The ghost particle: searching for the mysterious neutrino - with James Riordon

[@Vazmenko]

Outstanding lecture for "only a journalist". Thank you Sir!

[@michaelc.tiberio5761]

I am saddened that the lecture Q&A videos have moved behind a pay wall. It seems counter to the RI mission of "connecting as many people as possible with the world of science." I hope they will reconsider.

[@SuperBlinding]

I am in complete agreement with you on that ~ ~ I too hope that they reconsider.

[@keep-ukraine-free]

This decision is contrary to the RI's mission. They will lose viewers.

[@sacredweeds]

I remember when RI didn’t have ads as well. 😢

[@michaelc.tiberio5761]

I don't mind the ads, I think donating a few seconds of my attention in exchange for a little money flowing to the RI is a good trade. But effectively blocking access to a part of the lecture experience feels contrary to RI principles. I love the work they do. I hope they can find a better way.

[@michaelc.tiberio5761]

Let's see if we can make a version of this comment the top voted comment on each video. Perhaps someone will notice.

[@keep-ukraine-free]

A superb talk on a topic very rarely discussed with the public. Lucidly explained, with engaging examples - e.g. of neutrino oscillations. Much thanks to James Riordon and RI.

[@jamesrriordon5955]

It was my pleasure. That is such an amazing and historic venue. To stand where so many brilliant people have stood was humbling

[@keep-ukraine-free]

@@jamesrriordon5955 Your talk opened my already wide-open eyes, to even more complexity. Rhetorically, I wonder: If/since neutrinos seem to oscillate between their 3 flavors (and between their lepton/antilepton states), does it suggest all leptons oscillate within their species? Related is the idea of baryons probabilistically oscillating between particle/antiparticle forms (and between 3 or more odd-count multiples of quarks), creating the "quantum foam" we call "empty" space. _Combining both:_ As a lepton traverses "empty" space, does it/how does it perturb the quasi-particles in the quantum foam?

[@alquinn8576]

the bolo tie is 🔥

[@lawrencegoldworm]

Mr. Riordan talk is very elucidating. I learned a lot about the possibilities for exploration of the universe that neutrinos may provide. Thank you!

[@karloslim]

Great talk on these mysterious particles. Neutrino astronomy has huge potential to tell us things that light simply cant. Exciting stuff

[@cincinnatibrutality0201]

In what way?

[@epleace]

Beautifully presented, sir. You have a gift for explaining difficult stuff. Thank you.

[@DeAlpineBro]

Thank you for mentioning Ray Davis and John Bahcall. I saw a documentary on their experiment decades ago and have wondered why they were never mentioned again as neutrino science advanced.

[@jamesrriordon5955]

They were both also really nice people, as well as being great scientists.

[@Pany1Galanis]

I too saw the same docu many years ago and it started me off on keeping in touch with the subject ever since! 🙂

[@jorymil]

The central idea of Andy Weir's _Project Hail Mary_ depends on neutrinos being their own antiparticle. Very cool.

[@Intervaloverdose]

Excellent, I hung on every word! Now I'm a huge neutrino fan too!! #ScienceCommunicator

[@Rebar77_real]

Neutrinos cause memory bit-flips that cause random glitches in old video games. "Cosmic ray bit flips" is neat reading. Interesting talk!

[@psyboyo]

I thought it was quite interesting, to watch this lecture, the point of view of a journalist, a man that shows to be very passionate about this like us all. In a way, he mirrors our desire to know more, our, us,we the people that the destiny didn't lead into scientific research, but nevertheless, marvelled by it. Saying this man should never been there, should sadden us all. We love science, seeing this mans passion right there, it could be us, amongst our family and friends. If one spoken word is not accurate, and we know it so, we think to ourselves, that was not accurate, but... realize I knew that! We could be that Man right there, using his passion, to spark ours. Love to all, happy holidays! 😽

[@jamesrriordon5955]

How kind of you! Happy holidays to you too.

[@RFC3514]

The real question is: as a neutrino decays, does it turn into an oldtrino?

[@betteroffdead]

😊

[@dembro27]

When a neutrino discovers social media: *radicaltrino*.

[@beeble2003]

No, it turns into a frogrino.

[@johncooper4637]

I really enjoyed going to Homestake Mine Visitors Center in Lead, SD a few weeks ago. They have exhibits about Dr. Davis and the current experiments that are going on in addition to the history of the mine.

[@richard169]

What a fresh, engaging speaker!

[@zyxzevn]

Are neutrinos waves, like photons are EM waves? And how do we know? Note: The neutrino-oscillations seem similar to how light "oscillates" from electric to magnetic and back.

[@S1nwar]

all quantum particles have wave properties. the lighter the more pronounced. wave like behaviour has been observed up to giant C60 molecules showing interference in a double slit experiment

[@zyxzevn]

@@S1nwar I know Quantum-mechanics. But the way neutrons behave, it looks more like another version of light. The neutrino-oscillations are just like EM-waves change from Electric to Magnetic and back.

[@S1nwar]

a photon has both electric field and magnetic field at the same time, perpendicular to each other. they both oscillate at the same time, they dont replace each other.@@zyxzevn

[@filthycasual9381]

Could be longitudinal electrodynamic waves... basically the far-fields of divergent current sources which are omitted by the coloumb guage in classical electrodynamics, and subsequently omitted by quantum electrodynamics through enforcement of the same kind of guage freedom that has been assumed valid in the classical domain. Good luck getting physicists to question maxwellian electrodynamics though.

[@S1nwar]

@@filthycasual9381 wordsalad

[@lu-uf8zj]

47:20 - the collapsed detector was at Arecibo in Puerto Rico

[@stevepartridge2959]

Excellent talk. Nice clear presentation.

[@PurnamadaPurnamidam]

Neutrinos mysterious as Ettore Majoranna 😊

[@Hank-x5q]

Great presentation sir...💯✔️

[@DonnyHooterHoot]

How could you ever communicate with a system with such high error rates? Only 1 data bit would be detected for every 100,000,000,000 misses? Even just turning off and on ala binary would never work because of missing bits. Great speech.

[@iliadiliad6028]

Through observation and interaction one can detect an elegant system and use it! Even if we make a chaotic unravelling of it's elegance to draw it to our concious comprehension, it's pure order but it will appear as chaos because of our state of consciousness at this time, we can perfect it and created primitive functions using primitive devices and experiments which will only appear to us as advanced until we raise our concious comprehension to refine it to a more elegant point it already operates in via an elegant usefu interface to make more use of it all in our daily concious existance. Like climbing a ladder, it's there, we can climb it to see higher more complex aspects and make use of them, to capure beautiful photos or measure pressure in the atmosphere from a certain point on the ladder... essentially we climb the ladder and can do pretty much everything, consciously aka from this point of perception, because it's already being done, we are it, we participate actively in everything and are part of it! lol We can do it, because it's already done in "nature" aka this Program aka Sand Box aka Universe... It's already being done, we can do it, we just have to do it consciously by observation , reverse engineering and interface, a recreation I suppose we can call it that, all'though it's an illusion that its imposible or even new... because we already do it! 😅😂😂 We can recreate ourselves, we do it constantly.

[@DonnyHooterHoot]

@@iliadiliad6028 LOL! Nope!

[@iliadiliad6028]

@@DonnyHooterHoot Oh, but yes! Everything here is exactly the same once you break it down, energy, exactly the same grains of sand in the sandbox! So what makes the sand dance and appear as different and assigns it structure and function... so yes, we can do with the sand anything we can imagine. Because if we can imagine it here it's because it's been programmed as a possibility. Granted, limitation of understanding actual reality can be useful in framed theory and research, your perspective has its good use, absolutely.

[@DonnyHooterHoot]

@@iliadiliad6028 Oh, but no! Wrong! LOL!

[@iliadiliad6028]

@@DonnyHooterHoot We disagree, and I think we are both correct! Cheers.

[@francretief1]

Ignore this negative comment. This was an excellent talk. Well done.

[@elinoreberkley1643]

I have a pocket full of neutrinos

[@jamesrriordon5955]

You do!

[@anirudhadhote]

Hi Sir, I have a simple question. Inside a factory at the end of the shift a supervisor and his co-worker are counting the produced objects, the objects are approximately the size of a tennis ball. It is their daily routine,the worker counts the objects as he takes it from the production lot and puts it inside a bag. The role of the supervisor is to keep watch so that there is no mistake while counting. One fine day, before starting the counting process, the supervisor looks at the lot and writes down some random three digit number as quantity of the produced items, in short he assumes that the actual quantity would probably match with that number. Now the question is what are the chances of that actual quantity matching exactly with that random number?

[@beeble2003]

It depends on the distribution from which the random number was drawn. For example, suppose you roll a six-sided die whose sides are numbered 0-5 (slightly unusual, but bear with me). Each of the numbers 0-5 is equally likely to come up. Suppose, instead, that you toss a coin five times and count the number of heads. Now, you'll get 0 and 5 about 3% of the time each, 1 and 4 each about 16%, and 2 and 3 each about 31% of the time. So the choice of distribution can very much alter the probability that the supervisor guesses a particular number and, therefore, the probability that they're right. Now, I guess the reason you're asking the question is that a lot of physics experiments take the form of "Measure some random events, then announce that they agree exactly with theory." The point here is that, first, they're measuring a huge number of random events. That means that they're very likely to see close to the average number of such events, rather than some fluke. Second, "agree exactly" actually means that they're extremely close to the theoretical value but not necessarily exactly equal to it. For example, suppose our theory is that coins are equally likely to come up heads and tails. Our experiment is to toss a coin some number of times and count how many heads. If we toss the coin ten times, it's fairly likely that we'll get 3 or 7 heads, so we don't learn much. But suppose we toss the coin a million times. It's still very unlikely that we'll get exactly 500,000 heads -- even if we have 499,999 heads out of 999,999 tosses, there's only a 50/50 chance that the last flip will give us the result we need. But it can be calculated that the chance of seeing either less than 49% heads or more than 51% heads is about one in nine million. So, in that experiment, the supervisor is very unlikely to guess the actual number of heads but, if they guess 500,000, they're almost certain to be within 1% of the true answer. Or, to put it another way, the actual number of heads when you flip a million coins is almost guaranteed to be between 495,000 and 505,000. And it has about a 97% chance of being between 497,500 and 502,500.

[@alasdairwhyte6616]

what about the neutron decaying is not always at the surface of the atom so resulting in electron having different energies?

[@rfvtgbzhn]

39:10-46:10 in theory there could be sections of the universe with matter and other sections with antimatter, with empty space in between. And from what I know you can't distinguish matter and antimatter from afar. In this case we wouldn't observe any annihilation. Or is there a reason to rule that out?

[@jamesrriordon5955]

Very good point! You are correct, matter and antimatter would be difficult to tell distinguish, if they exist in separate parts of the universe and are far enough apart that there is little interaction with the opposite variety. It could certainly solve the matter/antimatter asymmetry problem, if it happens. (Because there would be no asymmetry to explain!) And neutrinos wouldn't need to be involved. Then the big puzzle would be why the matter and antimatter separated. Which would also be exciting to work on!

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, and now you need an explanation how these large amounts of matter and antimatter got separated so neatly that it didn't leave any x-ray signals at all. ;-)

[@lyledal]

How good are we now at judging the directionality of neutrinos? It seems like 3 or more big detectors could be used to locate the general location of nuclear reactors. Especially reactors that aren't supposed to exist.

[@melbournewolf]

The Hitchhiker's Guide you the Galaxy; entry: Earth - mostly harmless

[@richardperry100]

The reason for the release of an electron in his description of Beta radiation seems incorrect! If a neutron changed to a proton making the atom +ve, surely losing an electron would make it even more +ve? Is it not that a new electron is created when a neutron changes to a proton, to maintain the balance of charges and a neutrino is ejected as part of the process?

[@helengrives1546]

I always laugh when people say, ' it shouldn't be here'. Mistaken the map or model for reality. The proper observation should be. 'Hey this is here, where did my idea go wrong, let's do it again!'. Unfortunately I don't have a degree, only common sense.

[@D1N02]

Obviously neutrinos are a permeating field with very small excitations. It would be useful to look at them like that.

[@dr.rakeshkumarmishra8939]

Great analysis of neutrino ❤great lecturer

[@jamesrriordon5955]

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[@joevostoch8768]

Excellent talk. I bought your book.

[@BeIteshazzar]

neutrinos interact with electrons.. speed up the electron so that it becomes a muon.. some of the energy is stored as neutrinos.. we could call it neutrino capture... when the muon decays, it releases those neutrinos..

[@seb_gibbs]

"completely uninterrupted by stars or planets that had anything that happens to get in the way" neutrinos not affected by gravity?

[@jamesrriordon5955]

They are certainly affected by gravity, but they are uninterrupted in that gravity doesn't stop them, unless they pass inside the event horizon of a black hole. No other particle that we know of can pass straight through a star, or even a planet. Dark matter particles might, but those have not technically been discovered yet.

[@kingdomofashes]

"For the very first time in history, as far as we know, we have the ability to look at the universe with something else". I am being picky I know, but gravitational waves are also a new window on the universe and are not made of electromagnetic radiation so neutrinos are not completely unique in this regard.

[@jamesrriordon5955]

Very good point. But you can't yet produce images of the Milky Way or any other structure with gravitational waves. They reveal individual events, so it's more like listening for car crashes in a city than mapping the structures in a city. Someday, gravitational waves will produce images comparable to the ones we get with light, and which we are now starting to get with neutrinos, but we're not there yet.

[@beeble2003]

But we were making neutrino observations before we could even detect gravitational waves.

[@karmadyllic]

Are neutrinos moving through us are we moving through them?

[@iliadiliad6028]

Exactly, and I think it's both... interaction aka motion means both are having an effect aka communication aka exchange of information interaction via sheer existence alone... on any level thus means everything moves through each other aka communicates with each other making your question the actual answer! And everything works that way, if anything appears still and other in motion I think it is only because one is in more motion and thus in a predefined function that we perceive as moving in our limited spectrum of detection with our senses and machines. I think!

[@schmetterling4477]

No matter if you are or are not a particle physicist, please try to remember this: A neutrino is a quantum (small amount) of energy. This energy comes with some other properties attached which show the internal symmetries of the vacuum, but at the end of the day it's "just" energy.

[@Rachael-b2h]

Radioctive rare renwables ?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Rachael-b2h Plentiful gibberish?

[@yuriimarshalofficial]

Neutrino is like cosmic wind, it might bring to us some global information about Universe or even present some epoch

[@DrDeuteron]

I’ve seen pictures of the solar core in neutrino long before this. Js.

[@polyrhythmia]

Would the vast majority of neutrinos from the early universe inside you be non-relativistic? An item not mentioned is the handedness of neutrinos and antineutrinos. The talk was very informative, especially about the very early work on neutrinos. Do neutrinos pile up in the universe over time is what I wonder about.

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, they could be non-relativistic. The temperature is approx. 1.95K, which corresponds to 0.1mEcV/c^2. At least the upper bound is three orders of magnitude above that. Could some neutrinos collect in gravity wells? Without any calculation just off the top of my head... probably very few. I don't think the scattering cross section in ordinary matter is nearly large enough for them to thermalize. I could be wrong. Some (also very few) would get caught in black holes, of course.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

Current estimate is that primordial neutrinos have red-shifted (slowed down) due to expansion of Universe to the velocity of about 1000km/s at present time. > Could some neutrinos collect in gravity wells? No, with vanishingly rare exceptions. 1000km/s is too large velocity for gravitational capture.

[@TDrudley]

How long do we get the neutrinos from the big bang? Seriously, how do we know when they started reaching us and when they all passed us?

[@Marrss____666]

they are here... the center of the universe is everywhere

[@TDrudley]

@@Marrss____666 I get that, but I also don't understand, heh. Like, when it was all the size of a football or something, and the universe expanded, faster(?) or slower(?) than now, does that mean that the universe has to loop, cuz wouldn't the neutrinos that were flying around back then have reached the "edge" if it doesn't loop?

[@nolhoutman]

Thank you !

[@paskalnovakov1106]

Fantastic lecture. Greetings from 🇧🇬.

[@CamiKite]

Very interesting talk! It is fascinating to see that we can already use neutrino not only to see the universe, but also to probe the Earth

[@paullogeman9189]

A clear and comprehensive presentation.

[@robertfraser9551]

I think we are all sitting on our hands until a right handed neutrino is found. This could take a while !

[@dr.rakeshkumarmishra8939]

Great lecturer legend science journalist

[@desertshadow6098]

Wonder what level of civilization has harnessed neutrinos to develop 4d models of surrounding universe.

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

Fraser Cain showed a picture of the Universe that uses neutrinos instead of EM radiation. It's very interesting.

[@NormReitzel]

How much of the missing mass could be the neutrino flux?

[@robertnewhart3547]

Skittering - move lightly and quickly or hurriedly. And a Sean Carroll reference. So no nuclear furnace and the earth is part dark matter? Whaaaaa? Hmm lets see what Anton Petrov says. 😉

[@jmjawors]

Some portion of the Earth being made of dark matter raised my eyebrows, too.

[@jamesrriordon5955]

@@jmjawors Dark matter, as far as we can tell, pervades the universe. so there is some in the earth. (There's also some in you.) Neutrinos could be used ot measure the non-dark matter portion of the earth, while gravitation-based measurements tell you about the combination of matter and dark matter in the earth. The difference between the two measurements will tell you how much dark matter is in the earth.

[@jerryrowen1]

Has mister riordan written a book on neutrinos?

[@jeanetjensen6474]

But nutriones does not interact whit anything? Right? So how did they messure it? 🤔🇩🇰

[@СергейШереметов-ф1д]

Подход к анализу процессов рассматриваемых в лекции вызывает сомнения, причём, на первоначальном этапе. Анализируя материальные процессы, механику берём которую знали от исследователей 19 века. Однако, попробовать по другому представить сам процесс. Говоря о частицах но не разбирая среды в которой эти частицы, всё равно, что кипятить воду ядерными реакциями добывая электричество. Странно всё это.

[@jerryrowen1]

The very best lecture I've ever heard in my life. Bravo zulu

[@TheMaxwellee]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@georgeparris8293]

Bohr???? What happened to Rutherford and Meitner?

[@NormReitzel]

Hubble constant: What if spacetimne has non-zero viscosity?

[@Leadvest]

What a nice young man.

[@DimitriDelCastillo]

Great talk! I loved the model you used for Mass States! I feel like I sort of understand things better -- haha. Looking forward to more talks.

[@maynardjohnson3313]

And I've always said, what if they want to eat us.

[@Rachael-b2h]

Bioactive micro nano quantum particles....bioelecrric energy...phosphates amino acids fatty acids glucosites.. Algae e- coli shwenela planeria ?

[@shafin3365]

From Bangladesh 🇧🇩

[@MrElvis1971]

#1

[@vladimirp2674]

Discovery of the neutrino was really a thing...

[@_PatrickO]

The gamma ray image of the galaxy looks like headlights through fog.

[@TheSouthernSiren]

Wow.❤loved this. Who's James Riordon again? Thank you very good lecture.. Super informative. And I'm buying that book asap. Putting all other books on full stop.

[@mikeg1368]

Could we shoot neutrinos through the sun to learn more about what's going on inside?

[@Swingingbells]

We could shoot them at the sun no problemo. Using that to learn about the insides would be tricky though, because we would need a neutrino detector on the other side to look at them...

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

​@@SwingingbellsGood point! (The lady of the house ask me to point out that it's "el problema." I said that was being snarky. However, she won -- as usual!)

[@Marrss____666]

there's no need tho... the nucleus of the Sun produces a whole ton of neutrinos per second and they are already coming our way. Studying solar neutrinos is already one of the main tools we use to study the nucleus activity.

[@roscocsa]

Neutrinos With Attitude.

[@MrHerrjon]

If neutrinos didn't exist... then what would happen to the universe? They must serve a purpose, right? One might ask this of any basic building block.

[@clwho4652]

Why do they need to serve a purpose?

[@MrHerrjon]

@@clwho4652I guess there is no requirement for them to serve a purpose but would the physics of reality and life be different without them? The subtle interactions we observe may not seem like much but on a universal scale they probably have profound effects.

[@clwho4652]

@@MrHerrjon With out them thermodynamics would be wrong and we could have perpetual motion machines. I think neutrinos has been rules out as dark matter. Beyond those they might not serve anything. Like Sir Arthur Eddington said: "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

[@woofbarkyap]

@@clwho4652because, so far, everything we've discovered so far it connected to everything else and consequently serves a purpose. Things that don't serve a purpose would just mess things up. That's fine but it would be a whole new universe that went against all the things we've observed so far, which is a big ask. That's not the end of it though. Relativity was a big ask that changed the entire way we understand the universe because, so far, everything we discover backs it up. So it's not impossible but a lot of evidence is required to counter everything we already have and so far all the evidence sides with the status quo on this matter.

[@СергейШереметов-ф1д]

Попробуем взглянуть на всё происходящее с точки зрения анализа ситуации. Кто то сделал открытие и сформулировал своё виденье процессов в изложении для нас, мы теперь смотрим на процессы его формулировками ( каждый из нас процессы не открывал, а брал как учили). Так что " О сколько нам открытий чудных, готовит просвещенья дух".@@woofbarkyap

[@richardverghese1353]

very indepth talk,a pleasure to listen to.ouestion ; as neutrinos alter mass with spin, ie lower and higher,then ether e equals mc su is at play or they interact with the higgs field alter this to change their mass as opposed to having a fixed mass determined by the higgs ?

[@backonyeon]

I realize you said that those who "Knew" only "Knew" about 40% more but only after directly admittimg limited knowledge that you "weren't going to get into". This seems quite a bit like spiritual elitism (I cannot understand your faith). I would appreciate a chance to try. Whether to agree or deny. Otherwise how do you even back up the 40% ?

[@beeble2003]

It's not spiritual elitism because it's not spiritual and it's not elitism. The reason he doesn't give you the "chance to try" is that the talk would be literally thousands of hours long if he tried to explain everything that is known about neutrinos -- searching arXiv for "neutrino" gives 35,899 papers.

[@maxfloyd7841]

We need to stop trying to touch ghost particles and start trying to look. E equals m c two should mean we can see them through Gravitational wave detector. There should be small static. That is them.

[@jimalbi]

Big bang neutrinos would be very weak energy, just as the redshifted light that traveled since the CMB because the Universe has vastly expanded since.

[@Kwisatz_HaderachXIII]

Negative

[@jimalbi]

@@Kwisatz_HaderachXIII And how's that?

[@mr88cet]

Great talk, thanks! 1:50 - Interesting that the atomic- and molecular-hydrogen images look so different!

[@samtux762]

Molecular hydrogen line appears in cold molecular clouds. (Otherwise - dissociation). Atomic hydrogen line appears in hot areas of the Milky Way. > then why images are not inverses of each other? Because we project 3d space to 1D map. Along your sight there might be cold and hot objects.

[@mr88cet]

@@samtux762, OK, that sounds plausible. Cool!

[@bryandraughn9830]

Fantastic!

[@philipsmith7904]

If i were a neutrino ,i would be in the dark and alone ,tgere would be nothing for me to identifying that i was actualy moving , sometimes something hits me 😮😮😮😮

[@virtualworlddisorderrealit1848]

3 flavors? neopolitan?

[@fr57ujf]

Fascinating.

[@Hal_McKinney]

Simply Imagine: Space, Time, Light, Matter, Antimatter, Dark Matter, Energy, ALL Forces (including Gravity), the Whole Universe as Neutrinos…

[@EnergyTRE]

they called it the Æther once.

[@СергейШереметов-ф1д]

Называют, как это будет странно. Есть даже теория "Эфиродинамики" изложенная Владимиром Акимовичем Ацюковским. Довольно таки интересная механика процесса в той теории.@@EnergyTRE

[@unicornbatmanmf6346]

Ask AI how much recognitive memory it has retained since it's conception and how much outside contact information has it received and from whom it got it from. Then you will have given it a processed order in which it must know. Dustin Normand and I approve this question for ai. 😮😮😮

[@chekote]

This was super interesting. I had no idea we were using neutrinos to this degree

[@CosmicAliveness]

Triple like for sure

[@unicornbatmanmf6346]

This is a new concept that explains free will in the human thought processing

[@beeble2003]

No it doesn't.

[@AdrianBoyko]

Stop looking, I found them.

[@beeble2003]

I don't see why the matter/antimatter, how can the universe exist at all thing is a problem. Sure, if the universe was created with _exactly_ equal amounts of matter and antimatter, it would all have annihilated by now and there'd be nothing left. But if you start with the slightest imbalance, say 50.1% matter, 49.9% antimatter, then all the antimatter annihilates with most of the matter, leaving us with 0.2% of the original amount of stuff, which is everything we see today. The same argument applies for any split that's not exactly 50/50.

[@schmetterling4477]

There is no need to start with a slight imbalance. One can cook up recipes for a very large imbalance just as well.

[@fcasarsa]

Can the ICE CUBE Detector listen for nuclear submarines?

[@jamesrriordon5955]

Very good question! It's not sensitive to the low energy neutrinos coming from submarines. Other neutrino detectors that use other detection methods, could, but they aren't good enough yet to be practical.

[@schmetterling4477]

The neutrino flux of a reactor can be detected out to maybe a couple of miles, but that's probably it. Even then the event rates would be way too small to track a moving reactor. It's also not necessary. We have very effective ways of tracking submarines.

[@fcasarsa]

@@jamesrriordon5955 it is not hard to believe that $ is not a limiting factor while talking of finding nuclear submarines or communicate under the sea. Governments have spent trillions doing this!

[@CosmicAliveness]

You need a re appearance pretty much. Neutrinos means super sub atmoic subway woffer brian mew

[@robertnewhart3547]

Aricebo. Opaque.

[@jamesrriordon5955]

Haha. Yes, thank you. They were on the tip of my tongue.

[@CosmicAliveness]

Super awesome mega like

[@backonyeon]

At 1min 13sec why claim "probably before that" ? Are there betting odds your not letting on to? Probabilities can be discussed in ratios, correct? What is the probability? Do you mean "possibly" or do you just mean to encourage those unfamiliar in psycho/lingual debauchery not to look further?

[@maynardjohnson3313]

You could encode a beam of neutrinos with Morse code "hello", but what if the recipient doesn't speak English?

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

An answer comes from information theory (of which I am not an expert.) There are methods of differentiating between noise vs. information (i.e. meaning.) The receiver may not speak English, however, they would know that its sender is intelligent.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

You can send complex repeating patterns, binary-encoded prime numbers, and such, if you want the receiver to understand that signal is not natural.

[@CosmicAliveness]

Tell the humans time is the enemy

[@scottmcdonald5237]

😮

[@CosmicAliveness]

Quatum

[@nikolapanic9614]

serpent doesn't have legs or kangaroo head.

[@jamesrriordon5955]

The Wardaman people named the artwork "Sky Boss and the Rainbow Serpent," so you'll have to take it up with them. I'm not sure "serpent" is strictly synonymous with "snake." Merriam-Webster says a serpent is "a noxious creature that creeps, hisses, or stings." Snakes don't sting, and there's no mention of legs (or a lack of them) so, it seems, "serpent" has a broader meaning than just "snake."

[@guderian557]

'pounds'? 'feet'? It is not the dark ages anymore, tell your lecturers to use standard units of measurement.

[@jamesrriordon5955]

It's tough when you're talking about historical events, and the units have meaning in the historical context. Cowan and Reines specifically set their experiment ~137 feet from the detonation tower as an homage to the fine structure constant. Crane didn't buy a 0.907 kg bag of salt; he bought a bag of salt labeled 2 pounds. While Cowan and Reines themselves eventually changed their diagrams to say 40 meters, they chose ~137 feet for a very specific reason that using metric units would obscure in this context. Just to beat a dead horse, Jesse Owens ran the 100-yard dash in 9.4 seconds in 1935. He didn't run the 91.44 meter dash.

[@Cheka__]

Amazing. That's why they call it the god particle. This is one of the best Ted talks I've ever heard.

[@beeble2003]

Um. It's not a Ted talk.

[@Cheka__]

@@beeble2003 I disagree. Looks like a Ted talk.

[@schmetterling4477]

Nobody ever called neutrinos that. Physicists don't call the Higgs that, either. We call it the Higgs. After all, Christians also don't call Jesus "Flubber". ;-)

[@Cheka__]

@@schmetterling4477 I disagree. Those things move as fast as light and can go through planets. Seems pretty godlike to me.

[@hooked4215]

The problem is not thermodynamics, it's probability. Since probability works (apparently) at a macroscopic level, it doesn't at a microscopic level (remember the collapse of Schródinger equation).

[@georgeparris8293]

Duh....Gaussian electrostatics account for the beta electron spectrum

[@manjsher3094]

Pay wall. So sad.

[@maynardjohnson3313]

We can always listen but I question the wisdom of speaking.

[@mcolville]

I'm pretty sure if the Sun "winked out of existance" we would know about it before 200,000 years passed.

[@nvanderhoff]

Wait what are you going here? Love your teams work! And you reminded me I should link my hobbies and add more frontier physics to my dnd

[@UJ-nt5oo]

He was referring to the core. it takes 200k years for light to escape then 8 mins to reach us, so if the core disappeared, we wont know for 200k years but if we look at nutrinos we will know in 8 mins since nutrinos escape without interacting.

[@RayosMcQueen]

I aasume that the escape time is distributed statistically. While the average photon might take 200’000 years to ooze out, there will be some that make it out much quicker. We will therefore see a dimming of the sun presumably with massive freezing of earth long before that time.

[@mcolville]

@@RayosMcQueen Dude is a science journalist, I think he just got two different famous facts about the sun and gravity and photons conflated.

[@peterb2272]

The quote was "centre of the sun".