What's left to do at the Large Hadron Collider?

[@alsy0055]

Interesting, I heard some of those words before.

[@deriamis]

***** You ain't kidding. I was having a severe problem following the conversation and at times felt like I was hearing another language entirely!

[@NeonsStyleHD]

Ryan Egesdahl Tead more science books on physics (just general ones from bookshop will do) the more you read, as your life goes on you'll start to get to grips with the basics of it n start to understand some of that conversation, but I do mean some.

[@aakksshhaayy]

***** all you need is undergrad physics... we talk about higgs field and other theories. Besides, these videos are meant for the layman.

[@deriamis]

NeonsStyle I'm actually a bit more informed than I initially let on. It's just that the vocabulary gets a bit thin when this kind of topic is involved, and it becomes hard to follow the meanings of words one knows but more familiarly in other contexts. I understood what was being said once I had the meanings of the words down. In any case, my science education is hindered not by lack of motivation but lack of energy. I really am far too busy most of the time to delve deeply into other subjects. There's a pile of books in my apartment I keep meaning to get to but never seem to have any time for. I will someday, hopefully one soon, but unfortunately not right now.

[@aakksshhaayy]

***** well physics major I guess. I did a minor in physics but the courses I took were the same as the physics majors took. In first year physics courses people learn about classical and a little bit of quantum theory. I think concepts like uncertainty principle and standard model should be introduced earlier (without the math otherwise students will go insane) in a general way. New things in physics are being discovered yet the basic education stays the same as in 1930's?? This is not how it should work.

[@onecanina]

Brady, we need more Sixty Simbols videos!! Thank you!

[@Xefox]

We should probably be careful that CERN isn't using miniature black holes to time travel and create a future dystopia run by them,

[@vonkruel]

Recently I saw a physicist give a talk about work being done at the LHC, and a man who identified himself as an economist asked how the cost of the LHC could be justified. In his mind, learning about how nature works was no justification, and without a credible business plan it's all a waste of resources.

[@NeonsStyleHD]

vonkruel lmao... well that says it all isn't it... the only thing in the entire universe that matters in his mind is profit! WOW

[@TheMinicSasa]

vonkruel At some point something will come up, or should i say, LHC will give out something that could be use to make profits. What he doesn't understand is that profits are made by making things, not only by giving services. And to make things you need chemistry, physics...well science in general. If there were not physicists researching electricity there would be no revenue made from electronics. Middle men and women here are engineers. At the very end come economists. So fear not. They can't do anything with their profit questions, because when you explain to them how thing really work and how come they get paid for what they "do", they just humbly give money to whatever it has to be researched :D

[@grmasdfII]

vonkruel And that's why economics isn't a real science.

[@aakksshhaayy]

grmasdfII ehh

[@PSIponies]

vonkruel WOW, WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING, YOU DIRTY COMMIE? MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO 'ROUND! (This comment is, in fact, sarcastic.)

[@Supermanohman]

hey do they need like a janitor or something at the LHC because I'll do it for free.

[@AmitAmit-sk9yr]

Patrick me too

[@kashu7691]

@Fester Blats 3 year old comment

[@medexamtoolscom]

Oh don't say that. You don't want to see the state that autistic scientists sometimes leave the toilets.

[@BaxterRoss]

they will be able to science faster and harder!

[@Sakarq]

+AxiomBios The detectors of the LHC have large magnets around them which bend the trajectory of particles that have charges. Depending on the direction and curve they can know what the particle was. For particles with no charge e.g the muon. There are other layers( usually the outer layers of the detector ) which are designed to detect them. Basically the detector is created of layers of detectors for different particles.

[@JLConawayII]

What's that? America should have been far surpassing this with the Superconducting Super Collider decades ago? Oh right it was cancelled. Thanks Congress.

[@owner876]

JLConawayII We'll always have the Heavy Duty Super-Colliding Super Button ಥ‿ಥ

[@krumplethemal8831]

JLConawayII there is no money in science research. Congress would rather continue brewing up wars because destroying countries is big business.

[@ZER0--]

JLConawayII They just get all the data without paying, clever.

[@ZER0--]

Krumple Themal Thee is much money to be made in science research {sic}.

[@FfejTball]

JLConawayII We're leading the way with nuclear fusion at MIT, so there's that.

[@thewhitezubia]

prof. Copeland is awesome. Its also awesome to see him so passionate!

[@Draxis32]

Ed Copeland opening our eyes! Thanks for these explanations.

[@habibaghasafari2237]

thanks for this update on LHC.

[@christianfarina3056]

I was there when we started run2!

[@boboften9952]

4 TeV 6.5 TeV 1.22 x10 ^19 TeV " They Will Get To The Scene, The Site Of The Accident Sooner ." Thank You Professor Ed Copeland .

[@mrautistic2580]

You could not have pinpointed the question that I'm most eager to resolve and answer with my work than that of the mass disparity referenced in this video.

[@petertimowreef9085]

Something I don't get: Those colisions inside particle colliders are between particles going almost the speed of light right..? So that's rather speedy. How come some of the debris still flies off of those collision in a curved trajectory? Like at 7:40

[@stargazer7644]

The curved paths are a result of charged particles being deflected.

[@petertimowreef9085]

@@stargazer7644 That doesn't answer my question.

[@stargazer7644]

@@petertimowreef9085 Actually, it does. "How come some of the debris still flies off of those collision in a curved trajectory?" Particles that are charged follow curved paths in a magnetic field. The direction they curve indicates the polarity of their charge.

[@petertimowreef9085]

@@stargazer7644 "Particles that are charged follow curved paths in a magnetic field." That answers my question, thank you. You didn't say that before.

[@stargazer7644]

@@petertimowreef9085 Actually I did, just not in as much detail. But since nobody can read your mind to know exactly what is confusing you, how about next time giving a much more helpful "what makes them deflect?" instead of the completely unhelpful "That doesn't answer my question.". "The curved paths are a result of charged particles being deflected." absolutely answered the question you asked. But you made me guess at what it was that you still had questions about.

[@MilesEques]

It struck me as a bit odd that the professor would say 10^18 GeV rather than 10^27 eV. I suppose that could be to benefit the comparison to ~200 GeV (so they're the same magnitude of units), but these huge numbers are pretty abstract in any case so I found the construction unusual. In other parts of the explanation, he gave quantities in TeV. Are these usages just artefacts of the explanation for this video or do they reflect the way that physicists use these quantities?

[@KIRO666300]

Could you please do a video about the strange B Meson decay that was also recently being confirmed at the LHC, there is scarcely any information about that so it would be great if the Professors shed some light on the topic

[@GameplayTwist]

That's a great explanation of what is happening at the LHC.

[@Fade2Black907]

Ed Copeland is my favorite :)

[@nixie2462]

Does LHC know where are all the packets so they collide in the detectors, or are they (the packets) just so slightly synchronized so they more or less collide in there? (I mean, there is always a collision between synchronized packets, or there are laps where a CW packet doesn't meet with a CCW one?)

[@sakets]

Any updates from LHC...? Its been 2 years.

[@icrin_]

how much energy would be necessary to produce the Graviton?

[@CasualSandre]

Icaro Vasconcelos If it exists, that is.

[@BeCurieUs]

Icaro Vasconcelos Gravity is what you need to generate disturbances in the gravity field. The wiki on this has a funny line that I will provide here about the practicality of detecting a Graviton: "For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. It would be impossible to discriminate these events from the background of neutrinos, since the dimensions of the required neutrino shield would ensure collapse into a black hole."

[@icrin_]

So you are telling me that if we never prove Supersymmetry or another one, we can't prove the standard model either? So we can't be sure of many things based on this.

[@biggsydaboss3410]

The Sandre Guy If gravity is a force, than it needs a force transfer particle, no? What if gravity isn't a force. We don't call the dip in a trampoline a force, just because objects go towards the centre of the dip. We say it's a result of gravity. What if gravity is just a "dip" in the fabric of space/time? Is it possible that we are not seeing the underlying force responsible for the motion of planets stars & other effects we recognise as gravity?

[@CasualSandre]

Biggsy IsGod To me it seems more like gravity is merely an effect of space and time as it is so incredibly weak.

[@BurakBagdatli]

"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." -John Burdon Sanderson Haldane

[@MetaZoop]

Chihuahua particle!

[@sixtysymbols]

MetaZoop no, Dog Particle!

[@neilfry3860]

MetaZoop Cthulhu Particle.

[@JeremyRemele]

MetaZoop FSM particle

[@michaelhicks5587]

Yea

[@NapalmFlame]

Sixty Symbols LHC now needs 100% more doge particle.

[@lamp-stand7]

With all the concern in the world over the safety of this research, a critical question seems to be: How often does what you're doing at CERN occur in nature (ie. without respect to scientific observation,) and: under what extreme circumstances of physics does it occur?

[@scottmantooth8785]

very exciting to see the applications of the HLC applied to neutrino research

[@General12th]

There's probably a large gap between the TeV energy scales that we've already explored and the next energy scales that would produce particles. And a 60% increase ain't gonna cut it.

[@REVJHD]

Anyone else get driven crazy when they hear "E=MC2" after watching the their video on why thats not the full equation? I know they use that to simplify things since its common understanding, but now that I know that it drives my ocd nuts when I hear it.

[@ashwinbhat123]

What did he mean when he said that energy at Planck scale is at 10^19 GeV? What is a Planck energy scale?

[@JP-re3bc]

Professor Copeland manages to explain hermetic topics in a way that educated lay people can understand what is going on. Well done.

[@zombieregime]

quick question, in the context of the LHC, whats a "quench"?

[@loganpoppe3494]

zombieregime Something went wrong in the circuit and the liquid helium warmed up and became gaseous. That fast increase in pressure blew open the tubes and vented helium. And if the magnets are not being cooled by the liquid helium, they will increase in temperature until they lose their superconductivity. That then increases temperature fast because of the resistance in the circuit and the current is so high that it destroys the coils for the magnets.

[@rorygrice5758]

hold on. if the higgs should increase in mass according to the standard model like he is talking about up to this planck mass, then where does it get all the energy to produce that mass come from?

[@MegaBanne]

I thought they expected things to be more complex than what they found things to be with the LHC :o

[@chris11sholtz]

it would not surprise me that at higher energy particle physics we will find evidence of particles/energy/or evidence of a force that affect higher dimensions and will give us a way to lessen the uncertainty in measuring particles.

[@krumplethemal8831]

Here is the thing. What we call the weak force ie. gravity has a massive distance to strength ratio. Gravity spans great distances. Where as the strong force ie the repulsive force has a very weak distance to force ratio. Atoms repel each other but only when they are very close. This is why you don't sink into the ground and things appear to be "solid" but these atoms don't repel for very far, only a few fractions of a nano meter. So this is obviously another spectrum slide scale. The field is being impacted in two different ways or frequencies.

[@simonh8441]

Very cool!

[@sixtysymbols]

Sizzle 'n Fry cheers

[@nimeshtharuka2882]

Sixty Symbols

[@TheSLK66]

3:46 Supersymmetric extension? Is he implying String Theory? Assuming super-symmetry turns out to be false, what other phenomena can the Hadron Collider study with its current energy capabilities?

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

TheSLK66 There are many lines or research in experimental high-energy physics. QCD matter, antimatter, hints for grand unification... Also recall that there is a huge gap between the distances probed at the LHC and the planck scale, so experiments at the LHC will not rule out susy. It may just push up the lowest energy bound at which it will become observable.

[@IamGrimalkin]

String theory is a theory (or whatever) that uses supersymmetry, but it isn't supersymmetry in itself.

[@TheSLK66]

IamGrimalkin I know, but an important foundation is SUSY isn't it?

[@TheSLK66]

Jason93609 So, there exists the possibility that SUSY couldn't be proven for several hundreds of years because they would just keep pushing the lowest energy bound? If I recall correctly, some scientists are claiming that if a theory is "mathematically beautiful and consistent enough" it doesn't require experimental proof (which I believe to be non-sense since all theories must go undergo experimental comparison).

[@IamGrimalkin]

TheSLK66 I think if the LHC fails to find SUSY soon people will just start to give up on it. A lot of people already are, pretty much. You can add extensions which push the supersymmetric particles to higher energies, but the higher you go, the less plausible it looks.

[@HuhnK0t]

1:07 lol@the dog

[@911gpd]

Hi, I have a question to ask. Why is he talking about mass in eV ? (which is an energy unit)

[@ricious]

+911gpd Because E = mc^2

[@911gpd]

ricious and ?

[@ricious]

so, E/c^2 = mass. Thus, eV/c^2 = mass

[@911gpd]

ah okay he's taking a short-cut. My physics professor would have killed me xD thanks mate :)

[@peterfireflylund]

Moreover, eV is a natural unit to use in accelerators and has been used in relation to charged particles and accelerators since the cathode ray tube.

[@ErikJohnsonFMA]

it greatly excites me that we may have a quantum theory of gravity within my lifetime.

[@xpclown]

Wonder whether all the gravitons and mediating particles, for the new accumulated mass take time to "snag" the rest of the universe or is it instantaneous. If its gradual how far do those interacting forces reach before the particle seemingly gets pulled apart. Could the pull of the surrounding environment attribute to both its rising mass and its rapid decay if the strong interaction wasnt very strong

[@DaGavinX]

So, how close is it to producing a black hole now?

[@d5uncr]

Gavin Grant It might very well be doing it all the time. But they're so small they evaporate immediately. The max energy generated when two protons hit is 13TeV 1eV ~2x10^-36kg and the prefix "Terra" is 10^12 So the mass of the black hole would be ~10^-23 kg. Or 0.00000000000000000000001 kg. For comparison the weight of a human sperm cell is 10^-14 kg...

[@kwahlman]

Gavin Grant already done, plenty of times. They are just to small so they never stick around very long.

[@cmilford1969]

Does physics theory predict at what energy you should start seeing supersymmetry?

[@Examantel]

You still have that time machine to build, right?

[@LaurenceAllen]

Have they considered Time space as part of what makes the particles

[@sleeptalken]

Copeland is such a great speaker. Really wish we had more local professors who could teach as such.

[@sillysad3198]

aren't you worried about you are always finding exactly what you are searching for?

[@sillysad3198]

Oners82 "what is there to worry about?" the absence of negative confirmations.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

Silly Sad It is worrying. In fact there is a real concern among particle physicists that there may be a considerable gap in the energies required to make new discoveries, which means that the next generation(s) of accelerators may not find anything fundamentally novel - which might lead the entire field to stagnate since there will be no motivation to fund even bigger projects.

[@bizzee1]

Silly Sad Why do you think the absence of negative confirmations worrying?

[@sillysad3198]

bizzee1 "Why do you think the absence of negative confirmations worrying?" because the physics you probably love and are now implicitly refer to, is based fundamentally on the negative confirmations, while plentifyl positives are merely polish it up. Michelson-Morley

[@sillysad3198]

***** I do not know. I f i knew I would be a physicist. Maybe you need a brand new approach to the data processing. Since the experiments and the data they produce went so far beyond human perception, and even reasoning capabilities, may be you need a reasoning machine, unlike human brain, evolved in the realm of the collider's data, evolved while being attached to the proper sensory organs. Human brain is not designed to understand particle physics, it is designed to interpret the data from the sensory organs that are massively disconnected from the realm of high energy particles. I mean AI. I am sure you have some, for data filtering and number crunching, but you think that you are more capable at _interpretation_ -- so naive! Since the very notion of "particle" is purely illusory, may be you better trust the AI (that is aggregating data for you) to develop appropriate notions too? For understanding the world so alien to us, may be we need to start with developing an adequate understanding machine? That would be the first _real_ _serious_ application of so called "big data technology".

[@TheCorrectionist1984]

+sixty symbols, No video yet on the gravitational wave discovery!?!?!?

[@RStaRaptoR]

yea wtf

[@juanaz1860]

Can anyone explain to me what it means for Higgs to decay. If higgs gives everything mass then they decay does that mean that mass has also decayed?

[@KebradesBois]

Yeah, they've just increased the resolution... ^^

[@jbiasutti]

So the large hadron collider produced the same result as every other particle collider in history, the conclusion was that a larger particle accelerator was needed. We are within the tiniest fraction of the speed of light. When will enough be enough?

[@BOYrude1000]

I've been and seen the LHC at CERN!

[@PositiveAlex]

I'm proud that russian scientiests also particated in building of LHC as a part of international team.

[@BorysPomianek]

Is the current limiting factor for higher energy levels the source of the beam or the containment? Would it be harder with the current generation of the LHC to produce a beam that carries twice as much energy for instance or would it be harder to contain it within the system and secure it's trajectory? Both? A quantum leap or two ago in terms of dedection equipment in general, the issues used to almost always be related to the noise floor of the equipment itself or so it seemed to me but now with extremely sensitive equipment at least in fields I used to follow the noise floor is no longer considered the main bottleneck - I would dig it if someone could let me know if there is a different type of bottleneck that is considered almost universal at the moment.

[@stargazer7644]

The superconducting magnets are limited in the power they can handle, and this limits how fast the beam can go and still be bent enough to keep from hitting the walls inside the device.

[@jaredbailey6746]

Finding the Higgs was great, more than I ever expected, but now that we're running at a higher energy, I really hope we can get enough data to confirm (or disprove) the theoretical models in quantum physics. I'm pulling for super symmetry, but string theory (or whatever) would be fine. I just want to KNOW =) It will be like a new generation for our advancement of quantum mechanics.

[@jqaz722]

what's a tev

[@SueMead]

*+J Qaz* Tera Electron Volt.

[@jqaz722]

Sue Mead TRUMP 2020

[@logical1989]

Another great vid :) the staff at Notts are clearly awesome and it's amazing they're taking the time to teach on youtube... could you put their names on screen when they first speak? I've watched so many vids but don't know any names. Awesome channel though!

[@engdallal]

we need a video about supersymmetry please brady :)

[@Hythloday71]

What about this NEW quark business ! I thought symmetries of SU(3) predicted the 9 we got ... broken symmetry ?

[@morgengabe1]

Hope they turn it into a skate spot when they're done.

[@howardman3926]

It's 100 meters underground, and it's not round.

[@qlither]

Is it me or was the sound a little off on this video ? A Goodish video though.

[@abcvideoyoutuization]

Why is the energy of the colliding particles additive when the speed of two cars colliding head on is not additive?

[@stargazer7644]

Because one is energy, the other is speed.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Is the Higgs relative to the energy used by the LHC just as a work of art is relative to the energy used by the artist? Is it just all part of one creative process and all we have done in up the energy?

[@BaxterRoss]

that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

 Baxter Ross When we use a telescope we create photon relative to the telescope. If our eyes were more sensitive to light we would be able to see that everything is radiating light continuous, therefore what we are observing is a universal process!

[@BaxterRoss]

That's just not true

[@helvio89]

Well, it turned out the JWST is working fine (despite the long launch delay 😅)

[@nickweems24]

Prof. Moriarty hasn't been in a video in 2015! Brady,please!

[@Camroc37]

Well, you can play Boson X in there ;)

[@hoodzism1]

Knowledge=💪. Thanks

[@Ulfbercht]

The way i see the problem with the model is (as far as i understand it) that all motion behaves the same as a photon(quantum mechanical wave).

[@ReVoLynx]

7:58 say it with me... We need to go deeper.

[@tjpld]

Will the LHC ever reach the collision energy that was targeted with the SSC in the US but was canceled? That would be 20 TeV per Proton.

[@Niosus]

tjpld Not in this run. They're maxing out around 14TeV combined. However the LHC is likely to continue evolving for at least 10-15 more years. The next upgrade is planned for 2022 and there is no reason to assume that support will dry out as long as it is producing new scientific insights. Especially since they already have that tunnel and all the infrastructure around it, it only makes sense to keep pushing the LHC as far as it can go before abandoning that investment. So I'd say it's a maybe.

[@IamGrimalkin]

They'll hit higher luminosities though.

[@mage1over137]

IamGrimalkin And thats actually more important at this stage.

[@loganpoppe3494]

tjpld Unlikely. Higher luminosities are possible, but the SSC would have had a larger diameter. That's important because the smaller the diameter (and circumference of the overall track), the stronger the magnets must be to stop the beam from deviating from the circle. I'm not an expert at the future of the LHC by any means, but I don't believe current or near-future magnet technology is capable of any significantly higher energies in an LHC-sized track. I hope I'm wrong.

[@robbader3]

+Logan Poppe China is in the process of building the LHC's successor. And why not? How could the cancellation of the SSC result in anything BUT "Science: Made In China" lol

[@broadwayat]

Someone check 42 TeV

[@busybillyb33]

It will reveal the answer to the Theory of Everything.

[@tarjinder7]

whats left to do only everything but the awake experiment should free up a lot of space, could the higgs be losing a particle thus explaining the discrepancy in energy levels?

[@cmdrcrimbo]

Does anyone know if and what the anti particle of higgs is?

[@LehiThinker]

+Chris Bradley Bosons don't have anti-pairs, if I understand it correctly. In short, if the particle they found turns out to have an anti-pair, it isn't the Higgs.

[@MRrandomdino]

Im not even close to having an amateur understanding in this area of physics.. Clearly.. But if the LHC did produce a supersymetric pair, wouldn't they just cancel each other out before they could interact with anything else? .. So wouldn't it be impossible to detect them in the first place?

[@pygmypieman9988]

MRrandomdino With my limited knowledge of chemistry I'll try and answer. When these things cancel each other out wouldn't that give some products that they could detect? I know when dark matter and matter annihilate each other a lot of energy is produced. Maybe it is similar to this?

[@rcgamer7780]

MRrandomdino It is possible to detect them,although they cancel each other out very quickly, CERN can detect them as they can even detect Higgs which disappear after 1x10(-12) second. (0.000000000001 second)

[@twalker166]

MRrandomdino You're mixing up antimatter and supersymmetric particles! But we can, in fact, detect antimatter-matter annihilations becuase they produce photons

[@Alimonster1]

MRrandomdino You can work out what products their annihilation or decay would produce (possibly gamma ray pairs at a specific energy) and look for these in the detector.

[@twalker166]

Pygmy Pie Man You're getting dark matter and antimatter mixed up! :)

[@leorjj]

So what is Dave doing here?

[@Inertia888]

If E="m"C^2, then why is it that light has no mass? Light is energy isn't it? (photons) is there away to convert photons into mass? if photons are massless, then how are they affected by gravity?....any recommended reading for a person who understands basic physics (kinda) ? I'm not in school but I have an insatiable curiosity.

[@sidharthcs2110]

darrick steele In Einstein's paper it's actually written as mass equals energy over c^2 m=E/c^2

[@sidharthcs2110]

darrick steele Photons follow the curvature of space-time caused by the mass. That's how gravity works.

[@gm4984]

What is a TeV ?

[@danielsparer8547]

+Gersin M Teraelectronvolt. It's a unit of energy. 1 TeV is about the energy of a flying mosquito (Source: CERN)

[@sidharthcs2110]

Trillion electron volts. It's a unit of energy.

[@AditeyaSajeev]

So does that mean that higgs is one many other possible higgs bosons other than the W and Z bosons?

[@Alimonster1]

Aditeya Sajeev W and Z bosons are the "force carriers" for the weak force. The higgs boson is in theory the equivalent for mass. We already know of other bosons such as gluons and photons which are the force carriers for the strong force and the electromagnetic force respectively. This video does seem to say hat there is a possibility of higher energy higgs bosons, so more bosons that are "force carriers" for the higgs field.

[@AditeyaSajeev]

Alastair Watts Thanks a lot!

[@doh1959]

the most fundamental principle of physics you cannot destroy energy only change it from one form to another. so just think about that we are talking about huge amounts of energy input here so who cannot say hand on heart that this huge energy input might just be converted into a massive release of energy by way of some form of nuclear reaction resulting in an explosion

[@raingram]

+doh1959 1 TeV is the same energy as a flying mosquito, so they're amping it up to a _shocking_ 13 mosquitos(!)

[@raingram]

In other words, it would take 67,410,000,000,000,000 TeV to boil a kettle for 1 hour.

[@doh1959]

not the point its all a question of scale a little meteorite does no damage a big one could destroy the earth 13 mosquitos in the atomic scale is massive

[@raingram]

+doh1959 These aren't atoms remember, they're bundles of quarks. The nuclear reactions you're thinking of involve an atom's nucleus either splitting apart or fusing together, which does release energy. But the energies involved here are infinitesimal and don't release energy as the energy goes into forming new quarks into particles which then decay into other particles like light. Where fission and fusion release a lot of photons, this releases like maybe 10.

[@thewolfgirlliberation]

Why would you dislike this video? Barmy

[@nabuconolosor8]

Does this mean that the Higgs Boson has roughly 1.4 microgramme and the Planck scale something like 136 Giga kilogrammes ???! (E=mc²) (I use 3x10^8 m/s) Does that even make sense ?

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Mathieu G-B The mass of the Higgs is ~2.23 × 10^-25 kilograms, and the Planck mass is 2.18 × 10^-8 kilograms.

[@nabuconolosor8]

***** Thank you, I've made a terrible mistake! :O

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Mathieu G-B No worries ;)

[@doid3r4s]

Collide large hadrons?

[@ColinMcMahon-z3s]

What was impressive about those ... more

[@MCCOLDT]

Hey is it possible that every time these particles collide at these energies a new universe is created in its own dimension, thus there being an INFINATE amount of spatial dimensions?

[@robbader3]

+Bryan Johnson Why would infinite spatial dimensions be created by light? It's possible that the energy could reach levels high enough to travel INTO a spatial dimension that isn't currently accessible to light, but there's no reason why it would create such a thing. Anything that exists already exists. Conservation of mass and energy require this to always remain true. But, you can change mass into energy, and tip the scales to reveal something that only happens in special cases.

[@red_isopat]

Bryan Johnson no

[@HexerPsy]

Why would the Higgs have anything to do with gravity? Since gravity can warp spacetime and chance the directory of photons, and is massless - and the Higgs can only interact with fundamental particles with mass... There is another theory floating around that gravity may be the emergent property of a group of mass particles in a certain area - much like how temperature is an emergent property of a collection of particles. Still in development though. Curious to see what the LHC is going to find next.

[@Niosus]

***** I'm sorry but I can't answer that question. That's over my head xD I know that we expect all the forces to unify at a certain energy level, which could be the one you mentioned. But I don't know. I do know that we figured out and tested that the EM force and the weak force unify at some level, but again I wouldn't know what exactly that implies and why they expect the other forces to unify as well. In the general case I can tell you how they come up with these predictions. They basically follow the mathematics. The theories are mathematical frameworks which can be explored by creating different scenarios and looking at what those would imply. For instance, black holes are an example of scientists wondering "what if we put huge amounts of mass in a very small place". They plug it into the equations and they find all these strange results. Are these results real or is the theory wrong in this scenario? This is where you need experiments and/or observations. My _guess_ would be is that that huge energy level is some kind of border where we expect strange things to start happening. If we could look past that border we'd know for sure if those strange things are real or not. Again I don't know if this is what that number means. Sadly, no matter what, we won't ever be able to look at those energy levels. It's 17 orders of magnitude more energy than we can put in collisions right now. It's literally not possible to fit a particle accelerator large enough on Earth, and it would require more energy than the Sun produces to run it if we extrapolate from the LHC. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this channel, but if not I recommend you scroll through the list of videos. There's a wealth of information on a huge number of topics explained by actual experts. I'm just an interested computer science student ;) So seriously, assume everything I say is wrong. Use it as a guide to find better sources.

[@roostewrum]

***** It might be more accurate to say "the Higgs can only interact with fundamental particles THAT CAN HAVE mass' and it is the interaction with the Higgs Field that results in that mass - with Gravity then works with.

[@xerberme]

***** You have a small error in your thinking. The Higgs does not interact with particles that have mass, the interaction of the Higgs with particles gives them their mass. It is a fine distinction but an important one. Also the connection between Higgs and gravity is, the spacetime is warped by mass and the Higgs produces mass so the interaction of the higgs with matter should somehow connect to the warping of spacetime. Their is also the problem that we can not introduce gravity the same way we introduce the other forces of nature, so there is still a lot of work to be done.

[@TheHarboe]

***** “How do they know that energy is that high?” - To probe that Planck scale, you need particle with energies near that scale; like we needed energies above 125 GeV to find the Higgs boson. Now consider a single photon with that amount of energy. Photons are particles and are understood through the standard model. In the standard model nothing prevents a photon from have that amount of energy. However, according to general relativity a photon with that amount of energy would collapse into a microscopic black hole. So at the Planck scale both these seemingly incompatible theories have to play a role and one can only theorize on what actually happens on that scale. Now I said photons because they’re the easiest to conceptualize, but similar principles apply for any particle that’s used to probe the Planck scale.

[@HexerPsy]

Thanks all for the corrections and explanations... Reading all that, isnt the Planck Scale only an energy one would find in black holes then? Which would put it outside of our (current, if it ever gets to a point where it will be possible...) abilities to measure such things? I wonder if, while our models and prediction make make it a near certain possibility that the forces unify in such a manner - we could never experimentally measure it. Not that i object to such a thing; plenty of things that we measure indirectly to confirm them. That does make it a bit of a downer, though...

[@Crazmuss]

How much energy we need to create new universe?

[@Earthium]

Crazmuss All the energy in the current universe.

[@Crazmuss]

What is the sum of all energy of current universe?

[@tauceti8341]

7:25

[@eddotron1224]

1:07 Audrey!! :)

[@Andrewsarcus]

What about Knotted vortices in real fluids

[@Catsincages]

When is the wedding?

[@vrendus522]

All the Higgs is, is similar to a hunk of meat with fishhooks placed in it.This particle does not react within the standard model of physics as we know, but with a starter universe.What I derived from a National Geographic Mag. on the Higgs, just via the illustrations, is that during the creation of a universe, what is there before is a super heavy metal like liquid. You have to understand that there may be a number of Higgs all floating around, to which at the correct time, this particle may incite ignition and cause other constituents not know to assist within the ignition process. This liquid flowing media, may exert trillions of tons of pressure per square 1.3 centimeters.This is why and how the Higgs makes no worldly sense to us humans as of now.I would not add a lot of pressure to any part of the Higgs, as the Higgs still might be capable or per area creational episodes within space.

[@biggsydaboss3410]

So what are we saying? Black holes, Straglets, exotic matter? Just want a heads up, so I can a bet on at my local bookies ;0)

[@jmm1233]

the best proton fission

[@Eric06410]

42.

[@JoeDavidson-hg2el]

Whst sneaky stuff is going on that therr not telling the world

[@raghavagrawal14]

Sixty Symbols could you do a video on What confuses a mathematician? Specially the ones in pure mathematics

[@PeterGeras]

Raghav Agrawal Women.

[@NATESUCKSATGAMING]

select-tron?? i love scientists.

[@sidharthcs2110]

I heard the Chinese are building a larger particle accelerator

[@PTNLemay]

lol, is that Audrey?

[@sixtysymbols]

PTNLemay it's the so-called Dog Particle!

[@lilolebob]

Sixty Symbols So Audrey is worth 1.625 Gods? And yes, I had to use a calculator.

[@iinRez]

So the Higgs was confirmed after-all?