Q&A - Beyond the Higgs: What's Next for the LHC? - with Harry Cliff

[@glooozo]

I could listen to this guy for hours

[@LZE.]

Indeed, great lecture.

[@johnnybedemented]

Agreed

[@mysticoversoul]

I could listen to the man for days and weeks. He makes Michio Kaku sound like a flyweight physicist compared to his heavyweight physics. Count me in.

[@EnglishMike]

Yeah. Michio Kaku makes my teeth itch. Give me Harry Cliff any day.

[@mariuszw5766]

One of the best lectures on YT concerning particle physics. My knowledge improved significantly

[@Munnybearz]

I really like this guy. Very well spoken, knowledgable, engaging and humble. Really enjoyed the lecture and Q&A.

[@percih70]

Harry is and excellent speaker, I hope he can find the time to continue to inform us on these exciting developments.

[@tantiwahopak101]

Damn what a speaker. Is this what is called a good speaker or he has just tremendous knowledge of the subject that hooked me up to the end.

[@hussainrazik1251]

One of the best public speakers in science. I’ve listened to so many but this lecture was very fluid with way he conducted it. 👍

[@carryon2197]

For me this is the most satisfying science discussion ever till now. Dr Harry Cliff you are a guru to me.

[@ZeedijkMike]

A Q&A that is just as intersting as the lectures. Good answers. Love that ending "We don't actually know what light is".

[@nsnick199]

It was "time", not light. Otherwise agree.

[@ZeedijkMike]

+NSNick : Of course,you are right. Brain freeze. Thanks for actually reading my comment.

[@lollie4016]

agree 👏

[@brettlunden8268]

He's an excellent speaker with an incredible amount of knowledge. I feel rather feeble minded in comparison. I'm glad there are people like this around working on really important research.

[@AquaTerraSys]

great variety of thoughtful questions from the audience

[@AntsAasma]

Missed opportunity by the moderator to say that we don't know what time is, but I know that we are out of it.

[@mysticoversoul]

Having more time or running out of it is relative.

[@dejayrezme8617]

Depends on the energy levels of the audience to increase the mass and cause time dilation, but we don't know what that is.

[@martinakis3747]

Time is an integrated determinant of space-time manifold used to annihilate space field potentials in order to rationalize everything to zero. Space-time must rationalize to zero because space-time has to be a representation of nothing. Nature has to make something out of nothing in order for the world to exist, so space-time is one view of nothingness. Take a virtual photon - it pulses EM field energy to the positive scale and to negative. When the energy/time function reaches zero, the time determinator destroys/annihilates the wave-function. Space-time should be an infinite cycle time determinating wave-function.

Wow, this guy can explain Physics in very simple term otherwise it can get very complected.

[@koulster2]

5:12 excellent question. Kudos to the guts of the person who questioned, especially if he has average science background.

[@Meticulate826]

Have experiments throughout 2018 given any further insightful results from measuring the Lepton Universality?

[@donchristie420]

The sleeping lady in the front row had her "mass" resting!!

[@mysticoversoul]

Eventually the inertia toward the ladies room pulled her up on her legs.

[@Aarrgghh1]

her sleeping throughout the whole lecture really, really irritated me as it distracted from the message for the entire event.

[@donchristie420]

Actually, the guy next to her should have given her an elbow!! She even clapped afterward hahahahahahaha

[@koulster2]

don christie I am reminded of a saying "be kind to everyone, for you don't know what personal battle a person could be fighting". I know somebody will say, "well yeah she was fighting a battle against hypersomnia". Who knows that she could be some hero in some battle and what if her battles are selfless? Sleeping during a stimulating talk looks bad, but "let it be"

[@fvhaudsilhvdfs]

i tried imagining that she was actually a super high level physicist and found everything he was saying trivial. this made me feel better.

[@thegentlemandj4629]

@20:30 it is mentioned that most of the mass in protons comes from the energy stored in the binding of the strong force. So if mass can result from the storage of energy that implies that mass can result from the release of energy. Could that explain the additional mass mentioned @16:00 where the result is 10^120 too much? Basically, instead of just looking at the mass stored in a cubic metre of space also look at mass generated from energy being released.

[@harshadadagale4253]

I think you changed your profession from a physics nerd to a party hard d DJ

[@llbrunollllbll9347]

Does anyone has a link for the paper he mentions at the end, related to b decay anomaly. Does anyone know if there is an update study about that?

[@MahyarMohebbi]

LOVED THE LAST QUESTION, AFTER HEAVY PARTICLE SEMINAR: " BY THE WAY, WHAT IS TIME? " - WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT TIME IS!

[@gainiq1384]

That clever child's question "If the theory that gravity leaps through like higher dimensions is true. then that means that there isn't a Boson for gravity so then how could you explain gravity", refers to minute 31 in the main lecture. Go to kzbin.info/www/bejne/m5XZla2ebrWanck

[@doncarlodivargas5497]

Another question, if they crush a lot of atoms to their basic elements and all those particles are littering the floor underneath the accelerator, if I should then clean up after the scientists by the help of a vaccum cleaner, qould then all those particles automatically re-combine into atoms inside my vacuum cleaner?

[@robbie_]

The lepton universality experiment is fascinating. I wonder when the next results will be due? Anyway thanks for sharing this excellent lecture.

[@marcmarc172]

I wish Harry mentioned the square-cube law/relation when answering the question about black hole evaporation.

[@JustOneAsbesto]

Me too, but he seemed like he didn't want to get too mathy for the audience.

[@jamesjulian9597]

Does anyone understand why the graviton wasn't in his standard model diagram of particles?

[@mariuszw5766]

James Julian As he mentioned it has not been proved yet that this carrier exist. Other forces' carriers overwhelmed the spacetime if you like and 21 century measuring devices are blind to spot that. That was an excellent lecture. I watched every single second and enjoyed it as hell!!!

[@sweetchills-ky9mg]

Dear mr Harry Cliff thank you very much for speaking perfectly British English that's why I watch your videos and I am very interested to your videos

[@varunahlawat9013]

So do higgs field applies only to the rest mass?

[@JustOneAsbesto]

Oh my God, that kid's voice. Jesus Christ.

[@meusana3681]

Much respect to the presenter for really trying to answer the kid to the best of his capability.

[@lollie4016]

+Meusana yess!!

[@msergio0293]

Meusana yes, but also respect to the kid to ask a question knowing that his voice sounds like that

[@marty7922]

I don't think his name is Jesus.

[@WGM190065]

That kid sounded as if he was disappointed that the Graviton hasn’t been seen.

[@abhijeetbhagat100]

Is it possible to exist particle who responsible for " time"

[@RebeccaCampbell1969]

science fiction name something like that already, Chroniton i believe… it would be interesting if it was real

[@abhijeetbhagat100]

Sorrento B we can more say" space time is made up of particle "

[@kadourimdou43]

Abhijeet Bhagat Well current theories point towards Spacetime as emergent from a deeper theory. So they think time is emergent not fundamental. So they think it's a no, If that's any help.

[@abhijeetbhagat100]

Breath and a Scream you are right. I also believe in quantum field theory.

[@glutinousmaximus]

Getting your head around 'time' is a real pig. We know that time is a variable, and that all energy and matter has it's own little 'spacetime' (This all Einstein) Indeed, we know that time is required for any event to actually occur. _Before_ the Big Bang, we don't know if time existed - if no events were taking place. Your guess is as good as mine. ¯\(ツ)/¯

[@jordanpalmer8054]

MOND *CAN* explain galaxy rotation curves; however, it cannot explain things like the bullet cluster. This was a great lecture! It was nice to hear the LHCb lepton universality results being explained to the public.

[@narrator69]

What if time is dark energy, we still have zero understanding of it or why it only seems to flow one direction even though current physics says there is no reason it should be unidirectional.

[@mariuszw5766]

Ross Betts Maybe it has something to do with the entropy?? Maybe it is 'sensible' to gravity....this force works one direction too.

[@DiscoveryNewsNow]

There's no such thing as dark energy. Expansion is simply a property of space time flowing forward. If time were to stop the expansion would stop, such an in a black hole. I would presume that if time we to run backwards space time would shrink. Otherwise if time were to follow backwards (somehow) you'd have to explain how this "dark energy" was unenergizing itself. I doubt I'm articulating myself correctly, but the conservation of energy prevents the existence of dark energy

[@kenwalter3892]

Lisa Adler How does dark energy violate conservation laws when gravitational potential energy is negative? Also- if dark energy doesn't exist (which is certainly possible) then some force does it just has a different name?

[@DiscoveryNewsNow]

Ken Walter I believe expansion is a fundamental property of space time as time passes it expands. This would explain the exponential exceleration, otherwise not only does an explanation for dark energy need to be found, but it would also be necessary to explain how dark energy gains energy to excelerate the explanation.

[@kenwalter3892]

Lisa Adler Hmmmm. Thanx for that. Would negative gravitational energy violate conservation then? Something about it doing positive work is niggling in the back of my mind, but googling everything gets boring vs having real conversation sometimes 😁

[@WadcaWymiaru]

I have question for him and you people: can we create "artificall matter" , different than dark matter? the second: what is the name for "force" that keep universe in one, multidimensional piece?

[@doncarlodivargas5497]

If there is a particle for gravity, why is it not destroyed in a black hole? And if it is not destroyed, then, is other particles also intact?

[@mariuszw5766]

Katsu Zatoichi Acording to physics base law no information is lost. Black holes 'store' that info on the surface so presumably some gravitons are intact. Maybe its strenght add up to total gravity strenght of black hole hence so massive 'sucking in' effect.??

[@jeffrooow]

Big fundamental question to which i can't find an answer anywhere. Why do the particles "explode" upon impact? Why couldn't they merge, or pass through each other? If everything is energy, why do different kinds of energy behave differently? And could you make the lhc fuse particles instead of explode? Please give me answers! Curiosity is like an itch and right now, i've run out of tools to scratch.

[@joen5000]

I think it's a very legit question. I'm not sure anyone right now can give you a definite answer. You need to remember that theoretical physics merges at some point with human consciousness or call it global consciousness. I wouldn't wonder if the results match expectations, as many people expect them so. I've read some research papers lately that prove that the mere thinking of things change statistics towards the intention and that is without any physical contact. Watch the following video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIO2c5SnaNt0m7s Again, there is no certainty in anything at this micro-level. Things can change. Maybe at a specific velocity they will fuse or behave differently as you mentioned. I think, there are endless possibilities of things yet to be discovered. We're just around 100 years performing this level of science, compared to the length of human history, it's nothing and if one thing has been proven to be true, it is that nothing is absolute and everything may change including our understanding of things. www.alloma.ca

[@EnglishMike]

jeffrooow -- because when they're traveling that fast (near the speed of light) they are carrying 14,000 times their mass in kinetic energy, and when they collide, that energy is converted into matter in the form of other elementary particles. Harry explained that the particles don't really explode -- new particles are formed out of the energy of the collision. Why that, and why not something else? Well, it wouldn't be the Standard Model if it was something else. (I'm not sure anyone could explain it without resorting to complex mathematical theory.)

[@ArronCharman]

could black holes be made of these second or third generations of matter?

[@steviespaind4307]

Fascinating. Thank you.

[@legendwarrior85]

Amazing session!

[@boggo3848]

He didn't mention the pentaquark, that was a pretty big deal recently.

[@nancyjoseph9962]

He Explained everything you need to know about Higgs Boson,🙋‍♂️🙋‍♂️🙋‍♂️

[@n1k32h]

I just had a vision of the Big Bang with all the fundemtal particles/ spaarticles!

[@jedadiahtucker2132]

i dont understand the need for a gravitron. if general relativity is right (and it seams so) gravity is the result of energy distorting space time. the assumption im going to make is the space part of that is the fundamental fields ie the quark field, the electron field ect. if all those fields are biased in the direction of a source of energy why do we need a particle exchange to explain the attraction. also my understanding of the force particles is they work because they dont last very long. if we are exchanging particles with the sun that particles around for 8 min, unless there allowed to break the speed of light for some reason?

[@jobvida]

where are those lots of energy came from?

[@bloody_albatross]

If neutrinos are electrically neutral, how can there be an anti-neutrino?

[@Luca_040]

there are there own anti particle

[@bloody_albatross]

I just read up on Wikipedia, quote: For each neutrino, there also exists a corresponding antiparticle, called an antineutrino, which also has half-integer spin and no electric charge. They are distinguished from the neutrinos by having opposite signs of lepton number and chirality.

[@_noirja]

bloody_albatross It is not yet known whether there neutrinos are their own antiparticle (Dirac or Majorana particle). But we treat them as such for the moment. Some experiments are looking for a type of particle decay called the “neutrino-less double beta decay” if this were observed it would confirm that neutrinos are their own anti particle.

[@DobarDabar]

Electric charge does not matter for anti particles, there is neutron and antineutron also...

[@bloody_albatross]

Well, neutrons are made up of charged quarks that are only in sum neutral, though.

[@dr.danej.shepherdosteopath8640]

Time is where you put your attention

[@n1k32h]

I just had a vision of the Big Bang with all the fundemtal particles/ sparticles/ anti all that!

[@gyro5d]

Gravity is pressure mediation into Counterspace, at every mediated center.

[@jalalahmed7146]

Very interesting.

[@probusexcogitatoris736]

But what about the strong and the weak sauce???

[@alangarland8571]

You mean Vindaloo as opposed to Madras?

[@bytefu]

Apparently, the strong sauce binds digestion products into solid turds, while the weak sauce is responsible for gaseous decay.

[@mysticoversoul]

------> Artem Borisovskiy Brilliant. You get the Nobel in Physics for that.

[@okerekechukwuebuka7977]

can you actually call time a dimension, knowing fully well that at any point in the the space co-ordinate is with respect to time. I would rather say dimension in space is as a function of time, not time as a dimension. i stand to be corrected. thanks

[@jedadiahtucker2132]

it's considered a dimension because like any of the others removing it makes all others useless. take x,y,z axis if i omit one of those, the location has no meaning. it would be like ill meet you at 5th and.... just like if i say ill meet you at 5th and 14 street, if i don't give you a time it dosent work. we aren't likely to meet up. even if the time isn't stated directly the context of the conversation will imply the time. we just dont think about it because we dont have control over it. just like you dont give an altitude when meeting some one for drinks.

[@CheCheDaWaff]

The theory of general relativity only works if you consider time to be another dimension. Specifically, physical symmetries (and therefore conservations laws) are certain transformations in a four dimensional Minkovski space (i.e. higher-dimensional analogues of rotation, reflection, etc.).

[@cwwiss1]

So we don't know what light , gravity or time really are? I suppose he's really saying that we who live in a physical world can never really understand the sub atomic quantum world ? However he didn't hesitate in answering questions about their properties and relation to each other. There is some irony that we know so much about things we know so little about!

[@EnglishMike]

Compared to only 100 years ago, we know an astounding amount about the Universe. Basically, we have picked off virtually all of the low hanging fruit -- i.e. discovered just about everything we can detect or confirm with the technology available. The rest is too small, or far away, or too energetic to be probed easily, so it's no surprise that major discoveries about the Universe are so much harder to come by these days.

[@gybfefe]

Maybe you heard something like mass is energy. Things relate to each other, if you exept the first sentence then you can wonder why energy is mass or for example time is the square root of the space / energy ratio. By the way, the only phenomena in our infinity is collision, you can name its properties endlessly.

[@ow2750]

love u cliff

[@carnifex8]

i have a suspicion all of the secrets are buried in the gravity field and graviton. but since it's so hard to measure... then yea...

[@joen5000]

Your suspicion is justified. For now at least, all answers are assumptions and proofs are very weak and can change I would even say, with high-probability in the future. At the theoretical level of physics, there are endless unknown factors and any of them may change the way we look at things significantly. This is also what is happening all the time, sometimes large changes happen in years, which is considered short time. There are also other theories that the recently popular big-bang theory, like the fine-tuned universe and others. They are not less likely to be true, they are just not as much popular for now. Werner Heisenberg, a German scientist said; "As long as someone is not an ultimate observer, he/she can never figure the truth of the system they are within". No one in our observable universe is an ultimate observer, since we all change things as we interact, and the mere act of observation, and experiments show, the mere act of thinking can change the measurements and the results. Therefore by definition, we cannot know the ultimate truth, we may just advance in having answers in the timeline we experience today. But since these answers are never ultimate, they may change as we advance on the timeline. It is hard to find answers since every new discovery expands the knowledge and the possibilities. So we are not converging towards a simple solution, we are actually adding more complexity. Some physicists who dream of the unified theory, which includes all answers may oppose my opinion in this regard, but I don't think, they have any logical basis to prove they are right. We need to remember that logic precedes science and experiments and not vice versa. www.alloma.ca

[@pauleverest]

Why did they omit the kid from the video when he asked a question? Strange

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Why wasn't he on camera? He was sitting quite high up and the glare from one of the spotlights meant that our camera didn't pick him up!

[@mysticoversoul]

Oh, that. I thought it was an ET alien listening in on the lecture and Q&A.

[@joeblack1126]

Time is easy, our time began with the big bang because that was when things started to happen, all the events happened one after the other from the creation of stars and galaxies to us, time is not a dimension its a name for events happening one after another, no events no time, simple.

[@momoracin]

why does the LHC only use hydrogen to smash together ?

[@KishanKumar-mz3xr]

Well basically they use protons (H atom - e), cause you can't divide a proton physically using tools. However they also have used very heavy particles like lead as mentioned in this video

[@sh4m4npi7ot9]

2:39 Young man in the middle... with the balloon.

[@CHii951_D.S]

Kid at 2:42 sounds like a sad French chef

[@DonaldSleightholme]

i read a bit about gravity and i think that we have gravity because of the mass of a object in space so when something is falling or launched into space then it becomes weightless because it lost earth mass 🤷‍♂️

[@pseudonymousbeing987]

Donald Sleightholme You cannot lose mass. It is an constant that cannot be changed if the object itself is not changed. Your weight comes from gravity. We become *weight* less in space. Am i understanding you correctly? Edit:Wow i sound like a pompous idiot

[@pansepot1490]

Donald Sleightholme, I don't think reading "a bit" is enough to really understand how complicated physics models work.

[@joen5000]

The term free fall used by NASA is quite misleading and making things harder to understand. It is easier explained if they would have said: Any object moving in a circular (angular) motion will have the so called centrifugal force. This force is directed outwards and opposite to the center of circular motion. It is proportional to the mass of the object, to it's distance from the center and to it's angular speed. It is like having a bucket full or water tied to a short rope and moving it vertically in a circular speed, so that the water does not spell out of it, when it's up-side-down. It is the speed when the total mass equals the centrifugal force. The same happens with ISS. The centrifugal force which opposes earth's gravity is calculated to match it exactly by having the right distance from the center of earth, and the right angular speed. In this case mass is less relevant, since any additional mass will be equally equalized by additional gravitational force and the sum remains zero. In the case of ISS it is 89% gravity and equally is the opposing centrifugal force, totalling zero and that is why objects float weight-less. www.alloma.ca

[@EnglishMike]

I don't know. The idea that objects in orbit are constantly falling toward the Earth, but the fact they are moving perpendicularly fast enough so they keep missing it is a pretty useful way to explain what's happening to the lay person.

[@mariuszw5766]

Donald Sleightholme According to e=mc2 mass in that equation is so called rest mass. It's a property that is embedded in this reality. Weight depends on gravity force hence moving away from massive objects reduces acceleration coming from that objects..weight on moon is roughly 6 times less than on earth d/t its size.

[@miniadventureswithmark3309]

Did this guy say INVOKE!? Is he a Magician?

[@KatKevaKelise]

Please look this word up. I’m sure you’re familiar with the term ‘dictionary’, if not ‘invoke’?

[@5kehhn]

Interesting.

[@jonathanjollimore4794]

Still plenty of unanswered questions

[@rohitshresht4365]

Space is expanding.Space is creating out of nothing. If the fields for particle exist everywhere. Then that means that this field is creating out of nothing. Is it like so ?

[@redshift5050]

It's funny to watch all the people who are bored.

[@mattwaters1186]

OMG, he's so cute!

[@oldtimehockey7123]

That kid is at least 3.5x smarter than I.

[@peterjohn5544]

*me. You're welcome.

[@RWBHere]

Or possibly 'than I am', or 'than am I'. It's an interesting evolution of the English language. 'Than am I' mutated to 'than I am', and then to 'than I'. In turn, 'than I' is being supplanted by 'than me', in colloquial use. The 'rules' of grammar vary from country to country, as well as from era to era. While one form or another might not be 'grammatically correct', grammar itself is a living thing, which is changing ontinuously. The old (1960's, in my case) convention for the choice between 'I' and 'me' could be resolved by completing a sentence, according to the standard rules. Thus, 'He is smarter than I (am), is correct, whilst 'He is smarter than me (am).' is clearly nonesensical. In contrast, 'Give it to me.' is correct, but 'Give it to I.' is obviously incorrect. Unfortunately for grammatists, common use of words often fails to comply with the rules. Putting rules aside, the use of language is as a means of conveying information quickly to the recipient, and so the rules are often relaxed for convenience. Grammatical 'errors' are relatively unimportant, so long as a correct understanding of the message is achieved. The 'I / me' uncertainty is not alone in English; another bone of contention lies with the splitting of infinitives. The most popularised example of a split infinitive (forgiving mine, above!) comes from the introduction to 'Star Trek', where the words, 'Their mission; to boldly go where no man has gone before.' have caused much consternation among many linguists. The correct wording should be, 'Their mission; to go boldly where no man has gone before.' The words 'to go' should be together, and in the correct word order, at all times. (Put simply, there is no verb 'to boldly'.) That said, only a purist would argue with that infraction, since the meaning of the statement is still understood by any normal person. Yes, it grates with me, because I am somewhere near to one end of the 'autism spectrum', but who really cares, other than a pedant or a purist? We know what the author intended to convey to his audience. And so do the overwhelming majority of other speakers of English. Thank-you for sparking some thoughts in me (not 'in I', if you see the point here), in addition to the subject of the lecture which preceded this video!

[@RichardDLewis41]

There is a theory that black holes do not contain a singularity but instead contain a neutron star which is large enough to create an event horizon. The calculation shows that a neutron star would create an event horizon outside its surface at 3.4 solar masses. This theory is consistent with observations of the smallest black hole observed which is 3.8 solar masses. This explains why the gravitational waves from black holes and neutron stars are so similar. Black holes when they collide do not radiate light because of the event horizon. So it is not correct to say that the LHC can create black holes because the smallest possible black hole is 3.4 solar masses. See Appendix 7 of this paper: www.academia.edu/5009126/The_evolution_of_the_universe Richard

[@EnglishMike]

Spamming your own papers here too, I see. You must be desperate if you're reduced to posting links to your stuff on random KZbin comment threads.

[@RichardDLewis41]

Hello Mike. This is not intended as spam but a serious comment on the lecture which talks about black holes. No, I am not desperate but a little frustrated that I have found solutions to a number of problems in physics and cosmology and have found it difficult to find a way of getting a review by professional academics. The paper has an explanation for dark matter and dark energy which everyone says is a big mystery. www.academia.edu/5009126/The_evolution_of_the_universe It would be great if you could just take a look at Appendix 6 on dark matter and comment. Richard

[@gybfefe]

Time is the root of the space / energy ratio, to answer the last question, it's a shame that a highly educated man doesn't know that :)

[@probusexcogitatoris736]

A Q&A with actual questions instead of commentary and personal opinions thinly disguised as a question!!! What is happening???

[@EnglishMike]

British cranks are less outspoken than their American counterparts, maybe? I was going to say that British people are more sensible, but I highly doubt that's true (and I am British!).

[@probusexcogitatoris736]

:D

[@vincesnetterton5868]

i have listened to him for hours, and i am so, so dumb

[@EnglishMike]

Not true! At the very least, you are less dumb than you were before, but the fact that you have taken the time to listen to his talks means you are already brighter than the average bear!

[@alm6241]

Why does scifi or all things Hollywood seems to tell a better story about quantum mechanics in the same space time sense?

[@randomplantsandstuff]

What does it matter if a woman has not yet asked a question here? Obviously from the video the hosts were very eager to get a woman to ask a question, so there obviously was no sexism against women at this event. The first question was from a child even so there obviously was no bias to questions from any group at the event. If women have questions they will ask them, if not they won't. Maybe women aren't interested in this topic as much as men are. I've enjoyed this whole talk until @12:20 really. Do you know how it felt to me how the girl was questioned right after this announcement? It felt like she was only asked because she was a woman and not because she had a good question (and she had a good question, the child at the first question had a good question as well). By running that "have women also talked yet" program you actually denigrate women and make them a token! Nobody wants to be the token, pity character and it solves no problems at all. Can we please concentrate on the topics and not on gender, race, age, disability, societal status and such? @The Royal Institution: Please also let your helpers in the room who distribute the microphones know about this. I know you and they only want to do the good thing and they want to help, but they are actually doing quite the opposite.

[@DewyPeters96]

Women need more representation in science. It's not a token: it's a step we need to take to change the world we live in.

[@jesperburns]

_"Women need more representation in science. It's not a token: it's a step we need to take to change the world we live in."_ Why? You say this as if this is self evident.

[@DewyPeters96]

Because diversity is healthy and necessary for all fields of study. If only a single demographic or gender dominates a field, then it starts to become very boring and dogmatic. Plus, as a Physics student myself, I wouldn't mind having more women to work with. In most universities, it's practically a sausage fest.

[@jesperburns]

_"Because diversity is healthy and necessary for all fields of study. If only a single demographic or gender dominates a field, then it starts to become very boring and dogmatic."_ Why is it healthy? Why is it boring? And yes, most hard sciences are sausage fests, because women on average are more interested in working with people instead of with things and numbers.

[@joen5000]

Agree. It is more interesting to have more women, but it should be their own choice. Today everything is open for everyone. Women have no restriction at all to study anything.

[@mrloop1530]

The kid seemed offended that the graviton hasn’t been observed. I sincerely hope he has learned to cope.

[@davidwilkie9551]

All information is temporal, in continuity and quantum identities, including wave-particle sub fields at every duration rate of the eternal field of this compound "history-wave", ..at this particular time-point, the singularity-now.

[@rubenmartinez2994]

A case against Neutron Stars.The following is hypothetical scenario based on known physics, which would explain the Improbability of neutron stars; Neutron is made out of an electron and proton and neutrino, (neutrons are Known to be unstable due to Beta decay) it is a fact that the Neutrinos escapes from the neutrons because of nuclear decay due to the low mass, or close to Zero mass, that is, the neutrinos would be lost or radiated away, it must be emphasized that Neutrino is part of the ingredients of a Neutron. After losing a neutrino what would be left is a proton and a electron, which would constitute the ingredients of a hydrogen atom not a Neutron , being that the Protons Is heavier (by 1800 times) then the Electron, it is quite possible that the interior will become a large Proton like object, but only if there is enough gravity , there for, it should be called a Proton Star and not a Neutron Star. The core would be of pure hydrogen nuclei. Between these two scenarios the most plausible would be Proton star, because it is based on known physics. But, even here, in this scenario the protons couldn't remain together in any high density because of the Coulomb forces, which would prohibit confinements of these protons. Neutron star Scenario just doesn’t make sense ! The fact is that a neutron stars is actually Hypothetical objects and the physics that is suppose to supports this is vague. The Pauli exclusion principle Is introduce because it helps explain the density packing, but there are other forces That will inhibit these high densities ever being achieved. So there is no credible explanations about how the Neutron Star would be kept together. This hypothetical neutron star explanation is one dimensional thinking, which ignores other factors in physics. So don’t be fooled! I challenge any one to dispute this reasoning!

[@Pegasus4213]

It is all still based upon the assumption, that reality is just physical! Is it really? Does our consciousness have nothing to do with our perceptual process? These explanations, even of matter, are always at the level of present thinking about what it seems to mean! Then later it turns out that was not quite right and we move on. We don't know what gravity is if it needs gravitons that cannot be verified? It's all a strange comprehension supported by speculation! Meanwhile, we live and die...Do we survive physical death? My bet is on the yes answer, which would imply that physical matter is not the fundamental reality

[@missymarie1637]

He slipped up and said the black holes weve created.. and then fixed himself maybe they have already figured it all out n he is only saying a little bit of what they know

[@kumarsatyam7142]

He looks like AB de villiers.. Who agrees

[@Jack-bf6hv]

He has nice stories he has read and repeated.

[@angrypirate1094]

I have never felt less dumb after a lecture.

[@Bobby-fj8mk]

How disappointing it would be to have such high qualifications in physics and yet not know what time is? What is the point of it all?

[@rajat1704]

Looks like Christian from wwe

[@tylorwilson4559]

why did this guy just butcher the formula?

[@chriswilkin328]

And yet, we are unable to keep our planet clean.......fuck me.

[@ogbrown1073]

gravity is flat..!!

[@rubenmartinez2994]

Con job explanations!

[@DiscoveryNewsNow]

I do not believe in dark matter. I do, however, believe in planets, dust, black holes, dead stars ect. I do not believe in dark energy. I do, however, believe that it's simply a property of space time to expand as time flows forward.

[@hphp7587]

When i hear 'new theories', i get this thought; a person trying to find the best lie to explain something he/she did. lol.

[@wcm5150]

It is disgraceful to infantilize women to get them to ask a question. We live in a civilized society, no one is afraid to ask a question, get over it.

[@CrispyGrey]

I see you,ve mastered inside out space travel. The new suits are impressive but when you cloned me did you have to make me a woman? I am much happier being a man. Besides, I as a man am the creator.

[@tanjanichole5593]

The venomous decimal controversly sneeze because soccer physiologically alert inside a ruthless cloakroom. long, elastic supply

[@shubhamkanade7010]

Generic comment about being first ! :P

[@markxxx21]

Funny how he knocks MOND theory of gravity and now it's coming back strong five years later.