Frontiers of Physics Lecture Series: Dr. David Gross, Spring 2016

At the frontiers of physics we search for the principles that might unify all the forces of nature and we strive to understand the origin and history of the universe. Professor David Gross, 2004 Nobel Laureate in Physics describes the questions that we ask, some of the proposed answers, what it might mean to have a final theory of fundamental physics and whether we are capable of discovering it.
Learn more about the UW Frontiers of Physics Lecture Series:
artsci.washington.edu/content...
Learn more and stay in touch with the College of Arts and Sciences:
Web: www.artsci.washington.edu/
Facebook: / uwartsci
Twitter: / uwartsci

[@jackpullen3820]

Knowledge, Ignorance and wisdom will all fade away, like tears in the rain... TY

[@naimulhaq9626]

An extremely important piece of information is provided by this lecture. That flux lines of oscillating quarks are related to strings !!!!!!

[@jonahansen]

I agree with Quantum1 Below. The best synopsis of the entire field of physics I've ever seen.

[@amiraslkhalili5638]

43:23 I could not clearly grasp what is asymptotic freedom , which i will read nuclear and particle physics book from MIT , plus relativistic quantum field . But 43:23 is the aha moment , mass is the confinement ( energy ) simply energy , which can be simplified in my view as t.delta ( F ) = v. delta (m ) , that sounds like formulating what Dr Gross just said . right ?

[@nickrindal2787]

Ive got the answers. Gonna apply to uw next fall.

[@ankeunruh7364]

"We might lose the will to proceed" - I lost it. The frontiers are not the initial conditions of the universe! Physics gave a lot of answers, including that there is no second earth to live on. Now we should use what we've got for some centuries - end our wars, renew our relations, give everyone love, a home, food and education. Clean our atmosphere and our oceans.

[@peterpalumbo3644]

Where did that image of the production of SUSY particle's come from? Was it an artist conception?

[@anderslundberg9909]

Upp

[@peterpalumbo3644]

As fare as the Super Conductor Super Collider is concerned maybe it is time to finish it, Just dig out the hole and put in the collider and lets take up where we left off about 20 nor 30 years ago. Do not care about a Chinese machine or one on the Arabian peninsula, it is time to put the SCSC into action.

[@rabindrakhatiwada3558]

Is there full course of genetic engineering lecture series?if yes than please post it.

[@rgaleny]

test hypothesis, form a working model, establish a theory, see Earth, Air, Fire, and water

[@quantum1232]

One of the best introductions to public understanding of physics, I have seen. Fortunately we may soon see AI that is smarter than we are but of course their answer may just be 42.

[@milesjenkins1405]

The answer is 42, now what was the question?

[@martinzitter4551]

The question was in what year was I born? That's right...

[@glutinousmaximus]

AI has proved to be a much harder problem than first imagined. AND it depends very much on what you might mean by 'Intelligence'. If you consider emulating humans, we are built very much like 'general purpose' primates. Computers are very fast these days and can be programmed to win at chess, the game of 'Jeopardy', and latterly the game 'Go'. But these endeavors took thousands of hours of (human) programming, algorithms and selected databases. Neural networks have fared no better so far; and quantum computers are years away from being any way useful to us. Such devices are not 'smarter' - far from it. Time will tell.

[@djr124c41]

Quantum1 jj

[@jonahansen]

Not only did those programs require tremendous amounts of human intelligence to produce, the algorithms they use are essentially "brute force", that is, to try all the possibilities - only possible with incredibly fast computers. But most people will agree that brute force is not the essence of what we think of as intelligence. Human hubris is ginormous. In the 1950s it was predicted that computers would be translating languages in five years. Still ain't happening - try google translate into another language and back. And even if it's possible to come up with a "neural net" type of algorithm that does exhibit "intelligence", if it's done without understanding of how exactly it works, human understanding of intelligence is not necessarily advanced. However, that doesn't mean it would not be useful or dangerous... humanity has often applied poorly understood empirical principles to create technologically useful machines well before they are understood theoretically.

[@dong.7519]

slowing down and missing hyper practical.

[@enlongchiou]

Top quark (qt)167000 mev, qt^(2/3)/2 = 1475 charm quark, qt^(1/3)/(6*pi) = 3 up quark, bottom quark(qb) 4210 mev, gb^(2/3)/3 = 86 strange quark, qb^(1/3)/3 = 5 down quark, higgs boson 125 gev time 4/3 is qt, 125/(2*pi) = ch vacuum(dark) energy, all base on asymptotic freedom of strong force from E = MC^2 to E*L = CH for symmetry of string theory unite 4 force by ch/c^2 = m*l = pm*pl/(4*pi/3) = A*e/137. ch + ch/3 + (ch/3)/(2*pi) = 100% to ch = 72%, ch/3 = 24.04%, (ch/3/2pi)*2pi = 24.04% if treat quark as string.(m,l,pm,pl,A,e,ch,g for 2.17*10^-8,1.6*10^-35, 1.67*10^-27, 8.8*10^-16, 5.3*10^-11,9*10^-31,299792458, 10^-34, 6.67*10^-11, unit : kg,meter, second)

[@glutinousmaximus]

So, what else is new?

[@phutrizukayou2900]

enlong chiou so easy! why can't everyone understand this???

[@enlongchiou]

this is hidden reality, anyone need to recognize it.

[@peterpalumbo3644]

As to a Theory Of Everything, it may be possible in our universe but one for the overall multiverse/landscape, that would involve an infinite amount of possibilities and is not likely.

[@dong.7519]

can I give u a hint on dark matter

[@glutinousmaximus]

If it's anything like my lavatory, no thanks.

[@peterpalumbo3644]

As fare as new physics is concerned, I do not think there is any, at least in our universe. Mabey if we ever access the multiverse/landscape we will find new physics, assuming it exists. It is good we finally found the Higgs particle.

[@jonahansen]

At least it appears that the Nobel Prize committee for the original science-oriented prizes does a reasonably good job - David Gross is Nobel class. Too bad the Nobel Peace prize committee have their collective heads up their butts.

[@dianabudzik7636]

David Gross IS a Nobel Prize winner!!!

[@dong.7519]

can give u a hint on dark matter

[@renatodoria9738]

Don G. A

[@renatodoria9738]

Confinement or numenon?

[@jonahansen]

Well, at least for me, I try to place my dark matter in the toilet before I flush.

[@naimulhaq9626]

Physics does not define space, time, mass charge etc., yet we discovered the standard model which shows how fine tuning the parameter space gave rise to self-organizing systems and self-organizing property of matter that delivered life and consciousness, implying intelligent design and divine purpose so we 'can know and will know'. At the big bang dark matter and dark energy were produced with opposite properties, followed by production of particles and anti-particles, followed by production of matter and anti-matter... and on to hot and cold, male and female, up and down etc. If physics does not let us know the theory of everything, 200 years ago a philosopher discovered the ubiquitous nature of reality in his theory of 'unity of opposites' in Hegel's laws of dialectics, that laid the foundation of modern physics enabling to discover anti-gravity or anti-matter etc., about which he was ignorant and had no idea. His theory even explains what happened before the gig bang, when two branes, infinitely stretched, oppositely charged met at a point, producing the finite universe. Spellbinding , how we inadvertently pass from ignorance to knowledge.

[@charlesparker6209]

Gibberish

[@durgadasdatta7014]

Rutherford may not be correct . Pulp proton atomic model with strong nuclear force as quantum gravity is the new theory'.

[@peterpalumbo3644]

Why not build the next accelerator along the equator of the moon on the surface? The absolute zero of space should make the superconducting magnets easier to build.

[@homebrew010homebrew3]

Imagine the costs & logistical difficulties of that.

[@viswagsena108]

Reasonably well started lecture from pendulum mode Fields expanding to present the state of anarchy- at particle physics at GeV levels -ending up Physics come to an end ?can one quantify Knowledge base out of this lecture? can one quantify ignorance prevailing today? Why Dogmatic dig-in on Earth locating Graveyard psychology. Honesty of the Speaker must be appreciated.Oh GOD- Save Cosmology from this dilemma ?Cosmos Quest through Nature and philosophy may help in time.

[@MirekHeikkila]

I pick, to dumb to succeed, plz prove me wrong!! :(

[@fasihodin]

Struggled to listen fuck

[@deniseclegg4142]

going slow didn't help me understand any better, i'm afraid; infact, I forget what was said at the start way before he get to the end of whatever it is or was, he was or is, on about at .....the ..uhm, the ...end of..... each, err, sentence.⏳⌛😴😜😋

[@frankdimeglio8216]

Frank DiMeglio has mathematically unified physics. Other TOP physicists agree.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

THE TRUE AND CLEARLY PROVEN MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE: Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. By Frank DiMeglio

[@huddless50]

@1:09:40 Mr. David Gross. When you decide to interject your political beliefs into an otherwise interesting scientific lecture then you lose the respect that your field of study and obviously years of dedicated work grants you. As a physicist you may be granted the honorific of Dr but as a political pun-dent show us your degrees in the field of politics (or comedy) otherwise your opinion remains as useful as my own MR. Gross. The cause of the cancellation of the SSC can and and rightfully should be put squarely on the shoulder of the scientific community itself (Scientific American, "The Supercollider that never was" 15 Oct 2013). Scientist greed and envy and yes some stupid political players also #notallscientists were a prime cause. The causes were a little more complicated than your weak attempt at blame humor would indicate. To imply that it was the "precursors of the Trump phenomena" is to show your own ignorance or bias and greatly diminishes your intellectual gravitas. Doing so during a serious event and with a captive audience places you centrally in that mud pit of social justice, PC-austic, AntiFa-natics, regressive leftist community of useful idiots. Please consider in that pit there be swine and that nice clean white shirt and intellectual privilege you seem to hold dear might not fair so well. Consider also passing this advice along to your colleagues. (Looking at you Krauss.) Addendum: After reading your Nobelprize.org bio I see you are well aware of that pit after all. Really, you charged your dad 10 cents per page to proofread his book? How progressively stereotypical of you even at age 11. Impressive. Enjoy the privilege and honor your years of hard work and study grants, thank you for sharing and showing us lowly ignorant red state "neo" plebs how horrifically unworthy we are of true intellectual understanding according to a blue state elitist. I apologize for the rant (not really) but seriously you people are so smart you've forgotten that "a" degree doesn't grant you unlimited, unquestioning commentary on any subject. If you do believe that it does then I take back the "so smart" part.

[@jonahansen]

Methinks you should consider the possibility that dr Gross is in fact smarter than you, and an objective analysis of what has happened would support his "political" conclusions. How exactly do his political beliefs affect his scientific stature and prowess? Why would he need a degree in political "pun-dentry". Degrees in gender studies and the like are so far from science they can't even be compared. Wolgang Pauli stated it succinctly as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong," Dr. Gross didn't lose my respect, but your comment revealed to me the sad state of the US citizenry. Churchill stated it as "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average citizen", or something to that effect. Your arguments are based on "feelz", ad hominem attacks, etc. I can't see how what you clearly spend a lot of time and effort thinking about is helping humanity one iota.

[@vinm300]

huddless, perhaps you're a muddle-headed-moron who thinks that Trump Jr trying to set up a back channel communication with the Kremlin using Russian intelligence isn't collusion and perhaps you think Eric's remark that "We don't use American banks we get all the money we need from Russia", is innocent, even in the aftermath of Trump's humiliation in Helsinki when he had to come home and apologise by saying "I meant to say 'wouldn't ' not 'would' ", but I think Mueller's team have a different view on the matter and will be presenting their findings shortly.