Is This a New Kind of Physics? - with Harry Cliff, Paula Alvarez Cartelle and Ben Allanach

Our current theory of particle physics, the Standard Model, predicts equal numbers of electrons and muons, but the results showed fewer muons being produced than electrons. Is this just a cruel trick of the data, or could this be the first sign of a new force of nature?
Watch the Q&A: • Q&A: How Do Neural Net...
At the end of March 2021, scientists working on the LHCb experiment at CERN in Geneva reported an unusual discrepancy in their data that caused huge excitement in the physics community and beyond. They looked at a decade of information about how unstable particles called B mesons decayed into electrons and muons.
Paula Alvarez Cartelle is a particle physicist at the University of Cambridge working on the LHCb experiment, one of the four big experiments studying the data from the most powerful particle accelerator in the world, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. She study very rare decays of particles containing b-quarks, with the aim to find the missing pieces that would help us understand some of the open questions in fundamental physics.
Harry Cliff is a particle physicist at the University of Cambridge who, like Paula, works on the LHCb experiment studying the rare decays of beauty quarks. He also spends a big chunk of his time sharing his love of physics with the public through exhibitions and public lectures. His first popular science book, How To Make An Apple Pie From Scratch, will be published in August 2021.
Ben Allanach is Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, in the Theoretical High Energy Particle Physics Group. Ben works mostly on collider searches for new physics with other members of the Cambridge Pheno Working Group especially at CERN's Large Hadron Collider. He worked at CERN in the early 2000s and goes back often, having Visiting Scientist status there.
This talk was recorded on 6 May 2021
---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Ivo Danihelka, Hamza, Paulina Barren, Metzger, Kevin Winoto, Jonathan Killin, János Fekete, Mehdi Razavi, Mark Barden, Taylor Hornby, Rasiel Suarez, Stephan Giersche, William 'Billy' Robillard, Scott Edwardsen, Jeffrey Schweitzer, Gou Ranon, Christina Baum, Frances Dunne, jonas.app, Tim Karr, Adam Leos, Michelle J. Zamarron, Andrew Downing, Fairleigh McGill, Alan Latteri, David Crowner, Matt Townsend, Anonymous, Roger Shaw, Robert Reinecke, Paul Brown, Lasse T. Stendan, David Schick, Joe Godenzi, Dave Ostler, Osian Gwyn Williams, David Lindo, Roger Baker, Greg Nagel, and Rebecca Pan.
---
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[@amouramarie]

O.O This guy who 'introduced' particle physics in a couple minutes as an intro to something _else_ explained it better than some videos I've watched on the subject itself haha. Also, thanks to the visuals!

[@raffypongcol5031]

He's Harry Cliff 🤩🥰

[@etherico3041]

Lol cause it’s nonsensical

[@baigandinel7956]

That couple minutes was a third of the video.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Lol its not actually this way in observations this is how they imagine it is when humans aren't looking at it

[@lyhokong2564]

Can a particular be controlled by adding the elements to control the direction it travels because of it has no matter or nothing in it then can it be possible to change the way it moves artificial and a neural matter can have as we want in it to work like can pollution of earth be collected and with the raw material and waste it can be turned into fuel that burns and cleans as a filter that is like a pollen of flowers so it can travel distance as it cleans always changing the waste into new clean air able to be recycled into new ways for a different purpose so all new air is clean and sustainable for better growth and get better as theore it can collect as waste pollution is collected it can be used in any way as any fuel and all types of use as it can be turned into anything we want even new tech

[@billstebler5686]

I rarely read the comments below videos on KZbin or contribute my own, but after reading these I find it very sad that so many are negative. It’s somewhat rare to come across a video where the actual researchers present their work, and it’s likely quite difficult for them to boil down what is literally years of painstaking work into something that those without a background in particle physics can begin to comprehend. They are to be commended. As for subtitles, I agree that could be helpful, at least for those here whose comments indicate some degree of literacy. For those arguing that atoms don’t exist because they can’t be seen, that’s simply no longer true. But wait, what does that say about “god”? Wouldn’t it be great if this much research went into finding ways to make the general population smarter and more considerate of one another. NOTE: This comment was submitted via iPad, a device that, like so many, would simply not exist with out the decades of scientific research in quantum mechanics and other scientific fields.

[@adrianfrandsen3011]

Have a great day man. You are my hero of the day.

[@wilmawallace3829]

Can i ask about element 115? It is supposedly the fuel for the propulsion system of the ufos we have seen recently in the news. This element is now on the periodic table. It also links into the God particle which was discovered with the collider in that the discovery is a only relevant if you believe that this was a man made discovery. String theory as you know is an expansion on a collision theory or predetermination. It relies on theory that we can never prove or disprove. Element 115 has been proven as a way of dis proving all we know about physics and yet we and you have discussions about theories that simply are irrelevant if you know element 115 can do what it does. In order to evolve we have to accept what is real not what we perceive is real. Theory is interpretation so therefore pointless if deep down you know element 115 defies interpretation

[@Quark.Lepton]

@@wilmawallace3829 Of course! That goes without saying!

[@luizquevedo6580]

The God Particle is the H boson

[@paulbennett7021]

Well said.

[@jocliff7387]

Sound quality makes it hard to hear Ms Alvarez but the intro by Mr Cliff was excellent many thanks.

[@indmych]

Great job! The first segment helped me understand what we were talking about, the second made the nature of these important results crystal clear, and the third prepared me to understand the results we get to look forward to. Big thumbs up, well done.

[@Zen_Power]

I understood Paula without too many issues. Greatful for the free content from a world leading researcher.

[@oswaldoriginal7587]

What kind of English is she speaking?

[@milanstevic8424]

@@oswaldoriginal7587 She's from Galicia, Spain, that's the northwestern part of the country. Actually she's quite understandable if you focus on her Spanish pronunciation. Though it almost sounds like Greek at moments. The real problem with the audio, however, is due to her room echoing excessively.

[@oswaldoriginal7587]

@@milanstevic8424 Thanks but what can I do, I know nothing of spanish word or slang, all I can understand is some UK and US english

[@paulburn1920]

Put subtitles on , still hard to follow great job just baffle people with long words

[@edgy8481]

@@milanstevic8424 Yeah it's the audio that's bad.

[@nrosko]

Very interesting and brilliantly explained in such a condensed time.

[@lordphullautosear]

Scientist: "Muon, why do you spin so?" Muon: "Leave me be; I'm having a magnetic moment..."

[@ulrichbaum2650]

@InvenX qtl

[@spearshaker7974]

Dads and their jokes.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

This whole thing smells like an anomaly.

[@pricerobottheiv6424]

@@Robert_McGarry_Poems Your Mom 😂😆😆😆😆😆😆

[@alistairbalistair9596]

yawn

[@asecretturning]

Thank you so much for sharing the work that ya'll do!

[@eurekaihavefoundit2230]

Waiting patiently for Royal Institutes in person leactures

[@achatinaslak742]

The Sparticles are the ones, where I Slept on for years..... Thanks a lot for this very interesting and clear explanation from what may be a new branch of physics. I hope, the 5 Sigma will be reached in a couple of years.

[@robertbeg7168]

Dear Harry, I understood from your warm-up more than a couple of years of tracking particle information. Thanks a lot.

[@edwigcarol4888]

Read Brian Greene... The elegant universe and the fabric of the cosmos. So well written for laypersons with a rudimentary basic knowledge...

[@pdxdragon7479]

I watch these videos so I can appreciate what a dog must feel when listening to humans discuss politics.

[@baigandinel7956]

When I listen to most humans discuss politics today, I hear dogs barking.

[@pdxdragon7479]

@Peter Evans *"Dishonest title ..."* Not for me. It's amazing, and I like to listen. It's just next level stuff that I haven't had time to actually study. Maybe someday. Until I have time to really dig in to it, I'll run it as inspirational background for my daily struggles.

[@pavolprocka530]

@Peter Evans waiting for your video filled with more relevant info :) :) :)

[@sarahallenhumboldt2638]

@Peter Evans You could go back and actually read the post to which you thought you were responding.

[@dalsegno1251]

Every science video on KZbin has its token idiot who's either a creationist, a flat-earther, or a EU nut job who thinks they know better than a team of physicists.

[@Lufu2]

This is so terrific. Thank you for this video.

[@janedoe1913]

In reference to the modeling beginning at 33:28, it is reminiscent (to me that is) under theoretical structural biochemistry of biochemical protein protein interactions that involve forces difficult to describe where the interactions seemed to be like "silly putty". I liken the muon interactions to the protein interactions in the way they could possibly be affecting one another.

[@yogiwp_]

When I clicked on the video I didn't plan to watch the entire 44 minutes in complete fascination. Well explained, well presented and indeed super exciting! Magnificent job everyone!

[@vanchopski1]

Very interesting stuff! One thing's clear though, these people are not audio techs.

[@peterbabu936]

My ears bleeding

[@kappla]

🤣

[@dr4d1s]

Yeah, using your computers built in microphone in an echoey room isn't an ideal situation. Throw an accent on top of all that and it's a recipe for not understanding much of what is being said.

[@COPKALA]

there is no money for that

[@vanchopski1]

@@COPKALA A Ultimately not that important (although it did make things hard to understand at times) but a couple of blankets or pillows hanging from the wall would have made a big improvement.

[@bytefu]

Some people, apparently, are not exposed to foreign accents much in their lives. As a Russian, I am only exposed to English via Internet, but with a variety of accents, as I watch science lectures, stand-up comedy, movies and all kinds of stuff. Paula's accent was fine to me, and I had very little trouble understanding her. Maybe all these people that complain about her accent, should train their ears (brains, really) to various foreign accents. Though with sound quality like this, it can be pretty hard to understand even the most familiar accent. I think scientists of this caliber can afford a decent mic, which would probably cost about $30, right? Otherwise, great presentation. I wish the quality was better, but RI puts this out for free, as they had many quality lectures before, so can I really complain? The more particle physics evolves, the more I am amazed at the ingenuity of theorists and experimentalists, that are working in the field. LHC just blows my mind, it's hard to imagine how complex and carefully crafted it is.

[@chocolate_squiggle]

It's not the mic. It's not Paula either, just terrible terrible sound quality. Clearly people can become accustomed to poor audio quality because airline pilots and Air Traffic Controllers seem to understand each other. But if you're not spending half your days on terrible quality audio conferences then it really can be difficult. Personally I'd rather everyone switched off their cameras and used the bandwidth for high quality audio codecs instead. Even then it depends on everyone's personal internet connection which many times is wireless cellular nowadays.

[@EarlHare]

The guy who invents software that can automatically clean up audio to make it more audible with a single click is going to make an absolute fortune in this new age of internet video calls.

[@bryan3dguitar]

I don't think it can be done. Isn't the problem that usually poor microphones are used, they are poorly placed (if not inside a laptop) and they are used in rooms with poor acoustic properties (reverb). You would think that smart, technical people would hear the difference, understand the problem and be concerned enough to want to fix it.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

No he isn't. The people who most need it are the ones most unaware of the need. If these people had the first clue, they would have said right off, "We need to record her all over again, in a room with curtains and a carpet." Problem solved, but these clowns don't know they have a problem.

[@kriik18]

De-Esser is what you are looking for. :) Edit: I should add that it's not perfect, but it works. Edit 2: It should work in this case at least. For noise generated by computer fans, I recommend, noise reduction plugins.

[@lon3don]

There is already Ai software to do this. Much as in Physics, the improvements will come through maths.

[@mlky60]

@@lon3don I tried watching the video with nvidia broadcast enabled for my speakers, i didn't notice a difference. Nvidia broadcast isn't designed to clean up the audio, but to remove noise, so other filters might work better. If you know of some AI based filters, I'm very curious to try them out.

[@muzikhed]

Brilliant scientific work hunting for the missing ingredients. There is more to the pudding than meets the eye ! Keep up the good work you guys, may you always get the support and funding required and good luck be with you.

[@helmutzollner5496]

Great presentations. Very enlightening. Thanks for sharing.

[@Hummelsbusch]

I reached my limit of intellectual capacity… thank you for unraveling the mystery of „reality“!

[@alvaromd3203]

Best intro ever.

[@jessiferri2922]

Thank you to presenters for a concise and really fascinating video on the discovery of the possibility (7 sigma) "new force". It is very exciting. Unfortunately Paoula was a little inaudible. Good luck! Keep up the excellent research. " its a brave new world."

[@turkfiles]

The room’s acoustics were not the best for a recorded vocal presentation. Too much echo/reverb to deal with. It’s such a shame. The Dr presented such great information to further our understanding of this truly important new finding in particle physics.

[@jessiferri2922]

@@turkfiles I agree. Hopefully they can remedy their audio problems by next years experiments.

[@mkor7]

@@turkfiles Mic placement is key. It can largely overcome poor room acoustics. Obviously her mic was too far from her mouth. Surely someone there among the scientific geniuses could figure out basic audio production principles. :)

[@DudeGuyWho]

This presentation was very incremental in bringing a non-physicist through the process. Nicely done!

[@Yewbzee]

Despite the progress I get the impression that we are still merely looking through the keyhole on this subject.

[@wilmawallace3829]

Can i ask about element 115? It is supposedly the fuel for the propulsion system of the ufos we have seen recently in the news. This element is now on the periodic table. It also links into the God particle which was discovered with the collider in that the discovery is a only relevant if you believe that this was a man made discovery. String theory as you know is an expansion on a collision theory or predetermination. It relies on theory that we can never prove or disprove. Element 115 has been proven as a way of dis proving all we know about physics and yet we and you have discussions about theories that simply are irrelevant if you know element 115 can do what it does. In order to evolve we have to accept what is real not what we perceive is real. Theory is interpretation so therefore pointless if deep down you know element 115 defies interpretation

[@lesferguson7020]

@@wilmawallace3829 If it were real and not just part of a really cool story, believe me, scientists would be messing with it and publishing their findings. Also, "About 100 atoms of moscovium have been observed to date", so there is not a lot of experimentation capability right now.

[@anotherpointofview222]

@@lesferguson7020 "real"....? existence perceived as actuality, or theorized?

[@wilmawallace3829]

@@anotherpointofview222 actuality

[@anotherpointofview222]

@@wilmawallace3829 Noted.

[@csx296]

So many interesting videos destroyed by poor audio :(

[@torgrimhanssen5100]

good audio, small office rooms.

[@HolyGarbage]

@@torgrimhanssen5100 By poor audio, I think csx296 meant the audio in the video is poor, which I agree. Of course, it's then *caused* by for example poor acoustics from small office rooms, or similar.

[@victoriay6246]

Be glad they had the time to share this ….. university budgets do not lend to free videos with perfect production.

[@juanitoviejo2121]

Fascinating and easy for the amateur to follow, but as usual in pure research: 26:40 We need more coin!

[@mariosum1065]

Thank you very much - once again - for this interesting talk. Could you please maybe check the link to the Q&A, though? This would be very great.

[@douglasmayfield6411]

Thank for a clear presentation of a very difficult subject. If I could ask questions of the presenters, I would as follows. In the diagram of the two decays (shown at just after 17 minutes), the drawings seem identical to me except for muon+ and muon- in one and e+ and e- in the other. But the muon is much much heavier than the electron. So where does the extra mass/energy come from for decay B? And given that decay B involves (so apparently much) extra mass and energy, why would (assuming that I'm interpreting R sub k shown at 23:11 properly) the relative probability of these two decays be 1 or close to it?

[@kirstinstrand6292]

OMG! I need at least 30 more IQ points! 😡

[@chargersina]

@@kirstinstrand6292 no worries what he is saying is that when the particles decay they see more energy. Where does that energy come from? sheesh.

[@ijustwanttolikecomments4677]

if i am understanding correctly, the extra mass/energy for decay B is what they are excited about because it could be a result from something new....i.e. they're asking the same question, where is it coming from?

[@BANKO007]

Why comments about her accent? I understood every single word. Her English is excellent. Give me a time in the video where you didn't understand and I will show you how easy it is to write it.

[@dasaggropop1244]

i have less problems with her accent than her audio quality. these people do cutting edge research at the frontier of mankinds understanding of the universe, but they can't get a mic or headset when they are doing some public talk like this? i will never understand.

[@adamcummings20]

@@dasaggropop1244 their funding goes entirely towards research equipment and a mediocre salary I guess, just like any other job

[@dasaggropop1244]

@@adamcummings20 they should have a couple of bucks for professional communication. this is not expensive or outlandish equipment. every 12yo with a minecraft channel has better presentation.

[@TyWooly42]

But made more difficult by audio's echo.

[@BANKO007]

@@dasaggropop1244 I can't disagree with that. The sound quality is the real culprit.

[@wafikiri_]

¡Sigue así, Paula! Algún día darás con algo extraordinario!

[@IagobaApellaniz]

Ya lo ha hecho! 😀

[@malectric]

It might sound extremely trite but the interesting thing to me about antimatter is that it still has positive mass. Perhaps a more fundamental question is what is the nature of electric charge since this seems to define what antimatter is.

[@jasonH5997]

Also does measuring/observing these experiments/collisions change the outcome? Like the double slit experiment and others.

[@jasonH5997]

@Greg Jacques I'm not so sure about time only moving foward. I think "time" may be a human construct.

[@jasonH5997]

@Greg Jacques I didn't say we invented it, I just meant that we maybe have it "labeled" wrong. I'm not a Physicist or anything of the sort. I just feel like there is a lot that we do not know. However there are so many breakthroughs happening right now on every level. I can't help but to feel that humanity is in the cusp of something HUGE.

[@danievdw]

This is very well put together, thank you.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

No, Danie. It isn't. This is a model of how not to do it.

[@paulbennett7021]

In the mass comparison chart I noticed that the ratio between the heaviest member and the middle member is approximately equal to that between the middle and the lightest, but only for the upper two comparisons. In the lowest one the ratio is again comparable between the middle and lightest members, but significantly less between the heaviest (tau) and the middle. Is this something which needs to be explained? Or is the reason known? I ask as an ageing non-physicist!

[@TheJewelnok]

How much energy is in the various fields where the fluctuations occur?

[@All-is-1]

One of the best presentations of the current state of physics. Thank you please repeat with follow-up as information changes.

[@MacShrike]

Ls, Embarrassed to ask a question here but: @17"07' The B-meson Decays-A into a K-meson consisting of electron leptons OR Decays-B into a K-meson consisting of muon leptons. Question: Are these different K mesons? If so, only by weight? If not, shouldn't the diagram show B mesons decaying into K mesons that could either be electron leptons or muon leptons? Or can K mesons be either electric or muonic? The decay difference only being in the weight of the K meson?

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

When you want to add a timestamp, just type mm:ss. For example "17:07" without the quotations. 17:07 . and don't be embaraased by that question, its a good question.

[@MacShrike]

@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92 didn't know that worked. Thx🤗

[@RexxSchneider]

Mesons are a bound state of a quark and an antiquark; there are no leptons involved. The B+ meson being studied is not a fundamental particle. It is a bound state of an up quark and a bottom antiquark. The bottom antiquark decays into a strange antiquark and a pair of leptons, and the strange antiquark remains bound to the up quark resulting in a K+ meson. The electron/positron or muon/antimuon pair as separate particles move off the axis of travel of the meson in opposite directions, conserving momentum.

[@MacShrike]

@@RexxSchneider thank you Rex🙋🏻‍♂️ very clear. I understand better now. From your avatar I gather you have been doing this for a long time😁

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

@@RexxSchneider but what dictates whether the K-meson splits into the electron/antielectron or muon/anti-muon? Cause it seems like it could do either at random

[@kevinhenderson5520]

I love this stuff and i don't want this to sound offensive or anything but it can be tough trying to follow with the accents on english. It would be great if there were some way for someone to break through our language barriers so that these brilliant minds can be more understood

[@PinkSamuraiSL]

I totally understand. I love learning and teaching languages, and that's how I've discovered first hand how people struggle with accents they are not used to hearing. The easiest solution is they add subtitles, but for the time being you can try the CC, while not perfect they may be of help.

[@danricheson1362]

The sound quality borderlines on intelligible.

[@shazmunchdylbertoid]

honestly I found it fine. yes, broad overview, but something I could show to my friends and show them why I'm excited, and honestly having zero issues understanding her.

[@james6401]

Specsavers?

[@user-cv1jb9xv2p]

Timestamps would be appreciated. Thanks for the video.

[@jatinbangar4371]

Am I the only one who can understand her? I'm an indian too. She's pretty clear 👍

[@confushon1398]

she's amazing, can understand just fine.

[@renep9968]

My English is very good. I dont understand a word she sais.

[@eddiegaltek]

I thought she was fine.

[@DJCornelis]

huh.... she sounds pretty Hispanic to me, peculiar!

[@dinosaurus4189]

I got lost around when he said heres Pauola. But that's just me.

[@billvinson7859]

I can never get enough of quantum physics. If we would have built that larger collider in Texas in the late 1980s we might have already found this possible 5th force. Congress stoped it after spending over 1 billion. All we had to show for it was a large hole in the ground.

[@Cyberplayer5]

Which is a fraction of the military budget.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

The "without further ado" apparently required by KZbin occurs at 13:46。

[@johnswimcat]

Fascinating. Every time I watch something like this I am reminded of something I read a Zen master said: "You think the light comes from the moon, is reflected on the water, then comes to your eye. But it is not so." Does this mean we have to attain a certain state of consciousness to understand reality? However this, if right, in no way invalidates the particle research these guys are doing, at least as far as I'm concerned

[@s4nder86]

He was correct, the light comes from the sun.

[@johnswimcat]

@@s4nder86 I don't think that's what he meant. Nor do you I suspect!

[@richardgray3343]

Question! When the B meson decays into a K meson which then decays into an electron and anti-electron do these two then ALWAYS annihilate each other or can you prevent this using a magnet and possibly keep the electrons, am guessing the anti-electrons would probably be annihilated in the air when they come into contact with gas and it’s electrons or some such atom?

[@RexxSchneider]

Because of the conservation of momentum, a real electron/positron pair (or muon/anti-muon pair) will almost inevitably start moving off in different directions. Since the distance that they can interact is small relative to their path sizes, the chances of being bent back by a magnetic field so that they can annihilate each other is close to zero in all of the experiments. Incidentally, it's the ratio of the decays of the B-meson into a K-meson and electron/positron versus the decays of the B-meson into a K-meson and muon/anti-muon that is being studied, not the decay of the K-mesons.

[@corneliusprentjie-maker6715]

Danke schön again Rex.

[@anotherelvis]

Great talks

[@neelroy2918]

Everytime I hear a scientist say "there are trillions of neutrinos passing through you every second" I feel little uneasy. I then proceed to see if I am feeling them just because I heard that statement for nth time.

[@mmenjic]

11:00 if particles are just something like bumps in the field, something like illustrated here, I am not saying they are not, and we can accelerate them or even just move them why we can not observe kind of ripples and shockwaves in the fields from moving particles or we can ??

[@IagobaApellaniz]

We can. Those are the "new particles" created after the collisions, those are the photons emitted when a charged particle is accelerated, etc.

[@mmenjic]

@@IagobaApellaniz Thank you.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

For some ideas, go to my YT page, under 'DISCUSSION', 'SORT BY', select 'Newest first' to pull up all the entries. (For some reason the YT page does not show all my entries unless one selects 'Newest first'). You will find my theory of everything idea, the potential completion of the periodic table of the elements, spacetime info, etc.

[@rickyardo2944]

@@charlesbrightman4237 Where can we find these?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@rickyardo2944 On my KZbin (YT) page as stated above.

[@danmimis4576]

I'm probably not the only one who clicked the 'subtitles' button when Paula started talking but YT's automatic captioning is far from stellar ...

[@trevoremery7111]

It's down to the good old measurement problem. The predicted value for the Higgs was almost halved. The W boson has suddenly grown much bigger and quantum entanglement is dependent on multiple throws of the dice. Obviously, this creates difficulties and the standard model is based on particle physics and especially precise measurements and will always be open to questions as Heisenberg clearly illustrated. My point is this is a field problem as you mentioned and there are not multiple fields, but multiple events with a field, but you revert back to particle physics without any reference to wave effects within a charged field. If this Muon wobbles and has magnetic moments you are dealing with wave mechanics happening in a field.

[@TheNewSongwriters]

The language of quantum physics needs some updating. Words like "decay" and "collapse" have implicit assumptions built in that are bathed in the negative connotations of the words. "Decay" implies degradation, but it may in fact be the case that the transition is one of transduction, i.e., information taken by the universe from an unstable state (like short-term memory) to a stable state (like long-term memory). It may well be the case that this is a step of improvement and not in any way a step of degradation, but the use (or misuse) of the word "decay" blinds physicists to the other possibilities of interpretation, because all language both enables our ability to think but also constrains it. Change the word and free your mind.

[@sunson3131]

Really needs real microphones and/or a sound engineer.

[@COPKALA]

there is no money for that, that is the difference between real science and what you see in 'movies'

[@tomwright7436]

@@COPKALA 😐

[@dr4d1s]

@@COPKALA aww bless your heart

[@_vicary]

They need voice actors.

[@mikakorhonen5715]

They aren't interested in something as slow as speed of sound.

[@michaelbellamy007]

Extremely well made video, with a clear explanation of the evidence.

[@KuntChitface]

Basically, in the electron field there are different particles other than just a standard electron. Different masses or 'sizes' but all behave similarly in the spectrum. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it would make sense that speed -> (two particles being shoved together extremely fast with a lot of force) would create bigger particles, thus absorbing mass and or changing measurable charges. I wonder if this event changes how closely it orbits to atomic nuclei.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

it should... whatever the mass of each electron was and how much mass it loss in combining should dictate its new mass and change its orbit..... I'm still curious how tf hydrogen sustains its existence with only 1 electron, that 1 little electron must be working over time lol

[@abdulomaha9528]

The Q&A link in the description is wrong. Please check it out.

[@thekingston119]

Subtitles, please.

[@_vicary]

I concur, since he passed the speech to the next speaker I almost want to click away.

[@OlDirtySam]

@@JohnyG29 english would be fine for me. i had no problem with any english accent i have met yet but paulas is a real problem for me. Ad to this: aome people are deaf. Would be a shame to shut them out

[@Exania88]

so if I understod this correct, the problem is that all the fields are like a big sea were they all are in and around themselfs and each other, fluctuating, moving, being on and off, there and not there and then to get the decay and the reactions u looking for, u more or less have to make so the two that collide do so at a specifik point in the invisble sea of fields so the particles passes the right type of field to decay in the way needed to get the result u looking for. so what is needed is a way to find or create the different fields in the big sea of fields that fluctuate in and out of what we right now understand as reality over time. sense we cant pinpoint the fields u go for more collisions and hoping to get the collision in the right spot or that the collision create the type of field needed to get what u looking for. im sorry I cant write vary well but I hope someone understand what I mean and can correct me if im thinking of this in the wrong way. to make it clear im not talking about the first collision sense that is needed to start it all as far as I understand this.

[@wdujsub7902]

Great talk, but could you please put the right Q/A link in the description ? The current one links to the Q/A of the last talk

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

There doesn't appear to be a _Q&A_ posted for this talk - and the link is, as you say, wrong.

[@wdujsub7902]

@@philaypeephilippotter6532 you are probably right. But I Remember that in the talk they mentioned (the speakers) that they were looking forward to the Q/A so I got a bit confused.

[@philaypeephilippotter6532]

@@wdujsub7902 I haven't seen it yet but since they list a _Q&A_ there probably was one.

[@robert8124]

Need to build one on the Moon and see what it will do or reveal. CERN is doing excellent research.

[@dakrontu]

The problem with picturing fields as fluids permeating space is that we think of fluids having motion. But motion implies a frame of reference. And yet there is no unique frame of reference that can apply: Michelson & Morley found no aether. Perhaps this conundrum disappears if all wave motion within such 'fluids' is at the speed of light, such that relative motion between any two frames of reference always amounts to the same speed of light in some direction?

[@RexxSchneider]

There really is no problem with not having a unique frame of reference - that's why relativity is named "relativity". There certainly appears to be no _medium_ needed for electromagnetic fields to exist in, but that's not the same as a frame of reference and we now know that any frame of reference is as good as any other. That's why Michelson & Morley found there was no "preferred" direction. Observers in different inertial (i.e. non-accelerated) frames moving with respect to each other will observe electromagnetic waves travelling in vacuum to have the same velocity, even if they disagree about lengths and timings when measuring other speeds. I don't see any conundrum that needs to disappear.

[@PaulMDavidson]

Doesn't decay into muon-antimuon pairs involve more mass in the end product than decay into electron-positron pairs? Why then are both decay outcomes expected to be equally probable?

[@gcam474]

Quantum field intermodulation or harmonic effects perhaps. New physics? Nice work. Anything else in the last two years?

[@RockBrentwood]

Baryon minus Lepton (B-L). Why? Because (1) it's the only *other* force consistent with the Triangle Anomaly + Quark/Lepton spectrum (the other being Hypercharge - which ultimately gives you the known electrical charge spectrum), (2) the spectrum of quarks and leptons is practically already screaming out B-L ... once you include the right-helicity neutrinos & left-helicity anti-neutrinos, (3) the quark/lepton spectrum in the Standard Model does not have a *quadratic invariant* ... which is mandatory for any gauge force, but once B-L is included, there are *two* quadratic invariants, (4) the inclusion of B-L completes the "color cube", playing the role of "brightness", while the two other SU(3) eigenmodes play the role "chromaticity coordinates", aligning the baryons and leptons into cubical 8-tuples, (5) the inclusion of B-L also completes the "isospin square", providing a opposite-helicity counterpart to the the isospin eigenmode (I3) (6) which reveals the glimpse of a opposite-helicity counterpart of the SU(2) gauge force, thereby providing a way to actually restore parity as a symmetry(!) ... and reframe it as a broken symmetry (as Penrose has long suggested). (7) Right-handed neutrinos bound to large concentrations (like galaxies) of ordinary matter (which would be a seriously unbalanced B-L charge) provides a much simpler explanation for dark matter, (8) a right-handed version of SU(2) gives us SU(2) × SU(2) ~ SO(4), while the B-L addition of U(1) to the color SU(3) strongly suggests SU(4) ~ SO(6) as an underpinning ... which matches the baryon/lepton spectrum we see: Cube (for SO(6)) × Square (for SO(4)). The X11 is probably the B-L force carrier, itself. The Antarctic ice anomaly may be another signal for the B-L force, likewise for the g-2 anomaly. There's a moderate, and growing, number of ArXiv preprints hitting on the B-L + right-neutrino angle to dark matter, now.

[@cheftt6863]

A dedicated high quality camera and microphone would be nice.

[@adolforosado]

The Church of the cult of bumping particles confesses the existence of the Aether. About effing time.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

🐟 05. THE PHENOMENAL UNIVERSE: As demonstrated in the previous chapter, there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a separate, objective universe, external to the perceptual faculties of a conscious being. The fact that the phenomenal universe (“prakṛti”, in Sanskrit) of mind and matter (or name and form [“nāmarūpa”, in Sanskrit/Pali]) exists (that is to say, is perceived) solely within the personal consciousness of any individual human or animal, is superlatively logical. If this material world actually existed as a SEPARATE reality, then obviously, it would have limits, because the nature of matter is that it has a measurable, three-dimensional finitude. Despite what some may claim, no perceived object can be infinite or eternal. Therefore, if one were to travel to the edge of the universe, there would need to be something WITHOUT the boundary of the universe (some other “universe”, which contains this universe). This contradicts the very concept of a universe (literally, “turned into one”). Therefore, there cannot be a so-called “multiverse”, for if it were so, the summation of all discrete universes would properly be termed “universe”. Our observable universe would then be merely a “cell” or “bubble” of the totality of material nature. At what location did the universe begin to exist? The late, great Professor Dr. Alan Watts’ response to the question: “where is the universe located?” was: “nowhere and everywhere”. One of the most misunderstood aspects of this space-time universe is just that - TIME. There are various extant theories of time. However, time is a very simple concept to grasp for one who has experienced his own timeless nature. That usually occurs during meditation practices or during awakening experiences (see Chapter 17 to understand spiritual awakening). Possibly the easiest way to understand time is to use the analogy of a movie. It may take a couple hours to watch a motion picture, yet the whole film is contained in the form of a single digital file (or in the case of older mediums, a reel of photographic film). The story of this universe may take hundreds of billions of earth years to complete, but from the perspective of eternity (literally, “no time”) it is not even as long as the blink of an eyelid. Indeed, it cannot be measured at all. To use movie jargon, the story of life is already “in the can” (of film). Read Chapters 08 and 11 to learn about causality and predestination. In practical terms, time is the perception of a succession of physical or mental events (that is to say, time corresponds to phenomenal change). This material manifestation is composed of space, time (or, to be more accurate, space-time), energy, and matter, the latter of which comprises eight elemental groups - the five GROSS elements (“mahābhūta”, in Sanskrit), which are perceivable by at least one of the five senses, and the three SUBTLE elements (“tanmātra” or “atisūkṣma mātra”, in Sanskrit), which are symptomatic of localized consciousness. N.B. Dark matter and black holes are not included in this system, as cosmological science has yet to determine their structural composition. The five gross material elements and three subtle material elements are (from most palpable to most intangible): SOLIDS (AKA earth - “bhūmiḥ” or “pṛthivī”, in Sanskrit) are made of densely-packed molecules of a steady shape at room temperature. LIQUIDS (AKA water - “jala” or “āpaḥ”, in Sanskrit) are composed of moderately-dense molecules conforming to the shape of its environment or container (and in nature, often including at least some water molecules). GASES (AKA air - “vāyuḥ” or “marut”, in Sanskrit) consist of rarefied molecular particles of no fixed shape. HEAT (AKA fire - “analaḥ” or “tejas”, in Sanskrit) is made of kinetic energy (which may appear visibly as fire, or at least heat waves). ETHER (AKA space - “ākāśa” or “khaṃ”, in Sanskrit) is a vacuum consisting of three-dimensional space (length, breadth, and width). However, recent investigation has confirmed that empty space is actually filled with virtual particles (matter and antimatter). Thus, the explanation for the material universe being created from “nothing” (anti-matter) is plausible, according to quantum field theory. MIND (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is composed of sensual perceptions, instinctual thoughts, abstract images (including memories and fantasies), and emotions. Not all animal species have a mind, but function purely on base nervous reflexes, generated from their specific genetic code. INTELLECT (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit) consists of conceptual thoughts. Only the very higher species of animal life possess an intellectual capacity. PSEUDO-EGO (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit) is comprised of the “I” thought (specifically, the illusory, ephemeral self-identity). Only humans possess the self-awareness necessary to question their own existence. Read Chapter 10 for a full disquisition of egoity. Each of the FIVE perceptible material elements corresponds to one of the senses of the body. E.g. In outer space, where there is a vacuum (ether), one can detect light with the eyes, yet space is not tactile and cannot be smelled or tasted, nor can sound waves travel via space. At the opposite extreme, solid matter can be seen with the eyes, felt with the sense of touch, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, and heard with the ear (when the solid matter is physically vibrated). Beyond these eight material elements is the TRUE self - which pervades the entire body, and indeed, which encompasses the entirety of existence as the Universal Self (“ayam ātmā brahma”, in Sanskrit). Ultimately speaking, the authentic self/Self (“ātmana/Paramātmana”, in Sanskrit) alone is. The following chapter deals more fully with the concept of Infinite Awareness (“brahman” or “puruṣa”, in Sanskrit). However, all eight elemental groups are, in fact, “made of”, or an APPEARANCE in, Consciousness, since, as demonstrated previously, naught but Consciousness “exists”. Consciousness is the ultimate reality (“prajñāna brahma”, in Sanskrit). Just as a wedding ring is contingent on gold for its very existence, so too does the phenomenal universe depend entirely on Beingness (or “Isness”), Consciousness, and Blissful Quietude. Although The Absolute cannot be verbally-described, (otherwise, “it” would be an OBJECT), as a concession to materialists (who often demand concrete answers from religionists), Infinite Awareness is said to exhibit three innate attributes, known as “sacchidānanda”, a compounded Sanskrit epithet, consisting of the three words “sat”, “cit” and “ānanda” - Eternal Being(ness), Existence, or Truth; Pure Consciousness, or Perfect Knowledge; and Unalloyed Peace (often translated as “bliss”. However, the term “bliss” connotes an ephemeral experience of euphoria, whereas “peace” is a steady-state, absent of any form of temporal perturbation). Because Absolutely Nothing (“brahman” or “puruṣa”, in Sanskrit) is Infinite Creative Potentiality, “it” actualizes as Absolutely Everything. Attributeless Consciousness at Rest (in Sanskrit, “Nirguna Brahman”) manifests as this phenomenal universe (Consciousness in Action, or, in Sanskrit, “Saguna Brahman”). In the verbiage of quantum physics, the enfolded implicate order appears as the unfolded explicate order. In REALITY there is no separation of anything at any time (assuming that Consciousness is a “thing”, and that time is a property of The Uncaused Absolute). That the total sum energy of the universe is zero, implies the non-existence of matter (i.e. no thing is objectively real). Cont...

[@jewelbennett7325]

🙄 5 the force this is great

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@jewelbennett7325, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️

[@schmetterling4477]

So what happened to you in high school, kid? Were you bullied badly or was it the teachers giving you Ds all the time?

[@andymouse]

@@TheWorldTeacher Discovery of a 5th force is " Great " whats your problem ?

[@genuinefreewilly5706]

Thats a great explaination :)

[@zioo3117]

We create duplicates of what was already created and we also discover bits and pieces of what we don't know. It may be that dark matter and dark energy may have interactions that form "stuff" or elements. The lack of equality means that one of math's models that has an equals sign with symbols on either side, doesn't work exactly, for how a lot of the elements are made and composed. Yet what is out there, is out there now. Is there a larger or more complex type of matter out there, which are at yet another future level of complexity. Will the universe make ever-more higher level of complexity in matter, or is there a limit? Naturally occurring, of course. Energy in a collision at higher heat and differing level potentially creates a new particle. Decay is an interesting term. Reminds me of "rust." The time frames are different or diverse.

[@michaelc.tiberio5761]

I think your Q&A link points to the wrong Q&A.

[@andyroid7339]

Beautiful! Great explantion. I often imagine the reaction from Faraday, Rutherford, Pauli, or Dirac if it were possible to tell them about modern findings. I wonder what the Chinese are pursuing re: particle physics? Surely, this is the Western World's edge on China? I believe that all science should be shared but, why not hang on to our lead and profit from it?

[@paulmaydaynight9925]

as the uk keeps giving away the most globally valuable science engineering its people invent/brain drained to the hostile bolshevik us corps time & time again, -(trillions of sterling in lost tech income just since maggot &Co)- with little if anything in return, what does it matter... -the reaction from Faraday, Rutherford, Pauli, or Dirac etc could be summed up as regards today,nice engineering, f'ing idiot's-

[@bebzon8941]

@@paulmaydaynight9925 Over the centuries you have gained importance by taking advantage of poor nations, using their workforce and their resources. But now UK is light years behind in science and will gradually lose its economic importance.

[@paulmaydaynight9925]

@@bebzon8941 really ! can we get a scoop of new hypothetical math tools optimised dark muon/is old dark aether with that dark energy and invisible white hole with a dash of graviton sprinkles please. 'sargon of akkad The British Crusade Against Slavery' the only nation to ever actually stop global slavery, not to shabby as a legacy. look up the ratio per head v science inventions , 'what have the romans ever done for us' sketch. oc also credit where its due 'james burke connections' no ones an island ,well except 'the little island that could and did' invent...the industrial revolution etc,etc,etc... special mention for Professor Eric Laithwaite:inventor of the linear motor -300 mph hovertrain- aka now rebadged & known as the derivative bullet train

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

@@bebzon8941 "taking advantage of poor nations"...how did they become poor? My guess would be their stupidity in not recognizing that finances drive a country's success. So it looks like the countries that have technologically advanced are smarter than their counterparts....and maybe UK does fall behind, at which point they will be the dumb ones for allowing it to happen. I don't see how "fairness" factors in to technological advancement.

[@andyroid7339]

@@paulmaydaynight9925 I think you may have to increase your medication. It's going to be OK, stay calm. (Nurse! Bring the IV Haloperidol stat!)

[@davidsanford9701]

Between this lady's accent and her scientific language and the echo, l think I understood 4 or 5 words.

[@robert8124]

It has to be something to do with their electrical charges. Like the periodic chart is set up. Weight due to their electrical charges. Things may get never smaller than these genius scientist engineers are seeing now. Amazing research...

[@viktorbaraga4514]

Forget about Matter. Think in terms of energy, vibration and resonance and you will understand the Universe. Nikola Tesla. I wonder ,why they burnt down his laboratory and placed him in the Hotel house arrest where he wasted away and so did humanity, a genius mind for 30 years. Perhaps it was Harp his last major invention and military involvement that contributed to his destiny. Just imagine how many more real inventions were buried with preventing him to work. Everything you touch electrical or not like X ray, Medium surface potential used in his pump, He has given light to people around the globe, Energy transmition trough air/free energy from Quantum zero point energy. “Who wants to give the masses a free energy "Morgan was not interested because he can’t put a meter on and charge . Various top secret technologies that Tesla invented and patented are used in high tech military of both USA and Russia today. All those patents and most of his private papers ended up with the US military inteligence.This is not my opinion, but have read about this from various sources a lot ,which you can even find on the web. I could go on and on, but it’s all on the nett or in the books readily available to public.

[@CarlosEduardoRodriguesAlves]

I had no problem with the lady’s accent. I actually think that she gave a good explanation. I used the (wired) iPhone earphones. My experience could be different using the iPhone speakers. Update: the earphones actually made a big difference. Without them it was harder to understand the lecture.

[@sivansharma5027]

I almost didn't click because of the clickbaity title... Decided to click only because I know the RI videos are always informative and wouldn't contain timewasting content

[@nutbunny10]

In the beginning when the Standard Model is being filled in & the yellow column of particles is introduced (gluon, photon, Z boson, W boson), is there a relationship with the other particles in the same row, as there is initially with the orange and blue particles? (up->charm->top) are related (down->strange->bottom) are related (electron neutrino->muon neutrino-tau neutrino) are related (electron->muon->tau) are related Is there a reason for putting the gluon next to (up->charm->top) ? Is there a reason for putting the photon next to (down->strange->bottom)? Is there a reason for putting the Z Boson next to (electron neutrino->muon neutrino-tau neutrino)? Is there a reason for putting the W Boson next to (electron->muon->tau)? Or is it just arranged like that to look pretty?

[@derleumedia]

At 27:07 you see fine grey lines that are helpful: the gluon is connected to the quarks, the photon is connected to the quarks and the first row of leptons, Z and W are connected to all quarks and leptons.

[@ChewyBacAaaah]

On KZbin: Thad Roberts. Klee Irwin. Both rely on the fantastic resource WolframAlpha for formulae, limits. Also watch Ray Fleming on relationships between the 2-quark mesons & force-carrying bosons.

[@grahamsmith5780]

I think discussion like this should come with mental health warnings, so far beyond my comprehension I don’t like to think about it. I mean there has to be something wrong with a body of science that states that 90% of what we can see and measure is missing.

[@ronaldbrunsvold5632]

May a new force be with you. Your problem if it is from the dark side.

[@crimsonkhan3815]

It's a test of "how long you can focus when the subject is so appealing but the audio is the opposite"..will you give up?...or....keep up with ear pain?.. - can you feel the fifth force? - yeah...right inside my ear..

[@DR-pq6ki]

Could this quantum else spin be the Dzhanibekov effect (tennis racket theorem/intermediate axis theorem)on moving subatomic particles , and that perhaps that the electron and its counterpart instead be the same "coin" but flipped (on different position of its axis).

[@leftR-tardation]

Yes.

[@rickharold7884]

Awesome

[@X1Y0Z0]

Thanks for this presentation! Dr. Cartelle I enjoyed listening to you. Your accent, to an American, was interesting 🤔 & required me to pay more attention to avoid missing the thoughts 💭 you were attempting to convey! Thanks for conveying these interesting results ! Be Well!

[@dr4d1s]

Is it possible to add captions to the video? It's hard for me to understand what is being said.

[@rickyardo2944]

The Standard model table shows 3 Sets: 6 Quarks in a group of 2 rows, 6 Leptons also in a group of 2 rows and 4 Forces carriers in 1 vertical column, each Force is shown aligned to each of the 4 rows, is there a relationship between the Force carriers aligning to the particles in each row? the Gluon force mediates between all the Quarks but it is only shown aligned to only 3 of the 6 Quarks? the Photon is shown aligned to 3 of the other Quarks, Why? Is this to make the table look pretty but confusing! I thought that the Photon was associated with the Leptons and should aligned with them and not the Quarks, or, am I missing something?

[@derleumedia]

At 27:07 you see fine grey lines that are helpful: the gluon is connected to the quarks, the photon is connected to the quarks and the first row of leptons, Z and W are connected to all quarks and leptons. You're the second person who asks this in the comments. Maybe physicists should think of a less confusing way to present the particle zoo.

[@rickyardo2944]

@@derleumedia Thank you, took a screenshot and could see the "lines" that you refer to, then, enlarged it, and could see your point, interestingly, if the graphic had been well presented, then, one would be able to see this and would look more like fields around the groups of "particles" so yes, more and clear details are never a hindrance.

[@gen0megen0me93]

Did you wanted to say that you are looking to add propherty to each particle precising the decay characteristics coming from boson?

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Muons, not bosons.

[@Anders01]

The standard model is similar to the epicycle theories centuries ago when they tried to fit new observed data into more and more complex models. One prediction is that the whole standard model is false and will be replaced but it's difficult to predict when that will happen.

[@silent00planet]

newtons law of gravitation was replaced by einsteins theories of relativity and of course quantum theories arrived and paul Dirac used trial and error to deduce Diracs equation combining special relativity with a quantum description. of the electron.

[@raykos4257]

Good God, could she talk any slower or more incoherently? I don't have time for this.

[@andymouse]

Quark, Strangeness and Charm....cheers.

[@NielsGoetschalckx]

For the slide at 17:10, could someone please help me understand how come the sum of the masses/energies are different for Decay A vs. Decay B? Doesn't this violate energy conservation? If muons are 200x heavier than electrons, where is the missing equivalent mass/energy in Decay A?

[@RexxSchneider]

These particles are being produced with massive kinetic energies. The LHC can produce collision energies up to about 14 TeV - i.e. 14 x 10^12 eV, although I believe that the LHCb experiments used energies between 7 and 8 TeV. An electron has a rest mass of 0.51 Mev/c^2 and a muon 106 MeV/c^2. Both masses are many thousands of times smaller that the kinetic energy of the decaying meson, so the difference in rest mass between electron and muon is only a small part of the total energies involved. In itself, the decay of a bottom quark into a strange quark yields a conversion of (4,180 MeV - 95 MeV) = 4,085 MeV from mass to energy, which is more than enough to produce either an electron/positron pair or a muon/antimuon pair, with the excess going into kinetic energy.

[@vitalgnosis]

bumping apples he a vier A = (x)

[@existncdotcom5277]

.“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don’t know the answer.”

[@En_theo]

Fair enough :)

[@JulienReszka]

Quite cowardly if you think about it

[@tiberiu_nicolae]

@@JulienReszka as opposed to a religion who just makes up the answers?

[@JulienReszka]

@@tiberiu_nicolae all epistemology is based on some assumptions that it can't prove without metaphysics, didn't prevent our brightest minded from thinking and writing about them

[@AcButeo]

@@JulienReszka True that science and physics are indeed based on certain metaphysical assumptions that cannot be proven. However when the product based on these assumptions have produced as much success as they have it's at least good indirect evidence to the validity of these assumptions. On a philosophical level it may not be "the ultimate truth", but on a practical level it works.

[@BrettMcS]

Is it fair to say that Ben has switched focus from work based on a theory (SS) to work based on real data?

[@etzie1728]

I'm confused by your question. Theoretical physics is based on real data.

[@pooperhead1023]

theorists work with real data all the time

[@ProfBenAllanach]

I'd say that accurately characterises at least this part of my research. Some of it is more mathematical.

[@robertflynn6686]

No gravitons. But my susy selectrons are jumping for joy😁

[@Battery-kf4vu]

Could the fact that there are 3 families of particles be related to the fact that the charges are multiples of 1/3? Perhaps these new experiment could help figure out how.

[@seeitrun139]

can we get subtitles? the audio is very hard for me to understand

[@Twitchi]

The Q&A link leads to the neural networks QnA, and excellent QnA but not for this one

[@jariellecatbagan8088]

It appears that the Q&A link is directing to a different Q&A.

[@DevilishScience]

The link to the Q and A is wrong

[@brettthickhammer1546]

I wish I could understand her better I'm having such a hard time with the accent. I know she's very smart and talented I just am only getting every third word. oh well my bad.

[@MichaelHarrisIreland]

if you slow down the speed in setting you'll probably understand her. At least I did. She actually speaks very well.

[@MrSarevok187]

same here i wish i could understand her better ...

[@bytefu]

Interesting, I had very little trouble understanding her, and I'm Russian, so I am only exposed to English via Internet. Maybe it's because of the variety of accents, to which I am exposed.

[@physicsisawesome4205]

Physics is fascinating, i'ts the king of human knowledge!

[@elias_xp95]

Physics is cool, but maths must surely be king?

[@paulthoresen8241]

@@elias_xp95 Logic is king, it is the foundation of math and scientific method.

[@FilosSofo]

@Kavita Singh exactly, physics is the most abstract form of knowledge that still tells us something about the real world. Mathematics are more akin to music than to science.

[@paulthoresen8241]

@Kavita Singh All knowledge is theory

[@paulthoresen8241]

@Kavita Singh You are straying from the point made by OP. Science is not human knowledge, it is the method of theorizing reality using logic

[@colinbrodhead37]

Wake me up when these guys finally figure out how and why particles spin.

[@patsk8872]

Personally I'm pretty sure it has to do with one of those curled-up extra dimensions from the 10 or 11 total dimensions that likely exist. The particle's interaction with / extrusion into that curled up dimension causes what we observe as "spin."

[@colinbrodhead37]

@@patsk8872 I think the answer is closer to home. The solution can't be 'complex' or the universe simply couldn't function, much less exist. Take fractals for instance, the appearance of complexity is immense, but all that is built on just one, reiterative rule. Just one. In this instance, I think that rule is actually identical to the principle behind a faraday self-exciting, disc dynamo; a toroidal vortex... : )

[@MH-mc3pp]

particle spin is just one of the allowed features of quantum mechanics and relativity. there is no reason for it not to be there. you might as well as say "wake me up when people figure out why quantum mechanics exists". well, the answer to that, if there is one, would be in terms of an even more subtle, less familiar, theory.

[@t.i.m.e.3419]

Hi. At the 14 minute mark, there is a schematic of the LHCb. I wonder if this is a true representation? I mean, there are two counter-rotating beams of protons, which collide at the focal point of the detector. What causes all the resultant particles to only spray in the direction of the detector screen? Surely there would be particles going in both directions from the point of impact? Like, equal and opposite? Or are there actually two screens, and the schematic has just been dumbed down?

[@mkor7]

Perhaps the spray does go both ways but they, therefore obviously, only see the results on the side with the detector.

[@t.i.m.e.3419]

@@mkor7 Clearly. So it makes me wonder why everyone believes them and their "science". And how they can keep obtaining funding.