Why Particle Physics is Stuck in a Dead End

[@quentinwach]

The filtering argument kicked my butt. I've been in several groups where we filtered out background data or noise without any understanding of where it came from. Just so that what we were left with was the data as predicted by the models. This is ok if you want to look at these specific aspects for example when doing spectroscopy but it won't advance our understanding, in fact, it leads to the delusion that we know what we are doing as one becomes accustomed to this.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

I've got annoying feeling, that I've been listening to this lecture in background, while being busy filtering some data until it finally fits my model...

[@MikeWalls7829]

It's the same with that picture of the black hole that was made, they only used a tiny fraction of the data and claimed that all that they filtered out was noise. It's like they held up a negative of a black hole they drew and made a photograph with it.

[@jooky87]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair This applies to the current generation of particle physicists unfortunately

[@lapisdust]

And a lot of other professions.

[@saifahmad141]

I'm sorry I'm dumb I didn't understand do you mean 1. They don't understand and stay confused so that they can keep being confused and keep looking for solutions(keep getting paid) OR 2. Do you mean that they since their job is of understanding they keep coming out of stuff in a hurry to keep getting paid ! 1 or 2 !!!

[@paulg444]

and 100x more so to the bureaucratic, administrative , regulatory, managerial elites. They add nothing to understanding or quality of life of those they stand over, they simply take from society.

[@JohnSmith-ut5th]

The younger generation is supposed to come in and shake things up. The problem is older generations have a stranglehold on academia. The solution is (just like in politics) get rid of the establishment.

[@xxxYYZxxx]

A "model" is a disambiguation technique for any valid theory, and in lieu of valid models we get gatekeepers.

[@suslinmew4358]

The courage for somebody to acknowledge he is wrong, is very rare, if you look at physicists and biologists

[@jimtrowbridge3465]

Even if he ends up being wrong, this kind of examination is healthy in science.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

This isn't the healthy kind of examination. It's more like a rich guy paid an unemployed guy to say the Earth is flat, then forced Universities to give him a platform to speak using his money.

[@TheMachian]

LOL. To please you, I have added the offical program of the meeting.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@ChucksExotics It is like that because everyone in the field past 1st year grad school knows he is talking nonsense that's 60 years out of date.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@ChucksExotics The problem is that I understand why he is wrong the same way I understand why a flat Earther is wrong. There is no chance of mistake.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@ChucksExotics He's not like flat earth because he is sincere, and he isn't motivated by religious claptrap. His 'credentials' are not worth anything, and his critiques are obviously wrong, just like those of flat earthers, but he does believe what he says. He is just obviously wrong, as anyone with any understanding of modern (post 1977) quantum field theory immediately understands. It's similar to Bishop Berkeley and calculus.

[@gregmonks]

Back in the late 60's, when I was a young physics student, it dawned on me that we don't know anything about the constituents of matter. All we know is what we can do to them. That is not the same thing. The example I used at the time was that particle physics was like taking a rock and breaking it up into smaller and smaller pieces, until all you're left with is powder. You started out with a rock, you're left with the rock in altered form- powder- but you still don't know anything about the rock itself. All you've learned is what you can do to it. No matter how you bash the rock around, all you've done is chase its reduced size for all eternity. That's a case of going down the rabbit hole, not actually learning something.

[@anthonybushell380]

The concept behind smashing smashing matter to See👀🤔😳what it made of is like loading an insect like a moth into a Shotgun cartridge and firing it into a white cement wall to read the pattern of entrails which will be different EveryTime it is done which makes about as much sense as reading the entrails to predict the Future like tea leaves in a cup whereas the discovery that any ordinary person can make is that 303grams of N52 NiB magnets in a 100kg.switched lifter with a safety factor of 3.5 can with a careful smooth lift can lift close to 350kg.which is 350,000grams and if you do the maths is 1,150 times greater than the active particles of Neodymium and Boron and Iron being focussed by the neutral soft iron switching lifter.So WHERE DOES QUANTUM PHYSICS PREDICT THIS❓But if one notices that the outer 2 electron shells are not fully filled but the Rare Earth Elements with all having 2e in the outer shell have all similar chemical properties and Elements 65&66 react with expansion and contraction 👀🤔Hmm❓

[@mariamkarjiker301]

I agree with you. I see group think in medicine where I work too and supposedly intelligent people are just working in echo chambers which validate their own career paths.

[@columbasaint465]

It's happened in almost every profession. The education system has been gatekeeping and pushing out intelligent, higher IQ people at an early stage and only allowing average IQ individuals that are more focused on getting along with others, having the "correct" opinions and generally not questioning authority. Our institutions aren't failing. They have already completely failed over a decade ago, maybe two. People just haven't realised or accepted it yet. Western civilisation was a nice experiment in human's trying to live without slavery. It seems that isn't a stable system and many humans obviously have an innate desire to be a slave.

[@TheMedWolf]

Can confirm - medicine as and institution and unfortunately as a profession too - is in complete shambles. The research is so irrelevant, nonsensical, and just plain bad it's laughable if people's lives weren't at stake. The incentives are part of the problem, but the cultural decline has broader causes than just economic.

[@shrunkensimon]

@@columbasaint465 The problem is people weren't given a choice. Education is ultimately controlled by the same forces as the institutions. The ruling class don't want smart people. They want slaves.

[@Wabbelpaddel]

@@TheMedWolf Especially psychiatry. It's a complete wasteland.

[@ghevisartor6005]

​@@TheMedWolfcan you tell me more? Like examples

[@mrtriffid]

I'm a layman in the field of physics, but I've intuitive believed that particle physics is a dead end for decades. It seems that the ability to generate ever more ephemeral particles, by upping the energy involved, is a process with no foreseeable end. And each 'discovery' simply perpetuates the search for the next 'revelational particle!'

[@mathoph26]

Right, and when they need to find another High energetic particles... they ask their friends from the Bank to fund for an other accelerator 🎉🤪! And so on and so forth ... since almost 80 years

[@Meditation409]

One thing I did learn in life is that humanity absolutely hates hearing the truth....and this man has bravely spoken the truth.

[@schmetterling4477]

The real question is... why are you listening to idiots?

[@petercameron4088]

takes a lot of courage to stand up and do that. many thanks.

[@blockhead1899]

i thought the standard model was crap when i heard of glueons its so stupid

[@HH-mw4sq]

@@blockhead1899 - what the heck is a "glueon"? If you are going to berate the Standard Model, make sure you know how to spell the names of its components correctly before showing your ignorance on the topic.

[@blockhead1899]

@@HH-mw4sq wow almost like it dosent matter how to spell it. The real ignorance is the person claiming idk what I’m talking about based off a grammatical error. Who cares if I spell it wrong as long as I know what it is you pee brain numbskull

[@100_Dollar_Bill]

@@HH-mw4sq shut up

[@brunkonjaa]

@@HH-mw4sq it is obvious as day that you fully understand what was it that was said. Your response was completely out of order and nonsensical because of the fact that you do understand but choose to turn the subject to something else. Luckily it didn't work.

[@alansilverman8500]

Wow I thought I was the only one who didn't accept the Standard Model...glad to see I'm not alone!

[@jakethemistakeRulez]

It's sloppy but nature isnt always simple or beautiful. We look for the aesthetic we want. It's a case of confirmation bias. Standard Model is the best we have.

[@TheBelrick]

@@jakethemistakeRulez consider that it is better to be ignorant than to believe a false idea is true

[@didierleonard7125]

@@TheBelrick none in physics community said it « the truth », but it s the best accurate TO OBSERVATION we have now… and as you said nature doesn’t t care if it’s beautiful, and I lay add nature doesn t care for human tiny brain that her laws make sense to you. But a theory as many others before evolve with new discoveries… and guess what, in 2012 a new concept will again and even more trigger your incredulity and your mind as for now, it is admitted - against common sense - that all particles of the standard model have NO mass .. you like it or not, nature doesn’t care if it make sense to you… what is science is what is guessed, experimented, verified and concluded.. « this doesn’t makes sense » is not a rigorous proof in science.

[@jakethemistakeRulez]

@@TheBelrick Nobody is believing anything. They're taking evidence gathered through experimentation to decide what is most probable. Even Standard Model people say it's not the full picture and is incomplete. It's a work in progress but also all the technology we use and a huge portion of out understanding of the universe comes from this incomplete model. Nobody said the entire Standard Model is "true".

[@TheBelrick]

@@jakethemistakeRulez The SM means people see what they expect to see. To follow in well trodden paths to dead ends To group think To prevent innovative ideas. To trap people into false premises "well that cannot be true as it doesn't fit the predicted model" To normalize bad anti science practice. "Oh the SM doesn't match the observable universe LET US MAKE MANURE UP THAT CAN NEVER BE PROVEN FALSE TO MAKE THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE MATCH THE SM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" That is SO egregious. Based on dark matter alone the entire SM and its advocates should of been cast out of decent thinking people's ideas of worth.

[@En-of5oh]

For the first time I have listened to such so frank lecture about particles physics, it's practical and true.

[@domaincontroller]

01:00 overwhelming complication 02:33 suppression of basic problems, unsolved problems 03:34 historical ignorance 09:44 LHC, string theory 11:06 lack of transparency 14:12 question 1

[@tomctutor]

No no no, Quantum Field Theory, a beautiful simplified model. Three quarks and three leptons explain almost everything we know about normal matter. It does not even pretend to answer questions about Dark Matter or Dark Energy, that's more a Quantum-General relativity problem. One day the model will be extended to include these concepts, probably strings, Plank physics or Supersymmetry, who knows. For what it is, it's phenomenally successful.

[@MidnightsEdge]

I am not at all involved in the field of physics. Haven't had it since high school, loved Einstein and Newton, checked out completely in particle physics. Even then it seemed to me as if that part of science was stuck with the equavilent of the geocentric model, and still waited for a Copernicus to come along and provide a workable. As a complete layman, I want to thank you Dr. Unzicker for having the courage to speak truth to power. I hope that in the years since this upload, more and more have come to terms with that this is indeed zombie science, in need of going back to the drawing board. I do believe that unhindered by dogma, these riddles can all be cracked.

[@____uncompetative]

Dr Eric Weinstein thinks the double-split experiment is not a case of a particle going both routes. Dr Eric Weinstein thinks it is merely the interference of a wave with itself like ripples on a pond. He has a new hypothesis called _Geometric Unity_ which he has talked about on the Joe Rogan, Lex Fridman, Brian Keating, and Dark Horse Podcasts. As Eric has originated his hypothesis he is a bit too close to it to be able to articulate it adequately and he could do with some animations to be made to help convey the structures involved in his new model of the cosmos being larger than the observable universe so that the complex behaviours that happen at tiny scales have somewhere else outside of space-time to spread out in a simple organisation. He has his own podcast, The Portal, which I can recommend, as well as a community working to make his work more accessible. It is very new and only recently published this year.

[@MidnightsEdge]

@@____uncompetative Now that sounds like a better theory, and one worth examining closer!

[@____uncompetative]

@@MidnightsEdge Eric Weinstein has space and time separate from each other and there is no multiverse or many worlds interpretation. So, _Loki_ can't occur inside of _Geometric Unity_ which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

[@ethancain3008]

i guess I am kinda off topic but do anybody know a good place to watch new movies online ?

[@ikernickolas6940]

yup, I've been watching on flixportal for years myself :D

[@stephanbrunker]

The fundamental problem of this speech is that two things are thrown together which are essentially independent. "No practical use came out of it" is not entirely correct if you count the Pyramid Scan Project which uses Myons - not part of our everyday life, but part of the standard model. So, the standard model is at the moment the best simplification, basing on experimental data going back to the early 50s (without real computers, removal of background etc.). There were are a LOT of different Baryons found and only six quarks is sure a simplification. I just see the problem that the theory is basically incomplete and the quarks and leptons are not stable in the same way atoms were proved to be fissionable. I am no physicist, but radioactive decay means that one quark is transforming into another which means more or less that mass and energy are basically interchangeable and you can transform one particle into another or into energy and make new particles out of the energy, based on principles unknown. The other thing is: it is worth spending more and more money to build ever larger experiments? That might be the real issue here and the one which has more merit. Perhaps there will come something out of other unexplained mysteries which are largely ignored until today. But who knows and will decide? If usability is the measurement, all science beyond the solar system is wasted money too.

[@tombouie]

There's ain't nothing-better than a brave heretic with a pragmatic/salient point.

[@davidbailey6176]

I think because he was obviously nervous (who wouldn't be) he missed some of his most telling points that come over better in his book. In particular, he says that approximately 10^12 events have to be filtered to produce one Higgs particle, and that the actual detected particles are just photons and electrons. Furthermore, most of the filtering is performed in hardware because there is too much data to store! Add to that the fact that the Higgs, W and Z bosons have lifetimes of 10^(-25) sec - so they only cross the width of a proton before they decay! These facts alone were sufficient to make me hugely sceptical of the entire enterprise.

[@axeman2638]

there is a serious signal to noise and margin of error problem with so much of modern physics, they effectively just make up the result they want to confirm a predetermined conclusion

[@brendawilliams8062]

Maybe it’s a space dna for a mapped hydrogen highway. Who knows

[@executivesteps]

If the Higgs boson discovery is just a result of data reduction and filtering etc., why wasn’t it “discovered” in less energetic accelerators decades ago? The theory was known in the 1960s.

[@absolute___zero]

@@executivesteps data reduction and filtering in 1960 using vacuum tubes? ahahahaha, don't make me laugh so much or I will fall out of my chair

[@absolute___zero]

@@executivesteps the theory was known, but Peter Higgs was rejected with his paper. Anyway , particle physics went into the territory of insanity when they started with the "Zoo" analogy

[@Mikey-mike]

"Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity." A Einstein My favorite is their gravitons and how they expect to measure a graviton. Every institution of our common has been thoroughly infested with the for-profit, financialization money-junkies and theoretical physics has not been spared. CERN is high energy weapons research and they'll get their money.

[@TheMachian]

Do you have specific information about that matter do be done at CERN?I do not think it is useful even for this.

[@Mikey-mike]

@@TheMachian Folow the money. Follow the money all the way. Look for what CERN does not share. Also look at the new Patent Law the money junkies have written for themselves. I am a physicist, retired. I worked for the money junkies, then quit them and worked as a teacher and tutorer. I do not have names and addresses, but that wouldn't matter anyway, as the money junkies have infested everything. You are on the path with a heart. Keep posting.

[@infiniteloops1879]

Pure bullshit claims

[@davidmackie8552]

Thanks for the honesty. I've never trusted the standard model of "particle physics"

[@rolandsaucier1006]

I love this channel. As a recently subscribed viewer, I am slowly working my way through your various videos. This presentation here is a great one. You seem a bit nervous but it is understandable. You know that strong reactions await you. What's particularly nice for me as a non-physicist, is that you present your ideas simply, clearly, logically. Even I could understand you. Anyway......carry on. You are inspiring.

[@bocckoka]

to all who cheer: physics is about what you can predict. SM predicted the Higgs, they measured it, it was there. there are valid points of course, it should be more accessible, transparent. anyway, this whole approach is like calling the Moon landing a hoax.

[@andsalomoni]

I have never been a fan of particle phisics, but I really love quantum mechanics. And I have the gut feeling that quantum mechanics found something that is truly fundamental. No matter "particles", no matter the scale, I think that the QUANTUM BEHAVIOUR OF EVENTS is something that really touches the source.

[@SoloRenegade]

quantum mechanics is rife with similar failures.

[@andsalomoni]

@@SoloRenegade The experiments too?

[@SoloRenegade]

@@andsalomoni many of the core tenants of quantum physics are based upon childishly bad misunderstandings. They are taking teh math far too literally. Things like schrodingers cat and hesienbergs uncertainty principle are blown wildly out of proportion and all reality. The cat was Never in 2 states at once, and never will be. And the Uncertainty principle is not about the fact that it is in all states until measured. people simply don't use their brains. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than STATISTICAL Probabilities of where something is at any given moment that we can't otherwise measure. It is STATISTICS, not real math. the "wave function collapsing" is not something that occurs in reality. this is merely our Statistical certainty going from 0 to 100. Before you measured something you had no idea other than to guess, and once you measured it, now you knew for sure. If I put a length of steel rod in front of you and asked you to guess it's length, you'd be able to calculate some probabiltiy about the likelihood your guess is right or wrong. Then i let you measure it and find out exactly how long it is. Now the "wave function has collapsed". But at NO point was the steel rod infinitely many lengths. It was your lack of Knowing that is the issue it is Not the rod that was in a "quantum state". It's all lies, misunderstandings, and STATISTICS. Devoid of logic.

[@TheBelrick]

I first encountered sm twenty years at uni. I rejected it pretty shortly whereas sr and gr felt natural. I went into electronics and thepractical application of two hundred year old theoretical knowledge to me says enough said. Talk to me again about the merits of sm when it impacts the world. Till then I wonder at just how much has been wasted on pursuing sm and string theory etc. mathetical models distant from our reality.

[@marksimpson2321]

Yet you probably use GPS and computers and maybe have had an MRI scan or a PET scan and you quite likely microwave your food. ... obviously none of that technology is possible without the Standard Model. Hmmmmm

[@PeterTheSAGAFan]

I love this discussion. He is on to something... In my opinion, the probability that intelligent more advanced life in the Universe has our Standard model, String Theory, QM and GR in its adhoc fashion is basically zero...

[@Junoo1312]

The Standard model is part of Quantum Mechanics in which gravitational interaction is negligible. General relativity shows how gravity should not be considered as a force. The two theories are not questionable in their field of application. As Newton was not questionable in its field of application. String theory is still an hypothetic model that is questionable in its field of application eg when gravity cannot be neglected (black holes or early universe). Mixing things is not a good way to understand subjects in my opinion.

[@PeterTheSAGAFan]

@@Junoo1312 When it comes to the beginning of the Universe and Black holes then they have to be mixed. . If there is something you do not understand, you do not understand it. To then tell yourself, yeah we have a good understanding of Nature, only that.. the more you are honest with what is inconsistent, what does not work, then you create the space for progress. Obviously, our model is flawed in the way epicycles were flawed, but could be made to give better results by using more and more epicycles. To accept the current models are correct is ridiculous. We know they are not. We have 500 years of “scientific evolution” Does anyone think that this current model would be around in 500,000 years? I don’t. It will be the epicycles of the era. Dark matter, dark energy, all the constsnts, couplings and other random parameters tell us that there is something incomplete..

[@FunkyDexter]

The LHC data and related stuff are all publicly available online, not sure where you got the impression they were not.

[@TheMachian]

You want to send me a link to it? It is not as easy as you think. The amount of data is overwhleming, despite the fact that 99.99...% are deleted due to trigegring. Then, the evaluation routines are not public. For someone external to the collaboration, it is utterly impossible to reproduce the results. Lookup SDSS if you want real open raw data.

[@walrustrent2001]

Quantum mechanics has a similar problem - students are told to calculate not understand. Cosmology has an identical problem - with dark matter and energy comprising 96% of the universe and not interacting with us in any way except to explain the problems of the current model....

[@shrunkensimon]

Coincidence? I don't think so. I think science was deliberately derailed at the turn of the 20th century, when Tesla was performing his experiments.

[@rayhansharif6518]

Nice .

[@JohnSmith-ut5th]

"If you're happy working on the epicycles... let it be." He pwned that girl with that one statement.

[@Tom-sp3gy]

It’s great that someone has finally decided to stand up and question the current trends in high energy physics ... how can the lay public who pays taxes be expected to just “trust” the scientists when the data is kept hidden from public view?

[@dvcalc1234]

Great talk…grew up in Los Alamos in 60s and 70s …I remember playing tennis with many of the “big guns” at the lab and I remember the word baloney used a lot around the standard model…. Also with Europe facing a tiny energy crisis where does the LHC find spare energy on the grid to speed protons around in a circle. Anyway just found your channel and appreciate your view point.

[@BruceDuncan]

The answer is beautifully circular, it's nuclear physics... The LHC is basically connected to the French grid which is overwhelmingly (>70%) nuclear, mostly PWRs. Although some of these can load-follow now, it's basically free to run them in the summer (well, the fuel is so cheap that there is a big cost to shutting everything down for months and then bringing it all back up again) when nobody needs the excess electricity to heat their homes, so the surplus is used to drive the LHC. Neutrons being used to push protons round a ring lol. That's my understanding anyway

[@Wabbelpaddel]

@@BruceDuncan A solution: how about the LHC runs a season of test once every, say, 20-25 years? It's not like we are in a hurry anyway. We were born on this planet and we will rot on this planet, only chaos will prevail.

[@DavidGoliath1]

@@Wabbelpaddel why though ? You think this kind of infrastructure is eternally functional ? This is high tech. You can’t just leave it to rot 20 years. What about the people who designed and constructed the thing and all the politicians who financed the project. They want results. You can’t just run something once every generation and get any meaningful answer. That’s not how experiments work, that’s not how science works. I think there’s more important things where you can cut energy consumption. Let’s not begin with science infrastructure. Our species is dumb enough as it is.

[@Wabbelpaddel]

@@DavidGoliath1 You're damn right. It's not just that the maintenance costs are ludicrous, the speeds are already, iirc at about 99.96% speed of light. How much more does it have to be to discover "all" elementary particles, when there logically can only be finitely many, and more required energy implies weaker and more local acting particles? The failure of the GUT resides in the fact that chaos, the negation of logically derivable and real-time measurable, exists. And it poses massive issues in analysis already, because the resulting functions are not elementary, sometimes not even analytic, hence only allow finitary numerics. I mean I'm just an undergraduate, but I can't really see what is supposed to be achieved when chaos is in the way and higher speed collision derived particles won't be discernible from stochastic noise...

[@jasonc0065]

I would love to see a flawless qft textbook that was strong on every point, not just one or two

[@nate4001]

You found one that is strong on more than one point :o

[@GaugeMcArora]

Steven Weinberg

[@Nuno1137]

The critiques to the standard model and the experimental paradigm are correct and also physicists tries to do something about it. However, it's not crap, even the epicycles were not crap. Don't forget that physics is not about finding the "true laws of nature" which is both an impossible task and a religious approach to science. So telling people that physics should offer an explanation to "the nature of space, time and inertia" or the "origin of spin and radioactivity" is kinda misleading. Proposed laws of nature and models are "proposed" meaning that if you find a better model, go for it and it will become the new standard model. QFT is still a theory that predicted the existence of many particles and we were able to measure with precision many observables. Also, you are focusing too much on the "LHC side" of physics' research, but with QFT and many body quantum systems we studied many systems that were extremely successful, like materials for electronics for medical application or quantum chemistry.

[@HH-mw4sq]

I disagree with his entire premise. The Standard Model has made several predictions which have been confirmed in colliders. It is all a matter of creating the energy levels necessary for these particles to exist. While it is not possible to measure the particles themselves, we can measure the decay products. I don't know what this guys problems are, but he appeals to naysayers and other nihilists. If he thinks it's crap, I would love to see his alternative, and how well it explains what we observe.

[@TheMachian]

1. No, for identifying crap i do not have to present an alternative. If you are genuinely interested in my research, you'll find here something. 2. "Confirmed predictions" : that's what everybody says, of course. If you go into some detail, let's say with the book by Andrew Pickering, almost everything of that statement evaporates however. Would be curious what conclusions you draw from reading it.

[@HH-mw4sq]

@@TheMachian - perhaps you don't understand how this works. You are the one who is claiming that decades of established science is "crap". Therefore it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence as to why the rest of us should adopt your point of view. As an example, the standard model has proven there are six types of quarks across 3 generations of quarks, and protons and neutrons are comprised of combinations of the two quarks of the first generation of quarks, bound by one family of bosons called gluons. Is this "crap" or not? If you think that is "crap", please point us to your alternative hypothesis? FYI, if your mathematical models are accurate, and you experimentally confirm what your models predict, that is cause for celebration, not derision. Mind you I am well aware of the adage, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

[@rohitjha8978]

Alexander Unzicker and Bibhas De seem to be on the same page. Myron Evans as well. I respect these guys even if the establishment doesn't.

[@emanuellasker3650]

Also to be considered is The Scriptural Perspective that the atom results from the transmutation of Divine Essence, and is thus beyond finding out, whilst the molecule is subject to entropy.

[@randywise5241]

Atom smashing is like crashing 2 planes together and trying to figure out how the planes worked by the parts that fall off it.

[@rayhansharif6518]

Good point...

[@phillipwombacher9635]

When you start running into massive paradoxes you are not just wrong but there is some basic assumptions about physics that is completely off base we need to go back and start from scratch

[@shintafukuda2274]

God this is such a breath of fresh air. _« To sumarize, the Standard Model says nothing about the contradictions of electrodynamics, it says nothing about how to compute masses,_ _it says nothing [about] how to compute mass ratios, nothing about lifetimes, nothing about the fine structure constant, nothing about the relation to gravity,_ _nothing about the origin of spin, of radioactivity, nothing about the nature of spacetime and inertia._ _A model that says nothing about all these fundamental questions is crap. »_ - Dr. Alexander Unzicker (b. 1965) I have been waiting for this attitude to emerge since the end of the '80s.

[@christophe3d]

If you want a simplification of modern physics, lookup “A Theory of Incomplete Measurements”.

[@juan_martinez524]

there are probably just three particles ultimately: photons, protons and electrons. but then again I wouldn't be surprised by a unification of photons and electrons.

[@markl4593]

Much respect to Unziker. I love this channel!

[@hansvetter8653]

As the lead CERN scientist had announced it during the public press conference in front of good old Peter Higgs ... "I think we have it" ... LOL

[@tomctutor]

He was right, they did have it, to the benchmark gold standard of physics measure 5-sigma. Or do you want cherries with your cream as well!

[@hansvetter8653]

@@tomctutor ... LOL ... superstition is no evidence!

[@tomctutor]

@@hansvetter8653 The evidence is there and further measures of the Higg's boson were made and verified, just science deniers admit it.

[@jasonc0065]

Quarks are the new Smurfs, and Gargamelle can't capture them. Those miserable Quarks.

[@PaulMarostica]

Alexander Unzicker: I must offer you my great respect for your courage here, in what appears to be you telling some professional physicists that some of them are contributing negatively to physics. Wow! The simplifying theory you allude to here, which will result in a tremendous simplification of particle physics, and a tremendous improvement over the standard model, is exactly the theory I've invented, matter theory. Matter theory begins by assuming a fundamental mechanism, which is consistent only with some very specific, simple and useful fundamental particles, which are more fundamental than anything assumed in the standard model. This leads to the simple, logical explanation of 23 fundamental physics observables the standard model can not explain and only assumes. It also necessarily leads to the derivation of self-consistent, quantum-relativistic-like formulas for the motions of those particles, which supersede the formulas of both quantum theory and the special theory of relativity, making all professionally used physics theories obsolete. Can you help me sell it? Satisfaction is guaranteed beyond any reasonable doubt. Also, I'm pretty sure you will appreciate my KZbin video, "Quantum Mechanics Intervention". It's been made clear to me that not every 1 appreciates that video.

[@sergiomanzetti1021]

Great work Prof. Unzicker, right to the point revealing dreamers in physics.

[@BarriosGroupie]

Unzicker has a PhD in neuroscience, not physics

[@sergiomanzetti1021]

@@BarriosGroupie Maybe that is what saved him from current nonsense in Physics

[@patrichausammann]

@@BarriosGroupie Dr. Alexander Unzicker is a theoretical physicist, lawyer and holds a doctorate in cognitive psychology.

[@didierleonard7125]

@@patrichausammann maybe that make him solve some quantum theory equation and make his conclusion ? That s science. Observe, record data, model and verify. If it sticks, it s a valable theory, if not, try something else. So this man, where are his proof that Schrödinger equation are false ? Still almost 1century physicist are using them with tremendous accurate result….

[@grinpisu]

@@BarriosGroupie Even the great Einstein wasn't a physicist, but an engineer 😀

[@mlmimichaellucasmontereyin6765]

Dear AU - Bravo!!! Thanks for your courage & ethical+intellectual integrity. I really want you to be my partner & critic in articulating post-modern physics & cosmology, as I eliminate all the anomalies, especially black holes, big bangs, "dark" stuff, cosmic expansion, and magical pseudo-particles.

[@TheMachian]

Feel free to contact me (ChalleInfo) However, be awarethat I am quite busy and the odds are small that we have much overlap.

[@JohnKNMurphy-nz]

Even as Ptolemaic astronomers were building epicycles on epicycles, they still accumulated the data that other thinkers needed (Copernicus, Kepler) to come up with their models. The work of the experimentalists (e.g. Galileo observing our moon, phases of venus, and Jupiter's moons), is extremely valuable, even if the theoreticians are off using maths to cook up why crystal spheres, deferents, and epicycles (read strings, branes and new dimensions) in order to fool the public and their financiers. It is possible to re-think the evidence, as long as we get the evidence down. My own view on wave-particle duality is illustrated below, it goes back to basic assumptions and proceeds differently in the light of modern experiments. Quantum Mechanics: Particle Simulation Intro ver 1.1

[@musicsubicandcebu1774]

Modern physics is an exercise in "how to hide something about ourselves we don't want to know". 1) Shrink it so we can't see it. 2) Complicate it, and compound the complications until Gordian Knot status is reached. 3) Elevate the whole bucket of lies to "wonderful mystery" status

[@richardboland1935]

I'm proud to say that in 2005 I chose not to join the masses entering a career in particle physics. For pretty much the reasons described here. I wasn't happy "working on the epicycles" 🤣 These days I like to think that science should be led (performance managed) by engineering problems, nothing else. Can someone even conceive of a Higgs computer? Rocket? Power plant? Weapon?

[@TheMachian]

Wise decision :-). The Higgs is not useful for anything, but to be fair, not harmful either :-), that's a good thing. See also this experience: www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/ROC7BME55MZC6/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1492176249

[@missbond7345]

@@TheMachian Am not a physicist and like some of the other commenters, havent had it since high school. But I was drawn to Quantum Physics from time to time and after Covid, took the advantage of You tube & Brilliant and been delving more into videos and hit upon yours. Great work , first! As an Indian, Quantum Physics and the universe being probabilistic is not really alien to me, so doesnt seem that illogical. We have esoteric text that talks about these things too and the nature of absolute reality. However particle physics was always confusing because the more videos I watched, the more particles they kept adding and after some time, I felt it would end up that we would add a particle for anything that we couldn't explain or anything we find an anomaly (positron, proton, anti proton, electron) and we could find them because we are badly working and focusing on finding it and wanting it to happen . However, am a novice and no expert and I have no right to assume things or make a comment on things outside my understanding. But your video helps.

[@Wabbelpaddel]

It's not about the use, it's about rebelling against living life as a degenerate, primitive dog that does not do science and reduces himself to a worm.

[@tomctutor]

Could anyone in 1900 even conceive of a nuclear power station, an MRI scanner or even a solid state computer? Where do you think these "engineering" machines came from. Did H.G.Wells dream them up?

[@DavidGoliath1]

@@tomctutor these guys have a cognitive bias. Just look at the comments, every body is just here to confirm their views. Talk about group thinking…

[@doc0core]

The single Q&A exactly hit at the root of the Standard Model problem and how it's mappable (or not) to Copernican Revolution. Thomas Kuhn's book of that name is a must-read. He proved, backed by comprehensive historical documentation that about 1700 years of scientific effort and lots of epi-circles did nothing to get any closer to the correct understanding. The final question by the lady is, therefore, ahistorical.

[@grahamblack1961]

I studied some physics as an undergraduate 30 years ago, I just accepted everything they said, watching this makes me feel cheated.

[@TheBelrick]

And imagine spending a lifetime studying a false model. You’d never achieve anything

[@DavidGoliath1]

@@TheBelrick what did you achieve ?

[@TheBelrick]

@@DavidGoliath1 Well this is the internet and people are anonymous and free to do anything Luckily i am secure in my success. You?

[@marksimpson2321]

You should feel cheated if you bothered to watch more that a second of this cos he's talking utter rubbish. The tone and content of his stuff seems to be 'I don't understand xyz . Therefore, xyz is rubbish.' Like people saying gravity (do they mean theories that can accurately predict and reasonably explain gravity like General Relativity ) is just a theory? (The same people who use GPS on a frequent basis!

[@sumdumbmick]

I asked a Chomskyan linguist once what evidence she had that her son's advancements in learning English were not rooted in things he'd heard at daycare. I shit you not, her response was, 'there's a framework'. When I pointed out that that's not evidence she lost her fucking mind. It was hilarious.

[@meleardil]

Physicists know that the standard model is NOT the theory of the elementary particles. Standard model is putting together the whole puzzle. Creating a "periodic table of detectable particles". It is a semi empiric model, the same kind what was used to describe nuclear physics BEFORE the development of quantum mechanics. It actually works well. It showed the SYMMETRIES in nature. It also showed the missing parts where we shall dig deeper. It also the same as the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was. Since Aristarchus every REAL scientist knew that the sun is HUGE compared to the other heavenly bodies, and it makes sense to put it into the center. However there was NO THEORY to explain how it worked, and there was no theory to make accurate predictions, while the Ptolemaic model was able to make predictions. So, they used that, and kept collecting data. Than came Kepler and newton, and the Solar centric model finally become USABLE. It is easy to say the standard model is wrong... the hard part is to create something conclusively better.

[@TheMachian]

I agree in part, but the comparison doesn't really fit. Copernicus wasn't received with open arms. The standard model, as back then, rather stalls progress than preparing the ground for a better theory.

[@n-da-bunka2650]

The more energy we ADD the more particle we find. The question is... "Are we potentially fabricating these entities OURSELVES simply by adding these energies into them?"

[@rhubarbsipes1]

Yes

[@nathanielhellerstein5871]

The Standard Model and Big Bang Cosmology are both baroque kludges, heavy with epicycles and anomalies, overdue for a paradigm shift.

[@a1productionllc]

I have wondered for a number of years, whether colliders were discovering particles, or creating impressions of particles. I know that when you go from smaller numbers (of apples, for example) to bigger numbers, you go from dealing with a degree, to dealing with new kinds. Take, for example, going from 6 apples to 6 bushels of apples, to 6 truckloads of apples, etc.

[@alexciocca4451]

A model is only a model that’s all it makes everyone sound right and everyone agrees cause everyone agrees and it’s beautiful but that don’t make it necessary a picture of the real situation or something like that I think maybe can’t be sure a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse

[@lucisetumbrae]

Thanks for your work. I'm giving a talk about your work next month at the International Association for Relativistic Dynamics conference in Prague.

[@TheMachian]

I certainly appreciate this. In case you need other info about my work which is not limited to critique, feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo->Email.

[@lucisetumbrae]

@@TheMachian Thank you for being so accessible. I've sent you an email from that contact.

[@patternsandrhythms3005]

"A study of true scientific achievements in the past suggests that the current model is a symptom of a Kuhnian crisis."

[@sadface7457]

I have feeling that they have tried to unify physics to quickly which dont have all the pieces necessary.

[@meleardil]

@@sadface7457 Exactly... as if you would try to explain "electromagnetism" without ever actually describing the magnetic field correctly.

[@denzali]

@@meleardil do they still treat electricity and magnetism as separate entities?

[@meleardil]

@@denzali The funny thing is: sometimes yes, sometimes no. :) In the Maxwell equations you can not have magnetic field without a changing electric field (moving charges for example) In quantum mechanics, you DO have a static magnetic field as a basic quality of matter: the magnetic momentum. There is also the electric charge, and a coupling factor between them, but no explanation how the hell that works. :P So, no... Even magnetic and electric fields are NOT described in a way which could satisfy all theories AT ONCE. :)

[@denzali]

@@meleardil is the joining factor the dielectric component? Magnetism is the dielectric field in an action? Magnetism is the loss of inertia, a true force. Magnets push out and give mass, the attraction we see is acceleration back toward inertia. Magnets are essentially a feild condition, charge applied in their creation makes this happen. The attraction we observe is just the magnetism sinking back to inertia. Check out Ken wheeler, largely intolerable to watch at times but his picture of nature has something I feel. It’s all really interesting to me.

[@paulmaydaynight9925]

to be fair , real engineers did manage to make something actually useable out of the binned epicycle, a 'cycloidal gear'

[@TheMachian]

That's the best comment I have ever heard about epicycles :-) If you don't mind, I'll use it...

[@erixoz8535]

Great talk, but it's wrong to say GPS wouldn't work without designers knowing relativity. Any margin of error would be calibrated out/accounted for, regardless of why the ground and satellite clocks were different.

[@KrishnadevN]

+Erixoz I dont't think it's that easy. It would have been easy if both were showing different time, but ran at the same speed. According to General Relativity, the speed differs, and correct for that, we need to know how it differs. And since one possibly can't be revolving like a satellite and be standing on the ground simultaneously, I don't how easy it would be to correct for the difference.

[@Alexis-hx3yd]

7 years after posting and nothing has changed.

[@quill444]

And every year, those boxes of Girl Scout Cookies keep on getting smaller, and smaller, and yet they cost even more. - j q t -

[@gautamsankarbhattacharyya9954]

A human can only best understands a human not tiger or cow etc. So to understand fundamental particle needs another fundamental particle and who will supply that one.

[@wei-hauchang2910]

I was fascinated by theoretic high-energy when in sophomore and took a particle physics course that highlight standard model. I decided not to pursue my career in this field because every particle acquires it mass based on how much it interacts with Higgs for example did not seem a fundamental theory but magician trick. I could not share this with any professor of mine as it is neither politically incorrect nor showing my “smart”. Glad to know that there is fundamental issue with standard model.

[@khurmiful]

Is anyone working on an alternative to standard model?

[@Jesse.Glanville]

Walter Russell about 100 years ago

[@tokenlau7519]

Mike McCulloch and also Espen Gaarder Haug (see his paper The Planck Mass Particle Finally Discovered! The True God Particle! Good bye to the Point Particle Hypothesis!).

[@vishveshpatel8117]

I am

[@lPlanetarizado]

just thinking about it...I dont have the math to work on it...yet

[@ThomasKundera]

There are people working on that. But first, your model have to explain *as much stuff* as SM already explains: and that's a lot! Easy to say that the model is not complete and too complex (we know that already), but finding better is another task.

[@petera.schneider2140]

A theory can be very well tested and still be incomplete at he same time. In fact, no serious physicist would contend that _any_ contemporary theory is complete. It is notable that dark matter is an astronomical and cosmological hypothesis which hints at the incompleteness of the standard model (as one solution). The quantum level is well understood -- the theory just doesn't explain everything at the large scale. It is also cheap and actually wrong to mock the particle physicists when they say "we try to find out where we come from". Of course: On the "emergent" level, as Robert Laughlin might call it, it's nuclear physics, chemistry, biology and evolution. But without condensing matter and stars no structure could ever emerge, or at least none like us. And just why our particles are made such that they behave in this favorable way is very much the subject of this research.

[@hanszippert9468]

It seems to me that you are just replicating the confusions the founders of QED had when they were developing the theory in the 1960s. Nowadays we know how to resolve these apparent "confusions". This is quite common to "paradigm shifts" in science that you like to refer to. Often there are different formulations of a theory that are later shown to be equivalent and misconceptions are resolved later on. The apparent "scandal" regarding the calculation of g-2 is of course not a scandal after all. At the time (and still today), a two-loop calculation is a rather complicated endeavor and, therefore, prone to mistakes. This "scandal" was resolved swiftly and today with supercomputers at our disposal, we know g-2 to a much higher precision at 5 loop order. Your assertion about QED being bogus attributed to Dyson is also inaccurate. We understand now that the perturbation series in alpha is actually an asymptotic series, a well-defined concept in mathematics, roughly meaning the first few terms (roughly 100) converge extremely well and diverge only at O(alpha^137). We probably will never have the computing power to go to such high orders. These papers by Oliver Consa you are pushing are actually just a collection of utter gibberish and nonsense that every capable physics undergrad would be able to rebuke quickly. We also know today that QED cannot be a fundamental theory and expect that new physics has to enter at some point. Yet for the energies we have access to, it is an extremely accurate description of experiments Here is an honest question: Do you really believe that thousands of physicists, theorists, and experimentalists alike, conspired in claiming that QED and the Standard Model describe nature to astonishing precision, while secretly knowing that they are fooling people? That would seem to be extremely unlikely. And what would be the point of such a conspiracy? Science is probably not the best field when your goal is to fool and defraud people.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

As a total layman I wonder if all that noise they measure could be a sign that the many interacting worlds model is true? In this model all the many worlds already exist and are not created on the fly through branching. The double split interference are the many surrounding copies of the particle interfering. So the nearest universes are leaky, not completely separated and have even many points in common. It's hard to divide them up until too many parameters start to differ. Each particle, each object is surrounded by shadow copies which are identical enough to cause confusion about "which is which and where is where" An object has no clear sharp boundaries on Planck scale level but diffuse ones. The next layers are particles who are already too different and those don't interact. Sometimes I wonder if something like fine structure constant has to do with the fact that there is only room for a limited number of shadow copies around each object.

[@alphalunamare]

"If you are happy working on epicycles" !!!! What a brilliant put down! :-)

[@TheMachian]

😀

[@DavidMcMahon100]

Unzicker notices that we are in a pre-paradigm shift era (ala Kuhn, who invented the term paradigm shift; I recommend his book, structure of scientific revolutions…). We have decent models for all the fundamental forces except gravity. At the same time our astronomy friends have dark matter and dark energy, yet another problem related to gravity. The astronomers have been looking to particle physicists for help finding a missing particle. So far, that has not been successful. The Higg’s boson, if it is real, is an explanation for mass, not for gravity. I suspect a new model of gravity might help.

[@En-of5oh]

But as I'm reader and fond of quantum physics, I did read somewhere, that scientists through their experiments in labs or accelerator they come across applications which are useful in technologies or manufacturing.

[@richardboland1935]

This is certainly a good outcome but it's accidental and unrelated to the physics. If engineers involved worked directly on (mundane) engineering problems then progress would surely be faster. What is special about the standard model itself in making engineering progress? This is like the argument that the Apollo missions were justified because they invented the non-stick frying pan 😁

[@phillipwombacher9635]

I’m a nurse my world is biology and I have always looked at particle physics almost separate from science it seems they want their math to be “beautiful” which baffles me the truths of nature are inherently beautiful regardless of how untidy the math is that expresses that physical reality

[@peaku8129]

You can love or hate a model, that's just your feelings, you may feel that the model is beautiful or ugly, that's again just your feelings. A sciencific theory is valuable if it can predict outcomes. Is the standard model able to do that? I think so. Are those predictions useful, I think so ergo its a valid scientif theory, period. Everything else is your opinion... or your feelings...

[@Fooktard323]

I know proponents of the standard model say it has predicted many things, but I'm at a loss to find any predictions except those that are about the standard model. These have no bearing on physical reality as we experience it, so they mean nothing. Einsteins space-time was verified with the solar eclipse photo and that has a bearing on physical reality (time dilation). When will a standard model prediction actually mean anything?

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

I think this talk is less about what QM predicts, but rather that it's probably not fundamental,. or rather that a more fundamental theory is going to be a completely different regime change in thought on what physics is. He mentioned the geocentric verse helio-centric models. The models based on geocentric theories became very complicated just to fit the idea that things rotated around the earth...when what needed to happen was a regime change, that the sun instead is what the planets rotated around and things became simple again. He supposes the same thing might be happening for QFT, that it's overwhelming complexity indicates a necessary regime change and getting a new fundamental theory that would make the model simple...and i actually agree with that. Personally, more and more theory are looking toward ideas of complexity theory and computation theories, which if true would be a completely different shift in fundamental thought on how our universe works...even giving us the reason for why CHAOS exists in the first place...being that all models, even discrete deterministic ones will create randomness at a macroscopic scale.

[@peaku8129]

@@NightmareCourtPictures I think the definition of fundumental is not properly well defined...

[@DissidentScience]

This is a great presentation. Truth will in the end, win out. And particle physics will go by the way of the flat earth society. Bravo Dr. Unzicker.

[@CeruleanMuun]

What's missing from physics is the existence of an Aether/Ether. Ether fluid dynamics explains the existence of fields like gravity and electromagnetism because fields are just the ether flowing in a particular motion which acts on matter at a distance if it is in range of the ether flow.

[@gregmezera6571]

That's literally the 1st thing that's debunked once you've taken mechanics and electrodynamics. See Michelson-Morley experiment.

[@curiosityzero2151]

@@gregmezera6571 Ikr. Thst was hilarious

[@projector7141]

@@gregmezera6571 Look at the superior results of Dayton Miller's interferometer which disproves MM conclusions.

[@rogue.ganker]

This is why you hydrate before you talk. The message gets lost in loud swallow and that old grandma lip smacking noise.

[@100_Dollar_Bill]

🤣

[@tenbear5]

Absolutely agree. You’re a true champion.

[@theoriginaltroll4truth]

No such thing that's why, matter is cymatic compressed ether. Some harmonically stable, some not(radioactive). Particles are real in a sense, but only as a varied level of energy until it "decays" evaporates back to uncompressed ether. Everything is ether, either compressed(matter) or uncompressed(space).

[@ntl3352]

Ok professor, there are so many flaws and unanswered questions in particle physics, critisms are easy but what us your contribution to understanding nature and our observations. Einstein in his later years had time to work on the unified theory what progress did he make if it was supposed to be easy to understand. All the great scientist you mentioned had their fair chance to solve the vacuum energy problem, what progress did they make? If nature always makes its laws easy to be understood why didnt they at least make some progress on it as great scientists.

[@ariusmaximilian8291]

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

[@ntl3352]

@@ariusmaximilian8291 what have you discovered, Mr know it all. Are you anywhere near Leonard susskind, edward witten and top gurus in the field, even me

[@ariusmaximilian8291]

@@ntl3352 again, you don't know what you are talking about. "But muh gurus" is not an argument.

[@ntl3352]

@@ariusmaximilian8291 no need continuing debating with you. You are obviously a dummy. Not worth it. Do you even have a physics degree?

[@100_Dollar_Bill]

I ate a guru yesterday. The lamb was on point but prolly a little too much cucumber dressing.

[@gregmonks]

Modern physics has become too much of an echo chamber, with too few opposing voices challenging ideas that are put out there like the ten commandments. That's why this is so valuable.

[@MrGone0608]

12:40 extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I too think the LHC is a waste of money.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

15:22 It's true that Geocentric Astronomy was a dead-end. Its true Epicycles didn't lead towards any solution. But Keplar didn't pull the Heliocentric model just by plainly rejecting epicycles. Rather his work was derived from Al-Tusi's refinement of the geocentric model. Al-Tusi's (and other contemporary's) precise measurement and refinement of the epicycle model is what enabled Keplar to realize that the whole thing can be simplified if Sun is put in the center instead of Earth. What if Particle physics is at the same stage now? What if to simplify, to answer the fundamental questions we actually need to push further instead of rejecting it altogether? But yes the model has to be falsifiable and the experiments have to be made public.

[@TheMachian]

I don't see how pushing the epicycle model inspired Kepler's insights (or evel less, Copernicus'). Questioning the complicated system led them to their discoveries.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

@@TheMachian Sir, is this just your speculation or based on actual research on what Kepler did? As far as I know, some of his notebooks survived to this day.

[@andsalomoni]

"What if to simplify, to answer the fundamental questions we actually need to push further instead of rejecting it altogether?" So you say that pushing a dead end to the limit is necessary to see that it is a dead end, and come to a new idea? You need to crash against a wall to recognize that you were going against a wall? If someone recognizes the situation, he can "reject" it on the spot, and start the work to find a new model.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

​@@andsalomoni I'm not talking about pushing the model. I'm talking about pushing the experiment. Seem like the thinking pattern of the whole physics community has gone down the path of metaphysics. Since when in science, mathematical gibberish started to weigh more than experiments? B4 asking if current model is sufficient one shud ask if current experiments are shedding light where they shud.

[@andsalomoni]

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 Pushing the experiment, so after LHC we should have the FCC (100 km long), and then the accelerator under the Gulf of Mexico, and so on... how long? What have to happen before particle physicists wake up and realize that they are just like heroin addicts? Addicted to bigger and bigger accelerators...

[@fg-zm2yu]

Yes, gathering data is important, but which data to gather? You need a theory to prove / disprove.

[@HighMojo]

Particle Physics is the new alchemy. The standard model equation is epicycles upon epicycles.

[@highpointsights]

Years ago (when I was much younger and terribly curious) I was exposed to a portion of an article at on what would have been described as “particle physics” I think!! It helped me see some aspect ratios regarding relative sizes of particles!! Boiled down it said this; If we made the nucleus of a hydrogen molecule the size of a basket ball the lone orbiting electron would be the size of a pea 22 miles away!! It helped me see why Hydrogen is so light and maybe the beginnings of Hydrogen embrittlement My question is; Is any of that nearly or remotely accurate?

[@leonardgibney2997]

What a relief! I'm not the only one not understanding the subatomic. It might be an idea to suss out these laws before embarking on space missions. After all, two Nobel Prize winning scientists recently said the Universe isn't real.

[@HighMojo]

At 6:55, you mention how in a Beta Decay, a proton transforms into the neutron. Perhaps you misspoke. It is the opposite, it is the neutron that transforms into a proton during Beta Decay.

[@DavidMauriello]

Electricity plays a more significant role in the Universe than is generally accepted The Sun and stars are electrically powered by drift currents (see Electric Sun theory) Planetary surface features such as some craters, dendritic structures and rilles are caused by super-lightning (see electrical scarring) Certain cosmic phenomena are electrical in nature, including: Comet tails (See comets) The plumes of Enceladus Martian dust devils Galaxy formation and dynamics (circumventing the need for black holes and dark matter)

[@DANGJOS]

David Mauriello Are you kidding?

[@DavidMauriello]

Not at all. Please Google electric universe.

[@Spendleton]

DANGJOS he's right. EU theory has evidence, results, and is predictable. Standard model has math magic theories. 2+2 = 4 but so does 3 + 1. Doesn't prove anything.

[@DANGJOS]

Shane Pendleton I would like to see this supposed evidence. There are scientists that have been studying these things for years! We have plenty of peer-reviewed evidence from people all around the world figuring these things out. EU theory I doubt has anywhere near that much. I find it interesting that you claim that the standard model only has magic theories as if it's nothing but mathematics. This isn't "String Theory" you know; there is actual experimental evidence for much of it. And if you want to discredit that as up to interpretation, how do you guys know that the things you think you're proving aren't just results interpreted to fit your model?

[@Spendleton]

DANGJOS The evidence you are seeking can be found under Thunderbolts Project via youtube, or you can visit the website Thunderbolts.info The gentlemen currently leading the field are David Talbott & Wal Thornhill. The theory isn't new. The "father" of it would be Halton C Arp. So far what you stated was the current models best defense. "There's a lot of us studying this." That's not science, that's just humans being social. EU explains the cosmos in terms of Plasma and Electricity. It explains gravity. The current model describes it. Don't forget that the earth was once flat, and at the center of the universe, and you were burned at the stake for thinking otherwise. Keep an open mind, and dig for the truth. When you see it you'll slap your forehead much like myself and say "It's so obvious". Oh and for more lab results check Micheal Steinbacher for Electric Geology. Peace brochacho.

[@lucientjinasjoe1578]

The root of a dogmatic thinker is hard to erase

[@jimbuono2404]

Has particle physics experimentation reached it's limit on earth? Are the next discoveries to be made in space based labs?

[@TheMachian]

It has hit technological and economic limits, but has gone beyond reason scientifically. There is no hint that space-based labs, except in special cases, promise any insight.

[@jimbuono2404]

@@TheMachian I would think freedom from the planets gravity well, atmosphere and magnetic fields would be a benefit. Also, if dark matter and energy are to be found it won't be on earth and observations of phenomena that modify our understanding of gravity where galactic clusters exert exert forces we don't currently understand are more easily studied in detail from space with humans interacting directly with the instruments.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

@@jimbuono2404 The thing is it has nothing to do with gravity atmosphere or magnetic fields. The problems with particle experiments is fundamental energy equal mass. The collider is 30 miles wide because we need to pump energy into small regions of space in order to generate enough speed to smash the particles into smaller pieces. We wanna look smaller distances? We need more energy...more energy means bigger collider. The plank scale, which is where we believe anything will be found, will require a collider the size of the galaxy...it is basically fundamentally impossible.

[@TheBelrick]

@@NightmareCourtPictures Lycra has 1% of the impact of a high energy particle hitting earth. Useless. Can you make a collider big enough to matter? Can you measure -25 second?

[@highpointsights]

Given what you are saying; I wonder what have been found had the built the original particle accelerator in Waxahachie Texas which 51 miles in circumference?? Yep it would have 3 X the size of the LHC!!

[@richardwachniewski4256]

I agree with Unzicker physics is in a mess I have read Milo Wulff book on wave theory of matter which makes more sense to me than the current model of physics I cannot understand why nobody discusses these ideas among scientists or even talks about his theory incidently Quantum theory works because it is based on wave theory

[@jonbold]

There is no question in particle physics or astronomy that can not be answered with a massless galactic plasma.

[@DavidLoveMore]

So ether theory.

[@aXw4ryPlJR]

The physics has advanced to such a level that it becomes rather easy to “voice” one’s “opinions” without true knowledge to impress an audience whose source of physics knowledge came exclusively from delusional popular physics books.

[@pietropipparolo4329]

You are a genius Mr Unzicker.

[@scarfhs1]

The Standard model is the best we currently have and it works well so far. He is free to criticise it as much as he likes but until he can present a better model he is just complaining to no good purpose. He also seems to be telling nature how to behave, he wants very few fundamental particles, well nature may not agree with him.

[@imstevemcqueen]

Don't tell the audience 'No' when they laugh; you have captivated them when they laugh

[@danmiller4725]

There is a string called a "two winding" by Ashoak Sen mentioned in Leonard Susskind's Black Hole Wars. I noticed the shape is a right and lefthanded double helix. I imagine helical wave motion from either or both opposite poles. Could explain magnetic field of a battery. Get a compass..

[@NondescriptMammal]

Watching the march of progress in particle physics is like watching a parade of ants on a Moebius strip.

[@TheMachian]

LOL, thanks, good metaphor.

[@NondescriptMammal]

@@TheMachian I can't take full credit for it, I was inspired by a well-known M. C. Escher drawing lol

[@HWJJSCHUMACHER]

2023... NOTHING HAS CHANGED

[@kkgt6591]

At this point, tampering with the raw data cannot be overruled.

[@mas7937]

I don’t disagree with this scientist. We all know, if anyone is initiated to the modern physics, that there is something kind of weird or strange about Quantum physics or general relativity but usually these speeches they don’t give any alternative and it’s like leaving us without a clue about reality. That’s sticking to a dream or have nothing.

[@TheMachian]

There are alternatives on this channel.