Sean Carroll - The Particle at the End of the Universe

[@buzzy-ears]

I'm a non native English speaker and I am completely charmed by his accent, dialect, whatever it is that makes him sound so endearing. You don't expect him to hit you with all this knowledge when he opens his mouth and starts talking like a 1950's cartoon character

[@sumtotalofhumanknowledge2174]

Just came to say this to Sean Carroll - Sir! I can't thank you enough for sharing and explaining the kind of complex stuff, for ordinary people like me. Your lectures make the world better. Thanks a million. Keep up the great work!

[@Thenglozfoo]

Then stop begin ordinary and learn fool

[@davidbell3975]

I've just finished reading Sean's book and although it was heavy going for a casual physics fan, it has elevated my understanding of the fundamental reality of the world we live in. Highly recommended.

[@thepain2222]

38:30 As a truck driver who has hauled oversized loads, my hats off to the team who got this piece of the LHC through this small town as it was being constructed.

[@Jemawin]

I appreciate your unique perspective. Thanks.

[@leh3011]

Maybe his magnet helped lol... I'm still asking why cosmic rays are hacking my phone

[@DataSmithy]

I haven't been that gripped by a KZbin video for quite a while. What a pleasure to watch and listen to this man talk about our progress the discovery of particle physics and basic knowledge of the universe. And the accomplishments of mankind! This man really gets excited about that part of it also.

[@TechNed]

As usual for Prof. Carroll, a perfect mix of humour and matter of fact explanation. Totally engaging.

[@dn1697]

... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

[@Shafeeqh]

@@dn1697 l

[@inkman6964]

Matter of theory not fact

[@TechNed]

@@inkman6964 "matter of fact explanation" is a phrase describing the style of delivery, not the subject matter.

[@bitterlyhonest2307]

@@inkman6964 Fact is the evidential data that proves predictions made by a theory. In the case of standard model on particle physics it is now a "matter of fact explanation".

[@fortuner123]

As a non scientist I found this talk really interesting. Excellent speaker.

[@fjames208]

Me too

[@stevenesbitt3528]

And me

[@Michael19841]

Lies

[@flawmore]

I'm so glad to see this channel having over 400,000 subscribers. We aren't all scientists here, in fact I presume most people are just curious and interested like me. This is important for many reasons. The more parents that are interested in this, the more children will be inclined to work in the field when they grow up, meaning society at an even greater pace will wander towards new scientific breakthroughs in the future. And this will also influence politicians to fund research. Combined with the necessary evil that is greed, new companies will pop up and drive us to the stars. I know this escalated quickly, but channels like this are so important.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Thank you for your support. Regardless of whether you're a scientist or whether the children who watch our videos go on to become scientists, we believe that understanding the scientific method and appreciating the wonders and applications of science will make everyone a better, more rounded person. Especially in today's society, it's important to question and critically assess the information that comes at you, and we're very glad if we can play a part in that.

[@brax300]

I’m in love with particle physics, quantum’ mechanics, all that. I listen to these lectures religiously. Although I’m not that smart, just a dumb stoner college kid, I’m not smart enough to understand the math. I can appreciate and understand what they’re trying to get across. I’m so interested in this stuff and the discoveries keep my mind entertained for hours. If only I understood math better :(

[@RubixNinja]

This was the best explanation I have ever heard of the subject. And I'm a physics graduate.

[@dn1697]

... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

[@citrine615]

Ditto, RubixNinja.

[@unclesamzbastardsonu.s.b.s9315]

This was the best explanation I have ever heard too, and I'm an idiot 🙄

[@troydavis1]

thats the hallmark of deep understanding, as Richard Feynman famously remarked

[@ericparrish1515]

Not to be sewn or weird abstractions may loom

[@truvelocity]

Great communicator. Great at teaching. How much more plainly can he explain something? He's wonderful.

[@Mendelmandela]

....while watching the famous communicator of science talk about mathematics and physics am struck at the sight of Sean Carroll who is the striking reincarnation of Richard Feynman .....

[@johnkendal5562]

He is - but sadly what he teaches so excellently is false theory

[@elrecursodelmetodo]

How's that?

[@DANGJOS]

Enter the Braggn' If anything is a false theory, it would be the electric universe stuff

[@75hilmar]

We should use croudfunding to buy his books and send them to crucial parts of the science, development and education system

[@BladeRunner-td8be]

Throughout his talks he always brings us back to what's important about whatever he is talking about. And so much more than that but I'm in a hurry so no time to tell you all the other things. Must go to work. Sean Carroll is in my top 3 favorite physicists to listen to. He's fantastic.

[@DataSmithy]

"A thousand years from now we will remember the day we found the Higgs boson.". What an amazing quote.

[@shanestrickland5006]

Yea if we survive that long and that's a big if.

[@dombrunelli5082]

A fascinating lecture. I'm glad to be living at this time; best since the Renaissance

[@stevenjackson1747]

17,256 BC was the best year. I wish I lived back then.

[@js27-a5t]

I am writing from 17,256 CE. How funny you people thought there was a Higgs Boson and shitting in the woods was bad.

[@ophiolatreia93]

Better than the renaissance

[@kidmohair8151]

some of you appear to have missed the memo about the new numbering system. everything is now dated from the coming of our beneficent lord gravitin, who illuminated the universe....what is this renaissance thing? for that matter, a year? what defines a good one?

[@dombrunelli5082]

@@kidmohair8151 I think you missed your meds today.

[@bobsmith-ov3kn]

I gotta say, I was NOT expecting Violent Jay and Shaggy2dope to be featured in a Sean Carrol talk about the Higgs boson...

[@osmium6832]

Slightly disappointed that he didn't do the full research and called the fans "jugaloos". I can forgive the error because ICP "culture" is quite alien to most academics.

[@jimlovesgina]

@@osmium6832 He mispronounced it. Wow. What disrespect. How much research is required to properly quote a couple of idiot creationists rapping about things they know nothing about? "The tide goes in. The tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that!"

[@iandoyle5017]

@@osmium6832 And countless laymen including those that dont like rap music, gimmicks or clowns.

[@lsb2623]

juggaluggalos!

[@pitpotdeeerste]

I did not expect the gender PC talk in here either. The estimated neocortical synapses are 40% less in females. Its science !!!

[@sinpi314]

Sean Carroll is one of the best science communicators imo

[@jmmacb03]

Really well done sir! I keep reading and this lecture was such a clear explanation I am going to suggest it to friends, as my brother suggested it to me.

[@sahraelmi293]

You can feel the true desire of Sean Carroll. He is not only conveying the message, but he is also displaying his true passion for the subject matter. LOVELY!!!

[@theideagirlsays]

just finished reading your book sean , it explained the standard model, physics and particles and the higgs to me in an easy to read and learn way. I took 97 pages of notes which I draw things you say about particle physics so I can educate myself. I'll be blogging about it soon. I'm going to blog this video to let people know you have a fabulous book which I recommend to all students or anyone wanting to study physics...

[@dimetryp369]

Cannot believe he brought up ICP lol that's amazing to even get acknowledgement from someone like him. Been a long time juggalo. He could've chose anyone else to make the point, and he didn't show disrespect, just got the name of us fans a bit wrong. Pretty epic he even mentioned them/us at all without throwing shade, even though it's the world's most hated band and least favorite musical/artistic community in some people's eyes...

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

@WindScar48 No trouble, glad you enjoyed it! We hope to bring more events to KZbin throughout the year.

[@ubergenie6041]

Great explanation worthy of the Winton Prize. Contrast it with Larry Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing," where the Higgs boson is pressed into service as a ultimate creator of the universe. Probably the best video I have seen on CERN's discovery.

[@alberteinstein3078]

Uber Genie Larry krauss? You mean Lawrence krauss.

[@DANGJOS]

Albert Einstein Yes

[@Dr10Jeeps]

I love this stuff. Thank you RI for all such lectures and Dr. Carroll for this one.

[@SPKaa]

This talk was fantastic on every level. It's as if he focus-grouped his locutory pace and engineered maximum information density with plenty of hooks for younger folks. I'm in awe of Sean Carroll's mind. The pursuit of knowledge is the highest endeavor of mankind. Thank you for sharing, Royal Institution. I look forward to enjoying many more of your videos.

[@alucard0712]

this guy explained everything to me. I will come back to his lectures again and again!

[@dn1697]

... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

[@ThePinkus]

It's amazing how the perspective is changed six years later, because we have not found, and we are not finding, those new particles. But even more so, 55:39 is still valid, there must be new physics out there.

[@osmosis321]

Carroll is my new favorite scientist. He knows his stuff, and his epic pwnage of WLC was delightful.

[@homebrew010homebrew3]

Osmosis WLC ?

[@DANGJOS]

Homebrew010 Homebrew William Lane Craig

[@Alessandro-B]

DANG JOS You misspelt Lame. ;)

[@unreal_taxi]

I have not heard “pwnage” in at least ten years.

[@Mirrorgirl492]

@@unreal_taxi Us old people are allowed to use the interwebs too, ya know...bwahahaha

[@lukasychtyl1938]

This is JUST AMAZING. I don't even have to leave my home to achieve some progress. I just need to be curious and I can get this amazing lecture from Mr. Carroll. So enriching. Also I'm glad I can understand english...thank you Mr. Carroll, thank you The Royal Instituon for making this possible. Greetings from Czech Republic

[@foobargorch]

Jeff B: First, under special relativity velocities are not additive, there is a correction term, velocities don't just add up simply. If v1 = v2 = 99.999999% of c and we plug into the velocity addition formula ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + ( v1 * v2 / c^2 ) ) since we're working with fractions of c it simplifies to to 2*0.99999999 / (1 + 0.99999999^2) = 0.9999999999999995 (a hair less actually, copypaste into wolfram alpha if you really care about all those digits) To each particle the other particle looks like it's travelling towards it at that speed, and from the reference frame of the accelerator both are doing 0.99999999 * c in opposite directions. The rest mass of a proton is 0.938GeV/c^2 (this is the e=mc2 formula) and the total energy of the proton (mass plus kinetic energy) is ~2.1TeV ( (0.938GeV/c^2) / sqrt(1 - 0.9999999^2) - this is same mass energy equivalence formula but with a nonzero velocity term). When the protons collide their quarks will interact and transform to a range of new particles. these interactions are studied in great detail by looking at what sort of particles fly out, what velocities they have, how they move in an electromagnetic field, etc, that's what it's all about in the end, learning about the statistical properties of the fundamental interactions of elementary particles. Because you have 4000 as much energy as there is in a proton at rest you can produce much heavier particles (mass energy equivalence goes both ways) than the protons you started with (as long as they end up moving more slowly), and generally see them decay and produce a whole range of particles (elementary and composite). Note that wikipedia says 4TeV per proton so those nines are probably rounded =)

[@jeffb2002]

foobargorch Thank you for putting the time in to this. I have no idea why my comment will not allow replies. It seems that I am off by some small fraction.

[@LyzStarwalker]

Wonderful explanation of subatomic particles and QFT. Many thanks to you Mr. Carroll.

[@michaelogden5958]

Dr. Carroll is an amazing lecturer. The Royal Institution lectures are a treasure.

[@roychowdhurysomak]

Thank you professor! I even got a layman's takeaway from the lecture from what you explained at 58:00. It's like Higgs Boson added a few drops of lemon to the eternal bowl of simmering milk, which coagulated it to lumps of cottage cheese like the milky way and so on.

[@tmjohnson12051989]

I’m halfway in and this is proving to be such an amazing lecture. I love my man Krauss, but Carroll has made the concept of fields understandable for me for the first time ever. I’m loving it!

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Thanks!

[@anshul9462]

Before any Greek it was Indian scholar named Kanad in his treatise Vaeisheshika described the concept of Atom which he called Paramanu and also described Parmanus unite to form what he called Anu.

[@16rumpole]

I commend you sir on somehow managing to get the ICP into a lecture on the Higgs

[@ZeedijkMike]

Even though this lecture is a little outdated by now - it still a great pleasure to listen to Sean.

[@captain_outis]

Hey guys, did you know Sean wrote a book on this? I don't know if he mentioned it though.

[@onecanina]

Sean is the man. I came here just to clarify something real quick and I ended up staying all the way to end once again. Always a pleasure to listen him talking.

[@vagabondo2009]

Brilliant presentation. Thanks

[@abhityagi6562]

Amazing, awesome explanation on how Higgs Field imparts mass to electron and thus resulting in matter we see around us. I wish i can explain IT stuff to participants in class in such effective manner.

[@ioannisimansola7115]

Happy to hear the real truth behind this experiment. I am a Physics graduate and ....in Geneva at the moment of the experiment. The brother of a friend participating in this experiment told us: we hope we have a proof about the Higss but we need to further analyse it while scientists cannot openly express doubts considering the immense cost if this business.

[@Chris-ng9zi]

Just a wonderful lecture! Presented beautifully and expertly.

[@CHARLIETWW]

The speech is transcendent and unreal. I am so lucky to watch and listen to all these new scientific discoveries!!

[@DanielBrownsan]

Name another physicist that can incorporate Insane Clown Posse in their presentation. Go ahead, I'll wait. SEAN IS THE ONLY ONE!

[@DanielBrownsan]

+leon bushnell Yeah, I watched part of a documentary about juggalos and it was clearly a counter culture of "misfit toys". It's more fitting that Mr. Carroll knows who they are and uses a reference to them in his talk than if ICP mentioned him in a "song".

[@wabbajackwabbajack6932]

+leon bushnell isn't it true that icp is just trolling and whatever public image they portray is probably the opposite of what they actually believe? Maybe they aren't but I can tell you that I used to claim juggalo and was DEFINITELY trolling. xD

[@TheYahmez]

Knowledge in present in his mind probably as the result of a failure to google Trapped Charged Particles properly or something such like.

[@SauceGPT]

Sean Carroll's amazing and loves the Jugaloos

[@SauceGPT]

8:17

[@berbice25]

Not all Physicists are great teachers. You are a great teacher.

[@tdjdk]

Circa 1850 - "Electricity? What good will ever come of that?"

[@mrhasanwajahat]

Always good to hear Sean Caraoll... His lectures on Dark matter were the best physics lectures I have heard.

[@Gammacidio]

I Didn't know James Wood was that good in Physics!

[@Skindoggiedog]

Doesn't look anything like him and, by the way, the whole "I didn't know Person X did Y" thing? It isn't funny. It isn't smart. It's just you saying 'He looks like James Wood.' Come up with something a bit better than that.

[@Phobos_Anomaly]

Skindoggiedog You're just a jerk.

[@opkank6551]

We should be growing up with these sorts of lectures in Britain. If I had heard this and other inspiring and informative lectures in my school years coupled with an environment that encouraged learning to a more advanced level then I feel I may have had a better education. I listened in awe. Thank you for the great upload.

[@Consleazy]

Wow, this is the first time I've really understood fields. What a great way to explain the weak interaction.

[@davidbellamy3643]

i don't grasp it all but I feel reassuringly confident that Sean Carrol does, [and that he only states a fact when they are exactly that]. We are in good hands with scientists of his stature 'doing big stuff' [of course i advocate never taking someones word for anything but thousands of critically thinking scientists who are for ever checking up on each other means 'my confidence' being due to chance is remarkably low].

[@cslamov]

Awesome. Who can possibly dislike this?

[@Mirrorgirl492]

347 scientists from CERN who aren't getting Nobel Prizes? ;-)

[@chi-8289]

But biased. There's a mention of Democritus and his Greek gurus(European white supremacy), there's a mention of inconsequential British scientists, there's a mention of Higgs and some 6 other scientists, there's a mention of Einstein, but there's absolutely NO MENTION OF THE MAN WHO FIRST PREDICTED THESE PARTICLES ANS SENT A LETTER TO EINSTEIN sitting in extreme poverty in the British occupied India after whom this particle is named , S.V.Bose. (Boson). Another example of western appropriation of Science and philosophy. Democritus, Plato and Aristotle's and all Greek philosophers' great guru, Ptolemy, is believed to have travelled through India for 10 years before transferring the knowledge of atoms and philosophical reasoning to the west. Disappointing to see the bias even from scientific community

[@ankiesiii]

Why do i tear up at this stuff?

[@BubbaYoga]

Great lecture!

[@EileenMyers-y7i]

Just a wonderful lecture! Presented beautifully and expertly.. Just a wonderful lecture! Presented beautifully and expertly..

[@6ca06018ee2c915a25f4]

"So in a hundred years from now . . . because by that point we'll all be immortal and uploaded into the singularity" Gold.

[@pihi42]

It's so cool when physicists say "we're done", since it usually means that a whole new revolution in science is just around the corner.

[@jayarava]

"There are no particles in the world" - It's fields - but by the end of the talk he has lapsed back into talking exclusively about particles. Otherwise a brilliant talk and very helpful take on the subject.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Old habits die hard... even in science.

[@jayarava]

Old habits do die hard, especially when criticising science from a dualist and/or vitalist position which has scarcely changed since Victorian times. Fortunately progress can be made despite the refusal of some to consider the evidence.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

***** it has to be a dual "reality" -- unobserved it's all fields, observed it's particles. wave/particle duality, same thing, it's both. Duality is intriguing. In black hole physics there is a dual description of reality where Bob can fall in and hit the singularity in an hour, but Alice sees Bob falling slower and slower and taking an infinite time to reach the event horizon, never reaching the singularity at all. In ADS/CFT duality, quantum field theory in flat space at high energy is dual to string theory in Anti-deSitter Space at low energy in 1 higher dimension. (In this usage, "dual to" means "has the same math as.")

[@nmarbletoe8210]

N Marbletoe A recently discovered duality may solve Einstein's dream of unifying Relativity and Quantum physics: quantum entanglement is dual to non-traversable wormholes (EPR = ER). Since entanglement is everywhere (empty space is near maximally entangled with itself), spacetime is apparently full of wormholes (Einstein-Rosen Bridges). This is a very new discovery and begins to give a geometrical description of quantum mechanics.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

***** I just found the comment below check it out:Stephen Perrenod 1 month ago It's Fields. And his thesis advisor (and mine) was Prof. George Field

[@shantanuaphale3966]

Absolutely amazing and clearcut easy-to-understand explanation... Thank you Sir..

[@alexsaves]

We actually don't know how magnets work. We describe their properties but we don't have a working understanding of the mechanism of a magnetic field. Definition of a field: "mathematical construct for analysis of remote effects". We describe effects here, not causes.

[@Felhek]

we know nothing. "the electron spins"...ok...why? "i don't know" hehehe

[@Mandragara]

Felhek Lehrian You can always ask 'why?' If you go by your reasoning, we CANNOT know anything.

[@TheRohBoat]

>electron spins around atom >atom has magnetic moment >atoms are aligned, creating a domain >aligned domains result in a uniform magnetic field 10 points to physics

[@fernandotta]

TheRohBoat your comment does not give credit to Jesus. Therefore invalid.

[@Felhek]

Andy Doney do you know?

[@IBMSystemsEngineer]

Physics, Biology, Evolution can explain lots of great things, but when it comes to explaining how exactly mankind came about, all these laws reveal significant gaps and spiritually comes in to play.

[@MaxMisterC]

I'm not fat. I just, STRONGLY interact, with the Higgs Field!! 😃

[@emdiar6588]

That accounts for your weight, but how do you explain your volume? Do you also strongly interact with pies?

[@suokkos]

It is just an excited field near me. You shouldn't be fooled by it

[@Mirrorgirl492]

I'm so stealing this. :D

[@medinachete73]

No, you've eaten it!! 🤡

[@RayWalker-pythonic]

Outstanding explanation. Yes, I'm buying this book. And will now buy all of Sean Carroll's books.

[@winstoncat6785]

Feynman's heir apparent. Fabulous communicator.

[@davidchou1675]

So where's the part about discovering Morgan Freeman?? Um, anyway, wow, what a lecture!! I would've committed to mathematics if I had had such visionary talks from profs! Sean Carroll has always been good to listen to but he's really outdone himself here with this one...wow...and now I'm gonna go to Netflix for "Particle Fever!"

[@TenHanger]

Really like this video, but I don't like the general statement "there are no particles, only fields". particles are excitations inside the fields, and perhaps it is true they are all massless by nature until running into the Higgs, but "particle" doesn't mean "has mass", and therefore it's wrong to dismiss particles. After all, Bosons are considered "particles" in the Standard Model, and they are massless. This becomes important when discussing the slits experiment, and Quantum Mechanics interpretations (Copenhagen, de Broglie-Bohm, or "many worlds"), as the core argument between interpretations is of the existence of particles (vs just fields and/or waves). No one has yet "won" the interpretation game, so should we simplify already by saying all particles are really just fields and waves producting results within our senses? Great video to spur the mind, but obviously lacking rigor and preciseness in order to shed some simpler light on the Higgs and the Standard Model. they key phrase one has to be aware: "As long as Quantum Field Theory is right, we know...". Indeed, we don't know if QFT is right yet. Stay tuned, there are very exciting developments in experimental physics which are shedding light on just that very question-- see Aephraim Steinberg, and fluid-dynamics teams in Paris and MIT for details.

[@PianoGesang]

The very word boson means particle.

[@TenHanger]

no. a boson is one of two classes of elementary particles.

[@davidt1152]

"Really like this video, but I don't like the general statement "there are no particles, only fields"....the Higgs and the Standard Model." I think the appropriate response stems from your next section: Carroll is discussing things in terms of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as opposed to Quantum Mechanics (QM). QFT does not define particles, so it is perfectly accurate to say: 'In QFT "there are no particles, only fields".', though it is a bit silly since it is tautological. QFT does discuss sustained field states that correlate to particles in QM. But in QFT, the term "particle" simply has no meaning, and that is what he is trying to convey. The things known as 'particles' in theories that have particles are still represented. It is just that the representations are not inherently differentiated from other field phenomena, but instead an internally artificial and externally relational designation is necessary to translate back and forth. "they key phrase one has to be aware: "As long as Quantum Field Theory is right, we know...". Indeed, we don't know if QFT is right yet..." QFT is right to a point, as it successfully describes some things better (by some definition of 'better') than other theories. Just like Linear Expansion is right to a point. In terms of QFT, we just don't know precisely where that point is yet. And that is where the excitement lies.

[@TenHanger]

It's becoming borderline irresponsible to believe in QFT at this point, as both experimental proof AND theoretically-better theories are making much more sense. If you really take QFT to its limit, it forces a physicist into believing there's no causality and therefore no free choice, so what's the point of life? We're all on autopilot anyway. That just doesn't make any sense, if you start by believing anything, there's nothing to believe. It's circuitous meaningless contradictory drivel. Whereas in Bohm interpretation, it's a start in the right direction, and those pushing even further like Louis Vervoort (for example) are now pushing even Bohm interpreation to the back shelf in favor of more exact and meaningful non-local field theories, or as Vervoort labels it.... "opens the door for local ‘background-based’ theories, describing the interaction of particles and analyzers with a background field, to complete quantum mechanics." Vervoort is likely going in the proper direction here, makes tons of sense, especially when you consider the small sizes of things discussed in string theories. We might be right back to the "aether", albeit not at the size the 1800s Physicists were expecting (they looked at the atomic level). When you combine background-based theories with the fact of estimated sizes for Planck length, it's easy to see that we might be able to account for the aether but without actually ever getting to experimentally SEE it. String theory might be wrong, but the math is probably going in the right directions there to allow someone eventually to push thru some math explaining Bell's Inequality problems within Bohm Interpretation. At long last we might actually "double-jump" to the correct and final interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, discarding the last 100 years of mystical believe that the world is nothing but a mass-less vacuum-ensconced probability equation (field) that only takes shape when you look at it. think about this, it's ridiculous, and now that we have some evidence and theory that makes total sense, there's just no more reason to believe in Briane Greene's and Niels Bohr's wave-equation QFT "boogeyman" anymore. Check this out: link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10701-015-9973-7 Maybe read some of Hiley's papers first, just to understand the Bohm interpretation before getting into 2nd derivatives of the theory like this, but good nonetheless.

[@davidt1152]

TenHanger​ I think you may be failing to differentiate between what theories actually say, and what people say about theories. QFT does not assume causality, nor really discuss things in those terms. You can't really discuss the meaning of the word 'chair' in a dialect/language that doesn't even have that sounds sequence as an existing word. Likewise, QFT. That doesn't make it right or wrong, just a particular way of talking about things.

[@andysegt9333]

Thank you Sean Carroll, there's not many people around that choose to explain complex science in a way most people can understand, too many prefer to take something complex then surround it in a sea of weak nuclear fog, only letting Mr Joe Public see a few tantalizing glimpses of the true nature of nature.

[@kohZeei]

Sean Carroll is one of the best explainers ever, second only to Feynman perhaps.

[@zayanwatchel8780]

I put Krauss second and Carrol third

[@2CSST2]

You guys are forgetting Carl Sagan, definitely worth mentionning here.

[@philjamieson5572]

Great book. Thanks again for helping us 'laymen' grasp such complex stuff. Great work, Prof.

[@stephenperrenod2478]

It's Fields. And his thesis advisor (and mine) was Prof. George Field.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

Stephen Perrenod LOL that explains it! Who needs duality when you can play one like that :)

[@ricosdiamante2572]

I have been listening to these lecture's all week while I work. For some reason it keeps me focused and awake .

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

They're pretty great, aren't they? We'll let you in on a secret, Sean Carroll is coming back to the Ri early next year and we'll have another amazing talk to film and show you!

[@technologyandinnovation4586]

Same here, I am a physicist and I know most of the thing he talked. I followed him to see if I can explain better. One thing he missed to state in his lecture is "shorter the field the heavier the particle that limits the range of this force and for that reason Higgs is so heavy 100 times the mass of proton".

[@cjgreen3836]

I just love Quantum Physics, amazing stuff, thanks.

[@mirusvet]

Very interesting to follow Sean Carroll over the year, he come out as a very open minded scientist, unlike some who get stuck in their certain ideas and unwilling to look at the world in any other way. Thank you for the lecture!

[@farheenhossain686]

"No one tells you that until you buy my book" 😂😂😂

[@wolfjemidas]

he forgot to mention a crucial detail. In the beginning he mentioned that fields are the important stuff, not the excitements of that field (particles), they only confirm that there is a field. Same is for the higgs particle. The particle itself isn't the exciting thing, it only proves that their is a higgs field.

[@christian53050]

great capacity for simplifying very complex matters...we have come a long way in the last hundred and fifty years...

[@dn1697]

... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

[@vishwabanerjee181]

Amazing lecture...its great to hear you Sean.. From where I can get the Hard copy of your book you mentioned several times during the lecture?

[@x42brown]

He's good even I can mostly understand what he is talking about even from my ignorance.

[@ajwesty13]

what a fantastic lecture by Sean Carrol ... enjoyed every minute loved to have been there...

[@KateeAngel]

I totally love his book "from eternity to here", it is very interesting

[@climbeverest]

Sean Carrol is always great to listen to!

[@tnekkc]

Sean Carroll is a first class compiler of science for non technical consumption, with a minimum of liberal bias.

[@ii-pw6dy]

+Clark Magnuson science & facts always have a liberal bias

[@tnekkc]

+Daniel Baumann Not when Paul J. Steinhardt does it.

[@lohphat]

+Clark Magnuson You're so far right that anything looks like "liberal bias". There's a reason most educated people are "liberal" -- they use their intelligence and critical thinking skills as apposed to sticking to dogma.

[@tnekkc]

+lohphat Educated? The majority of college graduates vote republican.

[@ryanp1922]

+Daniel Baumann Not always. There are facts about race and gender that liberals hate and deny. Also, many political issues do not have a scientific answer. They are conflicts between competing principles and values.

[@jmanj3917]

9:10, This is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate the correct way to use the word "literally".

[@ttopperr]

Start of the speech 2:00.

[@Ploskkky]

Magnificent lecture. Carroll is the best at explaining complicated physics stuff to nitwits like me.

[@thekaiser4333]

Isn't the Guardian the paper, that caved in to GCHQ in the Edward Snowden affair?

[@ophiolatreia93]

Yh the guardian is a leftist propaganda rag

[@nancysmith1296]

Yes ! Great lecture, learned a lot and will watch it again. Well done sir, thank you.

[@denniswalsh8476]

That's what's great about this type of presentation on You Tube, (thanks YT). They can be watched (or rewound) over and over until you feel you understand the material. Any presentations done by Dr. Carroll are fantastic and certainly worth watching until you feel some decent level of understanding.

[@keggerous]

I like being able to parrot the things I hear this guy say to my friends and family and pretend to be smart.

[@raverdeath100]

fantastic lecture. first time i've come across Sean Carroll, an omission now rectified.

[@henrywang6931]

To the people who thinks a powerful being created a fine tuned universe so that we could live in it: Your idea is too egocentric. Why not think the other way? The only reason why you and I are lucky enough to born, is that there is a universe that can supports life with its physics laws .

[@chalino19]

and countless other universes that cannot, the luck of the draw! lol

[@freetrailer4poor]

Well true, but you still come to a problem, why is there space or uncertainty at all. The being need not be powerful either. I had a catholic mom and it would be an insult to her to believe in ufos, ghosts, bigfoot, or anything that can not be proven. God sending you to heaven or hell is just as crazy as the current universe understanding is.

[@johnnythreefour2902]

Another thing to consider is that these laws of physics are the only ones that could ever reliably create and control the size of my huge cock.

[@dkyoungson151]

The Universe wasn't fined tuned for human beings. Human beings were fined tuned for the Universe.

[@johnkendal5562]

Why is there space? This is a null argument as space is absolute nothingness, These scientists are wrong to assume that fields occupy all space (nothing abyss void) they occupy only the sphere which is the largest 'particle of all - the universe/cosmos. Outside of that sphere is the void absolute which contains abs nothingness which contains nothing; neither particles nor fields. As space is a nothingness or essential ground, it is not a thing therefore it cannot 'exist' - it just 'is' in the negative.

[@jimlkosmo5730]

Great lecture. Really energetic and restless presentation.

[@rationalagenda7083]

how sad that the science correspondent at the start seems more interested in celebrity and tv shows than the physics. No wonder science journalism is so bad

[@nickeshchauhan5661]

There's also a social norm where the general public is not interested in Physics and Mathematics (due to it being taught poorly), so we have to utilise general interests (celebrities and such) in order to entice the audience into the research.

[@willmpet]

I was really enlightened and I’ve really tried to understand before! I learned so much!

[@Dudleymiddleton]

8:20 Correction : Rappers are NOT musicians, let's get that straight please.

[@mikesimmons9986]

Have you heard of the Roots? idiot

[@Dudleymiddleton]

Yes I have and btw their drummer, Questlove is totally shit. Don't call me an Idiot.

[@Dudleymiddleton]

Dear oh dear. So much anger.

[@tbagolish]

depends on WHO is rapping

[@tbagolish]

well, there is a LOT of stupidity out there on the internetz, it can frustrate and anger the best of us...

[@STEFJANY]

Paul Dirac another scientist that send chill. He established the most general theory of quantum mechanics and discovered the relativistic equation for the electron, which now bears his name. The remarkable notion of an antiparticle to each particle - i.e. the positron as antiparticle to the electron - stems from his equation. He was the first to develop quantum field theory

[@skroot7975]

The higgs boson is a lie. It's all The Flying Spaghetti monster. Err'body noes dat

[@kayvee256]

SkrootNissu Yoctomind Aye!

[@brucejohnwayne7783]

+SkrootNissu Yoctomind The Higgs Boson is just the flying spaghetti monster of a different religion: like Zeus vs Jupiter.

[@ubergenie6041]

Interestingly enough that is Larry Krauss's claim of the Higgs in "A Universe from Nothing!" The Higgs serves as uncreated creator in Krauss's work. Not here. Sean, although is pathetic to Krauss's religous view, sticks to the science.

[@edubz1906]

Obviously, But did you know The spaghetti monster is actually just Lizard People bouncing a spaghetti monster hologram from their colony in the Flat Earth's core off their orbiting space station mother ship that we have always been told is the "moon".

[@crackmastergeneral]

Great lecture, glad to have found Sean Carroll.

[@Mendelmandela]

thats statement of political correctness on women was rubbish pure rubbish...political correctness in a talk on hard science should never contain a commercial break on feministic innuendos on women in science

[@Dorian_sapiens]

Nah.

[@boggo3848]

It's just hard statistics.

[@zayanwatchel8780]

If there aren't women in STEM they aren't electing to go into STEM. The women that most often complain about a lack of women in STEM are the reason we don't have women in the field. Because they don't pick to go into the field.

[@flowersintheditch]

Zayan Watchel The issue goes a little deeper than that. Sean Carroll chose to incorporate that bit for a reason. Considering that women that have made significant strides in hard science but haven’t gotten any recognition until very recently, the statement was necessary as women tend to get brushed under the rug in the scientific community because of institutional sexism (i know, scary word) . This is why many women had to submit their writings under a males name or a anonymously- otherwise, they’d likely be immediately discarded. To reduce this to political correctness shows your own ignorance, honestly. Consider doing your own research and educating yourself, if you all are such intellectual science enthusiasts, rather than making edgy comments because someone who actually cares about hard science making a statement about something he feels is important and relevant to his talk triggers you.

[@zayanwatchel8780]

Punctured Juicebox there is no institutional sexism in reality. In fact the very idea of feminism, and women's rights are praised in our society not degraded as they would be in an institutionally sexist society. If they don't get recognition first of all the question is why? Very few scientists become famous, or get recognition and there are few women that CHOSE to go into stem. As such could it just be none have really gotten much recognition. not because of sexism but because they never did anything worth recognizing for any length of time. "Until very recently" and now they have been recognized when they do do something great.

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

Thank you for making the subject so understandable