Neutrinos - Sixty Symbols

[@danieldaniels1172]

I wish i could just follow Professor Copeland around every day and learn whatever it is he felt like talking about. He is the most pleasant and calming person ever!

[@shelleyortega3974]

Me too!

[@DC-zi6se]

Until he starts writing mathematics. 😁

[@sinclairabraxas3555]

he is brilliant, its incredible

[@felixu95]

A Neutrino walks into a bar. The bartender says "Can I help you?" The Neutrino says, "Nope, just passing through."

[@loge10]

This is one of those times when I'm not sure whether to give it a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down...

[@sriharsha5036]

Hahah

[@fosheimdet]

I hate neutrinos. Sick of having them go through me. I'm off to build my 4 LY lead sphere.

[@theanonymousmrgrape5911]

When the sun sends its neutrinos it's not sending the best. It's sending particles with lots of problems, and they're passing those problems through us. They're bringing faster than light movement, they're bringing new insights in particle physics, they change flavors, and some, I assume are antineutrinos.

[@piyush10793]

Isn't faster than light speed impossible according to modern theories?

[@astropredo]

It isn't, dude. It has mass, then it is slower than light speed.

[@IVAN3DX]

So I say: WE NEED TO BUILD A LEAD WALL.

[@vinitchauhan973]

Massa Cinzenta well he worded wrong they arrive earlier than photons because even though they are slower they don't interact with other particles scattered around in space or in the atmosphere unlike photons, since the photons interact they arrival time is prolonged.

[@Celll212]

I'm not a college graduate in physics or mathematics...I still have a hard time with long division, but i can understand this clearly. Thank you guys for putting it in simpler terms. I hope one day the everyone can watch these videos and get a little bit of insight and break themselves from the reality they put themselves in. Cheers, Chris!

[@sixtysymbols]

@yusukeshinyama thank you... it has always been important to us that the videos are very natural and informal.... we just want to show what scientists are really like and the stuff they think about!

[@raizomusic]

@1:30, this dude is the competition that Eminem deserves

[@DreckbobBratpfanne]

Uh summa lama duma lama you assuming i'm a neutron. what i gotta do to get it through to you i'm . . . a neutrino.

[@EbonAvatar]

I love that moment when professor Ed just starts laughing about how the answers in his questions are in that room, but utterly impossible to see. "About a billion of them. Where are they?" I love it. Thanks Brady!

[@ferkinskin]

Love Ed Copeland...He radiates a real love of physics (so do all of his colleagues) but him more so.

[@xavierpaquin]

A gentle soul

[@loucard1752]

I was reading the comments only to find this comment !!!

[@yusukeshinyama]

I can't enough say how much I love these videos. Listening to these scientists talking casually about their work is much more fun and thought-provoking than watching a music-ridden, computer-graphics-rich, overacting "science" show. We should have this on a national TV.

[@arik9112]

these professors are charismatic and are passionate towards their craft, it is really inspiring

[@wildramen]

7:26 oops. trying to hit the hand, not the face.

[@naughtyadventuresofmcbrouh5410]

That was extremely cute

[@harleyspeedthrust4013]

@@naughtyadventuresofmcbrouh5410 suddenly gei

[@SLEEPYJK]

11 year old videos and they are still somehow very satisfying to watch and learn

[@clawpuss2]

My faith in the internet is restored by these posts..fascinating stuff. Thanks for posting.

[@quill18]

Woohoo! I'm from Sudbury, Ontario and I've been down to the SNO.

[@Triantalex]

k

[@HayTatsuko]

I particularly enjoy the description of neutrinos' lack of interaction, stated similar to "could sail through a light-year's length of lead without ever touching an atom"

[@TheTot]

9:50 - I love his passion! He's one of my favourites that Brady interviews!

[@aluisious]

I love the reaction at the end of the video, reaching out to grab ancient neutrinos and saying "where are they?" There's a real joy and wonderment you can see at play in his expression.

[@gplustree]

The excitement in telling these stories is great :)

[@chemxcore]

This was an excellent video, I really enjoyed how easily the professors explain these difficult concepts!

[@zirene5237]

7:26 Hitting head on indeed.

[@Roonasaur]

8:26 "I wasn't there." Where u from then?

[@SirDictator]

"technically", we were _all_ there

[@SirDictator]

but there was no "I" yet (and no 'was' either), except like that, between quotes

[@salottin]

Maybe he's from the previous one

[@Wd40RecklessEngineer]

@@SirDictator There still is no "i". The only difference now is that the universe has become aware of its self.

[@hebl47]

"... weak nuclear force, which is, well as its name suggests, a rather pathetic force" Poor weak nuclear force! It doesn't deserve such hateful treatment.

[@DreckbobBratpfanne]

Especially cause Gravity is much weaker.

[@AaronBPerks]

I don't even study these types of subjects but i still seem to watch these and i find them really interested. If these guys were my teachers when i was choosing my subjects i would have chosen them to carry on to a higher level of study!

[@Rib640]

I just love the SixtySymbols videos... very educational! =) (and I'm just in awe how no one started a religious discussion yet! Better that way)

[@Neo_to]

at 3:40 "a massless particle can never change" - how does the spontaneous creation of a particle and antiparticle from a high energy photon fit in there? since energy is proportional to mass, how come the lack of mass would forbid neutrinos to change but not photons? sincerely curious.

[@Cosmalano]

Neutrinos have mass.

[@Neo_to]

electrocat1 wasn't my question, I'm asking how photons could spontaneously "create" particles and anti-particles (e.g. electrons and positrons) when photons don't have mass.

[@alexsayswhatful]

TheGrannda he never mentioned photons. He mentioned how PROTONS would have to give away a positron and a neutrino.

[@Cosmalano]

TheGrannda no I've got it now I didn't know what you meant. It's because via E=mc^2 we can see that the energy of a photon can be converted into a particle antiparticle pair which annihilate each other and produce photons, but if you looked at the total energy (mass) throughout the process it would be conserved.

[@johnjr5599]

TheGrannda A massless particle can never change flavor, or different state of itself. electrocat1 was right about E=mc^2, a high energy photon (i.e. gamma ray) can turn into a particle-antiparticle pair with those particles having much less mass, due to the equation

[@00bean00]

"Tea with sugar?" "Thank you, I'll have neutrinos, please."

[@ankitaaarya]

Hahah

[@cmdlp4178]

Would radioactive atoms decay without neutrinos passing? What happens with neutrinos in neutron-stars?

[@petervencken505]

I like their historic wonder and awe which all of the 'sixty symbols' share. Very informative for the non physicists among us.

[@afhdfh]

Love you guys! Keep up the great work!!!

[@noblessus]

As long as the neutrinos have mass, they have forces of attraction which interact with other masses. They do get affected, but the effects are very small, almost negligible. So there is no reason why Black holes wouldn't affect them (even an atom in our body does). This is the relationship between Gravity and Mass and Distance. A poem by Francis Thompson: "All things by immortal power near or far to each other hiddenly linked are. That thou cans't not stir a flower without troubling a star."

[@deftcg]

So if neutrinos are 2 Kelvin, and they are virtually everywhere, does that contribute to how we cannot make substances such as liquid helium reach absolute zero? Would neutrinos effect the temperature of objects they pass through?

[@deftcg]

Sixty Symbols

[@deftcg]

Veritasium

[@deftcg]

lol just saw this John Drummond

[@erikdk321]

+Seth Hastings If I recall, the third law of thermodynamics claims that it's completely impossible to ever reach 0 kelvin. I'm guessing that's due to entropy.

[@shaunakkymal5710]

+Seth Hastings We have been able to reach within a billionth of zero degrees Kelvin, which is pretty close. So neutrinos aren't the only reason why that would be impossible. If you were able to construct hypothetically a container that isolates its content from the rest of universe entirely i.e no radiations, no neutrinos, you would still not be able to reach absolute zero. That's because it's just theoretically impossible. And because of multiple reason. I will list one - In Quantum Mechanics, there's a fundamental principle known as Heisenberg Uncertainity principe which places an upper bound on certainity of momentum and position of particle i.e. you cannot precisely determine both the momentum and the position of the particle. This means that increasing your accuracy in measurement of either momentum or position would come at the expense of accuracy of the other. Now consider this, at absolute zero you would have no motion which would mean that you'd know both the position and momentum of the particle precisely. This is in direct violation of Heisenberg's uncertainity principle !

[@ParamjitandMichael]

I have been struggling through the neutrino interactions and coming up short. Does the physical cross section of a nucleus have a direct correlation to its barns? (Do barns even count for anything in neutrino interactions?) Is the probability of a neutrino smacking into a nucleus a simple arithmetic problem of the cross section? It seems like it must be FAR less probable than that. My uni classes gave values for barns for thermal and intermediate neutrons, and they did not seem to have any correlation to the size of the nucleus, if a few decades of cobwebs haven't messed with my memory. So if cross section is not the important part that non-quantum thinking makes it seem to be, neutrinos pass through nuclei without noticing them... ? My apologies if this was already covered. I read through a lot of the comments and didn't find it. Thanks for any help to figure this out.

[@biblical-events]

So, what is the size of the void between each neutrino?, since so many pass through a small space within a small amount of time. Do neutrinos interact with the higgs field ?

[@mrspidey80]

Yes. Hence the mass.

[@LuisSanabriaRodriguez]

Can you create a video about phonons? I notice they have being mentioned in a couple of videos.

[@Fematika]

I just realized that this is 6 years old.

[@timeomnivore]

This was a very high quality video for something from 2010

[@drewkavi6327]

I just realised it's 7 years old

[@davidgjam7600]

I just realized it's 8 years old

[@mclurr3197]

@@davidgjam7600 feel old yet?

[@Paul-yu4ep]

And now it's nine, people we are getting old

[@HeliosAlonso]

Does "not having mass" mean it cannot transmute? When I heard that I thought that being massless it travels at speed of light, therefore its own time is still and that's why it cannot change. But then: how do photos transmute into pairs of matter-antimatter as described by Feynmann-diagrams? My question then is unanswered: why not having mass means they cannot transmute?

[@nmarbletoe8210]

If I am not mistaken that photon into electron/positron thing requires a nearby charge that the photon zooms by. So maybe that's the answer, the photon "hits" that charge. not sure though it's a great question

[@nicholasleclerc1583]

8:24 “Right at the start. Before t even started” ? I’m confused. And with reason. Please explain this stylized sentence start, please

[@liquidefeline]

You squished so much information into this video about a particle we know very little of. My head hurts! :)

[@NATIK001]

@tucense They were actually detected 3 hours before the light, though that is supposed to be because the Neutrinos spiked when the core collapsed and the light spiked when the outer layer of the star exploded off it.

[@stevenvh17]

In "What do you care what people think" Feynman tells about how his father asked him if the electron that's emitted by an atom when it changes state was in the atom ahead of time. It's nothing like that. A neutron isn't a container with two physical down quarks and an up quark and a neutrino that falls out when you replace one of the down quarks with an up quark. The quarks are not physical objects. They're properties of the proton, and the neutrino only begins to exist when it's being released.

[@TheVerandure]

@estelja It depends on the shape of the universe. Many feel that it's a torus meaning that your neutrino would simply loop around the giant donut universe.

[@majornewb]

@yusukeshinyama Agreed. These guys have taught me more about physics than any television show I've ever seen.

[@VIIflegias]

5:15 nice italian there

[@Paul-yu4ep]

These hands too, yeah

[@pbezunartea]

8:30 "well ... I imagine that, I wasn't there..." Hilarious! XD Thank you for explaining things so clearly it makes me think I can understand them.

[@loge10]

I was there - where were you all? Didn't you get the invitation?

[@siggigalam8458]

How can a proton with a mass(1.672....x 10^-27) that is lower than a neutron(1.674... x 10^-27) emit a positron and a neutrino and (gain??) turn into a neutron?

[@smergthedargon8974]

My guess is it's to do with the negative sign of the positron. It's pretty much like adding by subtracting a negative number. At least, I think.

[@sorenlily2280]

You probably don't care about a random question you posed 4 years ago, but on the off chance that you do: The answer is that this is a nuclear reaction, it's not something that just happens randomly without prompt. If I had a container with a bunch of protons bouncing around at room temperature, they would never undergo this transformation. I have to input a huge amount of energy (heat and pressure) in order to force this reaction to occur. And by adding that energy to the system you account for the missing mass in the equation via E=mc². The sun, whose core temperature is ~14 million degrees Celcius has an abundance of energy to go around and account for this "extra" mass.

[@adrianpawlikowski3264]

@@sorenlily2280 wow Wtf

[@Decrosion]

Stuart Smith I cared. Sun is electric though.

[@busybillyb33]

I'm drunk right now. I'll come back to this question later...

[@willtaylor-melanson3014]

"Well I imagine that, I wasn't there." Humble & Brilliant

[@MystMagus]

Speaking of the strong and weak forces I'd love to see a video about that (or two!). I think most people have some idea of how the two other forces (gravity and electromagnetism) work but the strong and the weak are a bit more obscure, no?

[@frederiquebertin119]

looks like strong force is forced , by force while weak force is not forced .

[@scifirealism5943]

All 4 fundamental interactions are understood.

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

actually , the standard model says that all particles are massless, but then the Higgs mechanism is how most particles gain their rest mass, except for photons and gluons it is confirmed that neutrinos do have mass, since they travel slower than c.

[@tribiz6762]

"Sometimes when you feel itchy you never know...it could be the neutrinos" I've always wondered where those phantoms itches came from.

[@guavacupcake]

Lol'ed at that 🤣

[@MagnusNyborg]

@JBernert52 no, SN1987A was visible as a relatively dim star. Easily visible with the unaided eye, but far less bright than the brightest stars in the sky, and nowhere near the brightness of the Moon.

[@sudler2008]

That's a good question. Considering the distance between Earth and a supernova, light vs. neutrinos would travel a significant enough distance to reveal the difference between their speeds. If neutrinos indeed travel slightly faster than light, then we should have observed the spike in neutrinos about an house or so prior to seeing the supernova. I suspect the scientists are going back to these observations if the spike arrived hours before visual observation of the supernova.

[@MystMagus]

@kristijanadrian I dunno. I just know that it is said that there are "four known fundamental interactions, all of which are non-contact forces, [...] electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as 'strong' and 'weak nuclear force') and gravitation." (Wikipedia). So what I'd like to hear about is the strong and weak forces mentioned there. I don't really know much about theoretical physics :|

[@brookcie1]

Yeah, it's not that's the shorter equation for rest mass, the larger equation has velocity of the particle in it. But this is used to understand the effect of a body with only mass and without its velocity.

[@P00P0STER0US]

Fascinating stuff. I like how this was explained.

[@MISTERASMODEUS]

Wonderful. Great discussion and Q&A. So natural. Pleasure to listen to

[@PersimmonHurmo]

This was made before the discovery of neutrinos...

[@dnthinkdrink1]

@tucense neutrinos travel very close to the speed of light so the difference of when we see the blast and when the neutrinos arrive is negligible, I would suppose

[@Helge129]

@djfxtrader900 Not quite, there were also trace ammounts of heavier elements, mostly lithium.

[@okuma0kuma]

@metabog quaternion yes ! if your referring to orientation of angles ,euler rotations etc i do 3d cgi as hobbie ,reason i use the the word is do do with a word survey that i found out about so i say it on every reply to sixtysymbols channel hehe

[@sidewaysfcs0718]

neutrinos don't have anything to decay into , except maybe some particle-antiparticle pair wich then annihilates back into the neutrino, but considering how light they are, they shouldn't decay into anything at all, they should just fly around forever until they get absorbed by a proton/neutron or if they get sucked up by a black hole.

[@wowggscrub]

@StaupEimer when An proton becomes A neutron it emits A positron so that makes me think that something in the neutron was changed in order for it to have A charge afterwards .

[@tdjdk]

The short version of e=mc2 is that energy and matter are 2 sides of the same coin. Just like there is no electricity without magnetism (elctromagnetism), just like there is no space without time (spacetime), there is no energy without mass (I guess it really should be called energymass). We should still remember that the theory of relativity predicts it's own downfall when spacetime is so strong it's bent into a singularity, so whatever theories we have are, by definition, limited and tentative

[@liebe1050]

Due to momentum conservation, whatever signal the neutrino produces is going to be roughly in the same direction as the original neutrino.

[@VCGepicsockzebra]

He said that he needed to convert two protons into two neutrons to complete the He-4 nucleus, he said that it would be done by the proton emitting a positron and a neutrino.

[@qwertyjaf]

I just thought of something and it may seem completely worthless but i could be right. maybe when the nuetrinos were going faster than light something happened to give them a negative mass or maybe they went through a negative area of space

[@Flamecyborg05]

@curixq the neutrinos from the mentioned supernova were detected about 3hours before the light from the supernova was observed. Yet neutrinos, as they said in the video, overwhelmingly pass through everything w/o being absorbed, light does not... So with the supernova the neutrinos created from the last bits of fusion would have escaped the star much quicker than light. That is the current theory on those observations yet by that same argument the neutrinos should have been dete ted years befo

[@speedmatters]

@Plasmana2000 Everything will be effected by a black hole...even mass-less particles. Gravity is a space-time curvature, so all particles will follow this curvature, photons, neutrinos etc...

[@ananiasacts]

I wish they'd have told us if matter swirling around an event horizon emits many neutrinos and what percentage of a stars rest mass is presumed to be radiated away by neutrinos vs light vs plasma, and how that varies with a stars size and composition. I also wonder what the fine structure of the solar core is presumed to be. Are their layers of heavy elements like a uranium or iron at the very center that neutrinos could be theoretically used to see?

[@jedadiahtucker2132]

few questions. the massless particles cant change because they experiance no passage of time right? with the neutrino having almost no interactions what we do detect is it hitting a proton directly? i would also assume its very small so would that make it more like when it hits a quark directly? final question with quantum field theroy in mind is it hitting anything really the right way to look at it. dosent it come down to if there is a reaction with the weak force then we can detect it. if not the "wave packet" of the neutrino may indeed go right through, regaurdless of a direct "hit"?

[@curiosidadschrodinger5142]

the passion about the universe is about... f***** inspiring!!!! I want to get a degree in physics!!! keep it on...

[@mage1over137]

Neutrino oscillation was not confirmed until 1998 by Super K, though this did explain why Homestead(The source of the neutrino problem) keep getting rough 1/3 of their neutrinos they expected.

[@wowggscrub]

@StaupEimer positron emission is beta + decay

[@acampinglamp]

is it possible that bioaccumulation of some elements is due to neutrinos peskilly transmuting elements in organisms?

[@tiagotiagot]

It is my understanding "tachyon" (with an A) is just a label for any particle that moves faster than light.

[@vorlonagent]

Seth Hastings, I don't think neutrinos would be responsible for the difficulty cooling helium below 2K. Neutrinos only interact with particles that they collide with. So just passing through a substance doesn't cause energy to move from either the neutrino or the substance.

[@Desmaad]

You could, quite possibly, compile these videos into tv-ready chunks for distribution to various networks.

[@gyro5d]

Or, Neutrinos are oscillating Inertial planes, released from Aether. Electron vortices into Space, Positron vortices into Counterspace. The Inertial plane is released and is oscillated. The Inertial plane is "Condensate of Universe". The Inertial plane is Absolute Zero. When released and oscillated Inertial plane heats up.

[@jamma246]

@sudler2008 Yes, but this could be down to the neutrinos from the supernova not having as much energy as those created at CERN.

[@estelja]

If a neutrino is emitted from a star near the edge of the universe and it's direction is outward toward that edge, can it "go past" the edge of the universe? It should be traveling faster than the edge is expanding, right? There shouldn't be any mass that it can't pass through, right?

[@alexstefanov137]

Can you make a video about Cherenkov radiation?

[@jammywhalerzrz]

A positron is the antimatter opposite of the electron.

[@martilopezgonzalez8854]

5:15 best moment of the video.

[@Curixq]

I will ask my question (asked by a channel cmment) here again. Because my point is made in this video. So, at about 10:35 they talk about an exploding star. And the Professor says there was a neutrino spike at exactly the same moment they have noticed the exploding star. So, if they say that neutrino's travel faster than light, why wasn't the neutrino spike detected days or weeks (or longer) before the actual sight of the exploding star?

[@surferboy36O]

@petsoukos I'm just guessing the neutrinos are not sucked in because they don't feel the gravity pull, but they do collide because the black hole is so dense.

[@qwertyjaf]

i think you are correct. if you carry out the heisenberg uncertainty principle equation and you know that the energy is exactly 0 then the mass will be 0.

[@gaynorglowellxsingh]

Dark matter and dark energy is the byproduct of the matter that falls into black holes, and black holes convert mass (plasma) into it's basic elemental forms and flavors, and CERN is a reversed engineered black hole.

[@davidgillies620]

The mean free path of neutrinos in lead is more like 9 light years if I recall my first year undergrad physics correctly. That was almost thirty years ago so I'd have to work it out again to be sure. It's a basic calculation if you know the interaction cross section , which is of the order of (few/few hundred) zeptobarns for beta energy neutrinos, although it's not as well characterised a number as you might expect.

[@274017CHBJH4]

Question: If the Universe is so called "Expanding", then that means there is an edge to the Universe, so what's at the edge? Does that mean possibilities of other Universes?

[@joelsmith1741]

Did the neutrino detectors spike during the recent gravitational waves events?

[@nithin4338]

Ed's smile is the best

[@joeytje50]

"the chances of one actually hitting... HEAD ON are actually really tiny". I love how he's unintentionally demonstrating the "hitting head on" XD

[@PTNLemay]

So are the ancient neutrinos just standing still? They've lost all of their momentum and have slowed down?

[@hanspeterfake3130]

+PTNLemay No, he has formulated that part a little bit misunderstanding. They are in this cubic space, but moving through it, so at any moment, they are moving through this space.

[@elic-c8239]

If the increase in neutrinos occurred at the same time as the light hit earth, does that not imply that the neutrinos are travelling at the same speed as the photons, and therefore cannot have mass? Even if they moved at 99% of the speed of light, over such vast distances they would have reached earth at different times

[@FalcoGer]

it's strange that the smaller a particle is you want to detect, the bigger the detector has to be. anyway even underground there is a tiny bit of radiactive elements in the earth. for example thorium. wouldn't that interact with the detector as well? even with a large lead shield there is a chance that something get's through. and the way i heard it is that the chance of getting a neutrino would be of similar propotions. so wouldn't that spoil the experiment? can light have temperature?

[@FatLingon]

@skinnyjohnsen I think it would be hard to know what neutrinos came from the supernova and what came from earth, since they are so hard to detect. I remember watchin a documentary about the first experiment, where they had that large pool of chlorine(mentioned in this video), according to calculations they should have detected about 10 neutrinos per week, and they only detected 3 neutrinos on average... thats because they only could detect one type back then, they didn't know of the other two.

[@O28-x8p]

I’m doing this for homework and I thought that this would just be another ancient boring video but it was actually very interesting thanks

[@CelticSaint]

I have to admit that I did chuckle quite loudly when he poked his cheek at 7:24. OK, maybe a little more than a chuckle!

[@immortales1scientia]

Well, considering that they do have a mass, just a very insignificant mass, compared to our observable scaling methodology they would decay "quantitatively" naturally under appropriate radiometric dating principles...if you find a better answer let me know!

[@Leudast1]

I love these videos.

[@diegorodrigues746]

Can a neutrino pass through a black hole?

[@diegorodrigues746]

Of course. I has forgot about the event horizon. There are particles without mass?

[@auzzy231]

Diego Rodrigues Yes! Photons are basically massless.

[@Smithy0013]

auzzy231 Not basically massless, they are actually by definition massless.

[@pandabearguy1]

Smithy0013 they have momemtum, so they have relativistic mass

[@MrEpicPwnage1]

Can a what in the what now