Phiala Shanahan Public Lecture: The Building Blocks of the Universe

In her public lecture at Perimeter Institute on Wednesday Nov. 7, Phiala Shanahan will provided a guided tour of the subatomic realm and described what supercomputer calculations of quarks and gluons can reveal about the origins of mass, the primordial nuclear reactions that power the Sun, and the nature of the elusive dark matter that permeates the universe.
Perimeter Institute (charitable registration number 88981 4323 RR0001) is the world’s largest independent research hub devoted to theoretical physics, created to foster breakthroughs in the fundamental understanding of our universe, from the smallest particles to the entire cosmos. The Perimeter Institute Public Lecture Series is made possible in part by the support of donors like you. Be part of the equation: perimeterinstitute.ca/inspiri...
Subscribe for updates on future live webcasts, events, free posters, and more: insidetheperimeter.ca/newslet...
pioutreach
perimeter
perimeterinstitute
Donate: perimeterinstitute.ca/give-today

[@3ATIVE]

Phiala Shanahan should do way more public lectures! Not only does she demonstrate an excellent working knowledge of the subject but, she also has a clear calm speaking voice that is not punctuated with "Errm"s, Lip smacking or other annoying speaking traits. I wish her all the best and hope she continues with a long and fruitful career.

[@calvinjonesyoutube]

She is a really good communicator, going out of her way to be clear, not to mystify.

[@3smworld]

This lecture is an eye opener to me for trying to understand the inherent salient mechanism enveloping the universe containing the multiverse. Thank you all including Madam Phiala for delivering encouraging Lecture.

[@martinpickard6043]

Thoroughly enjoyed. Nicely given lecture and clear insight into the current challenges to be overcome. I look forward to hearing from her again in the next 5-10 years, telling us how much more knowledge we have gained.

[@marin4311]

This young and smart person is a very good lecturer. Thumbs up !

[@Raphael_NYC]

Thank you Dr. Shanahan. So well done.

[@rickfetters4583]

This was an exceptionally well-done lecture. She is a skilled lecturer.

[@rickfetters4583]

@Eduard Stancu The clarity, appropriate level/depth for the audience, the progression of ideas without going off onto tangents of history/scientist/etc. Do you disagree?

[@kevinfairweather3661]

@Eduard Stancu Yes, but not all these smart people are necessarily gifted lecturers..

[@Tsumami__]

Eduard Stancu why are you so cranky

[@Trotskisty]

These reactions to the one critical response here are predictably hagiographic, and even fawning in their essence, IMO. And therefore none of you are good scientists yourselves, I'd bet. (and predictably, the next retort would be 'well, what kind of a scientist are YOU, then..?? And my answer would be: a rather higher-level POLITICAL 'scientist'...) In other words: I, too, find nothing particular to write home about in this rather standard lecture. So she's got the gift of gab. Great. Give her her own TV show, then.

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

@Eduard Stancu What the fuck are you even on about? NO ONE commented on her looks, and she didn't show her ass. What is your problem? This person did a GREAT lecture that people enjoyed. YOU had to bring up some fucking extremely irrelevant shit.

[@olivierjung913]

Thanks from Germany . Very good Chanel .

[@jasonellisallan]

Professor Phiala Shanahan is clearly an extremely talented person. I am looking forward to her future public lectures. I think Professor Phiala Shanahan is going to be a major contributor to Physics.

[@wallstreetoneil]

The more you know, the more you know you don't know - we still have no idea how big a proton is - crazy. When a computer that big would take an eternity to brute force an answer, it is clearly obvious we still have no idea the right questions to ask. I went to the University of Waterloo and studied Mathematics. When I graduated I remember the similar feeling that after 5 years of studying I felt I knew far less than when I started because your brain justs starts to realize the enormity of the problem. We know so much and at the same time be know almost nothing - like zero nothing - not even a scratch - that is what you could hear in her voice. She literally knows more than almost anyone on earth about the Standard Model and yet she is saying that it basically equates to just a scratch. How big is a proton? We have no idea.

[@dickhamilton3517]

Scientists and mathematicians come out of University knowing they know much less than they thought they knew when they went in - but economists, business majors and masters come out thinking they know everything, and this confidence means they get to run everything, while knowing next to nothing.

[@charlesmiller000]

The answer is 42

[@marinabezuh8110]

What does “how big?” mean? A size, a number of quanta, a mass? You should know that 1. Higgs’ mechanism doesn't define mass 2. Space and Time are discrete and quantum (“millennium problem”) has precise parameters 3. Weak force has nothing to do with an electromagnetism 4 Proton has many energy level with different radii (at rest) and the biggest level is about classical electron radius - and then you’ll get ALL raw data for exact computations (I understand you don’t read Russian and the lecturer don’t read Russian, but it’s her problem and these computations is a past already, we have the book - Argazi’s RM-theory: 1836.15267376… if G = 6.67383493… (yes, G and mass also are connected in true theories of quantum gravitation).

[@MrChiangching]

@Joe Chang and I believe you over mainstream science.

[@MrChiangching]

While her credentials are impressive, she "literally" doesn't know more about the Standard Model than almost anyone on Earth.

[@danhaynes446]

Great presentation, exactly the right mix of detail without overwhelming. Very smooth handling of the spooky woowoo questioner too. Excellent science communicator! The only nit with the entire talk is that FPGAs are not new technology. They've been around for at least 20 years, probably longer, just some new applications for them, and probably higher densities. Thanks much Dr. Shanahan and thanks Perimeter Institute!

[@derfunkhaus]

She is a superb presenter.

[@ns88ster]

Dr Shanahan yes. That bitchy feminist at the start almost ruined it.

[@LordLOC]

This was a great talk, thank you for uploading it as always. As someone who studied Physics in college back in the early 90s it amazes me how much has changed in not even 20 or 25 years now. Imagine what we'll learn in the future.

[@uploadJ]

Trained seal; she repeats the same "old lines" about the standard model that hinders atomic physics from moving forward ...

[@uploadJ]

re: "it amazes me how much has changed in not even 20 or 25 years now. " Try almost 100 yrs now. Nuclear physics has grown stale, no new theories in about 100 yrs and QM is showing today how many 'holes' it has in it.

[@larrygoldstein9891]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.mmn M.kmmm.k.m In..I'm.mmnmj.mj ,MJ,MJ ? , MJ MJ MJ,.j. Bkj .,,,...,.,.........,.k, .,,.........,,,.,,,,.,,, 31:04 J😢.mkh😮jjj? Mm ñ. 47:25 47:32 48:56 46:19 MJ, Mm,.,.uk​@@uploadJ

[@uploadJ]

@@larrygoldstein9891 Pse, I left my decoder ring home today. Can you just use the King's English?

[@garyclouse7234]

This lady is a brilliant speaker! She seems to never slip up on her words! Of course she is technically very superior! Observations of Proton diameters is of course a mystery but not so strange! This is not a marble! It isn't a little ball of matter! It is a statistical representation of experimental results! It''s size is no more predictable from an observational point of view than a swarm of bees! Actually most who view this video know that the very imposition of a concept such as diameter upon a fundamental particle is non sense! Doesn't apply! All that having been said, Phiala Shanahan is such a rare combination of beauty and brilliance! So very eloquent, young but in control! Someone to be admired!

[@johnmccabe7645]

Phiala, you successfully and enjoyably describe the frontier you inhabit, you brought me into this world. If I had the money you would be building that dedicated computer chip. Keep informing us! 😁😁😁

[@shrekinasuit]

If you are a theoretical physicist who is confronted with the task of addressing a crowd of completely lay people and you want to give them a concise hour-long overview over your rather complex subject matter in the clearest terms possible without patronising them on the one hand or talking over their heads on the other: watch this video.

[@tnewanz]

Great public speaker, this one! Haven't ever seen her before. Wow. I look forward to her future works.

[@Markle2k]

@Eduard Stancu Do you have a crush on Dr. Shanahan or something? This is the third thread where you have tried to throw cold water on somebody praising her presentation.

[@davidknapp5224]

Tod Wanzer mental masturbation

[@uploadJ]

re: "The more learn about the standard model" ... the MORE we learn that it is NOT based on first-principles in physics, but rather, is CURVE-FITTING to math equations. This is NOT a model then ...

[@uploadJ]

@Eduard Stancu "She didn't said nothing new. She didn't create any new theory." She pumps "new life" into an old theory (QM) whose time to go out the door has arrived ...

[@primus4cameron]

@Eduard StancuYou're kiddin' right. She's published HEAPS. Numerous citations. I think MIT has grabbed her now. Does NEW theoretical physics and seem only limited by computational muscle. Watch this career trajectory!

[@dedelejardinier6491]

Excellent talk and great passion well communicated ! All the best in the continuation of your research.

[@31337flamer]

nice and interesting graphics. clear talk. perfect speed. this is by far one of the best introductions to the standard model. thank u. background is keeping you focussed. and included sources of the scientific papers she is relating to.. THANK U! thats what I needed :) pls more of this.

[@uploadJ]

re: "nice and interesting graphics. clear talk. perfect speed. " Reminds me of the phrase "sound and fury signifying nothing". The SM is outmoded, holding back nuclear physics from understanding the basis for time, matter and energy relationship.

[@Bondol1727]

More from this excellent presenter and thank you for sharing your hard earned knowledge

[@Anna-el8iw]

Awesome as always, Perimeter! Thanks for encouraging more diversity in physics, too!

[@SachaSD]

My goodness! What a good lecture, and what a great lecturer Ms. Shanahan is! I am so impressed!

[@hassan.javaid]

A very bright scientist, great public speaker and lecturer. Thoroughly enjoyed it. One thing at the end about FPGAs they are not new as the speaker has said... They have been around since 1980s. And she should also mention ASICs as a solution as they are faster than FPGA and dedicated for a single application like a physics problem that she wants...

[@donna.g7442]

Great lecture and wonderful that it is on utube which allows personal time allotments.

[@ben1canobe150]

Excellent - loved this... WOW!

[@ankitverma785]

Great lecture which take up the curiosity of young minds to a next level

[@JohnDlugosz]

"Building Blocks of the Universe" is the name of a book by Isaac Asimov about the elements and organization of the periodic table. I read it when I was very young and only later learned that it was by who had then become my favorite author. It was published in 1957.

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

great talk ! That is one bright scientist, and so young, wow

[@pms9838]

well presented talk, good talker, really clear.

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

@Joe Chang Yes, I do understand that you tried to get some deluded point across, and can already tell you're some cliché youtube-conspiracy nut with a grandiose self delusion á la every scientist is crazy except for me, a random youtube-comment-"expert" who probably does not even possess a higher education in the field he is claiming to know more about than the shared collective consensus among all scientists in the world, that actually do research in these fields for a living, and are educated. I bet this is not the first time someone tells you this. Maybe you should take it to heart and look into a mirror. Maybe it's yo YOU that it's something wrong with, instead of everybody else? It's very easy to see that you're deluded / not completely right in the head just by reading the way you write. Let's say you against all odds actually had some good, valid points and had some big epiphany that could introduce a new paradigm Einstein-style. Chances are you then also would have the ability to write a coherent f*cking sentence without sounding completely and utterly insane. It's okay to be insane, you're dealt the cards you are. But I will still try to bust your delusion, with some much needed friendly, tough but fair - love. Now start taking your medication and get back up on the horse again and keep on learning about physics if you have a passion for it. Then some day in the future you might be lucky and have some REAL and useful insights and win a Nobel Price. Who the hell knows, right? Now, do YOU understand? Do YOU, understand?! NEXT.

[@frederickj.7136]

Calm down, Lars. Yes, I know there's a lot of classic crackpottery -- is it *ever* very "original"? -- going around in this thread. I thought I was tough on the way-out-to-lunch crowd and the militant religious science haters; but you're the Schoolmarm from Hell... ha, ha, ha.

[@jimtaggert42]

@@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012 do not dis Trump or you will be smashed!!!

[@speculawyer]

This lecture is awesome and deserves more distribution.

[@saunderson01]

I'm so thankful that the universe send her!!!

[@realcygnus]

Phiala Shanahan is awesome

[@charlesmiller000]

Elucidating and maddening! Brava your lecture. How you guys remain sane is commendable! Keep on trucking! THANKS

[@charlesmiller000]

Studied college physics but your lecture was the most impressive! More please?

[@charlesmiller000]

By the way, FPGA's are not new; I'm retired now. Always good idea to put computations into hardware vs software.

[@xe2ac]

¡Excelente conferencia, felicitaciones!

[@richardlynch8009]

It is amazing to me that someone like this can live on the same planet and have videos on the same website with flat earthers.

[@tylernelson860]

Incredibly articulate woman, very well programmed and delivered

[@GregorKropotkin-qu2hp]

Riveting-I learned a few fascinating and important things today, I watch of lot of Physics videos and that is not always the case, so Thanks for posting it for us!

[@LEDewey_MD]

Simply a brilliant presentation. Enjoyed the clarity and elegance of the subject.

[@christopherwainwright8015]

This presentation put me off learning completely. To my ears it is a forlorn pion by a brainy student reporting to her PHd examination board - from whom she is alienated by their self-absorbed silence and her reciprocating choice of self-satisfied phrases and words. A real yawn

[@jamesdolan4042]

Wonderful presentation, but away above my understanding. I did a University course once in Theoretical Physics, which I did well. However, by the end of the course I was nostalgic for the Periodic Table and the character of elements.

[@dougg1075]

Great talk. Clear and flowed well. Love her accent:)

[@cloudpoint0]

Phiala Shanahan, married, age 27, an Australia native. Played in a cover band throughout college, specializing in “classic party music.” Plays saxophone, clarinet, piano and guitar. Named by Forbes Magazine as one of their “Top 30 under 30” recipients in the 2017 science category. www.jlab.org/people/PShanahan

[@frederickj.7136]

Married? I'm crushed.

[@steveburton5825]

Nice to see someone other than Greg Dick introducing the guests. I just find him a bit smarmy. She did a better job of it. This is the second lecture with these boom mic's that seem to pick up every breath which is pretty distracting. Rather than putting the mic under the person's nose, they should move it more towards the speaker's chin. Still, these are just nits and it is a very proud moment for Canada to have such a great resource with world famous physicists.

[@daveevans9809]

Steve Burton too much mic gain is raising the background low level noises.

[@nias2631]

Yeah looking at it that mic was near her nostril. Still a great talk though, just draws my focus off a bit.

[@frederickj.7136]

Smarmy Greg does make me laugh, though... between cringes. Thanks for the techie input, guys. There is really no good excuse for smart people (and well funded institutions) continuing to get this sort of stuff so wrong, so frequently. Somebody needs to be in charge apart from distracted academics.

[@1drmr3]

Chief this is it she's the one

[@terryburton851]

for the first my eyes are open...very good lecture....

[@frederickj.7136]

Great to hear that.

[@Overnity]

That Lady is Amazing, Brilliant just what I always thought...

[@paulurban2]

I was stunned - to learn that some in Canada use a comma as a decimal separator.

[@infinitumneo840]

Excellent talk on particle physics! My question is: Are scalar or tensor cross interaction that could account for some the missing mater (dark mater) in the universe? Could the energy in the void account for this missing mass? Our understanding of light/ energy and information within particle physics may have to take a quantum leap forward as well.

[@gregvondare]

Nice lecture. Dr. Shanahan has a pleasant and refreshing approach to her subject. She genuinely seems to want to communicate what she knows across lines of other disciplines and levels of experiences. Here's a hint about Quark structure. There must be a deeper structure because Quarks are different in color charge, "quality" and mass. If there was no deeper structure, they would all be the same, eh?

[@JohnDlugosz]

No, you could say the same about all (different) elementary particles. You started with an assumption that "all true fundamental particles are the same", not a proof. Different particles (fields) are _different_.

[@gregvondare]

@@JohnDlugosz : read me again. I said it was a "hint" not a proof. Physics geeks are so tiresome.

[@BryanM61]

Don't really understand why you say quarks differ in color charge. It's not like an Up Quark is green and a Bottom Quark is red; all quarks can have any color charge at a particular instant, and can and do change to other colors. Also don't know what you mean by "quality". Mass, yes. Each different quark has a different mass, but that's true for every other fundamental particle as well. If it's any consolation, many theorists are examining the idea of a deeper underlying structure.

[@stevephillips8083]

Thank you so much for these! Does galactic “spin” impact measurements? Good luck with your quantum computing! Are particles excitation in fields, a bit like a sort of “fuzz”?

[@frederickj.7136]

Not really. Those exitations are resolvable into quite "concrete" particles (to *our* perception), not very fuzzy in location, or not very fuzzy in momentum. It isn't some magic or "consciousness" 😣 that turns a fuzz into these definite entities upon observation. They always were and are what they are, in terms of quantum field theory and the wave equation... and nothing wave-like collapses, either, if you just accept what the evolution of the wave equation as states in Hilbert space -- the scientific orthodoxy & mathematical formalism -- tell you rather unambiguously. Virtual particles (and other ways, perhaps, to express the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) are different, and might be said to have something to do with "quantum foam" [your fuzz?] at the Planck scale, though many physicists express confused notions about this (even though the correct ideas here aren't really that esoteric by theoretical physics standards).

[@stevephillips8083]

Frederick J. Thanks! By the “fuzz” I’m thinking more of the uncertainty when trying to get information on pairs such as position and momentum, so yes.

[@mycount64]

exactly how much computing power do we need to perform the calculations?

[@peterlaloli6279]

Great presentation.

[@JohnStephenWeck]

Thanks. Nice talk. I enjoyed it. ;)

[@miramarensis]

Nice lecture. In the end a rational person may confront the idea that no matter how deep science can peer into the fabric of stuff, there’ll be always a smaller, more primordial level of structure to be discovered. A cynic would consider science’s efforts as futile, however, our civilization can make tangible progress as some of these theoretical discoveries trickle down into usable technology. Thanks for this video.

[@dewfall56]

She's the type of woman I like to call a superstar. She's on a life long mission. No time for a husband or children. And that's perfectly okay. We need people that driven to push back the boundaries of human knowledge. They are highly respected people.

[@robertfontaine3650]

Very enjoyable presentation. Communicating without math has got to be very hard. Trying to talk about a thing that is and isn't a particle, field, wave. Where probabilities provide equally valid models to discrete ones and oh, by the way, there are a bunch of huge missing pieces that show that there is a huge gap in our understanding. Time, Space-Time, fields argh... That the mathematical models do a good job of describing the behaviors and provide good prediction may be good scientific practice but there is a big gap between this and actually knowing what is real. I wish I had the brains and motivation to learn enough math, physics, and theory to be intelligently confused.

[@larph7270]

Every time I watch (interesting) lectures like this, the same question keeps bothering me. How can you be sure that you know how much normal matter there is in galaxies or the universe, when we still haven't even charted all the matter in our own solar system. New dwarf-planet sized objects, asteroids, etc, are being spotted even today.

[@MrEnky007]

Starts at 3:27

[@envogueadventure]

Well done, lady!

[@gitmoholliday5764]

indeed quarks interact through the strong force, but only at a very short distance but who knows if you take them away from each other they will change and act in a totally different way ?

[@donfox1036]

The proton is a great mystery. What is it’s half life? We don’t know. Is the standard model incomplete? In this respect, answering these questions about the proton, it seems so.

[@trikkinikki970]

Damn, presented the 7th, released the 8th, and on the 11th at 5am I'm slamming a grav bong to enjoy some fine science to pass out for the night. Good show.

[@uploadJ]

... I'll just bet you are ...

[@trikkinikki970]

@@uploadJ lol, as if smoking weed is some novel and ridiculous past time. it's similar to a glass of wine, to the dome.

[@uploadJ]

... 'suspicions' (LOL) confirmed ... just sh*tposting here, as well as making a few more 'solid' critiques on QM upthread ...

[@uploadJ]

Okay, satisfy my curiosity - I've seen your Google+ pix - how tall are you (in real life, and not some on-line persona)?

[@trikkinikki970]

@@uploadJ 5'8" 135. :3

[@paulbk7810]

Excellent.

[@garyclouse7234]

How about re structuring your data set to allow Quantum processing to return SOME answers to your queries.

[@theoschijf8155]

Great talk. We do not need bigger computers, we need simpler math for these problems. Dark matter ... might not exist, in stead gravity may behave differently over long distances. Standard model in my opinion needs a tiny adjustment that will have huge consequences. We need to think iso larger computers or colliders.

[@Rhine0Cowboy]

Modified gravity wouldn't actually be able to explain dark matter.

[@theoschijf8155]

Rhine0Cowboy I believe it would. Check the presentations of Erik Verlinde on emergent gravity. The effect that made us invent the term dark matter can be explained in a different way, without the need of new particles/fields. See: www.quantumuniverse.nl/emergent-gravity-and-dark-universe

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

@@theoschijf8155 You and Erik Verlinde believes it would, but there is probably a reason why not a single other top scientist in the world of the physics field believes that to be the case. Different types of modified gravity theories have been considered for decades. It's nothing new.

[@theoschijf8155]

Lars Alfred Henrik Stahlin There are many scientists on the same side as Erik Verlinde. They will convince you in the end. Until then, do stay on the dark (matter) side. Not being able to account for 95% of matter/energy in the universe looks quite silly on you resume. But be my guest and keep believing.

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

@@theoschijf8155 You go ahead and do the believing while I listen to the empirical data that exists, and in an bayesian manner weigh the the credences of studies and listen to the consensus among scientists while always being ready for new empirical data to induce a paradigm shift if so it would even though we feel so certain about some things. KZbin-commenters, either way, always get low credence points from me. Especially the more dramaticly they talk about how they have found the answer to the universe, using a link to some known controversial scientists or conspiracy as a source. That's not science, that's something else

[@vgrof2315]

Bravo!!!

[@davepastern]

could dark matter be what makes matter in the standard model, and the excess energy from the creation of standard matter is dark energy?

[@mikelevitz1266]

Wonderful

[@ggc7318]

Excellent❤😃👍

[@Squidz66]

I'm super PROUD!......For some reason. Better than, South Ausie with Cosi!

[@danx2294]

Featured on Astral Education on Facebook

[@Earwaxfire909]

Is there a proton radius considering the uncertainty principal?

[@Ni999]

Excellent question. Please see - readingfeynman.org/2015/08/23/the-uncertainty-principle-and-the-stability-of-atoms/ So when we talk about the size of a proton, we're really referring to its charge radius rather than the physical space needed for the chaotic mix of quarks and gluons. I think we're expecting that quarks are elementary particles like electrons and are therefore points or point-like so that even changing the composition of a proton while retaining the same net charge (+1) it ought to result in the same charge radius, regardless. I think that the key to what she was getting at was when she brought up error bars around each type of hydrogen vs the different hydrogens and how far they overlap. I'd like to see more on that myself.

[@donfox1036]

Earwaxfire909, yes, the numbers are many orders of magnitude different.

[@TheDanEdwards]

@@Ni999 I wish she would have said charge radius. Her drawings of an atom revert back to Bohr and I think reify in the listener their notion that an atom is like the solar system. But what really needs to be communicated is the essentially non-intuitive nature of reality at the scale of an electron.

[@Ni999]

Dan Edwards That atom icon really needs to go away, no question.

[@frederickj.7136]

Not *those* two tiny & spare illustrations, guys. The map is not the territory, and maps can be plenty useful, even arbitrarily abstracted (see: London Underground map -- justly famous & celebrated).

[@venkateshbabu5623]

Waves are 0 to 1 . 1to 0 . 0 to-1 and -1 to 0. So 4 forces. Related to 0 π/2 π 3π/2 2π. 0 to π/2 strong nuclear force. π/2 to π weak nuclear. π to 3π/2 electromagnetic and 3π/2 to 2π gravity.

[@venkateshbabu5623]

Three places where light gets produced. While crossing zero.

[@venkateshbabu5623]

Nuclear fusion is the first force of the universe created it reaches a maximum and that leads to weak nuclear force like radioactive decay and once all decay is gone electromagnetic force take over and once all em waves decay gravity takes over and the force sequence is like a sin wave.

[@venkateshbabu5623]

Light is created at the beginning of fusion and then stops and radioactive decayed material turns electric and finally when gravity dies something like inside a black hole.

[@midi510]

What if trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity is the wrong direction because they are the digital/analog, yang/yin, order/chaos duality of the universe? The heads and tails of the coin that is physical reality. In the hierarchy of unity, duality, trinity, quadrality, etc - the spectrum of unity to diversity; QM and GR exist at the level of duality.

[@frederickj.7136]

I'll have the balsamic vinaigrette on that word salad, waiter!

[@midi510]

@@frederickj.7136 Don't get caught up in the words, but pay attention to the concepts they convey. Maybe you're just not familiar with the two main concepts present.

[@midi510]

@@frederickj.7136 I can explain concisely, everything I said and it's context to the lecture.

[@santyclause8034]

Quantum Entanglement is a long way from General Relativity. Take a straight line and mark the ends A and B. If this line were matter it would be possible to travel the Universe end to end in a single continuous unbroken line of matter forming a continuous loop, how the ends meet is entanglement. The loop is closed in a reversal of its discrete nature, ie. opposite ends of matter have direction, a line has linearity and direction much as a closed circuit passes from positive to negative or vice versa. By simple virtue of matter endness having a relational Time-Space difference implied by its interval opposite, it is possible to traverse the two ends of a straight line through continuous travel in a circle. The end is the beginning and so on. No applause just throw money.

[@eachday9538]

So, in Ant-Man how does he shrink down to the quantum scale when the technology in the suit only reduced the space between atoms? He was still made of atoms, how can he go sub atomic?

[@somecreeep]

The writers didn't understand what they were writing about.

[@ossiedunstan4419]

Hydrogen is all that is need for our universe 1 building block from which all other elements are made from.

[@cookiemonster3147]

are there 'non standard models'?

[@frederickj.7136]

Er, much, *much* crackpottery in evidence here, Cookie Monster -- *very* "non-standard" models!

[@kingjeremysircornwell7847]

If you were made of the same substrate as trying to traverse. You could traverse without impunity.

[@kingjeremysircornwell7847]

Buy a shotgun, be proficient in its operation.

[@MrBorceivanovski]

The first building block of the universe is a Space!

[@edokael4291]

There is a new model for the nucleus that shows a clear structure in a fractal form. QM is outdated and fundamentally wrong by using point particles for example. For those interested in this follow this link - kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3XbnqNmac1meNE

[@planetaryscienceinstitutep749]

Can I have talk with her??? I'm a the student of Astrophysics

[@31337flamer]

20:09 people are into it :D thats when u know u got them ^^

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

Haha, there was a guy sleeping somewhere in the second half though, they cut the camera back to the lecturer really quickly when they noticed... Cba searching for it but it was funny. It's really easy to fall asleep during lecturs if you are tired tbh :D Even if it's an interesting one like this one

[@somecreeep]

@@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012 27:48 I think?

[@michaelfowell223]

When I was about four years old, my Grandad gave me a beautiful pocket watch. I was fascinated with it! When I got to about 7 years old, I had to know! What made it tick?? I laid the watch down gently, and went to find my Dads tool box. Eventually, I found what I needed and rushed back to my watch. I raised the hammer, and smashed the watch to pieces, there was bits flying everywhere! When I looked down at the mess, I'd learnt an important lesson. When you smash the crap out of stuff! It doesn't give you any chance, of a better understanding of how the mechanism worked.👍⌚

[@johnbotirius9897]

hammer used to be my favorite tool. Especially the B.F.H. Christmas day, 5 years old. My mother found me in her room taking apart her alarm clock. I feel ya .

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

So, what's your point? That particle colliders are bad? xD

[@michaelfowell223]

Lars Alfred Henrik Stahlin Essentially yes, they don't offer up any understanding of the mechanisms involved or interactions that would of taken place, and what they consider to be component parts flying off, could in fact be broken parts that were part of a larger component so in themselves don't yield any better understanding.☺

[@lancebybee7962]

Proof that science is messey?

[@michaelfowell223]

Lance Bybee Indeed, when you premise your talk with, there are more atoms in 1 grain of sand, than grains of sand on the beach, which gives you a stark idea of the scales involved, then proceed to talk about the measurement of not atomic but subatomic particles??? Its simply an impossible human endeavor, but some chump out there will fund this lunacy anyway.😂

[@uraqt.pie.2021]

ok I get it it's upside down .. the end is not the beginning .. the beginning at the end .. start catching those Black mater Then will know what Mater are ...

[@hippopotamus6765]

I fell in love, on my knees I proposed marriage, even offered her a new computer ...Rejected , I cried uncontrollably for days

[@santyclause8034]

whut was it a 186 EB?

[@GeneralSulla]

You know why? She said YES to me already! (In my mind of course) Lol!

[@donfox1036]

This is very important. Male physicists are way too common. I went on Quora looking fo female physicists and those interested in physics.i found almost none. Quora is important because, if you are not no a Feynman, thé curiosity of others can help you to imitate one.

[@cookiemonster3147]

..a cluster of galaxies NEAR earth??

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

wow that 12 year old girl at the end with the big question though haha, cool. Future nobel laureate?

[@gurujam8483]

It seems like all of the children at these seminars are incredibly bright. There is hope for the future.

[@Tsumami__]

Mike Rash I would assume a child even attending a lecture like this in 2018 is relatively bright. Considering most kids now are busy watching worldstar hip hop videos online and taking selfies 24 hours a day.

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

@@Tsumami__ exactly :'D Flossing'n'Fortnite

[@frederickj.7136]

1.4% of the Nobel Laureates in physics are women. Lise Meitner did not get hers, Vera Rubin did not get hers; Emmy Noëther, just a (brilliant) moonlighter in physics, wasn't even allowed to get her proper degree or be a professor. We *still* have a long way to go.

[@johnmiller5259]

☺️

[@brucehendrix]

I wonder if these scientist have ever tripped dmt and actually been into the building block realm

[@MnyFrNthng]

She got bachelors in 2012. and PhD in 2015. So she finished phd in three years???? Wow!!!

[@primus4cameron]

And published HEAPS. Numerous citations. I think MIT has grabbed her now. But yeah... a theoretician hankering for more computational muscle. Watch this career trajectory!

[@donfox1036]

Best answer: how can a high school girl... Learn all you can about math and computers. Women have proven abilities in both these areas, eg. Emmy Noether, Ada Lovelace, the NASA ladies.

[@arthurriaf8052]

Gravity is not fundamental, it's emergent. Gravity isn't about mass. Gravity is masses distortion of the space the mass is in. There is no graviton and until mass formed when atoms formed and gathered into matter gravity wasn't present. This is the logic I understand about gravity. How can gravity become a force without mass accumulating to distort "space" and create 3 dimensional "wells" we call gravity? Einstein was right about distorted space being gravity not masses on their own. Do you have other explanations?

[@davidsweeney111]

can we make the assumption that matter exists?

[@christianlibertarian5488]

Maybe, but what about time?

[@davidsweeney111]

@@christianlibertarian5488 time is a perception

[@Ni999]

Using physics to claim to solve philosophy questions has a perfect track record throughout time for propping up quack philosophies. And it's a two way street. History has revealed failure every time philosophical arguments are used to justify physics. We can observe and quantify matter, therefore it exists. The more we observe and measure, the better we understand it. Time is an observable and quantifiable dimension of spacetime. Nothing disputes that and probably every argument has been tried. We aren't close to understanding exactly why matter *is* or why time *is.* Same for everything else in the universe. *And neither do we care.* Go to a philosophy circle to decide what existence means metaphorically or metaphysically. In physics, we only care about understanding how the observed pieces fit together. Philosophy has yet to answer the question of existence to everyone's satisfaction and it's been trying for millennia. I hope that someone figures it out someday. Meanwhile, physics has made possible the computing machinery you used to amplify the reach of the audience for your questions and that's fairly recent in the history of humanity. Feel free to find it ironic or silly that physics doesn't care about the question. I can dig it, it's a valid point. So is the other side of the coin that you're using to read this answer - it's the same irony. Without matter, energy, and spacetime you couldn't have asked here.

[@PaulHoward108]

When would matter exist? Events perceived in the distance are in the past, and all material events are at some distance. Existing implies now, but matter is never experienced in the now. Matter is a dream and exists like the water in a mirage.

[@Ni999]

Paul Howard Water is matter and energy and mirages are energy events. Using that information shows that your last statement, while emotionally appealing, cannot be parsed without endless loops so I have to conclude that it's impossible to parse and therefore impossible to understand. By the way, time literally does not exist for photons. *What we observe* using light (or anything else involving causality) *must by definition happen in **_our_** past.* However it's all happening instantaneously for the light carrying the information. *Time does not exist for photons.* Worse, under the right relativistic relationship, it's entirely possible for you to have a future that's in my past. And vice versa, it's not personal. Thank you for helping me to illustrate that philosophy and physics are never to be used to justify, or refute, one another.

[@n1k32h]

So lhc was a waste if it can’t find the size of proton

[@n1k32h]

And if u can’t find the size of a proton isn’t all the calculations wrong

[@Ni999]

First statement is incorrect, answer to the question in the second is no.

[@Ni999]

The Higgs field was postulated over a half century ago. Assuming that it was real led to solutions for a number of mysteries. However the question remained - were those solutions causal or coincidental? If history has taught us anything, it's to never assume that something is causal just because it's convenient. Enter the LHC - a collider that we hoped would be effective enough to answer the question - and depending on what we found, to go on and attempt to reveal data for supersymmetry and later, dark matter. They found a Higgs boson, proving that the Higgs field exists, and that cascaded to put a lot of related mysteries to rest. Now the LHC has moved on to other work as expected. Proton sizes were first measured using lasers to change energy states, and later using scattering by firing electrons at them, and evaluating the results. Having two different measurement methods only deepened the mystery because one did not reveal that the other was the wrong way to measure things. The LHC collides protons primarily and sometimes heavy ions - it's not a laser and it's not an electron accelerator - so it has nothing to do with where the question is coming from. Neither do calculations, this is about measured results. In her talk she brought up calculating it as a way to inform the validity of the measurements - but at the end of the day, it's always all about the measurements for experimental physicists. Theoretical physicists concentrate on the math in the theories. Both sides have to agree when there's a question. The math has to be right and the data has to be right. The problem with the proton size comes down to about a 5% difference. That's right, the whole mystery revolves around 5%. The problem is big because it falls under quantum electrodynamics (QED), the most complete and accurate set of predictions and measurements in the history of science. Errors elsewhere in QED are *very far* below 1%, so that's the context for why this loose thread is so weird. There’s no reason to think that everything unrelated to this problem on this one subatomic particle involving two measurement types is a valid basis for rejecting everything else. That would be like doubting that you can figure out the gas mileage on your car because there's a nick in the paint.

[@guyxmas7519]

So .... to see what is the diameter of a proton, all you need is to develop a tiny measuring tape!? Haha 5 to 10 years, I hope I see you in a lecture with the answer")

[@azrigani9433]

37.22 Steven Spielberg

[@uraqt.pie.2021]

wow always looking to the right ..back it up way back and start with dark mater till u fine one neutron.. Good luck 17 bad number .. anyways .. lol

[@nolan412]

I clicked my heels. Then I clicked them 2.5 times because geometry. Whoa! A Cheerio Effect was calculated?

[@nolan412]

What's the "Dark Matter Hurricane" doing to Geiger counters?

[@nolan412]

Maybe I should back up: what does dark matter do to time?

[@nolan412]

Integrate Moore's Law

[@nolan412]

Is the Universe left or right handed? Clockwise or counterclockwise?

[@JohnDlugosz]

49:05 Regarding your closing remarks: There is a lot more money and career opportunity in applying computer science directly than in becoming a particle physicist. So "building those foundations" might actually lead more people away from the field!

[@Trotskisty]

You don't want banks as your sponsors.

[@Jason-gt2kx]

I don't believe DM is a particle but she gives a great presentation to listen too.

[@kingjeremysircornwell7847]

12:00 but that did not happen. Turn off, could of's

[@naimulhaq9626]

She didn't talk much about strings or quantum fields. Stupendous computers and calculations sounds like Nima's huge collider. Instead I think these theoreticians can do is to unite QF with Higg's field. Perhaps including the Higg's field into Nima's amplituhedron (which does away with calculations) may provide with the answer sought.

[@frederickj.7136]

"Doh! I never thought of that! Brilliant, brilliant..." -- Circa 10,000 physical scientists connected with CERN. Anyway, have a nice day and keep on thinking. Yeah, Nima is trying on one's patience and attention span sometimes, but interesting and fun. It's pretty darn impossible to be both very "original" *and* even slightly correct in this regime, as Nima has pointed out many times.