What is driving particle physics?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 гру 2024
- Particle physics research attempts to answer timeless questions - questions first asked thousands of years ago. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln gives an overview of some of the most pressing unanswered questions of physics and describes how it is that scientists are deciding which of these questions to pursue. It’s a grand question that draws the attention of the world’s scientific community.
Dark matter:
• Big Questions: Dark Ma...
Complex dark matter:
• Complex Dark Matter
Dark energy:
• Big Mysteries: Dark En...
Quark structure:
• Big Questions: The Ult...
Antimatter:
• What is Antimatter?
Missing antimatter:
• Big Questions: Missin...
Higgs mass:
• Big Mysteries: The Hig...
Unified forces:
• GUTs and TOEs
Proton decay:
• Can protons decay?
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/p...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov
Dr. Lincoln is the physics professor everyone wish they had.
I’ve been listening to your lectures for years. I’m now 77 years old and I find I enjoy listening to you just as much as I did in the beginning, which shows that you must be doing something right. Physics IS everything!
I have recently watched Sabine’s video on why she was disappointed with particle physics, and this is the most inspiring and thought provoking answer I have ever seen. Thank you for you work and dedication!
@ozzymandius666this is eric w. fake screen name
Sabine has a lot of very good questions and points, but sadly I often find her oversimplifying the issue to the point of misrepresentation.
Followed her channel for quite some time but not anymore. It was amusing for some time but more and more she started acting like a spoiled child denied a sweety. Sad really.
As I recall she was criticising bad science where when the experiment didnt produce results the scientists would go back, change the goalposts and ask for for money. It wasnt that particle physics was inherently bad so much as the approach and behaviour in the field not being good science.
This is actually healthy. A scientist critisizing other scientist's work. It's the way of science. We should be glad we had both Sabine and Don
A new Fermilab video with Dr Don lifts my morning! Clarity and a warm voice - and still rocking the look! Thanks Dr Don and Ian.
Loved this pause to revisit the core driving force behind so much research: _Curiosity._ Great video as always!
No, from what physicists have actually said its fear of not publishing. They will investigate anything if they can find the funding. I think only the major players are allowed to do any real research.
I think that if I had seen this simple, direct overview when I was young I would have gone into physics!
IMO the first physics class you take should go over all of the high level stuff, and progressively go back explaing how we got there, until we get to Newton, and then, and only then, should we start doing equations. Because when the students inevitably say why can't we learn the cool stuff, the reply is you have to learn this stuff before you can learn the rest, here's an equation. None of that makes sense to you. That's why you gotta start at the bottom. I am 100% sure that would have interested me in physics instead of what I got.
Does your second head agree with that declaration, Zaphod? Or can you only convince noggin’ duex to accept that mindset after a few Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters?
Would have gone into physics and then would have been kindly walked off physics ❤
Zaphod, I DID go into physics when I was young and I think if I'd seen this overview then, I would have spared myself the pain.
Particle physics at its core is highly abstract complex mathematical jiggery-pokery that is ridiculously reductionist and utterly incapable of asking the truly meaningful existential questions.
@Michael Bishop EINSTEIN HAS BEEN SURPASSED BY DIMEGLIO:
Consider what is THE EYE. Now, consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE Moon in direct comparison WITH what is the ORANGE AND setting Sun. (They are the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE !!!!) Notice that what is THE EARTH IS ALSO BLUE, AND notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. Great.
What is gravity is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Great.
CLEARLY, have proven the fourth dimension ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE.
The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great.
A given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal area in equal TIME !! INDEED, I have proven what is the fourth dimension. Great.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Another informative & thought provoking video from Dr. Don & Fermilab! 👍👍👏👏
I appreciate all the scientific speakers I've stumbled across. I'm especially grateful when those channels try to tackle deep mysteries of the universe, as science should, rather than tackle other scientists.
I've watched dozens of Don's videos, but the production of this one in particular was a class act. I'm subscribing to catch these more often!
I like this guy. It's refreshing to see Dr. Don describing where we are at with physics in a realistic and balanced way. Humility and open mind instead of being smug and arrogant. This is what we need to find more truth/facts.
9:49 I'm afraid it's not Koshiba or Kajita...
Dr Lincoln, it's great to hear your words on this. You probably know that one of our physics colleagues, Sabine Hossenfelder, has a public and somewhat negative stance on the current way particle physics works. In my humble opinion, she is being biased , but who am I to say. And that is exactly why you should invite her for a debate 😊 If nothing else, it would be entertaining and informative.
I picked up on the same thing. Frankly, this video seemed more like a sales pitch than anything else. Sabine's point regards how the finite monetary resources available for research should be apportioned.
@@drbuckley1 I understand where she comes from, but unfortunately she seems to be going further then suggesting how to better use taxpayer's money. She picks on the fact that theories or updated to higher energies when nothing is found at current ones. Don here explains how this process isn't random and real thought is put behind financing new experiments, regardless of what one or two theorists might say. The process is not driven by "moving the goal post", as she puts.
@@GustavoValdiviesso I understand where Don is coming from. Sabine has been consistently critical of CERN and its science. I am unqualified to know which is correct. I do enjoy the debate!
@@drbuckley1 Yeah, a debate would be great, for sure.
@@GustavoValdiviesso I believe Sabine's criticism of CERN is mainly centered around the FCC - she isn't saying that all particle physics experiments should be stopped. She's saying that there isn't a very compelling reason that SUSY should be correct, so the FCC should be deprioritized in terms of funding.
I'm learning how to write cuneiform on clay tablets, and I'm very surprised to see one of those tablets in the very thumbnail of a new video by my favourite Physics UA-cam channel! Great video as always, Don!
In a world that thinks it knows everything, it was great to hear a list of the unanswered questions that remain. Time is such a basic building block, but it might be more complicated than we assume.
QUOTE-
"in a world that thinks it knows everything, it was great to hear a list of the unanswered questions that remain."
You *do* realise that you just contradicted yourself there don't you?
You stated that "we think we know everything" while watching a video that literally states that we don't.
No one "thinks we know everything", trust me.
Well., no one outside of Twitter anyway...
🍄
@@the_unrepentant_anarchist. Actually I think he hit very close to the truth. I have seen too many remarks to video's - and videos too - that are very close to postulate that we know every thing. It is usually from people that read and believe everything in text books without understanding it. They memorise but don't verify. They believe that they are very smart and knowledgeble because thay have learned and memorised things that others haven't or have a healthy doubt to.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093
You're talking about the general public- idiots- whereas I was thinking more along the lines of scientists, academics, people who know what they're doing. They'd be the first people to tell you that we don't know everything, but if you're talking about ordinary people, then I concede your point- *those* fuckwits all suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, and have *vastly* over inflated senses of their own actual ability.
Social media has told them that they're all special, and they honestly believe everything they read online and most of 'em wouldn't know what 'research' was if they had to look through a dictionary to find out....
🍄
@@the_unrepentant_anarchist. You started my quote in a place that left out the operative words "IN A WORLD that thinks it knows everything".
Happy to have stumbled across this channel! Thanks for the great video.
Thank you Don. Another thought provoking video.
You should not forget one important reason why this high end research is important: It gives the best heads of the whole world countless opportunities to really push their theoretical and practical abilities to the absolute possible limits of today's best technical and mathematical achievements and beyond. So in stunning groups of young and also experienced scientists everybody learns from each other and from experiment controlled either by mathematical proof or by experimental data (never by just a selfish boss). There is no better motivation to learn than this. Eventually many of these experts leave university and hire jobs in the free market. And here they are very successful because they have been trained to solve the most difficult problems. So science also is a giant school for experts! And that's an enormous and not payable benefit for society in general. Every cent spent on science comes back hundredfold by this "educational mechanism".
What I like about science, is that the answer to a question often leads to many others. Somehow it's totally inefficient, like art, poetry, ... and that's really cool!
I wondered if a voluntary and kind of "applied science" oriented approach (P5) is really a positive thing, many discoveries having been made through unconventional methods and serendipity!
What an astonishment all of this would be, for some of the physicists of the late 19th century, who had foreseen the "end of physics"!
I think you are right. By this approach, only the most promising experiments get funded. But "most promising" says who? Of course on the flip side, experiments are getting so much more expensive now. You can't avoid being vetted. This is the state of particle physics.
Take a bow Don. Exceptional video 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Massive respect to all the scientists driving this sort of thing
It's true, the delivery of information can awaken higher cognitive understanding when the style of the message and information is given in a way that recognizes everyone's ability to think. What a wonderful way to approach these incredible concepts. Thank you for your open and sincere clarity. I wish you were my graduate professor. Sub'd and thumbs up!
More specifically dealing with proton decay, some ideas that theorists have have some flexibility to them. Grand Unified Theories (which is where the idea of proton decay comes from) and supersymmetry are two prominent examples. Both have appealing theoretical ideas, which lead to reformulations which are compatible with the negative experimental results.
Supersymmetry? It should have been found at CERN. The biggest problem with particle physics is scientists who refuse to accept that they were wrong and just move the goalposts instead. At least you didn't mention string theory, which is another dead horse.
@@JCO2002 I agree on supersymmetry, though technically it has never been entirely refuted. As for string theory, there hasn't been a definite enough prediction to be ruled out by experiment, so it's not really in the same category.
@@waverod9275 String theory is more of a theory failure - after all this time, there's still no useful prediction. Unlike the Higgs, where the prediction had to wait for the right tools to check it, string theory is still writing for the prediction.
Great video, Dr. Don! As you say it is important to step back to see the bigger picture. It does not look like there has been much progress in high energy physics unless you take the long and broad view! The reality is that it is interdisciplinary and advances are spun out all the time without the general public seeing or understanding them.
Wow, that was one of your best.
Would like to see this in 20 years and have some answers
Stand further away from the green screen, and/or add more side lights. There's visible green hue on the sides of your head.
What kind of license does one need to drive physics?
Coffee. Coffee is what drives particle physics.
Excellent as usual, Don Keep it up.
There's a little bit of the suggestion that the remaining questions are finite, and we just need to derive the right test. Just from a layperson's perspective, we have no idea what our vantage point on reality really is. We're only going to be able to observe downwards and outwards to an extent before there's nothing that can be built to go further and we may never be able peek outside of whatever expresses our 3 dimensional world and I'm not sure we could comprehend what we'd find anyway.
What would happen if all these were suddenly and definitively answered? Followup: can it be said either way if there is an 'end' to physics discoveries?
And, if there is an "end," can we afford to find out? Bigger accelerator or crewed mission to Mars? Which offers a "bigger bang for the buck"?
@@drbuckley1You’d need to define bang for the buck. Accelerator may reveal more deep fundamental answers about the universe, and could drastically enhance our technological capabilities. Mission to Mars is a step toward preserving humanity
You need to solve your green screen spillover problem. Your video editor should be able to do this handily.
this video is so much more than just particle physics, it is all physics, all science
Sabine Hossenfelder is one of those who has spoken out against building new particle accelerators. I would love a discussion between Dr Lincoln and Dr Hossenfelder about this. Not a debate, a discussion.
Fantastic video. I'm going to use your simple explanation of how scientific theories are created. Your comparison between the theorizing and experimentation was so clear and concise, I must share it!
To add: this is a great video for high school physics (or introductory science) teachers to show to their students. Without too much detail it highlights the knowledge-seeking aspects of science which are applicable regardless of discipline. It also encourages thinking and asking new questions.
You mentioned that CERN created the World Wide Web 30 years ago. But the internet predates that by a long ways. I was at Fermilab in 1977 and was shown the internet by a scientist I was meeting with. He sent a message via a teletype to a colleague in Sweden and got an answer a few minutes later. Unfortunately I was not impressed as I did not understand the importance of what was going on.
This is a fallacy that Cern and Fermilab like to put forward. It is completely and utterly untrue, in fact is to an out and out lie. the Internet was a joint effort between the US government and a number of University research centers. Fermilab was one of them, but in no means created by them.
I attended a NATO conference in 1977 at which DARPA representatives explained their Internet system, already in place and functioning. The whole thing was concocted by the U.S. military and a few university contractors. The idea was to connect the Air Force's far-flung missile silos to a single, secure, and robust data link with Cheyenne Mountain.
WWW and internet are different things.
@@glowerworm Agreed. One led to the other.
@@typingwithmyaxe4808 the whole America is copy of Europeans lmao.
Thank you for a truly, level headed video. Bravo.
It seems logical that baryonic matter would be crushed out of existence and turn back into pure energy inside a black hole only to tunnel out as dark energy.
Love you videos!! Thank you Dr. Don. You are a reason to not mind paying taxes!
And thanks for all the wonderful videos. They helped a lot in getting through some of those dark uncertain days of the pandemic.
"Pandemic"?
Great video! I appreciate the explanations of the current work being done and the questions said work are trying to answer.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that no ads are run on this channel? I’m certain it’s not that they don’t meet the criteria. Perhaps they don’t run ads due to it being part of the government.
0:00: 🔍 Scientists are always looking for better equipment and experiments to answer big questions.
3:25: 🔬 Advancements in particle physics have led to a better understanding of the subatomic realm.
7:01: 🔬 The Fermilab research program is upgrading their particle accelerator complex and developing new particle detectors to address unanswered questions in the standard model and explore historical trends in physics.
10:26: 🔬 Dark matter remains a mystery, and particle accelerators are crucial for physics research.
13:45: 🔬 Scientists are evaluating ideas for future projects and conducting research to answer fundamental questions about the universe.
Recap by Tammy AI
great . . . at this writing (typing?) there are 80K views . . . you science folks need to spread the word to the other 8 billion of us!
it's the only way to get the backing we need to get the research going.
It seems like as times goes on, it becomes more and more expensive to build the equipment we need to test new ideas. With that being the case, what are the chances there that will ever be big jumps in our knowledge again? It seems like things will just slow down until we aren't learning anything new anymore. But we still won't know everything.
Apparently a misattributed paraphrase from the beginning of last century, or earlier (late 1800s-early 1900s), but appropriate here: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
We're also way richer than we used to be, so relatively it is not much more expensive.
It just seems like we've been stuck on these same questions forever and making little progress. How do we put this on fast-forward?
Once again, your videos are just excellent. Thank you.
Love your work. Your my favorite modern physics. Your on the level of Einstein. Your a unsung hero.
There was once a lot of excitement about neutral particle accelerators. How the heck does one accelerate a neutral particle?
Gravity acts on all particles and can thus be able to accelerate them. There is also the possibility of accelerating a particle with charge and then somehow convincing it to decay with a neutral particle as a by product.
"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains two problems relating Electrodynamics and Cosmology. Problem 4-22 starts with: "In 1959 Lyttelton and Bondi [Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A, vol. 232, p.313] suggested that the expansion of the Universe could be explained on the basis of Newtonian Mechanics if matter contained a [tiny] net electric charge."
A follow-on problem, Problem 10-11, mentions that correction terms to curlB and divE due to the creation of this charge should be on the order of R^-2 where R is on the order of the radius of the Universe, so that the new terms would be negligible at all length scales but cosmological situations. This hypothesis is consistent with the linear velocity-distance observations.
Rather thought-provoking questions from an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
I wonder if somehow gravitational waves are able to combine or strengthen in certain situations that cause increased gravity in areas we don't expect because we are still learning how it all works. I just wonder if we end up with the universe being overall simple (once we understand things more) or complicated beyond our imagination..... Probably both. Great video! Thank you for doing what you do! 🍻🌎❤️🌮🎶🚀
Many thanks for the insightful outline of the frontiers of the modern physics. In order to answer the challenging questions you raised, I would like to discuss a concern I have regarding the nature of time. The standard answer is that time is what a clock tells. A clock is always a physical process and Its reading is obtained as the change of the process divided by a calibrating constant. The change of a physical process is the product of time and changing rate. According to special relativity, the time of a moving inertial reference frame becomes shorter. Physicists including Einstein immediately conclude that the moving clock will tick more slowly than the stationary clock based on an assumption that clock time is the same as the relativistic time (the time satisfying Lorentz Transformation). But this assumption does not have any supporting evidence. In fact, the period of the moving clock as an interval of the time of the moving frame will become shorter too, which makes the frequency of the moving clock faster, rather than slower. Consequently, the clock time of the moving clock based on the product of time and frequency remains the same as that of the stationary clock because the relativistic effects of time and frequency cancel each other out in the product, i.e., clock time is Lorentz invariant, absolute and independent of the reference frame. The absoluteness of clock time can be illustrated more clearly in the following reasoning:
We know that a physics variable can only be defined once and double definitions will either lead to contradictions or redundancy. As time has already been defined by physical clocks, there is no room for Einstein to redefine it through Lorentz Transformation.
Consider a series of vertically standing candles as clocks with the same initial height and the same burning rate, moving at different constant horizontal velocities relative to an inertial reference frame (x, y, z, t) where x, y, z, t are relativistic positions and relativistic time. At moment t of the relativistic time of the reference frame (x, y, z, t), all candles have the same height H relative to the reference frame (x, y, z, t) and the height H represents the physical time of the clocks. Therefore, we have the simultaneous events in both relativistic time t and physical time H relative to the frame (x, y, z, t):
(Candle1, x1, y1, H, t), (candle2, x2, y2, H, t), …, (CandleN, xN, yN, H, t)
When these events are observed on anther horizontally moving inertial reference frame (x', y', z', t'), according to special relativity, these events in the reference frame (x', y', z', t') can be obtained through Lorentz Transformation:
(Candle1, x'1, y'1, H, t'1), (Candle2, x'2, y'2, H, t'2), … , (CandleN, x'N, y'N, H, t'N),
where t'1, t'2, …, and t'N are relativistic times of the events in the frame of (x', y', z', t'). It is seen that after Lorentz Transformation, these events in the frame (x', y', z', t') have different relativistic times:
t'1 ≠ t'2 ≠ … ≠ t'N
These events are no longer simultaneous in terms of relativistic time in the frame (x', y', z', t'), but the heights of the candles remain the same H because the vertical heights here do not experience any Lorentz contraction. As the heights of the candles represent the physical time, these events still have the same physical time, i.e., they are still simultaneous in terms of the physical time H in the frame (x', y', z', t'). Therefore, the physical time is Lorentz invariant, absolute and independent of the inertial reference frame, which is different from relativistic time. Thus, relativistic time is not the physical time measured with physical clocks. Based on such an artificial meaningless time, special relativity is wrong.
Some people argue that atomic clocks won't behave like that. Please note that all atomic clocks can use the height of a stick to represent their accurate time without any problem and these sticks will behave exactly the same as a candle clock. As long as it is a physical clock, its measured time won't change with the change of the reference frame.
Others argue that special relativity has been proved by numerous experiments. As all relativistic effects have to be shown through the changes of physical processes and all changes just like clock time are Lorentz invariant, absolute and independent of the reference frame, you can never see relativistic effects in real physical processes and all so-called relativistic experimental proofs are misinterpretations of other effects such as the effects of aether, the existence of which is a direct conclusion of the disproof of special relativity.
With the existence of aether, many unexplainable phenomena seem to be easily understood: the gravitation of aether helps binding stars in galaxies, the flow of aether pushes galaxies away from each other, the aether wave generated by the motion of a particle makes the particle show the particle-wave duality, etc.
I would greatly appreciate your feedback on this comment.
Is this a response to sabine hossenfelder?
Who?
The right question isn't "Why are we doing science?" It's "Why aren't we all doing it yet?".
The next level of answers will come from a new direction. We rely on equipment to measure the matter. That is to say, we’re getting our answers third-hand. We’ll soon figure out how to detect/measure the fields, eliminating a step.
For example, take the Gluon’s role in Mass. It makes sense. It points us to a field as it isn’t the Gluon itself, rather, the interaction between them. The theory is as elegant as it is cohesive. ;)
7:11 However, there is a problem. 9:18 Can protons decay?
Shoutout to the scientists at Fermilab for keeping up the research on humanity's oldest questions found in writing, like "what is the Universe made of" and "why was the copper I received of lower quality than expected?"
🤣
Physics is magical and Dr Lincoln is a magician at helping me to a deeper understanding of reality.
"We now understand gravity and how it works." -- Oh yeah?
I applaud the scientists scratching that itch in the back of my mind.
Thanks for the video and for sharing the enthusiasm and intellectual brilliance of the many who are engaged in these research projects. The only bad vibe came up with the mention of P5. Not wanting to disparage anyone or their efforts, the reality of human relations is that power is as important, perhaps even more so, than the search for truth and doing the right thing. For a group to decide which projects are worthy and thereby influence the granting of funds is scary. But then, that goes on anyways.
Neil’s team predicts dark matter is a neutrino that is massive. If so one of them must be massless to break the oscillation and uncouple from the Higgs. Which he also predicts is not fundamental but a composite particle. Such a cool time to be alive and to love physics.
Great video. Thank you. Just guessing the ansers to your questions (provocative): 1. galaxies are spinning faster - looks like it there is some additional magnetic force behind the surface, 2. Universe expanding OR NOT - ie. time dilation rather than space expansion, 3. smallest blocks - strings - in 5 dimensions only, 4. there is a hidden dimension, that's why you can't find your anti-matter, 5. what about gravitons, makes sense or not? 6. what if gravity is very low frequence magnetic wave? Conclusion: just brainstorm. Hope helpful. Not a physicst, just free thinker after hours.
2:58 You say we know a great deal, but really we barely understand about 6% of the universe. Dark matter is a mystery, dark energy is an even greater mystery. But that's why it's such a great time to be alive, there is so much still to be found out, so much to learn, so many lives to transform.
As usual, thanks Dr Lincoln for your plain English explanations.
As important as HTTP and HTML ended up being, claiming it as some sort of justification for investment in high energy physics is really weak. IETF was already 3 years old when Berners-Lee published his invention of the world wide web , and the invention of some version of HTTP and URLs, and its eventual standardization, were inevitable. It would have happened whether CERN existed or not. (I'm not trying to detract from what Berners-Lee did; just saying that crediting high energy physics with it is absurd).
Great video, as always! I'm just sad that was no word about the collapse of the wavefunction!
Some unified theories postulate additional dimensions that are rolled up so tightly they are undetectable. Are any particle accelerators high enough energy to probe those dimensions? Could we see experimental results if we looked?
I keep asking this question but never get an answer. Could the accelerating expansion be related to particle size shrinking? If the volume of particles are proportional to their intrinsic energy level and the energy is disapating, then the observed effect would be the same as expansion. They could then easly lose energy at an excelerated rate. And negate the need for dark energy. This also implies that the big bang event is the start of the big freeze of an area of finite space.
7:50 what? So there are only 3 forces of nature? Usually we learn there are 4: weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravity. Even google and chatGPT differentiates between weak and electromagnetic
ChatGPT is _not_ a reliable source of information. At all. It has no concept of true or false.
The electromagnetic and weak interactions are distinct for all intents and purposes in our current universe. They are unified at extremely high temperatures, which we can only reach in particle accelerators. But The very early universe was this hot, so in the past they were one.
A nobel prize was given for the discovery of electroweak unification.
We have committed serious resources in our effort to understand and have gained enormous benefit from that. Our current vantage point identifies more knowledge required and to be gained. Why stop now? Are we supposed to suddenly look around and think, "Well, that was nice but this is far enough..."? Let's keep going. If there is no end then there is no end. I'm okay with that. We certainly won't have an end in my lifetime.
Yeah, but at what cost? How much are we willing to spend? Knowledge isn't free.
@@drbuckley1 Well, general, I would say the benefits have far outweighed the costs so far, and there is no reason to suspect the same will not be true in the future, so, if it is an investment, then I am all for it. Seems better than most other things we spend our money on, with some pretty great potential.
There's a drive to understand the world around us. Some people want to guard against it; usually because in order to grab power, they came up with fantasies about how the world should work in their mind. Anyone putting lie to their words they view as a danger.
If you love your freedom, it's science that helped getting the oppressors out of your hairs.
I don't expect protons to decay; however, I'd love to encourage people to keep looking. Never know what else turns up.
As for unification, I think we need a better idea of spacetime to embed quantum mechanics in for something else.
Always interesting videos, Dr Lincoln!
I'm not a physicist or even a scientist but at some point you questioned the very existence of antimatter if I'm not mistaken. I was under the impression that we've actually already managed to create antimatter particles, inside particle accelerators. Of course I could be totally wrong in both counts 😅
I think you might have heard that slightly wrong. The existence of antimatter has been experimentally confirmed.
The big question is why the universe is (apparently) made of matter rather than antimatter. Alternatively, why was more antimatter than antimatter (apparently) created when the universe initially cooled.
The antimatter we've confirmed didn't last very long. Short-lived events at best.
@@drbuckley1 that I can understand, an antimatter particle in a world full of normal matter, it won't last long, as soon as it touches anything the reaction is instant....
5:30 I think the numbers need to be crunched again in regards to dark energy (space) being the product of the superposition of mass.
Id like to see a movement towards having people enslave chatgpt to help us make sense of all the particles made out of quarks. Somewhere in the data is a pattern that makes sense of motion
Absolutely fantastic! Thank you!
Excellent summary of the current situation in Physics. I think that almost the last thing you said about the importance of small experiments should inform decisions that are going to be made in the near future. The justification for another, even more powerful, collider is questionable at best. The staggering amount of money that this would cost, with absolutely no guarantee of any worthwhile results, precludes this approach, IMO. If the billions spent offer nothing new - a very real possibility, this would have a devastating effect on the perception of physics and make it nigh impossible for funding to be obtained for other projects.
Since we are wondering about the spin rotation and such of galaxies, and the missing Antimatter, plus the expansion of the universe one could theorize that the first stages of the big bang expelled all the anti matter (which does have mass) and that ejecta is beyond the edge of the universe, with standard gravity helping pull space time into an expanding state, and just like a star exploding, we have not been around long enough to see the collapse back in due to gravity. That explanation could resolve parts of the missing Antimatter and for universe expansion rate and speeds.
can matter exist without space? and can space exist without matter?
if the answer is no then,,can i say space and matter are related to each other? like E=MC².and if space and time is related then matter and time is also related.am i thinking right?
Yes, you're right! This is our Universe. It's observable and your reasoning is absolutely correct! Greetings from Spaceman! :)
How was the big bang timeline figured out? for example: how did scientists know that the planck era took 10^-43 s? and the GUT era took 10^-38? etc
Epic opening and closing cards! Also, I recall Hossenfelder making a stand opposed to the moving goal post phenomenon. Her thinking was that it was bad for science long-term. Unsure whether I would agree.
Is it possible to transform a very energetic photon directly into neutron? And then the neutron eventually decays to proton and electron without creating any anti-particles in the process. I understand that electromagnetic wave like photon or light is 2-dimensional physical entity with 2 directions, which means that the geometric configuration of light can be described with 2 planes that are perpendicular to each other. One of the planes describes the vibration of the electric fields of light; and the other describes the vibration of the magnetic fields of the same. So, if the direction of the photon is allowed to cross the electric lines of forces of intense electric fields powerful enough to materialize the energy of a photon, then such process will create matter and anti-matter at the same time, because, presumably, the electric lines of forces carried by the photon are forced to be aligned with the external electric lines of forces. Now, my big question is, if the direction of a photon is allowed to cross the magnetic lines of forces of intense magnetic fields, will it produce a different result? I wish physicists could verify this notion and prove me wrong.
I have a question on the universe expansion. The conclusion of the expanding universe is based on the red shift of a moving object, the greater the speed - the bigger is the red shift. Why don’t we imagine that photons just lose their energy in time. This loss of energy is minuscule and cannot be observed in our lifetime but manifests itself over billions of years. Less energy means less frequency and here comes the red shift. Your comments are greatly appreciated, please tell me if and where I am wrong.
Because energy is conserved. Light doesn't just lose energy. We'd need to find(or propose) some mechanism for this energy loss.
And, in fact, we have one. The expansion of space. The cosmological redshift is exactly the loss of photon energy over time. The redshift is _not_ because the objects are moving away from us. The redshift happens because space expands and stretches the wavelength of the light. The expansion manifests in growing distances between objects at very large scales.
You'd have to replace this explanation of the violation of energy conservation with something else. And there are no reasonable alternatives that I know of.
Could you cover what I've heard is called the cognification of of the world, which is expected to be on its way? Cognification is the divives around us becoming able to have a congnitive ability and will be as big as the electrification
I have a concept that involves just one particle and a vacuum. The particle's volume is inversely proportional to its energy level. This particle makes up the fabric of the universe. When combined with a vacuum, many of these particles can form a shell, trapping the vacuum. Various combinations of these make up the subatomic particles in the standard model. Let me know if you want to hear more, I'm using the KISS principle with this concept, but I think I can unify everything with it. Challenge me
universe is expanding or contracting relative to speed of light depending on your motion in time and overall mater remain constant like being in soap suds
So the universe is expanding. Just a silly question, does it also spin?
Could we ever tell if it did? Just asking since everything around us seems to exhibit that property.
Just wondering what effect that would have, if any, on its contents.
Are there quantitative analysts with particle physics research background?
Where do I get the shirt? :)
What a great video. Well done.
I kind of wish Dr Lincoln had gone into more details on the messages which triggered the creation of this video. The basic assumption seems to be that since large scale experiments have yielded some results in the past then we should continue to build them in the future. But what happens when generations go by and the experiments don't yield anything useful except perhaps more scientific papers, conferences and power points?
Since particles can decay into each other, is it possible for antimatter to convert into matter? Could that be a potential explanation to why our universe is full of matter?
Thanks for all your work, Dr Lincoln. Both in your research and in your exceptional science communication. You do such a great job at simplifying these complex topics in an understandable way
I love you sr! Thanx for everything that you do to answer the questions.
nothing thank you for coming to my TED talk
Hello Don as you know my experiments on Light are driving physics now. On my channel I explain the neutrinos and show them. My model shows all particles are dipoles but supports most of the Standard model. On my Channel watch "New Experimental Light Research shows the Standard Model is Seen to be Correct....Mostly". Thank you Sir.
Could you include a link to your site
QUOTE-
"on my channel I explain the neutrinos *and show them* ".
So, you've somehow managed to do the impossible then.
You've been able to get neutrinos to interact with something other than just gravity- which *must* mean you've managed to get them to interact with the electromagnetic field, or how else would you be able to "show" them?
Fancy providing a link to your channel, so I can *"see"* this groundbreaking, epoch-making, future Nobel Prize winning achievement for myself...?
🤔
🍄
Also can u stop slurring and talking slow in your video?
Hey Robert. Can you unblock the guy from NASA?
@@bonniedavis4601 Sure...I have dozens on this ua-cam.com/video/Cr6pGcJJ-ts/v-deo.html
To paraphrase a fictional Star Wars villain: “The pampassary is strong in this one.”
Most groovy shirt, Herr Doktor. Is the tune associated with said shirt “More Than A Feeling About Mass-Energy Equivalence?”
Qapla’!
Can there even be a universe with matter AND antimatter? Or does it not have to be either one or the other, as any mix would have annihilated? And if thats the case, and there is no reason to have exactly the same amount of both to have been "generated" at the beginning, then there can only be one remainder left: only matter (or only antimatter)
Do you think sometime in the future, we will truly understand everything to understand?
why would extra matter make orbits faster?
What scares me is the fact that the next step will require a change so big to current beliefs that may destabilise the understanding of physicists. The next step may require philosophers to be first in line. The entire meaning of the word "Space" could well be subverted, and our perception of the reality of dealing with separate and countable objects or entities may lose any meaning.
I want to see how the edifice of the Universal constants is implicated in the cycles of the Universe, and how the concept of symmetry is changed by it...