Scientists Just Mixed Matter and Antimatter (It Didn't Explode)

[@DrBrianKeating]

Win a meteorite briankeating.com/yt

[@stoweby]

say less

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Great episode! As for the cosmic matter/antimatter dissymmetry Brian mentions at the end; that paradox really depends on how we view the shape of our Big Bang. If indeed our Big Bang was a kind of ‘dumb’ exploding sphere, then indeed we have an issue explaining the observed lack of antimatter. But an exploding sphere is not the default shape of cosmic high energy cosmic structures creating matter and space. Like star birth and galaxy birth, the typical structure actually would involve a high energy disk, with two jets, feeding two lobes of purged matter and radiation on each side. The Cygnus A galaxy would best represent this high energy default shape. If our Big Bang were shaped this way, then obviously the central disk would create a matter lobe on one side (that would be us) and anti-matter lobe on the other. That explains why we can’t see anti matter. Problem solved. The detailed mechanism for dividing matter into both lobes would be the central spinning disk, presenting clockwise electro(weak)-spin on one side, yet viewed from the other side, anti-clockwise spin. This means newly created matter of like electroweak spin would be accelerated away from the disk, but matter of opposite spin (antimatter) would be pulled back to the disk, cross it, and next be pushed outward on the other side. This also means after a quick expansion, half the matter would return to the other side, causing contraction, followed by gradual expansion again. Also, there would be traces of an umbilical cord connecting both lobes even today, which we have in the form of the great attractor, showing preferred cosmic motion. So in all; we can solve the matter anti matter paradox by just revisiting our idea of the shape of the Big Bang.

[@Canada4evr]

Great channel, Dr. Keating. I have a twin sister and frequently I think we are the anti twin to each other more often than not. But we haven't eliminated each other so that's good (a -2!). Most times 1 + -1 = 0. But lately it seems we've become 1 + -1 = > 2 but < 3. I'm the "1" of course🙂

[@v2ike6udik]

@@Canada4evr which one of you is insane trudeau fan?

[@fairybeliever4479]

I might be very stupid now. But just wondering one thing. Could it be possible for anti-proton to decay in to electron? Let’s say that the neutron isn’t as good at glueing antiprotons in to atoms. When an anti proton is not bound to an atom, it decays in to electron. This maybe could explain some things about missing anti matter and also dark matter. Where there seems to be more mass, than what is seen. If anti protons are filling in for electrons. Then I’m guessing it would show more mass. Also the massive early black holes. I know i might be stupid. I have no scientific background. So please be gentle in your replies. 🙏 😊

[@cybervigilante]

Well, when you mix matter and antimatter you need dilithium crystals to regulate things.

[@Alondro77]

I was forced to mine dilithium on the penal asteroid of Rurapente. It sucked. :C

[@Martial-Mat]

Careful you don't form a warp bubble 🤣

[@Martial-Mat]

@@Alondro77 Nice summers.

[@dukenukem9770]

@@Alondro77 Hahaha I remember my mom letting me skip school so she could take me to a midday showing of that film. Good times!

[@joesands8860]

@@cybervigilante Everyone knows this.

[@MagicNumberArg]

Should not have ordered antimatter from Temu...

[@Johnny_Appleweed]

Or anything else

[@billymorris3265]

At least their fireworks are safe for shipping.

[@greevar]

Why do people say "theory" when they actually mean "hypothesis"? A theory describes a phenomenon through rigorous testing. A hypothesis is a prediction based on observations of a phenomenon prior to rigorous testing.

[@clwho4652]

Because those who know what a scientific theory is, even scientists themselves, will switch between the colloquial and technical meanings of theory. It is a bad thing to do as it muddies the water and so many don't even know what a scientific theory is.

[@Thumper770]

Because people have become scientifically illiterate.

[@billymorris3265]

This test was done at CERN. What constitutes rigorous these days?

[@Thumper770]

@@billymorris3265 When you conduct the same experiment more than twice, maybe? Details get over looked when experiments become "routine".

[@romanes_eunt_domus]

The layman definition of theory means exactly what the layman thinks when they hear "scientific theory".

[@noppornwongrassamee8941]

It'd be mind blowing if the only thing needed to store antimatter is a really good refrigerator.

[@JedPotts-jv2ux]

sounds cool until the fridge stops working, causing the superfluid to heat up until it becomes regular fluid and you unintentionally create an antimatter bomb. as always, "think of what humanity can do with this 😀" and "think of what humanity can do with this 😱" honestly though a superfluid helium antimatter storage system would make an amazing propulsion method for spacecraft, just have a tiny slow spray of superfluid "hybrid atoms" into a magnetic nozzle with heating and you could have enough delta-V to reach other star systems in 10-20 years and still have enough energy left to blow it up (the entire star system).

[@hamjudo]

​@@JedPotts-jv2uxCompared to a space ship, a star is huge and incredibly energetic. A few tons of antimatter exploding might briefly shine brighter than the star, but it would be a localized effect. It would need to be really close to a planet to destroy its atmosphere. The other planets in that solar system would be fine. Destroying a solar system is hyperbole.

[@JustinBelair-v3p]

Super cooled and magnetically suspended?

[@TheJadeFist]

That would basically make it a fuel source if you could simply store it in a fluid mixture, and heat it to cause it to react.

[@solconcordia4315]

Scientists have been capturing and storing tiny amounts of antimatter at CERN for a while already.

[@derekstack7479]

"More viscosity means it flows less..." followed by graphic showing syrup as low viscosity and water as high. Seriously. Did no one watch the video before uploading?

[@kkgt6591]

They were making it more funny 😮, video is full of memes and cutaways, disgusting.

[@stephenkolostyak4087]

@@kkgt6591 "They were making it more funny 😮, video is full of memes and cutaways, disgusting." Ah yes, funny....

[@zetsumeinaito]

Comment bait imo.

[@castonyoung7514]

What do you mean that it "didn't explode"? Do you mean that this new hybrid atom lasted for a fraction of a millisecond before the matter and anti-matter annihilated, or are you saying that this hybrid atom still exists to this day? There are also many other omissions/problems with this video, which others have described although many of them might just be because no one knows. It's unclear if the unclarity of the video is warrented.

[@gabrielgauchez9435]

it could mean anything 2 particles annihilating sending 2 photons in opposite directions doesnt sound like what i would call an explosion

[@edwardmacnab354]

I think an activation energy must be reached to have matter / anti-matter annihilation , they can't just bump into each other , plus there is no way the antiproton can get into the nucleus just as an electron cannot , at least at low energies , and a bound electron really has no chance of entering the nucleus unless under high gravitational pressure

[@gabrielgauchez9435]

@@edwardmacnab354 if theres an activation energy there must be a middle state of higher energy than both the antiproton orbiting energy and the proton antiproton collision state, i think at this scale its not like that its more like the particles have a position and speed not determined so they kinda has a chance of being in the same place, it does with electron capture, and electron capture can happen when you dont have enough energy to do a beta + decay, also electron proton cannot annihilate cus that would change the leptonic and baronic number and i think it would change the spin too

[@leonmusk1040]

@@gabrielgauchez9435 He also made the rookie mistake of forgetting fourth neutrino flavour

[@picksalot1]

"When antimatter particles like positrons move, they can create electric currents similar to those created by electrons, but with opposite charge flow direction." Unfortunately, this is not termed "anti-electricity". But, this doesn't make me anti-happy. 😆

[@TravisTellsTruths]

Epic

[@peterfireflylund]

@@picksalot1 positricity?

[@jackfrost2978]

@@peterfireflylund postricity. remove an i so it flows easier when spoken.

[@nickbroughton928]

Knee slapper ha. Ha ha. Ha.

[@Fnord1984]

It is so fascinating that all of Dr. Keatings blinking' and plinkin' effects in his videos is actually made out of actual ELECTRICITY. Can you believe it?

[@mw-th9ov]

There is so much going on in the visuals in the background that it distracts from what is being explained. The images that are meant to be part of the explanation are quickly combined with images that are purely entertainment which is an additional distraction making the whole smaller than the sum of the parts.

[@aaaaa5272]

I totally agree.

[@openleft4214]

Then just listen

[@DanielJustinSnyder]

These comments are baffling...

[@rocroc]

Try it at 1.5 speed!

[@TikiTDO]

@@openleft4214 Just listening is rough too, with the constant movie quotes thrown in. I'm not sure why KZbin recommended this channel, but just watching one video is so mentally draining that it's enough for me to tell it not to recommend this channel again.

[@tayzonday]

Imagine if we could stably bind and destabilize anti-particles at will. That would make the best fuel and energy density imaginable. My iPhone could store more energy than a nuclear warhead.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Nah, iPhone powered world will be far worse than a Nuclear wasteland.

[@DanielJustinSnyder]

Kindly notice that helium has been in 'short supply.' Not to get too into the deep end, but if you look through the 'wider noise'...

[@DanielJustinSnyder]

Omg tayzonday my guy! Hey you like science and music look at the n-speres project that just dropped 7 days ago! Oscilloscope music! The entire project and visuals fit on a floppy!

[@MagicNumberArg]

Samsung batteries are already close in terms of yield, no?

[@TomJerry12933]

I'm not sure you'd want that....

[@EricJacobusOfficial]

Antimatter Behaving Badly, a new comedy series coming soon to the BBC.

[@asdfqwerty-u9n]

maybe antimatter has anti light and are "eveil

[@pauljs75]

It'd be funny if a "great filter" was due to the question of "Why don't these react?" and more and more was put together until a GRB visible from the other side of the galaxy happens.

[@markhuffman834]

It's not new physics. It's new understanding of physics.

[@halfrhovsquared]

7:40 - I'm fairly sure that you have transposed the viscosity labels. You have labelled cold maple-syrup as having low viscosity whilst hot water is labelled as having high viscosity.

[@peterectasy2957]

yes and moreover he could mention anti-neutron

[@jonshellmusic]

2:19 Your son thinks anti-protons should be called negatrons? ME TOO!! I was actually just saying this to the screen as you were explaining what anti-protons were. So I was very happy to hear “negatron” mentioned in your video seconds later!

[@ulyssesfewl1059]

2:41 His kid thinks that electrons should have been called negatrons. Not that anti-protons should be called negatrons

[@danieldeneve5724]

I am a significant consumer of science content, but have mostly ignored Brian Keating because something about his personality just didn't do it for me. But now I see a massive improvement in his content. Between B-roll footage, quips and analogies, and staying appropriately on topic, he has really made a tremendous improvement across all metrics. Very pleased with this content.

[@Technichian462]

I'm smelling an awful lot of maybe coming off all of this.

[@rogerjohnson2562]

0:10 Everything we feel and touch is the result of electrons in our fingers repulsing electrons is what we feel and touch. So everything you can feel and touch is 'matter' BUT a better description is it is ELECTRONS, the protons are hidden by the electrons.

[@dm121984]

@rogerjohnson2562 technically, it's the exchange of force carrying photons between the electrically charged particles that causes what we perceive as touch.

[@tvviewer4500]

Think you are leaving out the fact that the mass comes from the protons and neutrons…

[@lureup9973]

Actually there is no matter, just the extraordinary illusion that your consciousness believes as it builds constructs from thought, which is another illusion. All that exists at a fundamental level is consciousness… matter is just a concept that exists in the matrix!😮👀😂

[@tvviewer4500]

@ what is the thought made out of ?

[@lureup9973]

@@tvviewer4500 now we’re asking the right question… it’s an emergent phenomenon of being emmersed in the delusion of a world made of matter. And it wouldn’t be able to exist without consciousness. So the real question is why consciousness is creating the illusion that affords a concept like matter. The short answer is to experience every possibity it can create. This still leaves us asking the question, what is consciousness… and that is unanswerable here inside the matrix. To properly explore the essence of consciousness one must take the path of the shrooooom. Once you have experienced the dissolution of the matrix we can continue our conversation 😂

[@newperve]

Anti-protaic helium sounds like something that endangers the Starship Enterprise.

[@deadvirgo]

I gave ChatGPT the paper and your summary in the info. It said, "The summary you've provided is mostly accurate but slightly exaggerated in parts. The referenced experiment at CERN explored antiprotonic helium, confirming that antimatter and matter annihilate predictably under specific conditions. The spectral behavior of these hybrid atoms in superfluid helium allowed researchers to test the symmetry between matter and antimatter. The claim that the findings "defied expectations" might be overstated. While intriguing, the results reinforced established physics, showing no deviations in antimatter behavior relative to matter. Misrepresentation likely arises from enthusiasm or misunderstanding the subtleties of the experiment's implications."

[@SiriusMined]

I figured it was going to be a click-baity title.

[@ldlework]

@@SiriusMined I only wonder when his friends will begin to notice.

[@joshuacampbell17]

2:39 there are several pieces of literature referring to antiprotons as negatrons

[@TravisTellsTruths]

Let's just say "Negtrons"

[@JohnDlugosz]

That's different from what his kid suggested -- that electrons be called negatrons. If different people want to use "negatron" in completely different ways, it's confusing.

[@jonshellmusic]

@@JohnDlugoszNegatron actually completes the pattern better than anti-proton. Protons are positive, Electrons are negative. Their anti-particles might then be: Negatrons are negative, Positrons are positive.

[@TOMAS-oj9hx]

Producing exotic atoms and exotic matter and even stabilise that stuff is really amazing. Maybe mankind is not far away from building exotic matter factories.

[@TheJadeFist]

We might want to consider doing that off planet though if we get that far, don't want an accident taking out half a continent. In the lab for study, you're working with very small amounts of it, but if you want a factory or try doing this at industrial scales, a new very serious risk may arise.

[@Malki_Tzedek]

I have been waiting for scientists to figure this out for 30 years now. Hoping it has promising applications for the future, instead of being just a one-off discovery. But I'm willing to bet it will have applications.

[@nickbroughton928]

So, if anti protons (more massive) replaced electrons (less massive) in the electron shell, do they orbit the nucleous at the same speed? Or reduced speeds? This could change the interactive properties of the element. Just as the electron shells determine what types of reactions can occur with the element, anti-protons may alter these reactions in unforseen ways.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

The electrons and antiprotons actually don't orbit at all. That's a model which has been outdated for about 100 years.

[@andyf4292]

atomic orbitals dont actually work like that

[@Natsukashii-Records]

The word 'orbit' is a misnomer when talking about quantum particles.

[@billymorris3265]

@@nickbroughton928 in the absence of positrons and electrons, as well as being near zero Kelvin’s, there isn’t a lot of orbiting going on. In fact superfluids under atomic magnification are very calm and soothing. Everything is just kinda chillin there. Sorry😅 I had to.

[@solconcordia4315]

Speed makes no sense in the ground state because the wavefunction of let's say a electron in protium has no angular variation *AT ALL* in the commonly used model. It's entirely stationary and spherical-symmetric.

[@troys6965]

What if they just unwittingly created the fuel for a room-temperature fusion reactor? 🤔🤪💥

[@johncherwonogrodzky921]

I believe the energy level of the anti-helium striking the helium is a key consideration. - Think of helium as a hill, the anti-helium as a valley. - At low energies, one gets the hill snug against the valley. This is a super wave, observed as the matter-antimatter explosion. - At high energies, the hill gets pushed onto the valley. Positive and negative cancel out.

[@Joshua-by4qv]

Does antimatter behave differently than ordinary matter? Does it matter or not matter?

[@bjugler]

I wouldn't "mind" either way. 😁

[@Fnord1984]

Dude Brian Keating is literally just a talking head, an NPC, nothing he says "matters" in the slightest. He is a programmed youtube entertainer.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@Fnord1984 Actually, Brian Keating is a cosmologist who is doing lots of research. So yes, what he says matters a lot.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Antimatter behaves mostly in the same way than ordinary matter, there are only some subtle differences. Read up on "C symmetry" and its breaking.

[@Fnord1984]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Has he discoverd anything new about physics at all and if that is the case what is it?

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Great episode! As for the cosmic matter/antimatter dissymmetry Brian mentions at the end; that paradox really depends on how we view the shape of our Big Bang. If indeed our Big Bang was a kind of ‘dumb’ exploding sphere, then indeed we have an issue explaining the observed lack of antimatter. But an exploding sphere is not the default shape of cosmic high energy cosmic structures creating matter and space. Like star birth and galaxy birth, the typical structure actually would involve a high energy disk, with two jets, feeding two lobes of purged matter and radiation on each side. The Cygnus A galaxy would best represent this high energy default shape. If our Big Bang were shaped this way, then obviously the central disk would create a matter lobe on one side (that would be us) and anti-matter lobe on the other. That explains why we can’t see anti matter. Problem solved. The detailed mechanism for dividing matter into both lobes would be the central spinning disk, presenting clockwise electroweak-spin on one side, yet viewed from the other side, anti-clockwise electroweakspin. This means newly created matter of like spin would be accelerated away from the disk, but matter of opposite electroweak spin (antimatter) would be pulled back to the disk, cross it, and next be pushed outward on the other side. This also means after a quick expansion, half the matter would return to the other side, causing contraction, followed by gradual expansion again. Also, there would be traces of an umbilical cord connecting both lobes even today, which we have in the form of the great attractor, showing preferred cosmic motion. So in all; we can solve the matter anti matter paradox by just revisiting our idea of the shape of the Big Bang.

[@virgiliustancu9293]

This changes a lot. Does it mean that there can be areas in the Universe where matter and antimatter coexist? As far as I know, it is not known where the antimatter disappeared (which in theory should be in the same amount as matter). In reality, there may be areas in the invisible Universe that are made of antimatter that do not explode when they reach the matter part of the Universe.

[@jansenart0]

We don't know that distant galaxies aren't made of antimatter. Physicists assume they're made of normal matter but we can't actually know.

[@bradwilliams7198]

From the graphs at 8:43, the antiprotons are in Rydberg states with ridiculously high principal (n) and angular momentum (l) quantum numbers. This means that the antiproton has an extremely low probability of being near the protons, hence the long annihilation lifetime. When the l value was lowered either by laser excitation or stimulated emission, the annihilation rate went up as there was a greater (but still low) probability of the antiproton being near the nucleus. Normally high lying Rydberg states get quenched by collisions--what this seems to show is that collisional quenching is minimal in a superfluid environment (which makes sense given the other properties of superfluids).

[@RalphDratman]

I would have supposed that an antiproton would get "ionized" away and so escape from the nucleus, much more easily than an electron. Not true?

[@bradwilliams7198]

@@RalphDratman An antiproton is about 2000x heavier than an electron, so it's a lot harder to push out. If an antiproton is shot into a fluid of supercritical helium, it will be repulsed by the much lighter electrons, which will eventually cause it to lose energy and get (weakly) captured by one of the helium atoms (by knocking out an elactron).

[@brianegendorf2023]

Most of the time, I don't hear them say that matter and anti-matter will explode. It says they will annihilate. Less than explosions, its more like combining two things that suddenly fade out of existence when you merge them. Interesting that you might get something different altogether. I am looking forward to hearing more about this.

[@artemirrlazaris7406]

Just because I had to look up information, incase you don't udnerstand somethign in this video, I looked up these thigns so I could understand certain things: Antiprotons and positrons (antielectrons) are produced through different processes: ### Antiprotons: - **Production**: Antiprotons are typically produced by **colliding high-energy protons with a target material**. This is done in particle accelerators like the **Antiproton Decelerator (AD) at CERN**. When protons hit the target, they produce a variety of particles, including antiprotons. - **Source**: The proton beam used in these collisions often comes from hydrogen gas, which is ionized and accelerated. ### Positrons: - **Production**: Positrons can be produced through **positron emission radioactive decay** or **pair production**. In radioactive decay, a proton-rich nucleus emits a positron. Pair production occurs when a high-energy photon interacts with the electromagnetic field of a nucleus, creating an electron-positron pair. - **Source**: For experiments, positrons are often sourced from radioactive isotopes like **sodium-22 (Na-22)**, which undergoes beta-plus decay to emit positrons. Both antiprotons and positrons are essential for creating antihydrogen atoms and studying antimatter properties Does this help clarify where these particles come from? ---- CERN has indeed produced antimatter, specifically antihydrogen atoms. Here's a bit more detail: ### What They Did: - **Antihydrogen Production**: Scientists at CERN created antihydrogen atoms by combining antiprotons (negative particles) with positrons (positive particles). This was done using the **Antiproton Decelerator (AD)** and **ELENA** (Extra Low ENergy Antiproton) machines. - **Trapping and Studying**: The antihydrogen atoms were trapped in a magnetic trap to prevent them from coming into contact with matter and annihilating. This allowed scientists to study their properties. - **Gravity Experiment**: One notable experiment, the **ALPHA-g**, observed the influence of gravity on antihydrogen atoms. They found that antihydrogen atoms fall to Earth in the same way as regular hydrogen atoms, within the precision of their experiment. ### Appearance and Size: - **Appearance**: Antihydrogen atoms are electrically neutral and stable, so they don't emit light or have a visible appearance like regular matter. They are essentially invisible unless detected with specialized equipment. - **Size**: The size of an antihydrogen atom is the same as a regular hydrogen atom since they are composed of the same types of particles (an antiproton and a positron) but with opposite charges. I think this helped me, since I needed to know where those things come from.

[@rogerjohnson2562]

10:25 neither of the two 'possible answers' makes sense. The answer probably has more to do with the decay phenomenon where a proton in a nucleus can give off a positron to become a neutron; possibly meaning the only charges in mass are from negtrons and protons. That might also make it easier to explain why our area of the universe seems to be all electrons and puffed up positrons instead of positrons and puffed up electrons.

[@lamebubblesflysohigh]

So they basically invented a storage solution for antimatter which is only two steps away from crazy efficient space propulsion, power generation and a very scary bomb that will make nukes look like toys in comparison ( a tiny micro drop of this stuff = Hiroshima bomb). Cool.

[@djayjp]

How the heck is that even possible...? Protons are 1,835x more massive than electrons and same for anti-protons....

[@abcde_fz]

Physics Dad: "Can't you behave more like your anti-protonic twin?" My Dad: "If I was in a hurry I'd have left earlier." I like my Dad's one liner better, but I'm glad I heard Physics Dad's too. People are fun!!! 🙂

[@arfazero1]

you know that effect that happens when something hot touches something cold and they wont contact because the difference is to large, i would presume that it may function like that, where the parts don't touch

[@blijebij]

Great video, enjoyed it a lot! Very interesting and greatly presented! Thanks!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@blijebij]

@@DrBrianKeating Thank you!!

[@rylian21]

Well, that was fascinating. I'm not sure what kind of application this has other than creating heavier, more expensive helium, but it is fascinating.

[@morrigannibairseach1211]

As a scifi fan the idea of a matter/antimatter superfluid for fuel storage in space seems like it could be fun to play around with.

[@oldtimefarmboy617]

In cosmology energy is considered to be mass. Atoms are neutral on the inside. Regular atoms are like a magnet with the plus pole in the center and the negative pole on the outside. That means that under normal conditions all atoms "see" other atoms as a negative charge and like charges repel each other. Only because of atomic valence do atoms combine with each other to form molecules.

[@815TypeSirius]

The chemistry implications are hilarious and no one is talking

[@Ava31415]

I think the difference is size of the two types of helium have been calculated and even measured (through spectral lines?). Try listening in the right place?

[@815TypeSirius]

@Ava31415 no dude. You are baby thinking. What happens if you can expand on this? Its literally the bigggest development since actual chemistry. You could make designer atoms. Do you get the ramifications of that? Not to mention virtual atoms. Dude... please educate before commenting.

[@jansenart0]

12:10 We don't KNOW that other galaxies aren't made of antimatter. There's no way to test that.

[@coreymorris1693]

I want to know what happens when you try to fuse them to make Helium.

[@coreymorris1693]

This also make me wander if there's a way to stabilize ultra heavy Elements that are radioactive. This may be the dawn of atomic engineering. Like, could you imagine making a uranium that's not radioactive.

[@mrvilla310]

We have to assume the whole universe in homogeneous until evidence to the contrary.

[@jansenart0]

@@mrvilla310 That's planet-bound thinking. Works great when on or around Earth but in terms of intergalactic scales, transposing planetary physics may be folly.

[@risunokairu]

Brian, there is no such thing as “New Physics.” There is reality and there is math describing reality. If theorists have a wrong idea and their math doesn’t map to reality and they later find math that does describe reality or describe it better, then that isn’t new physics. That is a different understanding of reality. The physics of reality doesn’t change, only human understanding does.

[@Fnord1984]

There are too many charlatan "scientists" of today and they all seem to mistake the map for the actual terrain. They are embarrasing and should be placed in the same category as seers, mediums and snake oil salesmen - it is a lot of make believe and fanciful fantasies being presented as "science" to us all the time.

[@clwho4652]

You are being unnecessarily pedantic. When people say "new physics" they are not saying physics has changed, they are saying "newly discovered physics". It is just like if a biologist says "I discovered a new species of frog," they are not saying the species just evolved, they are saying it is newly discovered.

[@jemborg]

He means "new for us" 🤦

[@TheTechmaster1999]

You completely miss the point that "physics" as a discipline is to make a model of our universe. Ideally, as accurate as we can. Yes, it would be great to perfectly emulate it, but they are all models. Physics is not the way the universe operates; it is a discipline dedicated to the modeling of reality. The difference is small but important when we are discussing semantics.

[@solconcordia4315]

Note that reality can be different for different people. Not everyone is in command of the faculty to perceive anywhere close to reality. Objective reality doesn't exist because to know is to measure and to measure is to disturb so the reality moves away from what the apparatus has measured. Measuring = Quantizing = Communicating, which is always subject to noise. We just quantize the received signal to countable number of eigenvalues by mapping a continuum to a countable number of eigenvalue discretums.

[@Alex.The.Lionnnnn]

I've never asked the question "what would a scroll bait title look like?" I have the answer I didn't know I needed. 😂

[@BlackEpyon]

This implies that the mixture would self-annihilate as soon as it heats back up above superfluid temperatures. I'll wait for the peer review process to chew it up, and see what comes out the other end before I get excited.

[@fast_harmonic_psychedelic]

the thing is "negative charged" particles dont actually attract as opposed to repeling positive charges. All charge is repulsion.. Repulsion is all there is and and comes from all directions, but is concentrated locally from the direction of charged particles. attraction is just the absense of repulsion such that the ambient field's repulsion pushes two particles together in the absence of their own mutual repulsion. Anti-protons even though they are negatively charged - this just means they're spinning in the opposite way. But anti-protons are Still repelliing , each other, and protons, because repulsion and charge is simply the emission of photons from the proton which bombard nearby objects. The anti protons are emitting antiphotons or photons and repelling the protons. They're kept pushed apart in this way, as the force from the photons pushing them apart is equal or greater than the photons pushing them together by the ambient charge field.

[@jinchoung]

what this made me wonder is if all neutrons are actually protons and antiprotons married together like this. I wonder if numerically, that would account for the apparent imbalance of antimatter.

[@wildmanofthenorth1598]

What particles are responsible for the charge in the nucleus, maybe the spin, keep the nucleus from contact. Like your levitate device doesn't allow the super conductor from dropping to the track.

[@RedBatRacing]

Negatron was always down about things. So Megatron kicked him out of the band

[@philoposos]

I wonder, do they have the same orbitals as electrons? And how do they know it's the anti-protons orbiting the protons - and not the other way around? Shouldn't the heavier one "fall" the the center?

[@pixelpatter01]

This could be a way to store energy in a whole new way. Imagine this as a rocket fuel or a destructive device which makes me wonder how this information was even released. Maybe the material could even be used to facilitate fusion as the excess neutrons after the protons and positrons could react with something.

[@Johnny_Appleweed]

Maybe, what if, can you imagine, could be, possibly, hey it could happen BLAH Hey, deal with reality buddy, stop fantasizing.

[@tbayley6]

OK, so it appears the big bang should have created an equal amount of antimatter vs ordinary matter? But why did it apparently create equal amounts of electrons and protons?

[@Thumper770]

An explosion would mean there is matter left over from the reaction to get flung out into space. With antimatter, there's nothing. I don't know what actually happens but, from what I understand, they both just cease to exist.

[@donaldgrant9067]

I think we need to go to the basement where the 4 guys are smoking weed for a fact check.

[@MsTyrie]

This takes doping to a whole new level.

[@JinKee]

If you can hide antiprotons inside ordinary matter at deeper electron shells then you might find mineral deposits where this has happened naturally, but we wouldn’t know unless we ionized the atoms so hard that ALL the electrons came off.

[@danielb8716]

This is genuinely fascinating. Thank you! I find it conceptually impossible to imagine a fluid with 0 viscosity. Without any ability to cling to itself, wouldn't it just be a gas?

[@RalphDratman]

Are you sure of this? It doesn't seem to make sense. Wouldn't an antiproton have a very different "orbit" when compared with an electron?

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Didn't he say exactly that in the video already - that the "orbit" is different?

[@regfordca]

Because of the mass of the antiproton surely it must orbit close to the nucleus, risking annihilation... but, in the dim recesses of my mind I recall this being done years ago before with something like a negatively charged muon...

[@JohnDlugosz]

For sure: it's 2000 times more massive, which is why the nucleus is small. An antiproton attracted to a regular ion would not form a large cloud like electrons, but would join the nucleus. It would give off x-rays as it fell in and eventually annihilate.

[@RalphDratman]

@@regfordca A proton is about nine times the mass of a muon, apparently, So "muonium" is not very comparable to "antiprotonium" or whatever one calls it. And in turn a muon is about 200 times heavier than an electron.

[@philipmetts8831]

Maybe it has something to do with the nuclear force of the neutrons that holds the protons together in the nucleus but repels antiprotons thus forcing them to take the position the electron held. Some kind of antinuclear force from the antiprotons.

[@stoweby]

So Brian just told everyone that we'll have antimatter drives on spacecraft soon. I heard him say it.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

0:25 i can A-B repeat this all day lol 🤣

[@willbrink]

Fascinating! Would a hybrid helium atom not be a new atom in its own right in need of a new name?

[@jklappenbach]

"The spectral lines of the hybrid He was more tightly/well defined? So, the anti-protons were exhibiting the photo-electric effect??!?!!?! What??!! Did the gap energy remain the same? Did hybrid helium have the same absorption lines? Yeah, no, this was not enough.

[@WolfeSaber]

Well, we just found the ammo for the cannons of Space Battleship Yamato.

[@thegreywanderer8427]

This is probably why the universe exists; antimatter and matter found a way to pair up.

[@Fnord1984]

LOL. People love words. Maybe words matter? Maybe words are anti-matter? What IS anti-matter? To me it looks like a WORD compiled of the letters A, N, T, I, M, A, T, T, E, R and even the bible says that in the beginning was only the word and the word was with God. That means that the WORD actually IS Antimatter! And that Antimatter is God that created everything. So Antimatters matter. Come to think about it there's nothing antimatter about it all however, it is simply something that like.... Matters... Matter.

[@dr.traplord1227]

the clerks reference is perfect

[@WENRUAY]

Since the hybrid Helium is stable, it can be used as a "fuel tank" or a "battery".

[@fordprefect.betelguese]

I fed my concept for a teleportation device into chat gpt. Together we designed a working machine... It's called the quantum navigator. It would be ridiculously expensive to build though. It also involves changing the state of matter.

[@flyinghigh372]

the best video yet

[@commonsense1103]

One day they will find out what antimatter really is.

[@SteveSiegelin]

Every time we've created it so far it never has exploded. Usually it just contacts the wall of the containment unit on accident and randomly vanishes. We've been able to create antimatter for a while and sustain it for a little while too in a magnetic trap

[@samcerulean1412]

I wonder if you could synthesise new element properties using hybrid atoms.

[@deker0954]

A weapon that can disassociate your particles.

[@ArtisanTony]

I always wondered how systems can became so complex if there was always this danger of antimatter floating around :)

[@kevin-e5h5t]

Feynman remarked that the Anti-particles were just particles, traveling backwards in time.

[@triplec8375]

I believe that Feynman was exactly on target there. Some years ago I listened to a well known physicist on NPR repeating that antimatter and matter are the same things but moving in opposite directions in time. Since that is the way antimatter is treated in related computations, the host asked why were don't just accept that. The answer is telling. The physicist said that no one wanted to deal with the repercussions of time flowing "backwards" (which isn't backwards at all, only opposite). He cited some usual examples like people rising from the dead and growing younger, pool balls bursting out of the pockets to reassemble as a triangle on the table, and broken eggs reassembling. Unfortunately, physicists are willing to reject what is plainly in front of them. Accepting that matter and antimatter are the same except for the time direction could greatly alleviate many of the problems in cosmology today.

[@edwardblair4096]

When electrons "orbit" a nucleus, they form into quantum states and shells. If negitively charged electrons are repkaced by negitively charged anti-protons, what does that do to the configuration of the orbits? What happens in the hybrid version where only one electron is replaced by a positron? How do their quantum states interact? I really only have a surface level of understanding of what is involved here. For instance, I know that in an atom each quantum state can only have at most a single occupant. So the question of whether orbiting electrons and orbiting positrons share the "same" set of quantum states, vs each partical type having separate states, becomes very important when both types are contained in a single atom.

[@user-jq5bz4wp2e]

Captain, you can't mix the matter and antimatter cold!

[@spiralsun1]

Dr Brian, you must be a fantastic teacher. This video was genius. Thank you so much for sharing the love with all of us. ❤❤❤❤😊

[@tetraquark2402]

Literally a very cool experiment.

[@murrayelliott6828]

Steve Urkel killed it for me........I thought you were genuine.

[@MCsCreations]

The explanation is simple: the Helium doesn't care.

[@ThatDamnedGamer1]

So how do these particles act if allowed to return to its gas form?

[@Sylkis89]

Could this explain the discrepancy in the universe how come there is more matter than antimatter when there should be equal amounts of both? Maybe there is no discrepancy after all, but some antimatter is trapped in atoms we thought is just matter, but they're actually a mix?

[@johnsilfen70]

Next step is to make Anti-helium to have its Positron switched out with a Proton..?

[@jansenart0]

Professor, get them to rename Uranus to Caelus, the Roman analog. All the rest of the planets are Roman, and having it with such a name makes any proposal to explore it a joke.

[@archaonzero7401]

That's because you Anglos massacre the pronunciation. It is actually oo-rah-NOSS

[@dogking44]

Is it possible that the amount of matter and anti-matter in the universe is in fact the same, and the area of the universe, perhaps even just the area of our galaxy, is simply overly rich with matter with little to no anti-matter in it? That could explain why from our point of view the universe that we see and experience seems to be made of more matter than anti-matter, because we're literally surrounded by it.

[@peteedwards8439]

Interesting…are we forgetting the neutron? Are neutrons truly a part of both the matter and antimatter worlds? Have we confirmed this? What if a neutron can have two flavours? Can we make a neutron by combining an anti proton and an anti electron? What properties would that neutron have?

[@duncanfeyd4056]

Hypotheses: In the early universe there were equal numbers of atoms and anti-atoms. Antiprotons being larger than electrons had a higher rate of collision with their positron counterparts. This explains the imbalance.

[@karpabla]

Alternatively, in the creation of matter and antimatter with the same probability for both, simple random fluctuations could make slightly more matter than antimatter. It is like throwing 100 coins and getting, by chance, some more faces than tails or vice-versa. It would be strange that a particule is of a different size than its antiparticle. Why the difference? It would need another added explanation. However, random fluctuations are there already. They dont need to be introduced.

[@JohnDlugosz]

Antiprotons don't anniliate with electrons, but with protons.

[@intellectualiconoclasm3264]

I'm guessing this is helium being orbited by anti-protons. I saw a piece on using them for fusion fuels years back. It occurs that bot only does their mass make it easier to contrain them to fuse, their ability to annihilate gives a pressure spike to initiate the reaction. Think of it as a diesel engine over a gasoline one.

[@larscarter7406]

To make anti matter, all you have to do is go back in time and change the charge name of the proton to negative and make the electron positive.😊

[@OldMan854]

Have to be exactly the same nuclear structure to explode.

[@NovaNix4]

I didnt hear you mention it, so I am sorry if i missed it. This kind of interaction is measured in milliseconds, if I am correct. The orbit is only stable for a brief time and then it does annihilate itself. To me, I would create the analogy of a captured asteroid in a doomed orbit. Sometimes the electromagnetic force brings them together in a path that isnt perfectly direct. The anti-proton knocks one of the electrons out, creating a stable charge, so that the atom doesn't rip apart automatically. Then the anti-proton is stuck in an orbit way too close to the nucleus because it is so massive compared to the electron. It then just kind of "decays" metaphorically, as it eventually randomly runs into the nucleus as it is quantumly locked very close to the nucleus in an "orbit".

[@bruceelegge]

Helium is a small enough atom to remain stable. Beyond two or three shell layers instability will be introduced.

[@MuskogeeElectric]

I've always joked my profession, which would be a Protrician in an antimatter based universe. Instead with dragging electrons with an emf for Electricity, it would be positrons. Protricity 😂

[@Matlockization]

Experimental physicists are what drive scientific breakthroughs. What is the frequency of the individual particles in Helium 4 ?

[@rajeshraut6447]

Why is dark matter excluded from the early universe? There could be a broken symmetry where dark matter is mostly antimatter and baryonic particles are regular matter. Since most of the mass of galaxies is dark matter, perhaps we should ask the question why is the universe full of antimatter?

[@elfeiin]

cuz dark matter isn't real

[@Fnord1984]

@@elfeiin you sound like a anti-dark matter kind of guy

[@Utesfan100]

Maybe we can make lithium with two antiprotons - I suggest the name dilithium.

[@MustafaAlmosawi]

Sorry the visuals here were a bit of a mess. Was the ‘antimatter helium’ produced ant-helium, or a hybrid ‘helium’ with an antiproton substituting an electron? If the latter, can this even be called ‘helium’ in any sense? Wouldn’t its atomic weight be much heavier, and what do we even do with the atomic number? Do the anti-protons count as -1, or +1 or are they ignored altogether since they are acting as pseudo-electrons?

[@JinKee]

Is there any budget for an antiproton bomb? Now that you can store antiprotons inside superfluid helium

[@ccvvxxbbbbxxvvcc7541]

what are the chances that somewhere inside every black hole in the universe lies a team of scientists trying to figure out why their particles don't annihilate... fermi paradox explained

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

??? How does that explain the Fermi paradox?

[@ccvvxxbbbbxxvvcc7541]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 because they were all swallowed by black holes