go 🙂
These guys just need to say the new particle collider will be used to investigate the impact of the Higgs Boson on climate change, and they’ll never be short of funding.
It will sound funny, but there is research about impact of cosmic rays on the climate and/or whether formation. they have scientific papers published. :D it sounds out there, but they are doing estimation. think what you will.
@@zurabkepuladze3986 I remember hearing about an observed inverse correlation between clouds and cosmic rays. I don't know anything beyond that and in any case am not qualified to evaluate the merits of the theory. What I can say, even as a regular layperson, is that climate change research reeks of bias and corruption, and I'm skeptical of anybody who profits from it in any way. The people in this video remind me of them.
Fund research on how to enhance the atmospheric methane sink by mimicking natural processes? Nooooo! People might stop trying to reduce their carbon footprint. Bring on the tipping points!
Tipping point due to high altitude moisture? What do you think about jets leaving contrails made of water vapor at hogh altitude. These jet aircraft are spreading moisture right where we don't need it. They are gonna push us over the tipping point with their jet exhaust, isn't it so? An olypic swimming pool worth of jet fuel turned into water and then spread at altitude, thus accelerating climate change towards that runaway global warming.
If I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Krauss said in one of his lectures that he couldn't pray without the Hadron Collider. This might have something to do with them needing another one and suggest that Quantum theories are religious to them as well.
Mr. Unzicker you have a sense of humor like the great german-american actor Christopher Waltz!! i just came across your channel and am really enjoying the content
What an entré to the New Year! It made me both laugh out loud & cringe at the same time. Fabiola is an intellectual fraud! It's laughable they're so smug but just highlights the magnitude of the problem facing physics & cosmology: there's a total lack of intellectual honesty... & the odd thing is, it's not limited to these disciplines; it's everywhere. Thanks Alex!
@@lorandhorvath4466 I guess that, unfortunately for people like yourself who want to discredit high energy physicists no matter what, scientific prowess does not necessarily correlate (or correlates only so much) with linguistic proficiency. An an aspiring scientist myself (and somewhat of a humble but competent polyglot) I have one or two suggestions as to why this happens. Nonetheless, the reasons don't really matter, as you clearly aren't interested in them. Whereas I agree it'd be nice for everyone to undergo additional language training in order to improve communication, as I'd actually massively benefit from that myself on the receiving end, we should actually be glad that talent is given the chance to shine instead of overly burdened with unduly expectations. Because, at the end of the day, true linguistic proficiency in foreign languages comes from the admixture of innate linguistic talent, the closeness of the language in question to one's own mother tongue and early (!) exposure. A majority lack any one of these, and many enough miss out on at least two whether we like it or not. Even if we enforced a better command of English - exactly for what? Noone wants to read a verbose paper when it can be written in simple terms. As far as I'm concerned, if I wanted to make it personal and also really absurd, I'd also be extremely happy if the majority of non-scientists were to become better language users. As you see, I can also set an arbitrary bar to discredit whoever I want from some proverbial marble tower. Alas, barring linguists, I could also say you guys mostly suck (on average that is). Going further, I'd even state that, even despite his/her limitations and the rather limited interest, the average scientist is more linguistically aware than the average person. Taken globally, most people don't really need English for their job. Researchers mostly do, whether they like it or not. And whereas I've read enough awful papers, most scientific literature manages to be succint but legible enough. I doubt you can and should expect much more from non-linguists or other language-heavy fields.
@@lorandhorvath4466 You commented 9 minutes ago and already have an upvote. Stop upvoting your own comments, it's ridiculous. You asked - albeit in a much more prosaic fashion - whether their knowledge of physics somehow correlates with their level of English. I've provided an answer. If you aren't prepared for answers, don't ask - but don't waste people's time, Mr. Bla Bla. As for your question: I'm in the process. Whether I possess it already or not doesn't really change anything regarding our the language discussion. It's not like you respect that qualification anyway, since you're happy to disrespect those who possess it. But okay... Childish.
Hi, not arguing with you. What other alternatives are there to figure out what matter is made of and how to prove existing of particles that constitute the said matter?
TBH, whole video is like an misinterpretation of words as you want. When they say that higgs was observed in rare decay they 100% correct, because higgs branching ratio to 2gamma decay is 0.2%. It's not dirty channel, because "every particle" don't decay into a pair of 60GeV photons.
You are confirming what I said. According to your definition, every channel today is rare, because the "frequent" decays have already been seen in past experiments. You should let sink in the absurdity to consider a 2 photon decay however.
@@TheMachian No. Rare means in comparison with other decay channels of a GIVEN particle. You can say if channel rare or not if you already observed particle and know it total decay width. What absurdity of 2 gamma decay do you mean? 2gamma is easiest thing to observe on LHC because of low background.
9:15 Mucho Kuku is a very poor scientist but a moderately decent scifi author who, by calling it futurism (wild guesses about the future), sells his speculative scifi with no character or story arcs as nonfiction.
Exactly!! He's a very dull version of Carl Sagan.. who apparently didn't do any science, just moderated 'working groups' who did real science. Every person who graduates with a bs degree should be required to put in at least 10 years employed outside Academia in the 'real world' where you have to Produce the work you were hired to do. Only after a proven Practical Work Resumé should they be allowed to pontificate at the Masters level. Then go back out there for another 10 years before coming back for a phd. Goes for ALL degrees in all college programs.
The collider method is violence. Please keep that in mind. Its brute force isn’t exactly taking atomic nucleus apart, but more like smashing or shooting it into pieces. Therefore, its results will likely be fragments of elementary particles rather than the elementary particles themselves. At least, it is inaccurate or even dishonest, unintentionally, of course, whether the they are talking about reality or their wishful thinking, a dream, or lying unconsciously, such as sleepwalking.
instead of an new accelerator, in my opinion, we should verify the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum theory, i.e. study the entaglement for larger masses and their gravitational behavior, check whether randomness really exists - try to check the repetition of physical experiments s on a very small scale etc
Oh No!! Not being able to REPEAT the Results!! Not Checking Your Work!! Not Proof Reading the Math Used?? Not making sure they aren't pulling another 'Hocky Stick' garbage math formula like the one that started the Global Warming Political Gold Mine. Don't Say you don't TRUST them.. lol
A side thought, related though to your subject: more ought to be done on availability (sharing) of original research data: most often they are not published. More also on detailed reporting of details of experimental procedures so it is easier to repeat them. More on detailed description of computer simulations - mostly it is not possible to repeat them due to the lack of these details (authors are often not even aware that some details play a huge role)
@Zbigniew Koziol worked with research scientists while they tried to organize their work in a presentable form for lectures, presentations to groups, and publications. Original data usually isn't collected in a way that can be included in a published article. Too bulky. Nor do most scientists have any understanding of basic computer programs. They turn over data to the IT folks and wait. Particularly in Physics. Renaissance Minds are extremely Rare.
Great video Unzicker, I've been a fan for awhile and would love to have the honor to exchange ideas. I just wanted to comment on a couple things on how I agree that today's physics is becoming a disgrace to human intelligence and particle colliders are the biggest waste of money and only strengthens the fact that money controls, corrupts and demoralizes our values, goals and advancements to prove nothing but that we also can destroy things on the smallest levels along with one of the biggest. Keep up the good work though and getting that true knowledge out! Dark matter is not dark matter! it is potential energy (Aether) waiting to be polarized (pushed or pulled) or transformed by another form of energy (+ or -) it's actually quite simple. Electromagnetic waves and gravity are all disturbances by that energy transforming (changing polarity). Just a quick note to point out that polarity can mean multiple things but an easy term to explain unbalanced because ultimately, energy can never be at a point of equilibrium. People would argue elements are at that point but we don't live long enough to see that they actually aren't. The standard model is complete nonsense and everyone is be taught or presented with false, abstract ideas to fulfill an ego or whatever reason but damn near all of it is wrong! Everyone should find out themselves and they would be surprised at what they find. if anyone wants to test me by experiment, debate or any other means by way of actual fact please feel free to contact. there will be proof and publications in the near future with my conclusions.
It's so interesting to see physicists disagreeing with each other on the cutting edge of high-level knowledge. But it's easy to see human nature involved in getting grant money by many of the same people. Thank you, professor. Quite entertaining.
@@TheMachian professor of 'neuroscience' by the way, which... doesn't have much of a connection to theoretical physics. I wonder how much of this you actually understand...?
So, the only question I have is what do YOU suggest to do? Should we all abandon our hopes to improve the models of hadronic interactions, hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions? Should we all get fired and start making videos for youtube? Should we cancel our hopes to reach the center-of-mass energy in collider experiments equivalent to highest energies of cosmic rays, so the problem like muon puzzle will never be solved completely? No QGP studies at higher energies to get the clear signals of it formation, to study the higher PT region? No search for deviation of rare decays branching? Leave everything as it is with current models not being able to describe inclusively all processes that happen at high energies? What I see in examples you have shown, is the struggle to provide the simple explanations of the problems that are studied now. And yes, the stars couldn’t shine with different electron mass, and yes, it is both good to see whether the standard model make a correct prediction or we observe something that directly contradicts it. It is easy to criticize, but it would be much better to see the proper suggestions and solutions.
@@lkytmryan Oh yeah? So that’s why it is better to leave thousands of brilliant minds without jobs and that’s why Europe is wasting billions in bs like global warming fight with “climate lockdown” and “clean energy” and sending useless military equipment for a proxy war in Ukraine?
@@РоманНиколаенко-ъ9й Europe has a the largest collider in the world and they are still wasting billions on climate change so I don't know what you are talkin about. Those 1000s of brilliant minds can surely figure out some way to make money, otherwise, how brilliant could they possibly be?
@@lkytmryan Of course they can figure it out. The question is, is it better for them to waste their potential in doing useless money earning, like making youtube videos, or try to achieve our goals? If it is okay to waste money in something non-scientific, why not to “waste” it to science?
Dr. Unzicker, I've been a viewer of your channel for quite a while now and I must say, you're remarkable and amazingly lucid. It would really help if I could get your e-mail address for elaborate discussions and keep myself updated. You're a person I highly admire, so it would be nothing less a dream to interact with you, very eager to hear from you... I've deep interests and curiosity in the same fundamental questions that you pursue...
If the results found there where truly fundamental, we would see independent replication by other huge nations like China, the US or Japan or maybe even India. Jet for some reason none really bothers.
Professor Unzicker makes some excellent points. One quibble about the start of the commentary. The exaggeration about the “Superman Particle” is actually understated compared with the hyperbole of other Highwaymen in Labcoats. It is the “God Particle”, according to the Nobel Prize winning Highwaymen. I call them “the Higgs Bozos”, named after an American clown from 60 years ago - “Bozo the Clown”. And don’t get me started about Michio Kaku and the MIT genius. The MIT guy has trouble making even casual observations about the Boston skyline, visible from MIT’s academic quad. Kaku has a similar problem with making basic scientific observations (“lightbulb and heater counting”) in New York. A phenomenon I first noticed in 1999. I’m sure I was at least 15 years late figuring it out. FYI, the reference to Feynman was jarringly out of place with the marketing oriented people with Physics Doctorates….
@@anderslarsen4412 What he says is easy to understand, in contrast to particle physics. That is why people who are not able to understand physics but want to be smart listen to that bs
@@mrgadget1485 making untrue statements for public science /educational grant funding, which steals funding from ethical and legitimate claims. When's the last time someone went to jail for stealing public funds it's ridiculous.
long ago I played golf with the CEO of a company that received mega-sized contracts from the US govt on scientific and defense projects, so I asked him about the SSC (to be built in Texas long ago) and assumed he'd be very sympathetic and enthusiastic about its construction. He laughed and said "welfare for the over-educated". I was younger and naïve at the time, but now I understand.
this "no" decision would have been a win if gvt had put the money into a revised ORNL Thoruim-MoltenSaltReactor project (now actually Shanghai grabbed the baton; see GordonMcDowell's UA-cams). A high temperature MSR couldn't just produce Hydrogen (cheaply) and electricity, it could supply process heat to refineries, chemical industry, and cement ovens! With that source of heat available today (not in 30 years) it would be economical to extract tar sands now and then in 30 years to do CO2 capture and make high quality, sulfur-free diesel and gas from H2CO3 and CO2.
Alexander, this is your best one yet. Thank you. I have to say, I’ve listened to Hitoshi Murayama speak elsewhere and found him not quite as fanciful, nor as kitsch for that matter, as this superhero inspired guide to new particle physics presentation. And as far as Michio Kaku goes, what should one really expect from a part-time populist “futurist.” The panel discussion - that’s another thing altogether… Kudos for staying till the end. As an aside you could ask if the approximate $257 billion spend (when adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars) on Project Apollo between 1960 and 1973 made scientific sense if not to win a space race in an otherwise heated cold-war game of upmanship. I mostly agree with you when it comes to the LHC. But I can’t help feeling that building it was a kind of a natural evolution from the days where physics motivated man-made accelerators as far back as the 1920’s. Geiger and Marsden for example, showed, by bombarding atoms with 5 to 10 MeV α particles, the massive nucleus. Or, Gamow’s suggestion that there exists a finite probability for lower than 1 MV energy particles to tunnel through the Coulomb barrier of light nuclei thus encouraging Rutherford and other others to start studying methods to accelerate particles beyond hundreds of KV. :-)
Apollo was worth every cent spent on it. Labs are still analyzing the rocks and get new results nowadays. it was important to have astronauts, and a trained geologist to do the sampling on site; it couldn't have been done by robots back then. Now the story is quite different. With modern robotic rovers (and seismometers) much more could be achieved at lower cost and faster than with manned missions. Actually, it is the same stupid situation with Artemis, ITER, and nextCollider: those mega-projects draw the funds away from really good R&D. What about measuring the gravitational constant G in a satellite, in a faraway solar orbit, not just here on Earth? A higher precision (and a check, which of the measurements down here were wrong) should be achievable!
Observation, repeatability, skepticism, ... good physics remembers all the past embarrassing falsehoods that grip physics. My favourite was the mass/charge ratio, I believe Millikan, publish an Ex value and no one wanted to contradict the great man so for a long long time, everyone repeating the Ex got the same or similar result. Let's have Sabine and you lead a panel on the subject of the Stand-Mod and the LCH, ... would anyone actually step onto that stage for that debate?
While I am and always was really interested in physics and lately even ventured in studying the standard model jst to understand that it has not really predicted anything but rather is good at describing what is observed. So I am still proud of my choice to become a Chemical Engineer and had a lifelong chance to actually crate some real projects.
Hi! Can you give a bit detail on your chemistry career? - organic chemistry? Which areas would you recommend studying in upcoming years? Good reference material? Etc. Little summary be appreciated.
hey pal, saying that SM has predicted nothing is conspiracy theory as bad as moon hoax. The fact that it does not describe whole universe is more of the reason to fund more research to gain better understanding of fundamental things (that is if u are not a retrograde).
@@zurabkepuladze3986 no it really hasn't though. Almost everything in it was defined before SM and the SM itself is incomplete. Human beings are really good at "reifying" concepts into reality that have no basis in reality. i.e particles would be one very good example.
it's like watching a bunch of underdeveloped humans smash rocks together to explain anything. modern science is a joke. nothing is tangible its all based on predictive models where the result is calculated first then they input numbers to to reach the result. it's the reverse of science, the upside down. the backwards. these people [live] backwards
@@maeton-gaming are u kidding right now? There was no gauge field theory before that, people were using multiple fermion effective interaction approaches, no one knew about existence of gauge boson, Higgs mechanism, breaking electro weak symmetry, true nature of electromagnetism, existence of quarks, flavor violation, cp violations, mass mixing, renormalization, unification of the constants, etc. Wake up to reality. Read if u are not aware.
Ignorance is strong with One (or so he tries to appear). With attitude like this we would still be shooting spears and resisting the introduction of bow and arrow.
Most particle physicists total inanity towards their atomistic reduction presupposition and ignorance of Hamilton and other mechanical pioneers are inconsequential to technological advances , at best and at worst inhibit progress
Hi, I remember the hype related to the LHC years ago, and one of the examples that was repeated in media over and over and over again was that the science behind LHC (or particle physics) is what enabled the development of MRI machines that save thousands of lives. Now, you pointed here out that particle physicist tend to presents results from other fields as their own (or at least, being enabled by their research), so I was wondering, was collider science crucial to the development of MRI, or is just standard physics already covered by research in other fields?
@Unzicker's Real Physics Thank you for your reply. Related to strong magnets, I see that more as an engineering challenge, in the realm of applied science; even if strong electromagnets were first designed for a colider, it's a bit disingenuous for them to claim the MRI for their field.
I've been a fan of ken wheeler for years so seeing the title of your video made me EXTREMELY CURIOUS. I may edit this comment after Iw atch this video.
Tell them they can get a new collider with profits from a working fusion reactor.
@Paul Wolf "Germans need to fix those gas pipelines blown up by their so-called allies."
That's never going to happen. The EU is heading for de-industrialization and probably resemble the 19th century
Lol for real
Just another 10 years...(been hearing that for a few decades) I remember reading a Popular Mechanics magazine when I was in high school in the 90s that said we were very close to a working reactor, just like how close we were to making life in a lab, or building a moon base...the money never stops, but the results never change...
@@allhopeabandon7831 And at the same time the maths department was screaming all the time: "Those underlying equations can't be tamed! We have actual proof for that!".
Lol. The recent news of fusion energy gain was a fundraiser too. The Department of Energy had a panel of the scientists in involved. They spoke about the experiment took questions. Lots of double talk about how great the experiment was. (You need an untold millions or billion dollar machine, held behind top secret national defense wall, to replicate the results.) And that the breakthrough will pave the future of fusion, but that the results are years away from having an actual commerical power plant. Because you need a 500 trillion Watt laser, that is basically used to make better nukes. As the fusion experiment only uses 10% of machine's operating budget. It was a side job. And who knows if it was created with the understanding the program was going to be cut, because we already have more nukes than we need.
I'm so tired of everything being a scam and humans being so corrupt, just waking up in the morning and realising I'm still here is exhausting.
Poor you :(
The world is based on lies. Vedic texts knew all we needed to know. Thousands of years ago. Donald Hoffman has a video explaining how we hallucinate our reality. Survival drives evolution not truth hence your and mine dilemma. The answer is meditation
You need to sleep longer, dont get up that early!
Well said, and I share your sentiment.
Sad to say advanced physics is full of pompous a**es that simply want to show how smart they are while spewing propaganda like BS.
When you fund a problem majorly enough, it tends to create ways to never solve itself so that it keeps taking more funding
It is the same with climate science. Although the science is "settled", billions and billions of funding are out into it. You can not ask any questions. And yet every year, the IPCC selectively publishes vetted research in evermore catastrophic reports.
This is the way
This is the type of drama content I never knew I needed.
Celebrity scientists have learned how to milk mass media, just like good Hollywood actors and the Kardashians.
They really do need to milk the Kardashians
It's great that someone is publicly calling these grifters out.
DARK MATTER
I'm really liking this trend of physics coming to youtube, following you right now, the work of Sabine woke me up of a lot of stuff is happening in the field.
Soon they will get banned for hatespeach. Such is the way of things
Ahhh particle physics... it's the science of obtaining perpetual funding
Akin to Climate Change 'science'.
The collider method is violence. Please keep that in mind. Its brute force isn’t exactly taking atomic nucleus apart, but more like smashing or shooting it into pieces. Therefore, its results will likely be fragments of elementary particles rather than the elementary particles themselves. At least, it is inaccurate or even dishonest, unintentionally, of course, whether the they are talking about reality or their wishful thinking, a dream, or lying unconsciously, such as sleepwalking.
Nuclear fusion smells similar. Jobs for the boys...
@@thedarkmoon2341 just estimate a campfire's ratio of energy output to input - a match
How to oppress the populace?… spend their money on frivolous and misleading bullshit to prevent any real progress in society.
There has been a trend recently for naming publicly funded projects and infrastructure by online polling. If this is the case with the new collider I'm going to resist the urge to suggest 'Collidie McCollideface, and go instead with 'ADG' (Ambiguous Data Generator).
Correction- it should be AFG Ambiguous Funding Generator
ELPC - extremely large propulsion coils
@@Dave5843-d9m or maybe UFG Unambiguous Funding Generator
This is the internet. We all know it'll just end up being HDNW.
Petition to just call it "waste of time and money" collider
You have acquired a new subscriber👍 . One that was happy for building the LHC. But now there are way more important science projects to build at present. ❤
Good work asking these questions Prof!
I like both you and Sabine Hossenfelder for your knowledge, information and opinions that you've shared online and especially for your truthfulness in calling out the BS you've seen in physics.
Sabine is awesome. She just made a video about how it’s slightly possible the particle accelerators could open a blackhole on earth but in he usual joking manner. I always had a problem with the accelerator or ers since there’s already more than one since they began building the latest. Some of the claims didn’t seem to be coming from actual physicist, like when on one hand the particles were said to be colliding at the speed of light and on the other side it’s stated the particles travel at the speed of light which would mean the impacts force is liken more to twice or near the speed of light just like 2 cars traveling at 50 KPH or MPH the impact is measured at 100 KPH or MPH. Presently I feel the same or hear results could be observed in the same manner using the same methods being procured presently in fusion reactor development, create a dab of particles in a deep vacuum at near sub zero temps on a nano scale concentrated upon a micro pinpoint heavily coated with a form of high strength material to encapsulate and preserve the sample , even in the same manner artificial diamonds are made or even an epoxy base and shoot high energy lasers at it in a containment surrounded by sensors for review. , it that works then tens of thousands of experiments using multiple forms of particles could get performed in less time then what the hadron collider is capable of. 🤷♂️ ask a physicist 😁
The Germans do like no bull shit
How could you compare him with Sabine?
@@rebellion-starwars It's not about comparing them, it's about the qualities that they share and which I like, mainly that they're both smart and honest about physics.
@@treasurepoem but you are comparing real scientist with fake one.
Large expensive projects which involve inscrutable financing are, quite understandably the only things politicians are comfortable funding.
We need more such projects, the more the better … because the only other thing which lines the right pockets with any comparable efficiency is … good old War.
The ultimate irony. Sad because it's at least partially true.
It's just money! But it's sinister that something like a huge potlatch is achieved by the largest detour through theoretical science. Scientific progress went along very well with the two world wars and the atomic bomb, but this comedy has all the signs of a scientific self-dismissal. Or is it just that the language of science has to serve all needs.
it was while I pondered double slit that a cockroach walked across the ceiling and belly flopped onto my dinner plate
building a space force to fight aliens also works
What many of those scientists need to realise is that when a theory is build upon false or incomplete data, it stops being science.
I'm so glad I found your channel. I thought I was alone on this planet!
Someone who speaks with a permanent smile is generally someone to be avoided.
He just smiled in the beginning. And you gotta admit, there were a lot of bs arguments from that conference guy.
Kaku is a master fraud, paid well for sure.
@@En_theo hey pal if u do not understand the subject, it does not mean it is BS. just saying, food for thought.
Yes, that guy from MIT is very suspicious. He looks to be auditioning as a replacement for Brian Greene, etc.
@@silafuyang8675
The last few years I have seen Kaku say the most ...incredible bizarre things. Probably bought and sold, yes.
Also loved the line about continuing to improve the epicycles. What a classic! Am now subscribed.
it's like the military industrial complex in America--the establishment ends the careers of critics so that those who make money off the system can continue to do so.
Isn't MIC at least a bit more rigorous and grounded in reality as even lay people notice whether superior firepower was actually achieved? If you want some American analogies, I'd rather look towards some pathologies in soft science that do metastasize towards more rigorous fields.
Same thing happens in medicine too. Check out bad pharma by Goldachre
Your commentary alone makes this video worth watching... both hilarious and sad. Your frustration is shared - keep up the hard-hitting skepticism!
I majored in Physics as an undergrad, inspired by popular physics works like Hawking's and Brian Greene's books. You've articulated a lot of the doubts I had in school which caused me to eventually burn out and focus on pure mathematics.
Tbh it’s all a scam
@@adamfattal468 says the troglodyte
@@konstantink614 Why would you call me that
@@adamfattal468 why would you call modern physics a scam?
@@konstantink614 Idk
What a wonderful video to start the year with! Happy 2023!
As usual you are shining a beam of pure light on the pure drivel polluting our field of physics. Please keep on with your mission!
It’s excruciating for you isn’t it? Love your delivery and the fact your not in the hive minded group. I don’t even know the extent of mathematics you know and I feel your pain just listening to it.
This kind of hubris is exactly why I pivoted from a degree in physics to a PhD in photovoltaics. At least what I'm working on now will have some consequence to the world.
photovoltaics rely on principles discovered by experimentation by material scientists and the discoveries of physicists.
Well, just be thankful during your pivot you managed to avoid Gender Studies....
...but enough about me!
and i, after a ph.d. in theoretical physics (not particle physics, but some arcana of filed theory) simply settled to teaching and appreciating undergraduate level physics....
My PhD is theoretical physics. I will be the one to usher in the paradigm shift, as well as other great people in this field. Gone will be the days of oafish quantum ways
Gratitude for your argument and the comments, as these defend the skepticists among us, non-physicists. Unfortunately, non-physicists are essentially muted against "recognized scientific boards", and can raise no voice of objection, if the rest of the Physics community remains idle, in view of "ground-breaking scientific advances". Some do suspect that data science has over-aided scientific validation.
New subscriber, enjoy when I find a scientist that actually does science. Look forward to seeing more of your work.
Welcome aboard!
The legit programs don't get funding, and the hard working scientists don't get credit.
Typically scientist analyze the data
Scientists is a relativistic term. Physicist is a proper title. Kinda like when a hurricane or a solar storm becomes the focus’s on mass media outlets and the anchor says “scientist say “a” is the cause of “c” upon examining “b” , could be a phlebotomist commenting about meteorological or Astronomy , a scientist told me 🤣
Looks like a lot of people who are interested in the natural world, are fed up with the nonsense coming out of modern physics.
We should be building a new society of naturalists, to discuss ideas that make sense.
They talk in that weird way politicians do, where they just skirt around an answer instead of actually giving one. It seems odd to me for scientists to be discussing things with language like this
The powerful one manipulates “truth” without opposition, the weakling has to help himself with lies.
The title is so appropriate. These particle physicists are so much up themselves - how many of them at CERN? Over 2000 - don't worry about the poor, the hungry or homeless lets spend another 10 or 15 billion on a collider.
Weird logic, a 2000 employee company is not large. Should we buy another warplane or missile program with the money instead?
@@psyborg06 Very good logic. You don't spend 15 billion on a weird project and at the same time have poverty and homlessness. But don't worry about an equitable and well adjusted society - lets spend 15billion at Cern so 2000 employees can get excited about more powerful magnets.
@@IrfanAli-qp1gm What world do you live in, it happens all the time and at scales that make CERN look like pennies. That is my point, which you have missed.
That is a rather bullshit argument to make if you look at defense spending, which is orders of magnitude more. Elon musk paid roughly 4 times the cost of the LHC to buy Twitter!, and is now trying to convince the Tesla shareholders that he deserves roughly 4 times the cost of the proposed SCSC as bonus.
music to my ears.. someone who can see past arrogance and illusion
Usually most of my attention is on neuroscience..but for some reason, on this rainy Sunday morning, the mysterious driving force inside my head told me to click on this video. And boy II'm glad as hell I listened, it was the perfect way to start the day lol. This insanity had me cracking up all morning and the air of disgust in your commentary and on your face is so on point, i'm still dying😆 I thoroughly appreciate the glimpse into the lesser known world of Drama Physics... Thanks and you definitely got my subscription😁
:-) Demis Hassabis started his work in AI because he though physics needed "more intellectual horsepower"...
Hello!
I appreciate putting theories into question, thanks for the perspective. Anyway I dont see the contradiction of a theory being succesful yet incomplete. Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, but it still was a very succesful theory.
Regarding the monetary question: There is so much public money spent on war, and probably other unfruitful endeavours I don't even know about, that investing in particle colliders might be one of the least harmful things to spend it on? And who knows, even if chances might be low, they could still discover something new!
His comments really show a lack of understanding of the theory of the Standard Model (SM). The SM is one of the most rigorously tested models in physics. It describes the universe and particle interactions with quantitative predicted outcomes. The derivation of the SM incorporates the interaction of the bosons and fermions. A number of these interactions have been tested. However, certain interactions or particle properties are not predicted by the original SM derivation. Therefore, these are the extensions which he referenced. And while he claims extensions mean "bad physics", it's simply that these interactions were not included originally. For example, if the SM initially included the assumption of massive neutrinos then we would call the massless version "an extension". Or, similarly with Dirac vs. Majorana. Anyway, long comment, but I appreciate your comment on the Newtonian mechanics success and incompleteness.
"Lack of understanding of the SM" = not being brainwashed. I am glad my comments show that.
@@jamie11637 The Newtonian mechanics where not incomplete in any sense of the word. It is the extension of the observed realm several centuries later that has driven us to the development of augmenting theories. This is a significant ontological difference.
I can't speak for the rest of your comment.
But you're implying that since huge amounts of money is wasted on useless wars, that means it's okay to spend huge amounts of money on other potentially useless stuff since it's less harmful.
That's a silly argument. It's like saying oh well I just stole a 1000 bucks, the other guy on the news stole a million. Don't come at me.
Make a case for how the money isn't being wasted. This whole concept of money is being wasted elsewhere so let's not complain about this waste is just... so silly.
We could also reduce taxes.
Or diversify 10 billion into a thousand potential projects that only require 10 million of funding. Possibly fusion, thorium or battery related research.
'Epicycles...' at 25:04. Did you notice the seconds of silence before everyone burst into laughter. Funny... and true. Thanks Alexander. I'm rereading your book, Einstein's Lost Key, digesting the work of Dicke. Interesting, and I like that someone questioned General Relativity. What I find odd is that no one seems to have identified the oddity that the universe somehow knew it was going to require such complexity, at the origin.
Yes I did. Was a funny moment.
The complexity is created by mankind and a lot of physicists seem to revel in it.
However the basics must be unbelievably simple.
And the conclusions inevitable.
@@janhemmer8181 No. It is well known in modern mathematics that in fact most of the questions out there don't have a solution, which can be encompassed by a relatively limited tool such as our mind. Non analytic functions are all over the place. Badly adjusted inverse problems with inherent instabilities are all over the place. Undecidability theorems are all over the place. And then add a plenty of unsolved fundamental questions on which whole disciplines are built in to the mix.
It's not accidental, that we see already since at least two or maybe even three generations the stagnation of fundamental sciences. In my opinion this is one of the reasons more and more of science is drifting in to the semi-religious obscure. If you can't provide real results under pressure, you start to try to BS your way out. Fundamental human nature applies to everyone: scientist too.
@@rosomak8244and yet we see structure and order despite all the chaos we clutter ourselves with. Even black holes have their purpose. I agree with the above comment. The basics must be very simple.
ITER is another project which cannot possibly succeed at anything except a design for a reactor which can be built in about 8 locations in the world, and in order to produce the most expensive electricity of all time. No. ITER will produce a stack of PhDs taller than the reactor building, but no viable reactor can ever come from it. It's interesting science, but its main job is to justify the massive salaries of a huge number of people from a lot of countries.
Modern Physics is a new priesthood. Rather than counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin in Ancient Latin. We now have quantum particles in indecipherable maths. Instead of stain glass windows, we now have the Webb images of the universe, and colliders rather than Cathedrals. I'm already a huge Sabine fan. Subscribed.
Next time you need a MRI go to a cathedral.
@@florincoter1988 My degree is in physics and OP is right. Science has become a sort of deified religion. There is huge issues underlying a lot of physics, and science in general.
Sun Scholar is a great channel; he points out the outdated notions of cosmology and astronomy that we still use only because those models were created 100 years ago and continuously built upon, so to start with something fresh and better always requires a paradigm shift.
For instance, the claim that stars are gaseous bodies is almost nonsensical; how can gas collapse? The gas density they claim that collapse into stars is literally what we would call a vacuum on Earth.
Stars are liquid, and their surface reflects that. You can see ripples, just like when a rock is thrown in a pond. Modern astronomers explain this away as an 'illusion' of which is caused by super complicated gaseous interactions. Occam's razor comes to mind
I could go on and on and on, and I have direct access to a lot of stuff at university, since my major was in physics and my ultimate goal is getting a PhD in theoretical physics.
LIGO is another joke; they aren't measuring what they think they are; the 'black hole' images are most jokes; no one can replicate their experiment, and when you read the methodology, you realize literally any image could've been extracted from the data they had. But they know the 'end goal' of what they want and adjust the mathematical coefficients until the desired image comes out.
That is what is going on in a lot of fields; just straight up fudging data or being really sly with it. This is why meta studies show that over 50% of all published scientific papers cannot be replicated, yet are taken as fact. THAT IS HUGE
@@florincoter1988 The arrogance of the modern scientific community in a nutshell.
The Yellow. Sabines were witches. The nazis called the ancient Saxon Wivern (a symbol used by a Division of the British Territorial Army in WWII) the yellow devil.
@@pyropulseIXXI undergraduate where? mozambique? You are lying about your understanding of the field.
I searched UA-cam for "physicists in fantasy world" to find exactly this kind of video, and it knew exactly what I meant. Glad to see I found another channel with a firm grip on reality.
Good tip. Searching for anything that disagrees with the mainstream is difficult especially with all the new clone channels that are “flooding the market”.
@@jay.u I agree. Divide and conquer, or is it compartmentalize and capitalize.
The garbage it suggests for my kids is also disheartening to see.
Nothing but distractions.
The fantasy search didn’t have any decent results for me. But pseudo and out there did. Mostly still things that you have to read between the lines on, because it goes against the one telling the story.
nice confirmation bias
Man you almost gave me the creeps!
I'm also a physicist and struggle every day to understand this nonsense!
Thanks God I'm not alone anymore!
Now back to real physics!
Thank you so much!
You are 100 percent not a working physicist.
How do you think physics is going to progress?
I'm also a physicist, but I wouldn't presume to declare something I don't understand "nonsense".
Yeah, the entire consensus of the field says the opposite of what this dude thinks. Along with the the same following of barely educated, obviously mentally ill followers saying "OMG THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO EVER YOU ARE THE BEST FAKE PHYSICIST EVER MAN!"
@Camptonweat I do understand. So sorry but I do fully understand. Never mind...
Great information and truth about the ridiculousness of these type of projects given the expense involved but 10 to 1 it'll go through
Hi Jon s. I haven’t got even a subscription to ‘Owl’ magazine to speak to my qualifications to discuss the substance of this UA-cam matter of importance, but I just like to pose the question here for consideration of other better trained minds;
So they keep building these things, and creating all this justification in the public domain. When no real public support is probably necessary to secure the funding. But is there any other potential or actual use these colliders can be directly used for or maybe adapted to perform that would help clarify why ‘we’ need to produce more of them??
The posting here provided is of course very important to debunk the premise that we need them, but I’m just wondering if it is about more than just career advancing prestige or money to those groups who supply parts and do the build and operate tasks.
They got that basketball spinning on one finger but all we are seeing is a blurry image of the surface not the mechanics (no pun intended?) of how this is possible.
Posted day 3/23 from Jen in Canada
I love your style, the world nowadays is getting more and more shady and less reliable
Thank you Alexander for calling out these car salesmen.
😮
I love you brother Alexander this is good work you do.
Your really call yourself a physicist? So much sarcasm and taking the worst possible meaning of words but actually not doing a critical review of the work you "cite". If you actually paid attention to the round table discussion, most of the people on it were skeptical of the new collider. Your entire MO seems to be anti-establishment BS which I guess must get you the clicks on your videos. This is just embarrassing.
The panelists skeptical? Are you kidding?
Unzicker reminds us that if we unauthentically wallow in appearing 'smart' for an audience, we will ALWAYS be uncovered. Watch out!
Good questions. I have long wondered why the Doppler Effect is the only possible explanation for the red shift.
Look into Halton Arp.
Well done, well said! It is all very sad!
I enjoyed so much watching this.
Footnote: THANKS for this item. Appreciate what you did. Keep up the good work! Wissenschafts Filosofie at its best. Danke aus Holland.
Let them build jet another huge particle accelerator. It would be interesting to see what they do when the Higgs "signal" would turn out to be not demonstrable there. Wait a moment. I know already: such a confirmation experiment will be declared to be not cost effective and never done.
Higgs signal?
It is far more likely they will blow up the Earth or irradiate everyone than discover anything new with a new particle accelerator.
@@Squidlark Yes. A Particle has never actually been demonstrated. Just some noise in decay sequences roughly fitting assumptions and ignoring anything not fitting them was presented as actual discovery.
@@rosomak8244 That's an intelligent way to put it. Thanks for the explanation.
@@Squidlark I think you'll find that on closer examination a similar amount of data ignoring or outright tampering is present in modern climatology.
Wow! You have no idea how much I've enjoyed this, you are a breath of fresh air in the science landscape, and I'm sure you are considered an heretic by academia, which for me is always a sign of someone being a step ahead. I'm not a physicist by the way, I'm a self taught phylosoper and researcher on the origins of civilization, I'm a true skeptic, meaning I question everything and I'm ready to accept as much, as opposed to the cult of skepticism led by people like Shermer that questions anything that isn't part of the consensus, and accepts anything as long as it's part of the consensus.
I loved every point you made here, it is pure common sense, everything you say I've said myself, and the usual response is that I don't understand physics and I should get a PhD before opening my mouth, a fantastic argument, that in real life would make having any conversation impossible, I mean, can we talk about cars without being mechanics? Can we talk about music without being musicians?
Anyhow, I'm very happy I've found your channel, thank you for the great content and the honest approach to science.
Thank you for explaining why the two teams found different energy levels. Then even worse it turned out the two teams did communicate. Yet these things were waved off and the discovery was announced. So we are to understand that lack of rigor was allowed because their funding was at stake.
Thank you for your honesty, I've been arguing this for years.
Prof Unzinker Rocks!
acc. to wikipedia he has no academic degree as Prof. just saying.
@@gl3906 Then check out Professor Hosenfelder who presents similar concepts.
Wonderful video. I would say that all people involved in physics should read two books: On The Division of Nature by John Scottus Eriugena and A Theory of Natural Philosophy by Roger Boscovich. The former will show them how to use logic and the apophatic method; the latter shows a completely different way to look at the interactions of particles or fields, whichever you feel makes up the material Universe. I have only read Part 1 of The Theory of Natural Philosophy, which covers his theory completely, but it made me rethink all that I know about physical interactions. Fair warning, neither book is a quick read, both are highly intelligent and released in the 9th and 18th centuries, respectively.
By the way, I have read and love the Higgs Fake and Bankrupting Physics, both wonderful books to read.
Check please my comment above, I think you will find some similar that you says. Best wishes!
Boscovish's book is the one Nikola Tesla is reading in the photograph of him in his chair in front of his flat circular coil.
To use logic you first have to know it. For a brief and accessible introduction I would rather recommend Kuratowski "The Set Theory".
😂 LOLhaha aH aha haHL
It would be interesting to check how much money we spent really per year e.g. for colliders, for astro physics, for nuclear fusion or for semiconductor research or maybe AI (by government and commercially). And compare it to lobbying and bureaucracy.
Very nice one, thank you for that point of view, this should happen much more often these days!
It would be great fun to see you in the podcast "demystify science" ... If you want to have a thoroughly elaborate exchange, this is a place to go 🙂
Yeah, I probably won't read his book, but would appreciate an interactive presentation of his views.
Excellent presentation. Sanity is in short supply these days
These guys just need to say the new particle collider will be used to investigate the impact of the Higgs Boson on climate change, and they’ll never be short of funding.
It will sound funny, but there is research about impact of cosmic rays on the climate and/or whether formation. they have scientific papers published. :D it sounds out there, but they are doing estimation. think what you will.
@@zurabkepuladze3986 I remember hearing about an observed inverse correlation between clouds and cosmic rays. I don't know anything beyond that and in any case am not qualified to evaluate the merits of the theory. What I can say, even as a regular layperson, is that climate change research reeks of bias and corruption, and I'm skeptical of anybody who profits from it in any way. The people in this video remind me of them.
Fund research on how to enhance the atmospheric methane sink by mimicking natural processes? Nooooo! People might stop trying to reduce their carbon footprint. Bring on the tipping points!
if
Tipping point due to high altitude moisture? What do you think about jets leaving contrails made of water vapor at hogh altitude. These jet aircraft are spreading moisture right where we don't need it. They are gonna push us over the tipping point with their jet exhaust, isn't it so? An olypic swimming pool worth of jet fuel turned into water and then spread at altitude, thus accelerating climate change towards that runaway global warming.
This is hugely important and absolutely overdue analysis. - It's getting so embarrassing, that the opposition finally takes ground.
If I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Krauss said in one of his lectures that he couldn't pray without the Hadron Collider. This might have something to do with them needing another one and suggest that Quantum theories are religious to them as well.
Mr. Unzicker you have a sense of humor like the great german-american actor Christopher Waltz!! i just came across your channel and am really enjoying the content
What an entré to the New Year! It made me both laugh out loud & cringe at the same time. Fabiola is an intellectual fraud! It's laughable they're so smug but just highlights the magnitude of the problem facing physics & cosmology: there's a total lack of intellectual honesty... & the odd thing is, it's not limited to these disciplines; it's everywhere. Thanks Alex!
@@lorandhorvath4466 I guess that, unfortunately for people like yourself who want to discredit high energy physicists no matter what, scientific prowess does not necessarily correlate (or correlates only so much) with linguistic proficiency. An an aspiring scientist myself (and somewhat of a humble but competent polyglot) I have one or two suggestions as to why this happens. Nonetheless, the reasons don't really matter, as you clearly aren't interested in them.
Whereas I agree it'd be nice for everyone to undergo additional language training in order to improve communication, as I'd actually massively benefit from that myself on the receiving end, we should actually be glad that talent is given the chance to shine instead of overly burdened with unduly expectations. Because, at the end of the day, true linguistic proficiency in foreign languages comes from the admixture of innate linguistic talent, the closeness of the language in question to one's own mother tongue and early (!) exposure. A majority lack any one of these, and many enough miss out on at least two whether we like it or not. Even if we enforced a better command of English - exactly for what? Noone wants to read a verbose paper when it can be written in simple terms.
As far as I'm concerned, if I wanted to make it personal and also really absurd, I'd also be extremely happy if the majority of non-scientists were to become better language users. As you see, I can also set an arbitrary bar to discredit whoever I want from some proverbial marble tower. Alas, barring linguists, I could also say you guys mostly suck (on average that is). Going further, I'd even state that, even despite his/her limitations and the rather limited interest, the average scientist is more linguistically aware than the average person. Taken globally, most people don't really need English for their job. Researchers mostly do, whether they like it or not. And whereas I've read enough awful papers, most scientific literature manages to be succint but legible enough. I doubt you can and should expect much more from non-linguists or other language-heavy fields.
@@lorandhorvath4466 You commented 9 minutes ago and already have an upvote. Stop upvoting your own comments, it's ridiculous.
You asked - albeit in a much more prosaic fashion - whether their knowledge of physics somehow correlates with their level of English. I've provided an answer. If you aren't prepared for answers, don't ask - but don't waste people's time, Mr. Bla Bla.
As for your question: I'm in the process. Whether I possess it already or not doesn't really change anything regarding our the language discussion. It's not like you respect that qualification anyway, since you're happy to disrespect those who possess it. But okay... Childish.
@Lorand Horvath And now you've deleted your comments... Nice!
Thanks for the video. When the great reset happens you will get your bank account frozen for mocking them
Particle physics is like smashing repeated wine glasses to find stems and bases and then claiming something new.
Hi, not arguing with you. What other alternatives are there to figure out what matter is made of and how to prove existing of particles that constitute the said matter?
Marvelous, delightful piece, congratulations..
Great channel. Thats science, challenge the mainstream ideias.
TBH, whole video is like an misinterpretation of words as you want. When they say that higgs was observed in rare decay they 100% correct, because higgs branching ratio to 2gamma decay is 0.2%. It's not dirty channel, because "every particle" don't decay into a pair of 60GeV photons.
You are confirming what I said. According to your definition, every channel today is rare, because the "frequent" decays have already been seen in past experiments. You should let sink in the absurdity to consider a 2 photon decay however.
@@TheMachian No. Rare means in comparison with other decay channels of a GIVEN particle. You can say if channel rare or not if you already observed particle and know it total decay width.
What absurdity of 2 gamma decay do you mean? 2gamma is easiest thing to observe on LHC because of low background.
9:15 Mucho Kuku is a very poor scientist but a moderately decent scifi author who, by calling it futurism (wild guesses about the future), sells his speculative scifi with no character or story arcs as nonfiction.
Exactly!! He's a very dull version of Carl Sagan.. who apparently didn't do any science, just moderated 'working groups' who did real science. Every person who graduates with a bs degree should be required to put in at least 10 years employed outside Academia in the 'real world' where you have to Produce the work you were hired to do. Only after a proven Practical Work Resumé should they be allowed to pontificate at the Masters level. Then go back out there for another 10 years before coming back for a phd. Goes for ALL degrees in all college programs.
@@sandrabailey3966 "I've worked in the private sector. They expect results." -Dan Aykroyd as Ray Stanz in *Ghostbusters*
The collider method is violence. Please keep that in mind. Its brute force isn’t exactly taking atomic nucleus apart, but more like smashing or shooting it into pieces. Therefore, its results will likely be fragments of elementary particles rather than the elementary particles themselves. At least, it is inaccurate or even dishonest, unintentionally, of course, whether the they are talking about reality or their wishful thinking, a dream, or lying unconsciously, such as sleepwalking.
@@ZeroOskul Good observation and excellent quote.
i hate mitchiu caca.....
instead of an new accelerator, in my opinion, we should verify the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum theory, i.e. study the entaglement for larger masses and their gravitational behavior, check whether randomness really exists - try to check the repetition of physical experiments s on a very small scale etc
Oh No!! Not being able to REPEAT the Results!! Not Checking Your Work!! Not Proof Reading the Math Used?? Not making sure they aren't pulling another 'Hocky Stick' garbage math formula like the one that started the Global Warming Political Gold Mine. Don't Say you don't TRUST them.. lol
Pilot wave is more interesting.
A side thought, related though to your subject: more ought to be done on availability (sharing) of original research data: most often they are not published. More also on detailed reporting of details of experimental procedures so it is easier to repeat them. More on detailed description of computer simulations - mostly it is not possible to repeat them due to the lack of these details (authors are often not even aware that some details play a huge role)
@@AroundPhysics yeah like the metrology labs should release their data about the physical constants. They are constant, right?
@Zbigniew Koziol worked with research scientists while they tried to organize their work in a presentable form for lectures, presentations to groups, and publications. Original data usually isn't collected in a way that can be included in a published article. Too bulky. Nor do most scientists have any understanding of basic computer programs. They turn over data to the IT folks and wait. Particularly in Physics. Renaissance Minds are extremely Rare.
This vieo gave me a good laugh ! Great job Herr Unziker !
Great video Unzicker, I've been a fan for awhile and would love to have the honor to exchange ideas. I just wanted to comment on a couple things on how I agree that today's physics is becoming a disgrace to human intelligence and particle colliders are the biggest waste of money and only strengthens the fact that money controls, corrupts and demoralizes our values, goals and advancements to prove nothing but that we also can destroy things on the smallest levels along with one of the biggest. Keep up the good work though and getting that true knowledge out!
Dark matter is not dark matter! it is potential energy (Aether) waiting to be polarized (pushed or pulled) or transformed by another form of energy (+ or -) it's actually quite simple. Electromagnetic waves and gravity are all disturbances by that energy transforming (changing polarity). Just a quick note to point out that polarity can mean multiple things but an easy term to explain unbalanced because ultimately, energy can never be at a point of equilibrium. People would argue elements are at that point but we don't live long enough to see that they actually aren't. The standard model is complete nonsense and everyone is be taught or presented with false, abstract ideas to fulfill an ego or whatever reason but damn near all of it is wrong! Everyone should find out themselves and they would be surprised at what they find. if anyone wants to test me by experiment, debate or any other means by way of actual fact please feel free to contact. there will be proof and publications in the near future with my conclusions.
Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo. However, do not expect I can comment on your papers.
It's so interesting to see physicists disagreeing with each other on the cutting edge of high-level knowledge. But it's easy to see human nature involved in getting grant money by many of the same people. Thank you, professor. Quite entertaining.
Glad you liked it. I am Dr., not Prof. btw.
@@TheMachian The irony is I can make energy more efficiently than a nuclear power plant using Extremely high decibels from a sound driver...
@@TheMachian professor of 'neuroscience' by the way, which... doesn't have much of a connection to theoretical physics. I wonder how much of this you actually understand...?
So, the only question I have is what do YOU suggest to do? Should we all abandon our hopes to improve the models of hadronic interactions, hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions? Should we all get fired and start making videos for youtube? Should we cancel our hopes to reach the center-of-mass energy in collider experiments equivalent to highest energies of cosmic rays, so the problem like muon puzzle will never be solved completely? No QGP studies at higher energies to get the clear signals of it formation, to study the higher PT region? No search for deviation of rare decays branching? Leave everything as it is with current models not being able to describe inclusively all processes that happen at high energies?
What I see in examples you have shown, is the struggle to provide the simple explanations of the problems that are studied now. And yes, the stars couldn’t shine with different electron mass, and yes, it is both good to see whether the standard model make a correct prediction or we observe something that directly contradicts it.
It is easy to criticize, but it would be much better to see the proper suggestions and solutions.
Just because we don’t have somewhere better to throw mountains of money doesn’t mean we should throw it in a hole.
@@lkytmryan Oh yeah? So that’s why it is better to leave thousands of brilliant minds without jobs and that’s why Europe is wasting billions in bs like global warming fight with “climate lockdown” and “clean energy” and sending useless military equipment for a proxy war in Ukraine?
@@РоманНиколаенко-ъ9й Europe has a the largest collider in the world and they are still wasting billions on climate change so I don't know what you are talkin about.
Those 1000s of brilliant minds can surely figure out some way to make money, otherwise, how brilliant could they possibly be?
@@lkytmryan Of course they can figure it out. The question is, is it better for them to waste their potential in doing useless money earning, like making youtube videos, or try to achieve our goals? If it is okay to waste money in something non-scientific, why not to “waste” it to science?
So happy you are questioning this fiasco. Lets have a new standard model theory - one that actually explains nature.
Unzicker just continues to demolish the zicking of mainstream physics!
Never enough iterations of Michio Kaku's signature phrase, "that's right".
Appearing confident is what he sells. That and the silly hair style.
We live in a world where morons with courage get away with this .
These guys should be rated as entertainment.
Its like a religious orthodoxy...thank you for challenging this.
Is it now? It is more akin to the papacy of the reformation. all about the money.
The more they deny god, the more messed up they become....Mere guesses...simple as that
Thank you for this post, we need to revert back to reality and sanity somehow.
Dr. Unzicker, I've been a viewer of your channel for quite a while now and I must say, you're remarkable and amazingly lucid. It would really help if I could get your e-mail address for elaborate discussions and keep myself updated. You're a person I highly admire, so it would be nothing less a dream to interact with you, very eager to hear from you...
I've deep interests and curiosity in the same fundamental questions that you pursue...
Feel free to get in touch via ChannelInfo. Do not be disappointed however in case I might be unwilling to discuss specific theories...
The compartmentalization at LHC is just begging for an inner circle to cook up positive results too
If the results found there where truly fundamental, we would see independent replication by other huge nations like China, the US or Japan or maybe even India. Jet for some reason none really bothers.
That's how I feel about contemporary physics - it's all just fantasy land.
Well done! A breath of fresh air!
Professor Unzicker makes some excellent points. One quibble about the start of the commentary. The exaggeration about the “Superman Particle” is actually understated compared with the hyperbole of other Highwaymen in Labcoats. It is the “God Particle”, according to the Nobel Prize winning Highwaymen. I call them “the Higgs Bozos”, named after an American clown from 60 years ago - “Bozo the Clown”. And don’t get me started about Michio Kaku and the MIT genius. The MIT guy has trouble making even casual observations about the Boston skyline, visible from MIT’s academic quad. Kaku has a similar problem with making basic scientific observations (“lightbulb and heater counting”) in New York. A phenomenon I first noticed in 1999. I’m sure I was at least 15 years late figuring it out. FYI, the reference to Feynman was jarringly out of place with the marketing oriented people with Physics Doctorates….
"Nevermind that I'm basically talking gibberish, I'm a smart man so give me money"
It's not gibberish just because you don't understand it.
@@anderslarsen4412 What he says is easy to understand, in contrast to particle physics. That is why people who are not able to understand physics but want to be smart listen to that bs
They should be charged with fraud.
@@mrgadget1485 making untrue statements for public science /educational grant funding, which steals funding from ethical and legitimate claims. When's the last time someone went to jail for stealing public funds it's ridiculous.
long ago I played golf with the CEO of a company that received mega-sized contracts from the US govt on scientific and defense projects, so I asked him about the SSC (to be built in Texas long ago) and assumed he'd be very sympathetic and enthusiastic about its construction. He laughed and said "welfare for the over-educated". I was younger and naïve at the time, but now I understand.
And then all the money and worlds scientist went to EU. Is that a win?
this "no" decision would have been a win if gvt had put the money into a revised ORNL Thoruim-MoltenSaltReactor project (now actually Shanghai grabbed the baton; see GordonMcDowell's UA-cams).
A high temperature MSR couldn't just produce Hydrogen (cheaply) and electricity, it could supply process heat to refineries, chemical industry, and cement ovens! With that source of heat available today (not in 30 years) it would be economical to extract tar sands now and then in 30 years to do CO2 capture and make high quality, sulfur-free diesel and gas from H2CO3 and CO2.
I live near a well known taxpayer funded national lab - his description was dead on LOL!
great video! there is here plenty material for a stand-up physicist :)
Alexander, this is your best one yet. Thank you. I have to say, I’ve listened to Hitoshi Murayama speak elsewhere and found him not quite as fanciful, nor as kitsch for that matter, as this superhero inspired guide to new particle physics presentation. And as far as Michio Kaku goes, what should one really expect from a part-time populist “futurist.” The panel discussion - that’s another thing altogether… Kudos for staying till the end. As an aside you could ask if the approximate $257 billion spend (when adjusted for inflation to 2020 dollars) on Project Apollo between 1960 and 1973 made scientific sense if not to win a space race in an otherwise heated cold-war game of upmanship.
I mostly agree with you when it comes to the LHC. But I can’t help feeling that building it was a kind of a natural evolution from the days where physics motivated man-made accelerators as far back as the 1920’s. Geiger and Marsden for example, showed, by bombarding atoms with 5 to 10 MeV α particles, the massive nucleus. Or, Gamow’s suggestion that there exists a finite probability for lower than 1 MV energy particles to tunnel through the Coulomb barrier of light nuclei thus encouraging Rutherford and other others to start studying methods to accelerate particles beyond hundreds of KV. :-)
Thanks for your informed comment. My upcoming book will be about that history.
Apollo was worth every cent spent on it. Labs are still analyzing the rocks and get new results nowadays. it was important to have astronauts, and a trained geologist to do the sampling on site; it couldn't have been done by robots back then. Now the story is quite different. With modern robotic rovers (and seismometers) much more could be achieved at lower cost and faster than with manned missions. Actually, it is the same stupid situation with Artemis, ITER, and nextCollider: those mega-projects draw the funds away from really good R&D.
What about measuring the gravitational constant G in a satellite, in a faraway solar orbit, not just here on Earth? A higher precision (and a check, which of the measurements down here were wrong) should be achievable!
Observation, repeatability, skepticism, ... good physics remembers all the past embarrassing falsehoods that grip physics. My favourite was the mass/charge ratio, I believe Millikan, publish an Ex value and no one wanted to contradict the great man so for a long long time, everyone repeating the Ex got the same or similar result. Let's have Sabine and you lead a panel on the subject of the Stand-Mod and the LCH, ... would anyone actually step onto that stage for that debate?
Nice to see anyone use critical thinking skills….keep up the good work….love the humor
While I am and always was really interested in physics and lately even ventured in studying the standard model jst to understand that it has not really predicted anything but rather is good at describing what is observed. So I am still proud of my choice to become a Chemical Engineer and had a lifelong chance to actually crate some real projects.
Hi! Can you give a bit detail on your chemistry career? - organic chemistry? Which areas would you recommend studying in upcoming years? Good reference material? Etc. Little summary be appreciated.
hey pal, saying that SM has predicted nothing is conspiracy theory as bad as moon hoax. The fact that it does not describe whole universe is more of the reason to fund more research to gain better understanding of fundamental things (that is if u are not a retrograde).
@@zurabkepuladze3986 no it really hasn't though. Almost everything in it was defined before SM and the SM itself is incomplete. Human beings are really good at "reifying" concepts into reality that have no basis in reality. i.e particles would be one very good example.
it's like watching a bunch of underdeveloped humans smash rocks together to explain anything. modern science is a joke. nothing is tangible its all based on predictive models where the result is calculated first then they input numbers to to reach the result. it's the reverse of science, the upside down. the backwards. these people [live] backwards
@@maeton-gaming are u kidding right now? There was no gauge field theory before that, people were using multiple fermion effective interaction approaches, no one knew about existence of gauge boson, Higgs mechanism, breaking electro weak symmetry, true nature of electromagnetism, existence of quarks, flavor violation, cp violations, mass mixing, renormalization, unification of the constants, etc. Wake up to reality. Read if u are not aware.
It's all about getting money for your projects that your interested in and keeps you employed.
There are no particles, there are only fields. Simple.
Prove me wrong with proof not theory
Kaku was born in San Jose, California, to second-generation Japanese-American parents. He might have a Japanese name, but he is NOT Japanese.
Ignorance is strong with One (or so he tries to appear). With attitude like this we would still be shooting spears and resisting the introduction of bow and arrow.
Most particle physicists total inanity towards their atomistic reduction presupposition and ignorance of Hamilton and other mechanical pioneers are inconsequential to technological advances , at best and at worst inhibit progress
Hi, I remember the hype related to the LHC years ago, and one of the examples that was repeated in media over and over and over again was that the science behind LHC (or particle physics) is what enabled the development of MRI machines that save thousands of lives. Now, you pointed here out that particle physicist tend to presents results from other fields as their own (or at least, being enabled by their research), so I was wondering, was collider science crucial to the development of MRI, or is just standard physics already covered by research in other fields?
It is propaganda that colliders enabled MRI. If ever, the contributed to the technique of generating strong magnetic fields.
@Unzicker's Real Physics Thank you for your reply. Related to strong magnets, I see that more as an engineering challenge, in the realm of applied science; even if strong electromagnets were first designed for a colider, it's a bit disingenuous for them to claim the MRI for their field.
MRI pioneer Raymond Damadian was a 6 literal day creationist , weird huh
I've been a fan of ken wheeler for years so seeing the title of your video made me EXTREMELY CURIOUS.
I may edit this comment after Iw atch this video.
Great video! I of course bought "The Higgs Fake" and look forward to read it!
"Please! We just need another €400 billion for a new collider which is fast enough to open the bottomless pit".