This Particle Breaks Time Symmetry

Increasing entropy is NOT the only process that's asymmetric in time.
Check out the book: WeHaveNoIdea.com
This video was co-written by Daniel Whiteson and Jorge Cham
You can also check out PhD Comics: phdcomics.com
Special thanks to Patreon supporters:
Tony Fadell, Donal Botkin, Michael Krugman, Jeff Straathof, Zach Mueller, Ron Neal, Nathan Hansen, Joshua Abenir
Support Veritasium on Patreon: ve42.co/patreon
Original paper on parity violation by the weak force by Lee and Yang:
www.physics.utah.edu/~belz/phy...
More on B-meson oscillations and time reversal violation:
Physics World Article: ve42.co/TimeReversal
Original paper: arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1742.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_meson
Physics consultant: Prof. Stephen Bartlett
Studio filming by Raquel Nuno

[@tomow7566]

The guy rocking up to the nobel prize ceremony after violating CPT symmetry: Announcer: Congratulations. You've destroyed half of physics. Here's your prize.

[@cazzone]

"but inverted. You owe us a million dollars"

[@mladen7641]

The other half is still fine... Because you destroyed half of physics.

[@zacyquack]

I would prefer someone broke CPT symmetry instead of not, or leaving it uncertain. If we break it, it means our current theories will need to be changed, and as such we get a more accurate perception of the universe.

[@pablopereyra7126]

@@zacyquack Of course, breaking the symmetry isnt a choice. If it is possible to break, we can't just ignore it to preserve our current theories. We MUST understand the universe.

[@robertnett9793]

Well... 'you showed us, that a lot of assumptions about reality might be wrong and needs to get re-examined. Thanks a lot mate. Her's a medal and a coffer of money.' As it should be.

[@aawagga7099]

"she and a team of low temperature scientists" is that a nerdy way to call them cool?

[@k.harmon]

ohhhhh yes!!

[@bryandelahoz6063]

Well, yes, and no.

[@alexisrosalesruiz7334]

That they are dead?

[@jakenolan2572]

@The Monster Under Your Bed if Marie Curie was a renowned scientist before then, it makes sense that women were in physics

[@Hh-nf8nk]

No, they should be very cool

[@CharlesGouin]

I think Nolan liked this video so much, he made a movie about it.

[@thefluffyrobot]

Nah bro veritasium got the idea for this video from tenet. You just see it inverted

[@CharlesGouin]

@@thefluffyrobot 🅿️e®️h🅰️🅿️s.

[@anthonyrussano]

he even mentioned another Nolan movie, inception

[@SomenathGarai]

No he didn't, but should make a movie about the mirror world!

[@anthonyrussano]

@@SomenathGarai yes he mentioned inception

[@PhysicsHonors]

Salute to those people who don't understand a single thing here but still come back for every veritasium video

[@gagemcmahon9485]

Some of his videos, like this one, I feel like he doesn't even understand what he's saying. Felt like he was just reading wiki definitions and giving their examples

[@jatinbangar4371]

@@gagemcmahon9485 Just type latest standard model of particle physics. You'll understand this video with ease 💯

[@sloppydog4831]

Yay! Here we are!

[@myemail1402]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@hoogreen]

@@gagemcmahon9485 well he has a phd in physics so he definitely knows more stuff than some people

[@user-xq5og9lt8p]

- Honey, are you ready for a vacation? -Sorry, dear, I have some fundamental physics principles to topple!

[@Kirealta]

Women can never be ready on time!

[@baoleviet8549]

Poor man got cucked by physic :v

[@TheCrystalBlood]

Again? Remember the last time you tried doing that? I think the cat still has nightmares from being stuck in that box.

[@tyralexander]

@@TheCrystalBlood What cat?

[@vavlo813]

@@tyralexander He's referencing Schrodinger's Cat Experiment

[@dunn0r]

"The parity's over, guys." That nerdy dad joke made me laugh way harder than it should have.

[@liebesleid]

I tried to not laught at that, but then I saw your comment and burst into laugther lmfao

[@therandomcommentor6228]

I don't get it.

[@nothayley]

@@therandomcommentor6228 it's similar to the phrase "the party's over"

[@jerrygreenest]

​@@nothayley if you actually pronounce that, then it becomes funny lol :D

[@anurag5565]

It sounds like Doofenshmirtz talking

[@yyattt]

Pauli: That's nonsense! Wu: Yes, but also true.

[@nah9585]

GP: "how can that be?"... M2: "I don't know man, I didn't do it"

[@jsward96]

Mentions Inception in video. Three years later: TENET

[@iwbmo]

whats TENET?

[@ulrikahaggard9923]

@@iwbmo are you Patrick cuz you living under a rock

[@jhonsillosanchez8494]

YES

[@doom4232]

Thanks for telling me about this movie

[@aduts1177]

@@ulrikahaggard9923 this movie hasnt been released.....

[@whiz8569]

Low temperature scientists? Those guys sound pretty cool.

[@killianvoy7194]

Get out

[@Bluswede]

Ouch!...that was so bad it hurts! :-D

[@anshul19]

noooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!

[@LacrosseWorld]

whiz 85 im crying 😂

[@GapWim]

Yeah, they chill out often ;)

[@aisysvideos1447]

"Low Temperature Scientists" as in "Cool Scientists"

[@Saintzel]

Bill Nye is a low temperature scientist

[@Nimbus3690]

that's what I thought he meant but I looked it up and it's actually a field, as I suspected.

[@KnifeataGUNFYT1]

Bill Nye is a lie...biological binary genders-4-life. Idc how much money you throw at a real scientist, truth is truth and lies are lies.

[@atranas6018]

maybe their body temperature lower than normal

[@HW-ct1iq]

@Merc E.Z. The science literally disagrees with you. Go do some googling. Nye didn't make up those claims off the top of his head, he's just basing his views off of the scientific work he's engaged with, the same he does with any other topic.

[@nitinchaudhary8914]

Imagine two people playing chess and the one observer who is observing that doesn't knows the rules of chess before hand As the game proceeds the observer keeps learning and Now when he sees a pawn walking single step straight way he writes down that pawn walks forward and now when pawn goes diagonaly to attack some other opponent piece. The observer is in surprise thinking that it broke the laws of chess Same applies here Nature is chess player and scientists are observer in this never ending chess game Always discovering new moves - Feynman

[@irrelevantme8158]

Ah feynman

[@BladeRunner-td8be]

Not bad except that nature is SO much more complicated than a chess player learning new moves. The way chess pieces move and the rules of chess are exponentially (and "exponentially" the biggest understatement of all time) easier to discover than nature.

[@benedani9580]

​@@BladeRunner-td8be You could also make the same argument with glitches in video games. When Pokemon Red/Blue came out, I don't think anyone had any idea that you could just, somehow manage to scroll down past your inventory to find some strange item that executes your Pokemon data as code. But technically, it's still within the rules of the game's programming. Thus, I wonder if there are "glitches" in the very universe we live in.

[@mahikannakiham2477]

@@benedani9580 A glitch is when a program doesn't behave in the intended way. If the universe has glitches, it would mean it doesn't behave in the intended way. What is the intended way?

[@harshvithlani9399]

I am the 70th like

[@KirbyMobile1]

This really makes me want to find an example that breaks CPT symmetry to see the entire science world implode. That would be funny *laughs in super villian*

[@captaineflowchapka5535]

i mean every single scientist will be thankfull to you to have shown a path to a truther truth

[@LiborTinka]

@@captaineflowchapka5535 reminds me of the faster-than-light neutrinos "discovery" few years ago ... there were lots of interesting debates until they found it was just the systematic error it looks like all the low hanging fruit were already taken in physics

[@decivillain9216]

@@LiborTinka It’s probably better that we keep picking the lowest fruit, rather than pick the higher fruit and have no idea where the others are.

[@brianabraham8726]

A truther truth 😂👍🏻

[@prateeksharma6756]

It won't really break any laws it would just mean that the same laws would have to be written again with considering the fact that cpt symmetry is not a thing which a lot of physist assumed back in the day while making these laws like Einstein. The symmetry only makes physics easier that's why it will be a hell a lot of work to complete all the theories of the past for unsymmetrical systems.

[@Alec-rh7dm]

His hair changes direction at 8:18 😂😂😂

[@_modernmage]

His video violated Hair Direction Symmetry

[@chasebh89]

but does it change direction in the same time forwards or backwards??

[@_modernmage]

@@chasebh89 Nope, the part of the video where his hair is parted to the left is much longer than where his hair is parted to the right, meaning that you could notice a difference between the video being played forwards or backwards. Q.E.D., his hair violates Hair Direction + Time Symmetry.

[@chasebh89]

@@_modernmage one more step in figuring out whether his hair proves we live in a mirror universe

[@bricedickerson6438]

His collar stripe also flips

[@garethdean6382]

"Hey, so, ready for that vacation?" "I can't, the weak force may violate p-symmetry." "Then there's only one thing we can do!" "Stare at cold metal atoms!" -A physic(s)al relationship.

[@valeriobertoncello1809]

Gareth Dean ahahah gareth that's been a lot of time without seeing you around

[@vampyricon7026]

+

[@feynstein1004]

Hey dude. It's been a while. :)

[@vampyricon7026]

The PBS Spacetime comment squad

[@feynstein1004]

+Vampyricon Lmao I guess

[@silver_3552]

I love how, after getting a bit started on subnuclear physics with my first nuclear and subnuclear physics course, i can now see this and not only properly understand what he's talking about but also seeing where some things are slightly simplified to make it easier to understand It's really nice learning and finding evidence that you've learnt

[@unflexian]

[@actualRocketScientist]

Also I wanted to say thank you for making these videos I really do enjoy them. You are awesome! I am blind so I can't see the graphics unfortunately but your explanations are very nice and I love doing math in my head so it's enjoyable to see you theorize in my head about all the things that you explain

[@yashaswikulshreshtha1588]

Interesting, how did you manage to type the comment then cuz you need a cursor for that. How do you see what you type?

[@actualRocketScientist]

@@yashaswikulshreshtha1588 I use dictation and I just talk back or voiceover based on the device it reads me things on the screen.

[@theendisnai]

it must be soo interesting being blind i often fantasise about it! visible light is only one part of the energy spectrum anyway and can limit a person's perception of reality so i imagine eye blindness removes reality blindness lol. like when you think about it youre conscious of two dimensions at once because you interact with this physical dimension while perceiving it in a 4th dimension (imagination) at the same time. people without eye blindness only do this on occasion while you use it pretty much constantly so i'd assume are a master of it by this point!

[@actualRocketScientist]

@@theendisnai I don't recommend it lol. However I've learned to deal with it and there are some things that are better like understanding a person in the characteristic just by hearing them so you can look past there facade. Unfortunately I get discriminated quite a bit. I wasn't even allowed to finish my PhD because I lost my eyesight The school denied me even though I only had a year left.

[@watema3381]

@@actualRocketScientist I'm pretty sure you could sue

[@rullestaden]

Known ways to break a CP law: - super freeze a particle and add magnetic spin - refuse to "pick up that can, citizen"

[@non-existentman4501]

Now, put it in the trashcan.

[@brydaniels528]

Gear multipliers and magnetically charging mercury

[@RohithCIS]

Maybe Black Mesa, That was a joke, Fat-chance, haha.

[@joshyoung1440]

@@RohithCIS *that was a joke, haha, fat chance

[@Fervent_Griffin]

*THROWS CANA ND RUNS*

[@herrreinsch]

*pretends to understand.*

[@matthewisrail]

herrreinsch this gave me a chuckle. Thanks.

[@user-vz3lu1ek1t]

herrreinsch No need to mention it.

[@WheatleyOS]

The resolution here is that, as it stands, we believe that if you mirrored something, flipped its charge, and reversed time, it would otherwise be experimentally indistinguishable from the point of view of the fundamental laws of physics. If this is not the case, it would seriously threaten the integrity of some major theories we use to this day to explain, on a fundamental level, the fundamental interactions of forces, [wave-]particles, and space-time.

[@undearwearman654]

Only rick and Morty fans can understand this

[@matthewisrail]

Joe Mama LMAO

[@pablocardona8158]

How does this man manages to make every single topic so interesting and enjoyable in each video?

[@tuckergary1516]

me to brain stretched

[@lurkingfriend]

and a great salesman, I want to buy most of the things he is sponsored

[@elmerlandaverde1]

It’s crazy that Chien-Shiung Wu didn’t receive the Nobel price for her work!!

[@kingp1n817]

An Asian and a woman, not a good mix in racist male supremacist world of 60s. They would feel ashamed if they gave a prize to a non European or a woman.

[@kingp1n817]

@@l1mbo69 the two other guys got the noble for it. Not her. She got Wolf prize 20 years after this discovery.

[@BaalTomekk]

@@kingp1n817 They gave the prize to two non-europeans, but not to the woman who deserved it.

[@kingp1n817]

@@BaalTomekk Yeah, they were really scared of women I guess

[@russellalesi5715]

She absolutely deserved it...they should award it posthumously (they should amend their rules to allow posthumous awards).

[@dThineni]

"Absolutely eye-opening video, you've done it again!" - Mirror me ?? ! ? - Real me

[@roopasharma7909]

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

[@jonw8764]

the letters are backwards but in forwards order. "!niɒǫɒ ƚi ɘnob ɘv'uoy ,oɘbiv ǫninɘpo-ɘyɘ ylɘluloƨdA"

[@MarcusAndersonsBlog]

How quaint. :-) Anyone got a mirror?

[@shaunscotland8099]

close your left hand

[@bionickchief]

Jonathan Newsome how you guys type these texts???

[@malcite]

Physicists aren't lawmakers. I would be more inclined to say translators. The laws of physics can't be broken because physics itself writes them, so if we mistranslate something we observe, the translation becomes wrong, however the more we learn the more accurate that translation becomes.

[@swiftoooo]

As with many laws, there can be multiple interpretations.

[@MrFlameRad]

@Ryan Vigus i think you missed the point he was making. He wasn't doubting the validity of physicists and the laws they discover. He was just criticising the use of terminology such as "it broke this law of physics", inputting that it's more accurate to say "we misinterpreted this law of physics" because no law of physics can actually be broken

[@slayerphoenix6307]

@@MrFlameRad You are mistaken in believing that there are any laws at all

[@lucashiroshins]

Doesn't it bother you that he talks about that as if a particle had destroyed a laboratory and killed thousands of people. Really, this things happens from time to time, it's no big deal. And he repeats the same thing lots of time in a very fast speed and in the most complicated manner he can to make it sound more complex.

[@zainabm809]

That is GOLDEN speach there

[@IchHeisseKabelstrassenbahn]

A comment

[@angelinephilo2005]

@@Handsome_Thanos it has a mass number of 42, which is between those of calcium and scandium :)

[@utsgotnoguts]

@@angelinephilo2005 wait... the modern periodic table isnt based on mass number but atomic number.

[@angelinephilo2005]

@@utsgotnoguts that's true but i was trying to think of the logic behind the original comment actually it may be that veritasium has an atomic number of i (imaginary unit) and mass number of 42.0

[@j.hawkins8779]

@@angelinephilo2005 what would an imaginary atomic number look like?

[@tweshasaini7957]

@@j.hawkins8779 maybe having a proton with negative mass

[@alejandrortorres]

These just keep getting better made and easier to understand. Veritasium rocks more than ever.

[@shifatrahman9181]

May the strong force be with you!!!!

[@rikwilder8838]

Because the weak force may not be...

[@aaayaaay5741]

FAAAAAAAAAAAAKE

[@aaayaaay5741]

...is this just a bot?

[@tigeroil6768]

aaay aaay not real

[@aaayaaay5741]

STOP IT FAKE VERITASIUM!

[@MsKakashi2012]

Thanks for the mini heart-attack 0:56

[@iiismooo]

haha read it the same time and got jump scared

[@kiro9291]

same

[@Lexa833Flash]

Veritasium you are fake

[@aaayaaay5741]

Don't click on those links, they're fake.

[@aaayaaay5741]

(and the javascript makes no sense)

[@GlitchedBlox]

Einstein: **heavily sweating**

[@sohinibasu3335]

Excellent video. The way you explain such difficult things in such a cool way is really commendable. 👍👍👍

[@aadithyanjr1382]

Low temperature scientists are really cool!!! (I'll see myself out)

[@doomzday66]

Aadithyan Jr hilarious

[@doomzday66]

Puntastic

[@KimberlyGreen]

And they give absolute zero f@*&s

[@halsti99]

this joke was close to being 0 K ... (i'll follow you out)

[@BewegteBilderrahmen]

Temperature scientist jokes. So hot right now

[@kabenitezguy]

I love watching videos like these and pretending to know exactly what hes saying. "What?! The weak force?! CP? Preposterous!"

[@Boog1137]

You have the entirety of human knowledge at your fingertips. Learn about it Edit: yeah i definitely came off as more arrogant here than intended y'all, sorry for that. I must've been in a mood. To be clear, all i meant is that anyone with internet access has the means to learn just about anything they could think of. Historically, access to knowledge has been a resource of only a few, so we're beyond privileged to have that access now. As for the grammar, i mean, i tend to fat finger everything i type so idk what to tell y'all about that.

[@byz88]

@@Boog1137 no u

[@thekillingsol]

500th like 👍

[@CxF_MxH]

Omg same!

[@GMPranav]

@@Boog1137 Which includes social skills, just saying.

[@mrsozez]

Thank you for all of this. You are inspiring me, and I'm sure millions of other. For that I truly thank you.

[@SacsachCCABP]

Lightning must be really scary in reverse. Like, imagine a bunch of charge inside the earth just _r i s e_ to one particular place before *ascending*

[@paulhuffman7093]

Your video covers up the fact that Wu's work did NOT win HER the Nobel Prize, but won it for the two theorists, Lee and Yang. Her contribution to the discovery was largely overlooked until she was awared the Wolf Prize about 20 years later.

[@TheSecondVersion]

Add Lisa Meitner (nuclear fission) and Rosalind Franklin (DNA) who also made discoveries that their male colleagues were given more credit for AND received Nobel Prizes for

[@PHeMoX]

Honestly, and I say this unironically, most noble prize winners are somewhat undeserving of the prize anyway, as science is the sum of all of its parts, discoveries, changes and paradigm shifts. It's like Eurovision song festival winners, it's not a matter of the 'best song' winning. There is way more politics involved with these prizes as one might assume. Keep in mind Henri Poincare , Josiah Willard Gibbs (on par with someone like Lorentz ) , Ludwig Boltzmann , Wilhelm Sommerfield , Lise Meitner , Emmy Noether , Edwin Hubble , George Gamow , Robert Dicke , James E Peebles , Stephen Hawking etc. etc. never ever got a Noble Prize, despite being just as deserving of one, arguably more than any/some of the winners. Long story short, Nobel prizes themselves aren't that great of an indication of someone's true contribution to science. (It reminds me of how a lot of people who actually have a PhD in anything, aren't at all the people with the absolute highest IQs. In my mind this reveals how our scientific communities are broken when it comes to the potential progress, assuming intelligence itself plays a significant role.)

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@TheSecondVersion _"... Rosalind Franklin (DNA) who also made discoveries that their male colleagues were given more credit for AND received Nobel Prizes for[.]"_ By the time Watson, Crick, and Wilkins got their Nobel, Franklin was dead, and the Nobel rules do not allow posthumous awards.

[@givecamichips]

@@TheSecondVersion On the bright side, most people agree since the 60s that she should have gotten the Nobel Prize as well, including being invited to a meeting of Nobel laureates and, something which is a much bigger accomplishment, Lise Meitner has an element named after her.

[@jojololo9157]

No Wu, Wu pissed on my rug.

[@zeromailss]

I don't understand half of it but cool video man! 👍

[@mooe20]

It means the "reality" is not what you think it is. Our basic assumptions are wrong :)

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

MeowAlien にゃあエイリアン Mirror you don't understand the other half. That means zero understanding.

[@miksuko]

mooe20 pretty sure it misunderstood the video more than they did

[@zradek]

I like watching these videos while high and his red eyes really fit in :)

[@geckoo9190]

Yea basically is like saying that your image in the mirror turns on the same direction than you instead of the oposite, is just something that was not supposed to happen and it would challenge you your conseption of of the world or at least about how mirrors work

[@lunareclipse07]

Hey @Veritasium! love your videos, I just wanted to ask, which software do you use for these amazing animations?

[@ohiocitydave]

I have listened to every episode of "Daniel & Jorge Explain the Universe" and yet only from this 3.5 year old video can I now put a face to the voice!

[@YunisRajab]

Physicists need to give up their vacations more often

[@baganatube]

And yet, Sheldon Cooper is being forced to take vacations.

[@joshm8324]

Yunis Rajab i

[@austritistan3337]

Bagana Lmao, man

[@mikuhatsunegoshujin]

they need more. screw your superstitions.

[@yanniskarageorgiou3573]

Yunis Rajab yo

[@FutureNow]

Sounds like my individual particles are better at time management than "I" am. It's like reverse emergence.

[@daicon2k6]

Nice. :)

[@mortlet5180]

And thus, having proven 'reverse emergence' is possible, the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics has finally been broken!

[@AnEvolvingApe]

Nothing more humbling than being bested by atomic particles... FML true for me too.

[@moisesbessalle]

how about...revergence?

[@mortlet5180]

moises bessalle; That's actually really good, I like it a lot. :)

[@giorapeniakov3153]

Exquisite summary, as always.

[@IMOLDIN]

Cheers for the book link excellent work on the video.

[@Lazerblade95]

I initially thought the thumbnail was a person who had given up and had their head on a desk.

[@MDTravisYT]

"And you can't tell you're in the mirror world." That got deep quick

[@progamer36]

Everytime something's discovered, it destroys a ton of things with it😂

[@--.._]

damn thats actually deep tho

[@cameronchapman7665]

hey, i know this is an old video but i have a question for you. ive been looking into the time symmetry one and i cant find any research on the up quark and down quark pair without a 3rd quark. the closest i found was a meson but i soon learned that is a quark and antiquark, not up and down. can you provide more details on that along with the two "arrangements" you mentioned? i want to understand why time symmetry is broken. i understand that up quarks have a charge of +2/3 relative to a proton and a down quark is -1/3 but what are the two arrangements? how do you know what arrangement they are in? what is the "position" of them relative to? as far as i can tell of they were rotated or something they would be indistinguishable from eachother unless the shift was relative to something constant such as the nuclear spin. if there is no way to look at it and say 100% that it is in position "a" or "b" then wouldnt the switch just repeat long time short time? imagine a dot is a short time to switch and a dash is a long time to switch. .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- is indistinguishable to -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. unless you can see the beginning and end which we cannot see in the real world, or you have a way to name the positions of the particles definitively. i would really really love a response i am having a really hard time understanding. if anyone else has the same question please like this so it gets to the top where more people will see it. if you can answer the question please do. thank you in advance

[@cameronchapman7665]

im not sure why a lot of lines have a line through them. on my screen a lot of the words i typed are crossed out. if there are missing words on your screen please let me know so i can fill in the blanks.

[@MikeRosoftJH]

Well, imagine the force of gravity or electromagnetism. The gravitational force between two massive objects, or electric force between two charged objects, decreases with the square of distance: F=C/r^2. (You can imagine that the net amount of force is constant, but as the distance increases, it is spread over a larger area - a surface of a sphere with an increasing radius.) So over sufficiently long distances the force between two two objects is negligible. Strong force works differently: even over very long distances, two particles with a color charge experience a large attractive force. We can write it as follows: F=C/r^2+D. This is why any particles that we observe must be color-neutral. Imagine a color-neutral particle, like a proton, which consists of three quarks (each carrying a color charge). Now suppose that some force would try to move one of the quarks away from the proton. The force formula tells us that even over very long distances the quarks would experience a large attractive force; this also means that as the distance increases, the system's energy increases beyond any bounds. At some point, it would increase so much that it would form a quark-antiquark pair; these quarks and anti-quarks would then re-combine into color-neutral particles. (This is what we observe in high-energy particle collisions - we don't see free quarks, we only see jets of color-neutral particles.) Now imagine that you had two particles, both having a net color charge - say, a centimeter apart. It can be seen that the amount of energy this system would have is huge, and it would immediately decay into a shower of particle-antiparticle pairs. And that's precisely why any free particle needs to be color-neutral. And that's also why you can't have a particle consisting of two quarks - there's no way to combine two color charges to make a color-neutral particle. (Quarks have three different color charges: "red", "green", and "blue", which combine into a color-neutral state - just like a positive and a negative electric charge combine together into an electrically neutral object. Anti-quarks, then, have opposite charges: "anti-red", "anti-green", and "anti-blue"; red and anti-red can also combine into a color-neutral particle.) You can have a baryon (three quarks), or a meson (quark and anti-quark), or various exotic and unstable combinations such as a tetraquark (two quark-antiquark pairs) or a pentaquark (three quarks, plus a quark-antiquark pair). All these combinations check out to a color-neutral particle. The quark names - "up" and "down" - have nothing to do with directions; they're just names. (Likewise, color charge has nothing to do with actual colors of visible light; it's just an analogy for how the charges combine.) For completeness, the other kinds (or "flavors") of quarks are "strange", "charmed", "top", and "bottom" (the last two are also sometimes called "truth" and "beauty").

[@minttea99]

8:18 - 8:20 has anyone noticed he actually flipped? No? Okay, I'm back to my mirror world.

[@oreole9608]

*It's called common sense*

[@6884]

OHHH SHIIIII that was fine!!

[@WalterSmithPhysics]

Whoa! That's really cute! Thanks for pointing it out.

[@bradirv]

Or maybe everything else was flipped

[@ziadmohamad1445]

Just find his iron ring. Always on his right hand.

[@cwrigh13]

I wish I could go back in time and pay attention in my high school physics classes.

[@danshylboodhoo2455]

Meh, high school physics is terribly taught and presented. It's extremely difficult to do well on high school physics exams using just high school knowledge, because they make the matter unnecessarily complicated. Undergrad physics covers most of the same material generally, but does it in a much better way. If you have the calculus, the Feynman Lectures are perfect for this, and are available online. Else, you could always get a freshman non-calculus textbook.

[@MsSomeonenew]

I had a perfect score in high school physics, doesn't mean I remember much after all these years. So if you want to know what is going on today your best bet is to learn it today.

[@udaykishor9586]

Me too.

[@actualRocketScientist]

It would be very interesting to have CPT broken require a lot of rethinking a fundamental laws of physics. I think it would be fun a whole world of discovery and begin again

[@ashroskell]

I have that audiobook, We Have No Idea. It’s really entertaining, groaningly funny, and deeply fascinating. It really does explain clever, complex ideas in a manner that anyone can understand.

[@Laezar1]

At this point I'm convinced the universe is a fictional work and scientist are just people in this fiction trying to justify the plot holes they live through.

[@franzluggin398]

I cast "Disbelieve Reality"!

[@jocabulous]

Particle man, particle man. Doing the things a particle can

[@yohankam4381]

Amazing video ,it was so different for everything I've seen before

[@devamjani8041]

Some of the best content creators out there

[@plasmahead2]

I kinda want someone to break CPT just for the chaos it will bring. Chaos is good for innovation and breakthroughs, and I want a lightsaber and tricorder damnit...

[@elbioKoen]

I want a holo-deck and teleportation. :-)

[@AbdulWahid-ru4ru]

Chaos is a ladder

[@obviouslymatt6452]

Lord Waluigi he’s not an animal (in ‘spirit animal’ context). He’s a person with a similar ideology to yours.

[@feynstein1004]

Chaos is a ladder :)

[@tauhid9983]

bruh.....AT THIS POINT IMMA QUOTE "vision" "I'm saying there may be a causality. Our very strength invites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe."

[@canibaloxide]

You can tell if you are in the mirror universe if Spock has facial hair or not

[@darklizard45]

Isn't that scam?

[@alandouglas2789]

Dead as Dreams and is a nazi

[@bgezal]

Yes but this was not known until the 60's.

[@deirasjankauskas3381]

I thought of this in late summer holidays in secondary, what if? right here me out idk if this is plausible that if something goes faster than light it wouldn't go backwards in time or create a blackhole if it doesn't reach the swartzshield(would it need negative gravity/mass to create a blackhole?) radius if you use a smaller variation of some thing that goes at the speed of light and with less mass/energy would it or would it not break time symmetry?

[@omsingharjit]

1:11 But , positive charge always act as emitter of electric field , and negative as drain so how it's same

[@andrewdouw1004]

I would assume because in our universe, matter dominates. In matter, the nucleus of an atom is positively charged, as it's made of positively charged protons and neutrally charged neutrons, while electrons are negatively charged. Because electrons are the light particles that can easily be exchanged between atoms, they create the flow of energy. In an antimatter-dominant universe, the nucleus of an anti-atom is made of negatively charged anti-protons and neutrally charged anti-neutrons, and positively charged positrons are the equivalent of electrons and are able to be exchanged. We would see the positive charge as the flow in this case.

[@frede1905]

What we call "positive" or "negative" charge shouldn't matter, at least according to charge symmetry. Meaning that if you swapped what you called positive or negative charge, it wouldn't make a difference for what we would observe.

[@omsingharjit]

@@frede1905 ok it seems obvious same should be for Magnetic poles but what about its field lines direction ? You should know In magnetic field , field always moves from north to south pole so it's clear that one pole behaving like source and other like sink same for electric field E field alwys moves from positive to negative not vise versa . So suppose you just flip the name of charge particles + - into - + so it doesn't or shouldn't mean direction of field vector wil also change just because we changed our prospective . That is why i ask it at first place .

[@frede1905]

@@omsingharjit Yes, the field directions will flip. But remember that what we actually observe in nature are the electric forces (which is charge times the electric field), not the fields themselves. So if both the charge and the field changes sign, then the product (aka the force) remains the same. So our observations won't change. The same goes for magnetism.

[@omsingharjit]

@@frede1905 yes force will be same but how can flow of direction will change just by flipping the name of two . It can only be possible if this directional theory of field theory is Wrong .

[@theginginator1488]

Just ask Dr. Strange if you’re in the Mirror Dimension.

[@rowesawyer4533]

TheGinginator14 DORMAMMU! I’ve come to bargain.

[@trashedeggnog3858]

DORMMAMU I'M COME TO BARGAIN

[@cheese1ak]

Eggnog Trashed "What is this, what is happening?!?"

[@silentbob267]

Coincidentally, there is a Dr. Strange that teaches biology at my university.

[@AbudBakri]

Entropy: AKA the comment section of KZbin videos.

[@ratsratsratsratsrats]

You're thinking of choas. Two different ideas. Edit: I was mistaken.

[@rph_redacted]

The mess of KZbin comments only increases over time. Ami rite

[@tjeulink]

+Minick64 complexity arises before for it ultimately collapses into an state of activity-death.

[@d_wang9836]

Dr.StickFigure You are back

[@AbudBakri]

Mininick64 the longer you leave these comments, the more disorder you create. Chaos aside.

[@ZimoNitrome]

I've come back to this video 4 times because it's such a cool concept.

[@CS-W]

All the videos Veritasium made never failed to, overall, satisfy our thoughts on understanding the conundrums of science, if one is yet to be proved then they always backed it up by recalling another temporary consideration for what's going on with it. It was nicely done as always!

[@Gatsefy]

0:56 Startled the hell out of me.

[@PaulCoceancig]

So when a particle decays... are the way the sub-particles are separating defined by the spin of the original particle? How does decay work... or what is the drive that causes decay? Why do half lives differ? How do all particles know what all other particles are doing in order to predictably define a half life?

[@MasterClassComments]

Welp I've finally found the most difficult-to-understand video on KZbin to date. Gonna have to watch this one 20x over smh

[@Gogglesofkrome]

the concept comes down to parity, and how the universe is not as symmetrical as we once thought; in regards to the parity of time, you can tell whether we're moving backwards or forwards through time (thus violating parity of time) through the interactions of the quarks in the strong force, since this interaction takes longer to occur in one direction through time rather than another. Apply this asymmetry to the other forms of parity in the video and voila you have the general conception of the topic at hand.

[@adlex1212]

Try pbs spacetime videos.

[@Jone952]

If there's charge parity then why do I have to put batteries in the right way

[@thewhizkid3937]

Thank You.

[@TheVergile]

because this is actually hell and you are supposed to suffer. same deal with usb ports

[@onetwothree4148]

@@nathan5160 No, that is not correct. You can't "flip" the charge of a device, even with alternating current. The electricity still has the same movement relative to charge. Electricity is the movement of electrons. Electrons cannot be positive. Charge parity means that if metals had free protons which moved like electrons, you could recreate any electrical device utilizing the same phenomena with opposite, positive charge.

[@DDvargas123]

@@onetwothree4148 flipping all charges means making electrons positrons, and protons antiprotons, etc. So we cant physically flip the charges no. But we expect it to work the same way even if charges /were/ flipped. of course because charge by itself isnt a real symmetry of the universe theres no saying what would really happen.

[@onetwothree4148]

@@DDvargas123 actually opposite charge would not be a positron. The difference between electrons and positrons is more complicated than that, and that's not really what charge parity is about.

[@torybio13]

0:56 that sound was so anti climatic

[@DJ-Ophidian]

Totally a white president Proof that sound effects break time symmetry.

[@Kaei7]

yeah, it spooked me

[@gracemarotta2769]

Understanding you're words is so good for me.

[@yangtra2534]

yeah but do those particles really spin tho? like are they physically turning around? is'nt that just a name for the state they're in?

[@Natchuw]

"..who is also a physicist.." And her grandma.. and her daughter.. and her son.. and her cousins.. also her ancestors..

[@InskayDanork]

We did CPT-Symmetry in theoretical electrodynamics just a week ago, very interesting to have it put into a larger context.

[@anshikarathore6013]

Hello Jorge I listen to your podcast Explain The Universe You & Daniel are the Best!!

[@stepbystepawsomness]

in the cobalt 60 decay experiment, why is the arrow denoting spin up/down not also mirrored? its like as if you lookin the mirror and see the back of my own head... mirrors don't do parity operations on what's Infront of them, they do reflections, parity operations are inversions. would a better analogy not be an image of the universe as seen through a convex lens as opposed to a mirror? im very confused so if im mistaken about something please let me know!

[@deceo2119]

This is one of my favourite videos ever. I first saw it a few years ago and it still baffles me.

[@acetate909]

@7:34 "the second law of thermodynamics is not the only physical process that prefers one direction in time". At no time have I ever preferred One Direction.

[@nathanielclay5324]

Really quick question. I'm an undergrad studying chemistry, but would chirality also be used to determine if we're in the mirror world?

[@oriongurtner7293]

Theoretical physics researcher here: there would be virtually no way to determine which universe is the ‘mirror’ universe due more to one’s own concept of a ‘real universe’ than any rules Basically: even if there were experiments one could perform to determine the ‘left hand’ universe from the ‘right hand’ universe (and there sort of are), it would still be your own universe that’s real to you, and mirrorverse you will feel the same about their own reality Because you’re a part of your own very real, very existent universe, left or right handedness means little to what realness means for an observer

[@minecrafting_il]

@@oriongurtner7293 true, but Veritasium called the right handedness universe the "real" one because it is the real one for us and so calling them left or right handed would just confuse a lot of people for no real gain. So while your comment is technically correct, I think it is unnecessary and irrelevant for this comment (I don't mean to insult you but I couldn't phrase it differently while keeping the meaning). if you disagree, I would LOVE to talk about this more as I find this concept fascinating.

[@oriongurtner7293]

@@minecrafting_il you’re right, and this would only come up should we encounter a ‘flipped’ area of reality, they would definitely (if there were intelligent life in that area of reality) see us as ‘flipped’ in return, if they are going backward in time they’ll see us doing the same, if they’re mirror versions of ‘us’ then we would look like the mirror versions to them It does _sort of_ correlate here, but more generally as a “whatever manner that the universes present themselves to the observers within them is equally valid to those observers” so it more just doesn’t matter, that’s the way the universe built itself, and it’s equally valid inverted as well

[@minecrafting_il]

@@oriongurtner7293 yes. My point was that it is kinda worthless arguing about what universe is "correct" or if there even is one, because veritasium used those terms for an easier explanation. Let's agree that we are on the same side?

[@oriongurtner7293]

@@minecrafting_il I definitely agree, I just like talking about it, it’s truly fascinating when you get down to how that affects the quantum ‘bits’ of reality, but it is largely a null question Granted, some scientists (I forget The Who and where) might have found that inverted universe, so it might _not_ be that null of a question, who knows? I really hope that we (our universe and the other universe) get to look at each other’s universe, cause that would be wild for both sides of the proverbial coin

[@yodsalz4324]

But why would it allow me to determine if i am in the mirror world. cuz i don´t know which direction electrons would preferentially go do i? so i can only tell parity is violated, cuz my right handy becomes left hand in mirror world but mirror world right hand also becomes my left hand, so theres so problem here is it? lets asume we are in the mirror world then if electrons go against nuclear spin the real direction is nuclear spin, but if i am not then my direction is correct but i cant tell if i am in the mirror world or not or did i get smth wrong?

[@Mattteus]

this is what I'm subscribed for!

[@justmehere_]

imagine breaking the symmetry and literally throwing the two best theories collected and experimented and proven through over 100 years with many scientists contributing their lives to prove and build on them. lol

[@pnewell]

URGENT Semantic Complaint: At 7:12 both sequences are actually symmetrical about a dimension of time, if you were to treat 'time symmetry' consistently as with symmetry for any other dimensions (has a negative and positive direction from a starting point). The 'Rewind' sequence is symmetrical to the positive progression through time if you consider that the time axis is flipped if you were to actually rewind time. I think better semantics for what is being described as 'Breaking Time Symmetry' is something like: 'Event Duration Asymmetry' Because one event is taking longer than the other in the SAME direction of time.

[@antonnym214]

CPT just means I have a good excuse for being late to any event. [that was a joke!] Good video! Hey, if I understand it this well, then you did an awesome job explaining it. Thank you!

[@DeadBeastPriest]

It's scarry that the universe prefers One direction... but some of their songs are actually good ;-)

[@TheDboi96]

Uroš Sedmak bravo

[@michaels4340]

Wu and her students showed weak force breaks parity Time and charge have to balance for symmetry So you won't know-oh-oh if you're in the mirror world, oh, oh, That's why it's a mirror world

[@posadist681]

if only the mainstream radio got flooded with science lyrics lol

[@cosmicdarkmatter1128]

+Uros Sedmak. Ha Ha, that's a good one...

[@ISenjaya71]

Then 1D didn't break up, they're just increasing their entropy

[@rickardrocks2160]

The cool thing was that they acctually had to travel to the "mirror" world to do this experiment, just like they travled to pandora to shoot avatar! great video and well explained!

[@thstroyur]

XD Not really; they knew where the spin was pointing (say 'up') - then all they had to do was measure if there was an excess of particles coming upwards or backwards, boom! P was broken

[@lkhfrank]

Rickard Rocks was w

[@gauharhayat3461]

mirror world makes the better doughnut holes, ironically enough

[@jongyon7192p]

whats the mirror world? how do you know itll act differently there?

[@daksh8747]

The joke Your head

[@shreeshakr5939]

Sir you are very brilliant! I am extremely motivated by you and I want to become like you 👍🏾🙏

[@jebooiii6462]

My head hurts. If you pause at 7:01, you see a weird smiley face

[@FoxywithaRubikscube]

I am not unable to unsee it. Why is his grin so dastardly

[@TheDeanvaz]

Wow! Sir/Mam, your definitely a genius 😂😂😂😂

[@ajaykumar-ve5oq]

summery : there is no going back

[@a_pav]

summery: *summery* is ACTUALLY spelt 'summary' England is you city huh?

[@ajaykumar-ve5oq]

oh thats just typo

[@ajaykumar-ve5oq]

India

[@shivakumargujjari]

And boom!! You got yourself another Nobel prize 😂 5:55

[@darianleyer5777]

In order to test CPT for violations, I would first suggest testing CT and PT symmetries.

[@wren_.]

Then why don’t you test them? (genuinely)

[@Alfamon717]

Violating CT (under CPT invariance) is the same as violating P which, as Derek explained, has already been observed. Similarly, violating PT is equivalent to violating C, which happens in the weak nuclear force too

[@mr.winter538]

Though I don't know much about them compared to what there is to know, I love quantum field theory as well as special relativity. This means that the possibility that both of them are wrog because CPT "breaks" (if you can put it that way) has become one of my greatest fears.

[@Racnive]

I always thought that the "right hand rule" of magnetism demonstrated that the forces of our universe are not symmetric, but I suppose in the mirror it would just be the left hand rule.

[@DeathBringer769]

Everything's relative after all, lol...

[@thstroyur]

The 'right hand rule' you learned is actually a handy way to explain _pseudovectors_ to people: see, the 'spin' in the vid has basically the same behavior of a vector *L* = *r* x m *v* , with *r* the position (say of a point particle, for simplicity) and *v* just the velocity d/dt ( *r* ); as you put *L* in front of a 'mirror' (i.e., change _vectors_ *V* by - *V* ), both *r* _and_ *v* swap sign, so *L* - or spin - doesn't change sign at all!

[@SSGranor]

As +thstroyur pointed out, the right hand rule is always related to pseudovectors. A good way to think about this is that pseudovectors require a sign convention. They're like vectors in the sense that the have both a magnitude and a directional axis; but, they're unlike vectors in that there's nothing intrinsic that picks an orientation along that axis. However, the _relative_ orientation of pseudovectors is meaningful; so, it's useful to create a convention by which we can just assign orientations in a self-consistent way. And, that's what the right hand rule does. Everything would work just as well if we chose the left hand rule convention and applied it universally; but, we didn't.

[@Racnive]

Ah! So it's sort of like how we arbitrarily assign "i" and "-i" (the positive/negative direction along the imaginary axis), in that if we replaced every instance of one with the other (conjugating everything) nothing would break. Or how we always draw circles determined by (cos(theta), sin(theta)) in the counterclockwise direction simply because of how we orient the axes on our paper.

[@junokuborocks]

Not too related to your comment but it reminded me of a funny moment in hs. We were learning about the right hand rule in class and one of my friend raised his hand and asked the teacher "what if you are left handed?" Man... the amount of face palms that day xD Can never forget that moment LMAO

[@Coco111s2]

Science doesn't mean its right, it just means its the closest thing we know of to being right at any moment.

[@blykgod]

ya and your god is absolutely right/correct

[@skepticmoderate5790]

EXACTLY

[@skepticmoderate5790]

A R G O N Λ U T I'm fairly certain Corkas_ was saying that was an advantage.

[@firebornliger]

Careful there Argonaut, you almost dropped your fedora. Science is not the body of knowledge, science is a process for testing ideas. At least when conducted honestly. It is when a hypothesis that is expected to come true (for all the body of knowledge would put forward) but does not, as is presented in this video, that the value of science becomes strongest. Unfortunately, when science is not done honestly, we have experiments repeated until the hypothesis is confirmed, and then that data set alone being published. Regardless of how many times it took.

[@deon6045]

I don't think that's quite right. The essence of Science is knowledge, in the sense of knowing what is and what isn't, or the difference between fact and fiction. Science is more like a tool. If it produces the "wrong answer" it's human error, like how the scientists in the video keep trying to save their preconceptions instead of genuinely trying to understand. It's why I hate things like theories. They look to me more like people trying to force their ideas onto the universe instead of searching for truth. And that kind of human arrogance is why we have the dogmatic pseudo-religion of "because science," and why education tries to indoctrinate children into believing things that aren't proven instead of focusing solely on what we know. I think it ultimately dilutes science over time. edit: Kind of like what firebornliger said, yea. I was just replying to OP, sorry.

[@debbiechan8657]

I‘m just happy that you mentioned Prof. Chien-Shiung Wu, one of the physicists I truly admire

[@Verschlungen]

At 3:00-3:03 we hear this: "In the mirror, the direction of the z-axis is flipped, but the direction of nuclear spin is NOT." Actually, what Whiteson and Cham show us is just one of three ways that such an illustration can be be set up. In the other two ways, the direction of the nuclear spin WOULD be flipped in the mirror. (Granted, this is how 'everyone' always presents these Wu experiment cartoons, implicitly choosing just one of the three possible starting orientations, then proceeding as if it were the only possible starting orientation. No doubt they took this approach to avoid an overly long video, but still it needs to be pointed out.) Second point: All such mirror-cartoons actually tell us nothing about the Wu experiment itself, whose results are very straightforward (never mind how fabulously complex its design and implementation were). The mirror-cartoons silently change the subject to: WHY-the-experiment-was-important, away from WHAT-the-experiment-was.

[@trinanjan26]

I appreciate you for sharing your knowledge

[@mitchjr77]

You mentioned the Nobel Prize for Proving the “Handedness” of Nature. Yes, that was True. And it’s also True that it was a TOTAL SHAME that “The First Lady of Physics”, Chinen-Shiung Wu was looked over and DID NOT get the Award or recognized! I found it curious that you omitted that part out of your presentation; leaving it vague so your audience would assume that Chinen-Shiung Wu, “of course” got the Nobel Prize, when in fact she didn’t! It’s like another injustice to her to not, at the bare minimum, mention how she was wronged and wasn’t one of the physicists who was Awarded after making such a major discovery.

[@adamfreese]

Indeed. I'm very disappointed in Veritasium for this omission.

[@mrmustache2039]

I dont think its fair to judge Veritasium for this, considering that he did give her credit, it was the past people who didnt give her credit, he is respecting and giving her credit which is exactly what should have happened in the first place.

[@mitchjr77]

mr mustache yes, it was people from the past whom didn’t give Chinen-Shiung Wu the Nobel Peace Prize because women weren’t taken as seriously back then. Hedy Lamarr is another one of these women that comes to mind... However, if Veritasium wanted to truly Honor Chinen-Shiung Wu, when bringing up the significant impact of her discovery to be able to win the Nobel Peace Prize, he then SHOULD have AT LEAST mentioned that she wasn’t even the recipient w/no credit given to her back then. Instead, he left it pretty ambiguous, letting everyone assume or THINK that History was all fine and dandy with a healthy respect towards Women or Minority Scholars. Unfortunately, that isn’t so. Things like this NEEDS to be mentioned. If not, we will never learn from our past mistakes and never will think to ask, who else have we not given the proper recognition for their major scientific discoveries? What other major scientific breakthroughs would we ALREADY would have known if we didn’t just blatantly dismiss a scientist/inventor/Scholar? All just because they happened to be a woman... Again, look at Hedy Lamarr or Joan Curran! But to be fair to me, I DID say that despite my criticism, Veritasium did a really well put-together presentation with a production quality that can rival major TV Studios! 😁👍

[@SammiChimi]

Its just a prize mate. Im sure what mattered to her is the expanded collective knowledge we have about the universe.

[@mitchjr77]

Erick Lujan the Nobel Prize is not the point mate. Her not getting the proper recognition and validation by the Scientific Community at the time is! Sure, there are now videos about Chien-Shiung Wu so we can NOW know about her and what she did for Science. However, when talking about her or other Women in Science, we should also point out that those considered to be the Scientific Authorities have had a VERY long History (even happens today) of not recognizing, completely dismissing, and/or over even outright taking credit for Scientific discoveries or breakthrough made by Women and Minorities. IMAGINE how FAR ahead with WiFi Technology we would be if the Military and Scientists took Hedy Lamarr seriously? Instead, they all just thought of her as their era’s THOT and brushed her aside.... Could you imagine if she or other female Scientists was instead encouraged to come up with more ideas and discoveries? I’m pretty sure our advancement in Science and Technology would be that much faster! If we don’t call it out these injustices in Science or any other fields, then no one knows it’s a problem (again, even in some cases today), that definitely NEEDS to be fixed. If we don’t, you know the saying, “Silence ensures History repeats itself.” ~Erin Gruwell I highly suggest checking this article from the Smithsonian Magazine about Women In Science to begin get an understanding why this is a problem. You’d be surprised to learn how many Women were written out of Science history! www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/unheralded-women-scientists-finally-getting-their-due-180973082/

[@thingstalk2159]

The symmetry smasher!

[@sergetheijspartner2005]

You are amazed by breaking time symmetry while I am still trying to wrap my head around how on earth they can measure the movement of quarks while they are still inside an atom, like HOW??? Who does these measurements, how can you see, follow and exactly measure subatomic particles still formed as an atom moving at the speed of light...mind blown. You should make a video where you explain the processes of HOW THE HELL THEY DO THIS? Like how does CERN work, how can they see collisions?, what does that look like? What can they see in those pictures they always show us of particles flying in every direction? how do you derive, spin, speed, mass and momentum? To me they look like fireworks but to them it tells them how the universe works on a quantum level. What do they see? How do they see it? I know how a multimeter works, I know how an oscilloscope works...but this woosh right over my head, could you make a video or a series of video's that goes in to depth and explains in laymens terms?

[@moizuddinahmed7764]

You just explained Inception and Tenet in single video! 🙌

[@AlanRuic]

Wait, but if CPT-Symmetry is violated it does not completely take down Special Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. It just means that those two aren't universally applicable, right? The still will work for most applications that they have been used for, right?

[@bastiaanbogers4114]

Alan Ruic Probably, but I guess they would be wrong in their basis. Just like Newton’s laws of motion are theoretically wrong because they do not take into account relativity. However, when applied to everyday objects, which don’t travel at high speeds, they work very well.

[@mspirata12345]

Well, I do not understand Quantum Field Theory, but Special Relativity will have it's basic assumptions wrong if CPT-Symmetry is violated. That means that even if the theory works for a bunch of stuff, it's building blocks are wrong. Now, Newton's gravity is not WRONG, it's just an approximation of General Relativity when the mass and velocities of the objects is too small. The way I see it, it would be like if you thought for example that a mirror is a portal to a parallel universe and because of that you would see an exact copy of what's around you in it. Well, you came to a right answer that a mirror does show an copy of what's around you, but you used a wrong idea.

[@AlanRuic]

Thanks guys. That's what I was thinking about. Like Newton's laws are a subset of relativity. 😄

[@JohanFaerie]

I concur *Adjusts glasses*

[@genessab]

Bastiaan Bogers that’s not true. The original commenter is right, all physical laws, including those in special relativity and quantum field theory, are correct. The small changes that would be caused by cpt violation would only add on to the math, not throw it away. Newton’s laws of motion are **not wrong**. They are correct, with general relativity picking up the math when higher speeds and gravitational forces get involved.

[@ikarienator]

You should also mention that Wu did not get her Nobel Prize.

[@bighugejake]

I was wondering this myself, as he didn't specifically say she won it. So I looked it up, and yep, 2 colleagues of her's received it. Very unfair, but for 1957 it's what you'd expect.

[@HarrDarr]

It wasn't because of racism and she did recieve the wolf prize for her contributions. You should read up on the story.

[@ikarienator]

Harr darr I was not implying racism. That Nobel Prize was given to the other two Chinese scientists after all. But Wu deserved it.

[@HarrDarr]

Probably, but the story is much more complicated than just "she deserved it", she was no doubt considered for it, after all she did get the wolf prize.

[@KManAbout]

Sexism not racism, Marie barely got her prize as well

[@Nae_Ayy]

Seriously the single best thumbnail in KZbin history

[@arvalve7659]

I really don't get 3:10, as to how the object rotating in the mirror would still be going clockwise, I mean, The axial direction of rotation, is usually given by the right hand rule, so going by that, the Co in the real world, rotated in an axis going into the mirror. But when we switch to the mirror world, we have to switch perspectives too, so looking from the mirror version of you, and using the 'right hand' of the mirror you, that is, the left hand of the real you, the mirror Co, spins again in an axis going through the mirror.

[@jankodedic3130]

SCIENTISTS HATE HIM!!

[@conradambrossi738]

Janko Dedic why?

[@martiddy]

Janko Dedic Break the laws of physics with these simple steps. Click here to know how.

[@vampyricon7026]

"Simple"

[@dan339dan]

7 things he showed scientists shocked them. You won't believe the 4th one.

[@keithdurant4570]

Before anyone does anything silly the Veritasium in this comment thread is an identity thief.