I have been to CERN, seen the accelerator ring and stood in the detectors and also help build some of the detector electronics that are in those huge detectors
A scalar field is not a field that has the same value everywhere, it is just a field that has a scalar attatched to every point. An electric field is a vector field, because there is a vector at every point in space.
Not sure if what he meant to say was a "single value at each point" and just mistakenly cuts it at "single value" and went with using the words "same value" because he did say after that the strength (or magnitude) could vary. Theoretically, you can have a scalar field with the same magnitude everywhere. If the Boson as a particle is the product of the field and bosons have the same value and what determines resulting mass of matter in the field is the result of the interaction, then one can actually say that the higgs field is a scalar field with the same value everywhere. Why? Because if the field have different values, then the mass of an object will be differ depending on where it is in the field and we will not have a gravitational "constant". This actually does not break the definition of a scalar field which just state that a each point is associated with a single value. Yeah we would be hardpressed to find a real example of a non-isolated system that has that quality but the universe in a state of heat death would be a good theoretical example of a scalar field with the same value everywhere.
I was so lucky, I had the chance to visit CERN with a science excursion with 17, i saw the ad on instagram (lol). I didn't went underground but I was in a giant warehouse where the ATLAS Detectors was build and in a model of the tunnel.
Me: "Mom, can we have Superconducting Super Collider?" Mom: "No, we have Superconducting Super Collider at home." Superconducting Super Collider at home...
CERN uses and puts a bunch of work into KiCAD.... which is pretty much the best free PCB design tool. To get anything better than KiCAD you need to pay several thousand dollars. Also... I'd rather spend half of what we spend on defense on pure research, and so we can stay more advanced that everyone else.
That would be awesome, but sadly I don't think we have anywhere near the level of Space launch infrastructure that it would take to build and maintain such a facility, the logistics alone would be a nightmare :( Hopefully we'll increase space launch capacity enough to build massive research facilities in space in our lifetime :)
I guess "mid-size" it somewhere on the scale from a single cell to an asteroid. Big enough to not experience quantum stuff, but small enough to not become a sphere due to own gravity. I just made this definition up, but i think it reasonably well define the borders.
25:15 the problem with explaining particle physics to 5 year olds or even the general public, is they're not breaking anything apart. They're creating new particles with the energy of the collisions. They're not disassembling existing particles. The lego or particle smashing analogy falls flat.
Are you sure about that? The protons are made of 3 quarks, and a certain number of gluons. When they collide, they definitely brake apart. BUT what happens them is that they seem to pull quarks and gluons from the surrounding space, and form fast moving hadrons. A hadron is any subatomic particle built from quarks (mesons and baryons). The main difference with lego is that the particles created when recombining decay. And the Higgs Boson was detected through the decay of it. But yes, some particles are also created, such as photons. So the reality is in between what you claim and what the general public believes.
@@fabr5747 Wrong. Just plain wrong. They do not "pull in" quarks and gluons from the surrounding area. The energy that goes in to the collision _literally becomes_ particles in the collision. E=mc2. Look up what happens when you try to "pull apart" quarks. The energy that goes in to moving them apart _literally becomes_ a pair of quarks to bind to those separated quarks. Literally, particles are _created_ in the collisions. No, the energy does not appear out of nowhere, but the particles do appear from the energy. She talks about it ~ 13:05 The energy _literally becomes_ particles.
@@ashkebora7262 1. Did I EVER say that energy appears out of nowhere? 2. Among the particles that are discovered, many are rearranged quarks and other elementary particles. Look at the 06/30/17 symmetrymagazine publication (joint Fermilab/SLAC publication) with the title "What’s really happening during an LHC collision?" What do they say? "When protons meet during an LHC collision, they break apart and the quarks and gluons come spilling out. They interact and pull more quarks and gluons out of space, eventually forming a shower of fast-moving hadrons. " And among the particles created from elementary particles, some quickly decay. 3. Example of those recombined particles from fundamental particles? CERN article of the 5 July 2022 "LHCb discovers three new exotic particles". Those are hadrons created by the collision. 4. Yes, some new particles are created, such as photons, but those are massless. And otherwise, for every matter created by the energy, the anti-matter equivalent is created as well. And they quickly go back to energy by annihilating each other.
Shippingport was, I think, the first commercial nuclear power plant. Construction started in 1954, produced it's first power December of 1957, but it wasn't commissioned until May 1958. It was shut down in October of 1982, and then was the first nuclear power plant decommissioned from 1984 to 1989. Anything that they thought might have had any contact with any radiated material was painstakingly removed and put on barges and floated down the Ohio river, around the southern tip of South America, and eventually taken to Washington State. Last I saw it it looked like a lovely park with walking paths, but it was surrounded by very tall fences.
Honestly, to ELI5, you should start with the atomic model and then wonder aloud about what could happen if we broke the atom, what if we broke the broken bits? What if we glued it back together?
This is off topic, but I don't understand what people mean when they say "part of this video" was sponsored. Veritasium does this too. What's the meaningful distinction between a video being sponsored, and "part of a video" being sponsored?
Depends on what you think consciousness or “life” is exactly. Is it contained in the atoms your body is made of, or are “you” the arrangement of those atoms? There have been arguments about this all the way back to Epicurus, and I expect that if and when we do invent teleporters, we still won’t have solved it.
@@caliperstorm8343Even if "you" are the arrangement of atoms, you would still be dead while in transit. You will be destroyed while being scanned, the data of how you are arranged is transmitted, then you are reconstructed at your destination. The debate isn't whether it'll kill you or not, it's whether the "you" that appears at the destination is truly you or just a copy of you.
New dimensions would be cool. Regarding peoples concerns about teleporters Being cloners. So long as the cloning happens after storage the information is continuous and not terminated branched then terminated. It's only a problem if they disassemble you after not as they scan you. Also every time you fall asleep you are discontinued and cease to exist. You are mostly different after 7 years.
I got to see atlas during the 2019 opendays and it was so incredibly more massive than what I expected. Made me regret not planning more to be able to see all sites. I really wanna visit Iter too.
16:07 No, it's not a scalar field because it has the same value everywhere, it's a scalar field because it's value can be described by a scalar at every point. (e.g. it's not a vector, spinor or tensor...)
"Strange in that they decay randomly" The name "strange quark" comes from the early history of particle physics. Initially just the proton, neutron, electron, and muon (basically a heavy electron, identified in cosmic rays even before particle accelerator experiments got started) were known, but as people started building particle accelerators, they'd get particles that were extra massive and just... different. Physicists initially cataloged all these particles and noticed a pattern, and they labeled them with a "strangeness number," where protons and neutrons (and anything made up of just up and down quarks) had a strangeness of zero, but a lot of other particles had non-zero strangeness. So the strangeness number was just a way of quantifying how similar to protons and neutrons a particle was. This was before the quark model was even developed, and it was just trying to catalog what they saw. Eventually, scattering experiments revealed structure inside protons and neutrons, with the experiments behaving as though things were scattering off of three points within the protons and neutrons. This gave rise to the quark model, where you identify that protons and neutrons are each made up of three quarks. But as soon as you put together the quark model, you realize that the strangeness number exactly corresponds to the number of a third kind of quark: particles with strangeness 0 had 0 of this third kind of quark, particles with strangeness 1 had 1 of this third kind of quark, and so on. So they called the third kind of quark a "strange quark," but it all goes back to that original labeling where they were just trying to catalog how strange a particle was in the sense that it wasn't like a proton or neutron. Once you have "strange" as your formal scientific word for a thing, and you get away with it without the public noticing, you start naming the other ones things like "charm," "truth," and "beauty," but then someone comes along and spoils the fun by changing those last two into "top" and "bottom." And so the six known quarks are up and down (the normal ones that make up protons and neutrons), charm and strange, and top and bottom (and they're thought of in pairs like that, with the charm quark being similar to the up and top quarks in many ways, with properties like the charge exactly the same between them, but the charm quark is more massive than the up quark, and the top quark is way more massive than the charm quark... we only see up and down in normal matter precisely because the other ones are essentially more massive versions of up and down, and because they're so similar there's nothing like a conservation law (you're not allowed to change the total charge through a decay process, for example) to stop the charm quark from decaying into an up quark and releasing all of its extra energy, much like radioisotopes decaying)
All engineers should be, and most are scientists, but not all scientists are Engineers. Any person who uses the scientific method as a practice is a Scientist.
Naaaah I am an electrical engineer, we use a little math and science to get an idea of what we are doing and build a prototype, then we hit it with a hammer until it fits the requirements. As soon as this is the case, we release it. No scientific process involved here, the customers won't pay for your science and the owners/shareholders will not approve.
If I’m not mistaken, the smallest things relative to humans are much much much much smaller than the largest things are “large” compared to the Vitruvian man. There is a several order of magnitude difference between the tininess of quarks compared to objects like TON 618 or Phoenix A
Oooh nice. We got a new term today. “Barn” Add that to the list of shake, pressure, temperature, confinement time, high energy neutrons, rads, shielding, etc lolol
13:58 If they work backwards how does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle play into it? Does this mean they are guessing energy and/or location multiple times (not to mention the assumptions or their equations being correct and then being correctly calculated) in order to then say what it originally was? Hopefully this was just an extremely dumbed down explanation otherwise I want a tax refund.
They're working in distribution space: they sample the final particle distribution, form an estimate of it, and then the initial distribution is well-determined (HUP is a property of the distribution, not of its time dependence). This is presumably why they can't just call it quits after their first few collisions. It's not enough data points to estimate a full distribution.
Strange quarks definitely exist. They were called "strange" because they were unexpected. Supposedly someone asked, "Who ordered that?" upon reading the about discovery.
Another way to think about research spending versus defense spending is that a lot of defense spending IS research spending. Lots of science and technology that eventually makes its way to civilian use begins in military projects.
I heard somewhere that you can trigger vacuum decay with a large enough collider. It said something about it needing to be as large as the solar system or galaxy. Can't say for certain though.
I'm pretty sure I've heard it described as needing a circumference similar to Pluto's orbit. There is a chance that it was in relation to another question, so don't quote me on that. But I think that's it.
I watched a video a week or two ago where it was argued that they did not in fact discover the Higgs. Err much like the picture of the black hole it was essentially just a misinterpretation of the data collected and when reviewed more stringently the signal dropped below a three sigma.
Now I'm wondering about the return on investment of different 'moonshot' projects, in terms of spin-off tech. That's basically the argument being made here that the "direct output" of the fundamental research may not be directly valuable but the tech developed along the way is. I found it hard to quickly find comparisons with more applied "moonshots", such as sequencing the first DNA (cost same order of magnitude as the LHC). Anyone got any pointers to overview studies? I have a feeling that the return brought by LHC and future colliders is at the point of diminishing returns compared to more unexplored fields.
Collective knowledge is what drives us forward. And any additions to that knowledge, should be not only welcome, but sought after. I know nothing about any of this, but I know that when people question things, when people seek knowledge, and question the status quo, whether intentionally or through discovery, we all advance. Yes, discovery can lead to advances in the wrong direction, but, it is also, fundamentally, the only thing driving us forward to improve anything. When people ask these questions, the first step is already taken. "what if we're wrong?", "Why is it this way instead of that way?", "How can this affect this?", "what if this is actually this?" etc. But, then, to seek the answers to you're questions. That is a truly important thing to do. The road to those answers alone, even if those answers are never found, will lead to new discoveries, more collective knowledge that can be used to answer other questions, and more questions that can then do the same thing. Then, those questions and answers begin to be applied in new ways. Suddenly advancements in medicine, in workplaces, in computer science, and anything else you can think of begin to happen. Those advancements then bring more people, more supported, happy, and thinking people around to ask even more questions, and then our collective knowledge begins to increase even more. I hope they build the bigger one, since they say, it'll help them expand their knowledge. That, is 9/10, nothing but a positive for society.
There is a lot of amazing things to learn as a result of what is studied there . I also look forward to the ancillary discoveries and technologies. Who knows. Maybe one day manipulation of Higgs-Boson interactions or ' dark matter' could be used for gravity manipulation tools, or more easily managed fusion or who knows what. Funding for these, and space exploration is difficult to assign these days for sure. (Irritating, given how much waste there is in places). I do want to see more colliders, observatories, study/energy reactors, description wave detectors and more built and actively in use. It's a just shame how much misinformation they're is out there about this facility. The fears of a black hole design the planet, alien invaders or portals to heaven/hell are annoying to me for many reasons. It is especially frustrating as a person of faith, since 'half-truths', incomplete statements and outright falsehoods seen especially crafted to share with believers in order to misinform and spread fear and outrage to people without the foundational knowledge (as most of these things are intentionally aimed). Often the things parroted are in direct contradiction to Scriptures, (and many repeating the claims don't necessarily have a strong foundation of scriptural knowledge). And then there are many that don't understand the technology and principles in question, thus develope unnecessary concerns. I sometimes wonder if it's done specifically to spread the incorrect assumption that science and faith are opposites. People like Destin Sandlin of Smarter Ever Day are great example that Science and Faith can reinforce and drive desire to learn more. (Granted, the iconography and 'prank' have concerns in my mind, but it's not about the machines or experiments) I thoroughly enjoyed this video (as most in this channel) and look forward to more, and more in depth stuff in general.
25:07 I never understood why complex studies aren't thought at a young age. I mean, Asians have so much more knowledge with numbers than the average student in most of the western countries. And i don't mean having to explain with comparison, I'm saying to teach calculus (for instance) as is since it's mostly about imagining abstract concepts. Who knows what may come out from those fresh minds... But what do I know?
You can DEFINITELY explain it to kids. - example 1, send a lego on a lego, and you see the parts... - example 2 (more fun), send a kid on a kid, at the speed of light, collect the remaining, and you can see what adults are made of... Was it dark?
@@Hissmannenscientists says it can happen, engineers makes it happen, and mechanics picks up the slack when the thing that makes it happen suddenly doesn't make it happen anymore.
Based on the hiar width scale. The force of a hand clap would be solar system ending. But that's cuz that's an insane scale. This would be like instant fusion of a moon sized neutron
I remember a student close to me at university sside ther could be a underlying frame work that shows gravity magnetism and atomic forces have the same starting point or constituentsnwho make up their feilds and particles like even more elemental than qwarks, or particles that ge to gether and form a foton from a change in an electrons enerdy.
So the discovery of the Higgs is a funny thing in a way that she didn't get to in the video: It's really exciting, but in some ways the discoveries at the LHC are the worst case scenario for experimental particle physics. The LHC has seen the Higgs and nothing else. That exactly confirms the Standard Model. If they ruled out the Higgs, it would break the Standard Model in a very concrete way that would give theorists a definite thing to take hold of in developing new theories. If they saw a new particle beyond the Standard Model, it would give them a different concrete piece of evidence to work with. Now, confirming the theory might sound like good news, and in some ways it is, but there are some problems with the Standard Model, just not ones that accelerators have been able to measure. They mention dark matter, but there are also issues related to the nature of gravity, things like CP violation which is needed to explain the amount of matter in the universe (the Standard Model would predict that we couldn't have nearly the stars and galaxies that we have), and more. Large scale observations of the universe hint that there must be some physics beyond the Standard Model, but particle physicists, who have built up this very successful framework of Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model specifically, can't really explain these observations. Taking dark matters as an example, it's assumed that it's made of something, that there's a particle of some sort that doesn't interact strongly with other matter, but nothing like that has ever been seen in a way that explains our observations of dark matter. If they'd seen a new particle that isn't part of the Standard Model but could fit as an explanation for dark matter, it would be a clue that could tell physicists so much more... but the LHC saw nothing like that. So there are obviously some things that are missing in the particle physicists' understanding of the universe, but all of our accelerator experiments (including the LHC) fail to find new details about these issues.
There is zero evidence dark matter exists, or at least it's not the "strange immeasurable magic matter" that people think of. The reason they think it exists is because of large scale measurements of matter in the universe consistently show that there should be more matter than what they can currently measure, and they can measure its effects. The easy explanation is that it's just simply very very small particles of dust spread throughout the galaxy, electrically charged, interacting with everything else. It's there. They just can't measure it yet. The galactic current sheet is a good example of this.
"Strange matter" matter with strange quarks (s quarks) -- one of six types of quarks. The actual particle similar to the proton and neutron is probably a lambda particle. I sometimes wonder whether any of the most massive of atomic nuclei might have a lambda or two in the center, along with the 1s alpha-particle core. I wonder if it would be discovered were it there. The "God Particle" is about the most asinine possible name for the Higgs boson. I've never been able to persuade our office administratrix that nothing was spiritual about the Higgs boson. (A UA-cam video claimed that the authors of the book referred to the particle as a stronger version of "that doggone particle".) Better: contrast a "scalar" with a "vector". A vector is an arrow, while a scalar is a number.
Einstein is reputed to have said "as our island of knowledge grows, so, too, our coastline of ignorance". The more we know, the more we know that we don't know anything....
The best had to be Don lemon discussing the disappearance of flight m370 or whatever it was. Anyway he put out the idea of a tiny black hole having consumed the passenger aircraft, not as a joke or hyperbole etc etc... Even if he'd been kidding it would have been entirely inappropriate because this was when the plane had just gone missing. It was an aggressively stupid thing to say
I would like you to make a video about the supposed shortage of enriched uranium worldwide. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, you just talking on camera about it would suffice.
What's funny is if you go back and do the diligence of reading all those articles it's only the headlines that are salacious actual content of the article is totally sound
To explain it to a kindergarten level of intelligence, eg average citizen IQ... - Use two particles built from lego and smash them together. The lego bits are the quarks. -
I wish I could have visited CERN. You don't need conspiracy theories. @CERN the looking glass. And a wonderland mini theme. ALICE detector and an almost perfect fluid, and the white rabbit timing ToF. OS root and trees and libraries. Even things like a time projection chamber. Not what some may think, it's just a pickup area. They even have a grey book, but nothing about aliens lol. XD More Alice in wonderland physic and math. Tweedle sets ( fast Fourier transformation ), H3 superfluidity boojum, snark graph theory and color theories and quantum cats. Alice strings and Alice rings. Mad hatter an anagram for mathed art The wonderland memetic in science and math. As far as bigger accelerator. They need to look at intergration of gravitational wave detection. Probability and predictability. Particle production from quantum foam and gravitational waves and energy density regimes and limits. 23:01 telleportation. Every atom stripped from a body and mapping of types. Information sent for the parts. Algorithmic representations of brain functions and memory structures. DNA/RNA printing and bioprinting. Not easy and not what most might think. Intresting video keep up the good work.
I meeeeeean. It is kind of odd how the so called "Mandela Effect" wasn't a thing until after they ran this. Also the state of existence did seem to change drastically as well. Coincidence? Probably. But something changed whether it was related or not.
What happens at CERN is of no conCERN.
I’ll see myself out for that one…
Thank you for that one !
Leave not in shame for thine wit, Nor pretend accident.
Set forth wordplay, firmly send,
And all puns, proudly intend!
why send particles near the speed of light when we could send particles even more near the speed of light
Higher energies.
@@MyToxicMasculinitysince when has that stopped us lol
@@tdubmorris5757since the scientific budget was limited to one project a year pretty much
@foshyurgason not saying we will do it now but it will probably happen eventually, or something similar
I say we build this huge hadron collider of the future, then we can nickname it the HuHa Collider.
Also known as ''scissoring''. Badum tch!
I have been to CERN, seen the accelerator ring and stood in the detectors and also help build some of the detector electronics that are in those huge detectors
A scalar field is not a field that has the same value everywhere, it is just a field that has a scalar attatched to every point. An electric field is a vector field, because there is a vector at every point in space.
Not sure if what he meant to say was a "single value at each point" and just mistakenly cuts it at "single value" and went with using the words "same value" because he did say after that the strength (or magnitude) could vary. Theoretically, you can have a scalar field with the same magnitude everywhere. If the Boson as a particle is the product of the field and bosons have the same value and what determines resulting mass of matter in the field is the result of the interaction, then one can actually say that the higgs field is a scalar field with the same value everywhere. Why? Because if the field have different values, then the mass of an object will be differ depending on where it is in the field and we will not have a gravitational "constant". This actually does not break the definition of a scalar field which just state that a each point is associated with a single value. Yeah we would be hardpressed to find a real example of a non-isolated system that has that quality but the universe in a state of heat death would be a good theoretical example of a scalar field with the same value everywhere.
I was so lucky, I had the chance to visit CERN with a science excursion with 17, i saw the ad on instagram (lol). I didn't went underground but I was in a giant warehouse where the ATLAS Detectors was build and in a model of the tunnel.
Me: "Mom, can we have Superconducting Super Collider?"
Mom: "No, we have Superconducting Super Collider at home."
Superconducting Super Collider at home...
Swiss Schools often offer visit for teenager to the CERN to spike their interest for Science, I visit it twice and both time were amazing.
It’s crazy you don’t have more subs you make science fun
Error. Human is Dead, mismatch.
Saw this coming lmao.
I knew someone would make that reference.
CERN uses and puts a bunch of work into KiCAD.... which is pretty much the best free PCB design tool. To get anything better than KiCAD you need to pay several thousand dollars. Also... I'd rather spend half of what we spend on defense on pure research, and so we can stay more advanced that everyone else.
How about Orbital Hadron Collider as a geostationary orbital ring around Earth? Accessed through space elevators.
That would be awesome, but sadly I don't think we have anywhere near the level of Space launch infrastructure that it would take to build and maintain such a facility, the logistics alone would be a nightmare :( Hopefully we'll increase space launch capacity enough to build massive research facilities in space in our lifetime :)
I guess "mid-size" it somewhere on the scale from a single cell to an asteroid. Big enough to not experience quantum stuff, but small enough to not become a sphere due to own gravity. I just made this definition up, but i think it reasonably well define the borders.
I have a vague memory from my 45 years in the past college physics class that the Barn has a smaller variation called a shed. Am I correct?
thank you so much for your commentary! Fantastic channel. Please keep it up and keep giving me a reason to not turn on a tv
25:15 the problem with explaining particle physics to 5 year olds or even the general public, is they're not breaking anything apart. They're creating new particles with the energy of the collisions. They're not disassembling existing particles. The lego or particle smashing analogy falls flat.
What is so hard about explaining that? You just did it and you’re M:O;R!O’N
Are you sure about that?
The protons are made of 3 quarks, and a certain number of gluons. When they collide, they definitely brake apart. BUT what happens them is that they seem to pull quarks and gluons from the surrounding space, and form fast moving hadrons. A hadron is any subatomic particle built from quarks (mesons and baryons).
The main difference with lego is that the particles created when recombining decay. And the Higgs Boson was detected through the decay of it.
But yes, some particles are also created, such as photons.
So the reality is in between what you claim and what the general public believes.
@@fabr5747 Wrong. Just plain wrong. They do not "pull in" quarks and gluons from the surrounding area. The energy that goes in to the collision _literally becomes_ particles in the collision. E=mc2. Look up what happens when you try to "pull apart" quarks. The energy that goes in to moving them apart _literally becomes_ a pair of quarks to bind to those separated quarks.
Literally, particles are _created_ in the collisions. No, the energy does not appear out of nowhere, but the particles do appear from the energy. She talks about it ~ 13:05 The energy _literally becomes_ particles.
@@ashkebora7262
1. Did I EVER say that energy appears out of nowhere?
2. Among the particles that are discovered, many are rearranged quarks and other elementary particles.
Look at the 06/30/17 symmetrymagazine publication (joint Fermilab/SLAC publication) with the title "What’s really happening during an LHC collision?"
What do they say?
"When protons meet during an LHC collision, they break apart and the quarks and gluons come spilling out. They interact and pull more quarks and gluons out of space, eventually forming a shower of fast-moving hadrons.
"
And among the particles created from elementary particles, some quickly decay.
3. Example of those recombined particles from fundamental particles?
CERN article of the 5 July 2022 "LHCb discovers three new exotic particles".
Those are hadrons created by the collision.
4. Yes, some new particles are created, such as photons, but those are massless.
And otherwise, for every matter created by the energy, the anti-matter equivalent is created as well. And they quickly go back to energy by annihilating each other.
Shippingport was, I think, the first commercial nuclear power plant. Construction started in 1954, produced it's first power December of 1957, but it wasn't commissioned until May 1958. It was shut down in October of 1982, and then was the first nuclear power plant decommissioned from 1984 to 1989. Anything that they thought might have had any contact with any radiated material was painstakingly removed and put on barges and floated down the Ohio river, around the southern tip of South America, and eventually taken to Washington State.
Last I saw it it looked like a lovely park with walking paths, but it was surrounded by very tall fences.
Honestly, to ELI5, you should start with the atomic model and then wonder aloud about what could happen if we broke the atom, what if we broke the broken bits?
What if we glued it back together?
This is off topic, but I don't understand what people mean when they say "part of this video" was sponsored. Veritasium does this too. What's the meaningful distinction between a video being sponsored, and "part of a video" being sponsored?
teleporters definitely kill you and makes a perfect clone at the destination. at least how we have described it so far
That’s not even close
Depends on what you think consciousness or “life” is exactly. Is it contained in the atoms your body is made of, or are “you” the arrangement of those atoms? There have been arguments about this all the way back to Epicurus, and I expect that if and when we do invent teleporters, we still won’t have solved it.
@@caliperstorm8343Even if "you" are the arrangement of atoms, you would still be dead while in transit. You will be destroyed while being scanned, the data of how you are arranged is transmitted, then you are reconstructed at your destination.
The debate isn't whether it'll kill you or not, it's whether the "you" that appears at the destination is truly you or just a copy of you.
New dimensions would be cool.
Regarding peoples concerns about teleporters Being cloners.
So long as the cloning happens after storage the information is continuous and not terminated branched then terminated.
It's only a problem if they disassemble you after not as they scan you.
Also every time you fall asleep you are discontinued and cease to exist.
You are mostly different after 7 years.
26:04 „Are you fine? Do you need a hug“😂
Ive been to CERN about 15 years ago. One of the most memorable days ive had. Just looking at that thing is crazy
I got to see atlas during the 2019 opendays and it was so incredibly more massive than what I expected. Made me regret not planning more to be able to see all sites. I really wanna visit Iter too.
I just KNEW you were into golf! Keep up the amazing work, legend. Love, from Sydney, Australia.
16:07
No, it's not a scalar field because it has the same value everywhere, it's a scalar field because it's value can be described by a scalar at every point.
(e.g. it's not a vector, spinor or tensor...)
Money gets destroyed.
You have to love the channels whose only selling point is really hot lady talking.
"Strange in that they decay randomly"
The name "strange quark" comes from the early history of particle physics. Initially just the proton, neutron, electron, and muon (basically a heavy electron, identified in cosmic rays even before particle accelerator experiments got started) were known, but as people started building particle accelerators, they'd get particles that were extra massive and just... different. Physicists initially cataloged all these particles and noticed a pattern, and they labeled them with a "strangeness number," where protons and neutrons (and anything made up of just up and down quarks) had a strangeness of zero, but a lot of other particles had non-zero strangeness. So the strangeness number was just a way of quantifying how similar to protons and neutrons a particle was. This was before the quark model was even developed, and it was just trying to catalog what they saw. Eventually, scattering experiments revealed structure inside protons and neutrons, with the experiments behaving as though things were scattering off of three points within the protons and neutrons. This gave rise to the quark model, where you identify that protons and neutrons are each made up of three quarks. But as soon as you put together the quark model, you realize that the strangeness number exactly corresponds to the number of a third kind of quark: particles with strangeness 0 had 0 of this third kind of quark, particles with strangeness 1 had 1 of this third kind of quark, and so on. So they called the third kind of quark a "strange quark," but it all goes back to that original labeling where they were just trying to catalog how strange a particle was in the sense that it wasn't like a proton or neutron.
Once you have "strange" as your formal scientific word for a thing, and you get away with it without the public noticing, you start naming the other ones things like "charm," "truth," and "beauty," but then someone comes along and spoils the fun by changing those last two into "top" and "bottom." And so the six known quarks are up and down (the normal ones that make up protons and neutrons), charm and strange, and top and bottom (and they're thought of in pairs like that, with the charm quark being similar to the up and top quarks in many ways, with properties like the charge exactly the same between them, but the charm quark is more massive than the up quark, and the top quark is way more massive than the charm quark... we only see up and down in normal matter precisely because the other ones are essentially more massive versions of up and down, and because they're so similar there's nothing like a conservation law (you're not allowed to change the total charge through a decay process, for example) to stop the charm quark from decaying into an up quark and releasing all of its extra energy, much like radioisotopes decaying)
All engineers should be, and most are scientists, but not all scientists are Engineers. Any person who uses the scientific method as a practice is a Scientist.
Naaaah I am an electrical engineer, we use a little math and science to get an idea of what we are doing and build a prototype, then we hit it with a hammer until it fits the requirements. As soon as this is the case, we release it. No scientific process involved here, the customers won't pay for your science and the owners/shareholders will not approve.
If I’m not mistaken, the smallest things relative to humans are much much much much smaller than the largest things are “large” compared to the Vitruvian man. There is a several order of magnitude difference between the tininess of quarks compared to objects like TON 618 or Phoenix A
Oooh nice. We got a new term today. “Barn” Add that to the list of shake, pressure, temperature, confinement time, high energy neutrons, rads, shielding, etc lolol
13:58 If they work backwards how does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle play into it? Does this mean they are guessing energy and/or location multiple times (not to mention the assumptions or their equations being correct and then being correctly calculated) in order to then say what it originally was? Hopefully this was just an extremely dumbed down explanation otherwise I want a tax refund.
They're working in distribution space: they sample the final particle distribution, form an estimate of it, and then the initial distribution is well-determined (HUP is a property of the distribution, not of its time dependence). This is presumably why they can't just call it quits after their first few collisions. It's not enough data points to estimate a full distribution.
Strange quarks definitely exist. They were called "strange" because they were unexpected. Supposedly someone asked, "Who ordered that?" upon reading the about discovery.
Another way to think about research spending versus defense spending is that a lot of defense spending IS research spending. Lots of science and technology that eventually makes its way to civilian use begins in military projects.
Asking for "The 21,000,000,000 hole in Texas" by BobbyBroccoli again because it is related to the LHC
The analogy my chemistry professor used for the size was "imagine a huge soccer stadium. The nucleus is the soccer ball at the center of the stadium"
I heard somewhere that you can trigger vacuum decay with a large enough collider. It said something about it needing to be as large as the solar system or galaxy. Can't say for certain though.
I'm pretty sure I've heard it described as needing a circumference similar to Pluto's orbit. There is a chance that it was in relation to another question, so don't quote me on that. But I think that's it.
@@PBeringerWe'd need some Star Trek level technology for that, but it'd be so awesome.
I watched a video a week or two ago where it was argued that they did not in fact discover the Higgs. Err much like the picture of the black hole it was essentially just a misinterpretation of the data collected and when reviewed more stringently the signal dropped below a three sigma.
BTW - I blame the LHC going to 13TeV in 2015 for pretty much everything that's happened since Lemmy Kilmister died.
I blame lewis powell's memo from 1971 and the Buckley v. Valeo supreme court case he as part of in 1976.
Now I'm wondering about the return on investment of different 'moonshot' projects, in terms of spin-off tech. That's basically the argument being made here that the "direct output" of the fundamental research may not be directly valuable but the tech developed along the way is. I found it hard to quickly find comparisons with more applied "moonshots", such as sequencing the first DNA (cost same order of magnitude as the LHC). Anyone got any pointers to overview studies?
I have a feeling that the return brought by LHC and future colliders is at the point of diminishing returns compared to more unexplored fields.
Collective knowledge is what drives us forward. And any additions to that knowledge, should be not only welcome, but sought after. I know nothing about any of this, but I know that when people question things, when people seek knowledge, and question the status quo, whether intentionally or through discovery, we all advance. Yes, discovery can lead to advances in the wrong direction, but, it is also, fundamentally, the only thing driving us forward to improve anything. When people ask these questions, the first step is already taken. "what if we're wrong?", "Why is it this way instead of that way?", "How can this affect this?", "what if this is actually this?" etc. But, then, to seek the answers to you're questions. That is a truly important thing to do. The road to those answers alone, even if those answers are never found, will lead to new discoveries, more collective knowledge that can be used to answer other questions, and more questions that can then do the same thing. Then, those questions and answers begin to be applied in new ways. Suddenly advancements in medicine, in workplaces, in computer science, and anything else you can think of begin to happen. Those advancements then bring more people, more supported, happy, and thinking people around to ask even more questions, and then our collective knowledge begins to increase even more.
I hope they build the bigger one, since they say, it'll help them expand their knowledge. That, is 9/10, nothing but a positive for society.
There is a lot of amazing things to learn as a result of what is studied there .
I also look forward to the ancillary discoveries and technologies.
Who knows. Maybe one day manipulation of Higgs-Boson interactions or ' dark matter' could be used for gravity manipulation tools, or more easily managed fusion or who knows what.
Funding for these, and space exploration is difficult to assign these days for sure. (Irritating, given how much waste there is in places).
I do want to see more colliders, observatories, study/energy reactors, description wave detectors and more built and actively in use.
It's a just shame how much misinformation they're is out there about this facility. The fears of a black hole design the planet, alien invaders or portals to heaven/hell are annoying to me for many reasons.
It is especially frustrating as a person of faith, since 'half-truths', incomplete statements and outright falsehoods seen especially crafted to share with believers in order to misinform and spread fear and outrage to people without the foundational knowledge (as most of these things are intentionally aimed). Often the things parroted are in direct contradiction to Scriptures, (and many repeating the claims don't necessarily have a strong foundation of scriptural knowledge). And then there are many that don't understand the technology and principles in question, thus develope unnecessary concerns.
I sometimes wonder if it's done specifically to spread the incorrect assumption that science and faith are opposites. People like Destin Sandlin of Smarter Ever Day are great example that Science and Faith can reinforce and drive desire to learn more.
(Granted, the iconography and 'prank' have concerns in my mind, but it's not about the machines or experiments)
I thoroughly enjoyed this video (as most in this channel) and look forward to more, and more in depth stuff in general.
25:07 I never understood why complex studies aren't thought at a young age. I mean, Asians have so much more knowledge with numbers than the average student in most of the western countries.
And i don't mean having to explain with comparison, I'm saying to teach calculus (for instance) as is since it's mostly about imagining abstract concepts. Who knows what may come out from those fresh minds...
But what do I know?
You can DEFINITELY explain it to kids.
- example 1, send a lego on a lego, and you see the parts...
- example 2 (more fun), send a kid on a kid, at the speed of light, collect the remaining, and you can see what adults are made of...
Was it dark?
3:32 The thing that comes to mind for me is creating a micro-singularity that decides it doesn't want to be micro anymore. :D
I want to call it the extra large hadron collider
"Then again, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. That's probably why" 🤣🤣 They always think they're better than us until something breaks.
When something breaks, you call a technician.
We fix the mistakes made by scientists and engineers lol
@@Hissmannenscientists says it can happen, engineers makes it happen, and mechanics picks up the slack when the thing that makes it happen suddenly doesn't make it happen anymore.
RE the World Wide Web: CERN has been around for quite a bit longer than the LHC.
Queue “Out of this world” intro animation. 20 bonus points to anyone that gets the reference.
I personally think they should just rename the FCC to the PCC once it is built. Past Circular Collider
Why Large Hadron Collider, when LARGER Hadron Collider? 😎
Sounds like a bunch of Collage kids grabbing Popcorn and Coke and going out on a weekend to watch a Demolition Derby?
Amazing content as always! React suggestion "DIY Nuclear Fusion Reactor - Deuterium Fusor" from Science Marshall
Never mind nuclear power plants, I want an subatomic particle smasher power plant.
In my car.
Based on the hiar width scale. The force of a hand clap would be solar system ending. But that's cuz that's an insane scale. This would be like instant fusion of a moon sized neutron
I remember a student close to me at university sside ther could be a underlying frame work that shows gravity magnetism and atomic forces have the same starting point or constituentsnwho make up their feilds and particles like even more elemental than qwarks, or particles that ge to gether and form a foton from a change in an electrons enerdy.
I think it's a failure because all reactions happen at the speed of light. Electrons do it all the time.
Every time humans have gone near these energy levels... something have been left behind
14:40 cant wait until we discover the even smaller preschool particles
It allows us to study the fundamentals of matter and our what makes up our reality.
Pretty damn American id say indeed
Almost nobody over here has ever even seen a baseball field😂
So the discovery of the Higgs is a funny thing in a way that she didn't get to in the video: It's really exciting, but in some ways the discoveries at the LHC are the worst case scenario for experimental particle physics. The LHC has seen the Higgs and nothing else. That exactly confirms the Standard Model. If they ruled out the Higgs, it would break the Standard Model in a very concrete way that would give theorists a definite thing to take hold of in developing new theories. If they saw a new particle beyond the Standard Model, it would give them a different concrete piece of evidence to work with. Now, confirming the theory might sound like good news, and in some ways it is, but there are some problems with the Standard Model, just not ones that accelerators have been able to measure. They mention dark matter, but there are also issues related to the nature of gravity, things like CP violation which is needed to explain the amount of matter in the universe (the Standard Model would predict that we couldn't have nearly the stars and galaxies that we have), and more. Large scale observations of the universe hint that there must be some physics beyond the Standard Model, but particle physicists, who have built up this very successful framework of Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model specifically, can't really explain these observations. Taking dark matters as an example, it's assumed that it's made of something, that there's a particle of some sort that doesn't interact strongly with other matter, but nothing like that has ever been seen in a way that explains our observations of dark matter. If they'd seen a new particle that isn't part of the Standard Model but could fit as an explanation for dark matter, it would be a clue that could tell physicists so much more... but the LHC saw nothing like that. So there are obviously some things that are missing in the particle physicists' understanding of the universe, but all of our accelerator experiments (including the LHC) fail to find new details about these issues.
There is zero evidence dark matter exists, or at least it's not the "strange immeasurable magic matter" that people think of. The reason they think it exists is because of large scale measurements of matter in the universe consistently show that there should be more matter than what they can currently measure, and they can measure its effects. The easy explanation is that it's just simply very very small particles of dust spread throughout the galaxy, electrically charged, interacting with everything else. It's there. They just can't measure it yet. The galactic current sheet is a good example of this.
I had a relative that spent his entire career studying dark matter at the JPL and he basically gave up by the end and retired.
"Strange matter" matter with strange quarks (s quarks) -- one of six types of quarks. The actual particle similar to the proton and neutron is probably a lambda particle. I sometimes wonder whether any of the most massive of atomic nuclei might have a lambda or two in the center, along with the 1s alpha-particle core. I wonder if it would be discovered were it there.
The "God Particle" is about the most asinine possible name for the Higgs boson. I've never been able to persuade our office administratrix that nothing was spiritual about the Higgs boson. (A UA-cam video claimed that the authors of the book referred to the particle as a stronger version of "that doggone particle".)
Better: contrast a "scalar" with a "vector". A vector is an arrow, while a scalar is a number.
5Bil$ and here in quebec it cost 10 bil to make a 500 meters bridge.
What's with the intermittent clicking in the background of this video?
0:17
I do what Cern does every evening, but sadly this never changed the world this dramatically. Even if it feels like that sometimes 😂
Einstein is reputed to have said "as our island of knowledge grows, so, too, our coastline of ignorance". The more we know, the more we know that we don't know anything....
do NOT bring Epstein’s island into this discussion 😭
We have 10 active super carriers. That's way too many. We can and should spend less on the MIC.
Gorgeous and incredibly smart. She's pretty good looking too.
What’s at CERN? Brian Cox. Well, sometimes.
So...how much land does styropyro have?
Sabine hossenfelder has some interesting opinions about building a bigger one.
Partials travailing near the speed of light. You need more then safety glasses.
Politically it will be hard to explain to your voters.
why collide them when you can create a channel similar to the hydraulic press one? launch hadrons at watermelons and stuff, fun!
The best had to be Don lemon discussing the disappearance of flight m370 or whatever it was. Anyway he put out the idea of a tiny black hole having consumed the passenger aircraft, not as a joke or hyperbole etc etc... Even if he'd been kidding it would have been entirely inappropriate because this was when the plane had just gone missing. It was an aggressively stupid thing to say
Even the size of a hair seems huge in comparison, google says a human hair is about a million carbon atoms wide. That's unfathomable 😂
Try this video
"I tried to melt down a real-life nuclear reactor"
Channel: First Principles
I would like you to make a video about the supposed shortage of enriched uranium worldwide. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, you just talking on camera about it would suffice.
Can you react to Can a STUPID Amount of LEGO Protect You From the Radiation of a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION?😊
Hopefully before i die we’ll know whether primordial black holes are what make up dark matter
What's this baseball field nonsense? Everybody knows that the standard unit for area is the swimming pool.
No, that's volume
The world ended then restarted so no one noticed is an 11th Doctor (Doctor Who) plot.
16:01 more like: how it exists, not why.
If the Aliens came to Earth, we should all be embarrassed that they see we still use "fossil fuels" as our main source of energy.
Wonder what they could do with 500 billion
Why are we still talking about this? It was over a decade ago. Who the hell still believe crazy theories?
What's funny is if you go back and do the diligence of reading all those articles it's only the headlines that are salacious actual content of the article is totally sound
Ouh strange matter is a very fear inducing topic ^^.
Didnt some dude stick his head in one of these in russia and it screwed him up?
Strange or charmed?
To explain it to a kindergarten level of intelligence, eg average citizen IQ...
- Use two particles built from lego and smash them together. The lego bits are the quarks. -
there is a book call Quantum mechanics for babies.
who cares what aliens think? i would be much more concerned about what they want :D
I wish I could have visited CERN. You don't need conspiracy theories. @CERN the looking glass. And a wonderland mini theme. ALICE detector and an almost perfect fluid, and the white rabbit timing ToF. OS root and trees and libraries. Even things like a time projection chamber. Not what some may think, it's just a pickup area. They even have a grey book, but nothing about aliens lol. XD
More Alice in wonderland physic and math. Tweedle sets ( fast Fourier transformation ), H3 superfluidity boojum, snark graph theory and color theories and quantum cats. Alice strings and Alice rings. Mad hatter an anagram for mathed art
The wonderland memetic in science and math.
As far as bigger accelerator. They need to look at intergration of gravitational wave detection. Probability and predictability. Particle production from quantum foam and gravitational waves and energy density regimes and limits.
23:01 telleportation. Every atom stripped from a body and mapping of types. Information sent for the parts. Algorithmic representations of brain functions and memory structures. DNA/RNA printing and bioprinting. Not easy and not what most might think.
Intresting video keep up the good work.
i have no reason to make a comment
Very sensible that you didn't then.
Hi t folse hola t folse
I meeeeeean. It is kind of odd how the so called "Mandela Effect" wasn't a thing until after they ran this.
Also the state of existence did seem to change drastically as well. Coincidence? Probably. But something changed whether it was related or not.
"but I'm an engineer, not a scientist" - Sir.... You are... You just use applied science to create a device.
Everyone relax. I'm okay! 😊
Are you sure you're okay?