X17 - A new particle? -- Sixty Symbols

[@rrryan9719]

Just want to stop by and say that Sixty Symbols was the reason I gained an interest in physics and the sciences. I don't come from a background where I would have ever thought I had what it takes to study anything, let alone something that seems so complicated. But the accessibility of the topics and the way you all present them pushed me to get my degree. Just about to start my Masters in Astrophysics. Thank you!

[@mikefelber5129]

rrryan Wow congrats!! I agree, I have learn much here. This channel makes it fun to learn- It’s the way the describe things so enthusiastically!!

[@rrryan9719]

@@mikefelber5129 Exactly. Science at school was so dull, but the way it was presented here is always so interesting and the enthusiasm of the experts is infectious!

[@jonatha_nbarron]

@@rrryan9719 You should go on the channel and share your story!

[@walk-with-Walz]

well done!! It only takes love

[@mikefelber5129]

rrryan See I’ve always loved science & the way they described topics caused me to eat up new knowledge- Either way the delivery is solid gold

[@mokopa]

18:58 Brady: "Are there X17's in the room with us?" Prof Copeland: ...squints around in the room before answering...

[@s8terseeyal8teryah8t]

he was probably looking around the room to see if there was any beryllium

[@TheLimalicious]

Always perform the Safety Squint when there's exotic particles around!

[@Miata822]

Ha! Just posted the same before reading comments. I laughed out loud when he did that.

[@Kingstallington]

I think it's just a weird human reflex like looking at your watch when someone asks when are you going on holiday.

[@0pyrophosphate0]

Just making sure there aren't any obvious X17s hanging around before saying no.

[@GuyNamedSean]

I absolutely love these calm videos with Professor Ed talking about possible new discoveries. They're perfect for a quiet watch during breakfast or right before bed.

[@rhoddryice5412]

... or while taking a hot bath after a hard workout session.

[@ruigebeer]

I always listen to the profs video's before falling asleep. So soothing!

[@Jontman42]

Watching this with my afternoon coffee.

[@IstasPumaNevada]

He's the Mr. Rogers of Physics.

[@big0medium]

Ed is the best

[@daveangels]

Ed needs his own channel to talk at length about stuff like this, i could easily listen to him for hours at a time

[@Phriedah]

daveangels he has such a calm and charming voice, i love it

[@TheGrundigg]

Go to Nottingham university and you'll have it :P

[@19TheChaosWarrior79]

I love the Professor Ed Copeland vids. He manages to explain these immensely complicated experiments and results in a way someone like me who just enjoys learning can almost understand

[@billyjames3046]

Andy Clegg in a way maybe his daughter could understand?

[@S....]

Were were those kind of professors when I was studying?!

[@steve1978ger]

"So right now, there's no X17s in you?" - "Well, I often am quite excited".

[@francismuir9313]

THat's just life as a celt

[@DABLACKESTJEW]

Hahahaha

[@pj20050]

19:53 "That's a tough question" answers it anyway without hesitation

[@bluevanga30]

True madlad

[@madshorn5826]

I think that remark is the physicist equivalent to an EULA disclaimer: "This answer constitutes our current best understanding, but may change without notice." :-)

[@siquod]

He didn't actually answer it. He talked about how most of the mass of the proton is mostly in the gluon binding energy. What I expected to hear is that charge and baryon number conservation prevent the electron and proton from simply going away as there is nothing lighter than them but with the same charges that they could decay into, and there is no antimatter around to annihilate them (The tough question here is "Why is there so little antimatter?"). His answer is only remotely related to that: The proton doesn't decay because the quarks themselves are light so they have nothing to decay into. But all he said is that quarks are not very massive without mentioning how that is related to their stability. Probably this connection is so second nature to him that he didn't think the viewers can't make the same connection.

[@lachyt5247]

@@siquod Yep I found that a bit jarring, probably should have been cut from the video.

[@deeprecce9852]

Professor Ed's tone and the speed of his speech is absolutely brilliant!! Great Video!!!

[@PenStep62]

What an exceptional video. Calm (almost) understandable presentation by the best on KZbin, and incisive questions. It doesn’t get much better than this. Thanks to both of you.

[@rich1051414]

Usually with things like this, if you perfectly understand what's going on, that is only proof you don't understand at all.

[@jann5s___]

100 points for Brady, his questions are amazing!

[@u.v.s.5583]

Are particle physicists who research hypothetical particles hypothetical particle physicists?

[@EMW_Music]

@@u.v.s.5583 Hypothetically

[@MaGFarqui]

💯

[@MateusHokari]

Definitely!

[@durvsh]

Brady as usual with very good questions.

[@y__h]

I would say borderline metaphysics. The last half of he video you can see Prof. Copeland having a hard tIme resisting the urge to say "I don't know, we have insufficient data to derive a meaningful answer."

[@wizard7314]

I agree, Brady's ability to ask the right questions is part of what makes him a great journalist.

[@JohnMichaelson]

@@y__h I dare you to ask Multivac.

[@Android480]

This was a super interesting episode. You got more into the weeds than usual and I love it. Professor Copeland is fantastic at explaining things in an understandable way without dropping too much of the complexities.

[@neerajlohana7265]

Particle physics just gets more interesting with Professor Ed Copeland!🙌👏

[@mickobrien3156]

Well, I like the man, too. His enthusiasm and happiness with science is quite lovely. But... There's something about his voice that puts me into a trance and I fall asleep.

[@byrnemeister2008]

Great video. Well balanced views from Ed. It gives people some insights as to how we push back the edge of knowledge in the sciences. As well as the specifics around this particular particle and it’s existence or not. More of this sort of stuff please. Slightly longer format and a chance to go through some of the evidence.

[@eric1393]

I love it when the professors get a question from Brady and you can tell they think it's a really good question, something that sounds simple but really drives to a core concept. Brady, you're an excellent interviewer.

[@shkotayd9749]

Dr Ed always boils stupendously complex stuff down in a way I feel I can understand. I never knew why this angle issue was a thing. Now I do!

[@Ruddigore]

A fascinating video. Prof Copland was brilliant in not only being able to explain the research behind the X-17 particle in a simple, easy to understand way but also in being totally unfazed by some of the tough and relevant questions being put to him by Brady.

[@arthurmuller671]

Finally another video with Ed Copeland. I waited so long to see some more content with him. I just love his calm and precise way of presenting content. Great.

[@fanthomans2]

This is by far the best material on this topic. I'm in the direct neighborhood of the Institute where the experiment was done. Still, Prof. Copeland and Brady did a way better job explaining the thing than any other resource I've seen on the topic. Thanks a lot!

[@larsonwells2656]

fanthomans2 I like waffles

[@Triantalex]

ok?

[@bjornhattan6026]

I could have told you about X17 years ago, I use it all the time to get to Coventry!

[@carlstanland5333]

Professor Copeland explains things so well that even I can almost follow along.

[@rapsket]

Professor Ed is like the Mr Rogers of particle Physics. He's got that disarming sort of voice that you actually want to listen to.

[@henryginn7490]

Ed Copeland did a fantastic job in this interview even when there is clearly quite a limited amount known about X17. Very clear and interesting explanations

[@tsuchan]

Thanks guys... a great conversation... I got heaps from Brady's questions and Ed's answers. Big hug to you both.

[@sadekgheidan]

Is it just me or does Professor Copeland posses a unique type of charisma? :)

[@Triantalex]

It is just you.

[@mrkekson]

Pls make more videos with the professor. Love to see hes insights, and explanations!

[@chessmoon]

Triple-alpha process in large stars creates temporary a lot of Beryllium-8 and helium 4 in an excited state , it could then create a lot of x17 if it is real

[@Muonium1]

all the reactions occur in the core, if the lifetime is 10^-12 none could ever escape.

[@hamilkarscha6925]

That would be exciting! Not sure whether Be-8 has more than one excited state in that energy range. And one couldn't detect it at all, sadly. It wouldn't make any observable difference.

[@LCTRgames]

LOVE this video. A difficult topic broached with not much assumption beyond high-school physics - yet it exists on the cutting edge of nuclear and particle physics. Very impressed with the quality and straight-forward questions too. Really reflecting and representing the layman viewer without dumbing anything down. Would love to see a follow-up to this video should more information come to light 😀

[@allenyordy6700]

Ed is my absolute favorite love waking up to his videos thank you Brady you are the man

[@mboeddy]

Yep, Brady , your questions made this a great video. Thanks all of ya for creating these videos.

[@TheALIMARS]

Thank you Professor Copeland and Mr Haran: Brilliant interview

[@Psychx_]

I am a simple man. I see Ed, I click like.

[@NE0MAS]

Psychx simple and unoriginal

[@jamesroseii]

I love listening to this guy. One of my favorites! He genuinely seems like a nice dude.

[@ahensley]

Brady and Ed, as usual an *excellent* video. Superb questions with great answers. Thanks to you both!

[@Locut0s]

The ability of science to speak of such hypotheticals in such great detail while still fiercely holding onto the notion that they might not exist at all is what makes it such a mature subject. The ability to admit one might be mistaken is not a trait that comes easily to us humans. It is a sign of maturity, humility, and wisdom when we see it in those around us when it comes to our own personalities and when applied to ourselves. And I think the same proves true for other endeavours we take part in.

[@NoriusNr1]

Can we have more videos of professor Ed Copeland! He is really great!

[@richardjanowski7219]

Very interesting, and wonderfully explained. Thanks Ed and Brady!

[@mickobrien3156]

New video... I'm happy. I'm a simple man. Thanks for making these supremely nerdy videos. I love all of them, even though I'm too dumb to grasp most of the underlying concepts and I have to re-watch each one 3 times to really get any point... I try to fool myself into thinking I actually understand physics and what these nerds are saying. I don't. But I can't stop watching them. I don't know why. Does anyone else here love these videos despite having no formal education in physics and science? I imagine everyone watching these already knows a ton about science.

[@ToeCutter0]

What a great interview! I could listen to this all day. I’ve become super interested in the discovery of new particles and it’s been difficult to find anything that discusses all the “exotic” particles we’ve discovered so far? I’m curious if there are any videos or sites that provide a list or collection of the “exotic” particles we’ve discovered so far? I’d like to understand what we’ve seen so far and what the probability of finding even more elementary particles (I’m looking at you, dark matter!) I think I’m up to speed with elementary particles, but would like to see more on the exotic quark combinations (tetraquarks, mesons, etc) Any thoughts on where I might find anything that covers these particles or discusses them? Thanks again, Sixty Symbols!

[@KeeganLeahy]

More Ed! I loved his long series on the early universe from years ago.

[@jojojorisjhjosef]

He wanted to say beryllium boys 11:25

[@puppetsock]

If there was a particle with a mass of 17 MeV, how has it been missed all these years? An accelerator that produces enough energy to produce this is not a difficult thing.

[@eumesmoeu295]

@@puppetsock If the particle is protophobic, there are very few experiments which could actually observe it. Also, it's production cross section should be low enough that some experiments simply won't have enough data to see it (this is particularly the case for nuclear physics experiments, some old experiments could have seen it, but they didn't have enough statistics). Our current accelerators could indeed be used to look for it, and there will be many experiments looking for particles like it in the coming years.

[@smiththomc]

This video is berylliant! ... I'll get my coat 😬

[@duggydo]

The videos with Ed Copeland are the best...regardless of topic or channel.

[@TroyEagan]

This is the best video I've seen on x-17

[@TheScienceBiome]

I'm so fond of this channel. It really drove me to study physics.

[@wktodd]

Great questions Brady , great answers Ed

[@Diecastclassicist]

New particle? Ed? That’s a must-watch video.

[@ThatPsdude]

14:58 Love the Professors reaction to Brady's question lol

[@7177YT]

Love the question you asked around 19:50! Cheers!

[@GetMeThere1]

Great explanation of how this experiment is done. Thanks for that!

[@LionidasL10]

Great questions from Brady and such patience from Ed. More 60 Symbols!

[@DwainDwight]

Ed - thanks for sharing your insights. Agree another experiment really needed, or another couple. I am extremely surprised it has not been done. Anyway, I will stay tuned. Great interview. Thanks.

[@not-high-on-life]

This channel is trully an inspiration. Thanks for this work!

[@austinhaider105]

This video is fascinating and the questions are so on point the entire interview. Thank you for your content!

[@R-Tex.]

We need a follow up video when an update comes.

[@MrKago1]

I love it when something just makes intuitive sense in physics. the hugh momentum particles firing off electrons in a narrow angle makes so much sense.

[@markstanbrook5578]

This is a damn good episode Brady. Great questions from you.

[@aclearlight]

Lovely presentation and fascinating topic, thank you. Can anyone explain to me why the emitted photon is referred to as being "virtual"? It does seem to carry away a specific amount of momentum and result in the creation of a known amount of mass upon decay. Is this photon detectable other than by these decay products? Lastly, are there any other examples of proto-phobic type behavior for non-charged species?

[@markfergerson2145]

Like so many other things this seems to come back to the fact that we don't have a general theory of how the strength of the known fields relative to one another are set- what determines the coupling constants etc. What's the "field of fields" all about? If we had some idea of how that works we might be able to know how many fields there can be in our spacetime... and if we've found all of them. And if we haven't, how to look for them.

[@Miata822]

Brady: "So are there any X17 particles in the room?" [pause] Ed: Looks around, searching.

[@ДмитрийАверьянов-у4м]

Thanks to you I look into the process of excitement and relaxation in a quite different way

[@Psychx_]

Could the decay also be done in reverse? Like firing Electrons and Positrons into each other in order to create X and verify its existence by the following decay into another Electron-Positron pair that comes out in a certain angle?

[@garethdean6382]

Yes, anything that can happen one way can happen the reverse. Though positron-electron annihlations can be messy.

[@NeonsStyleHD]

Interesting Video. We rarely hear about the interactions within major particles and their quarks and gluons. Make a video talking about those interactions. How gluons interact, and hold it all together in a proton. Usually all we get is Proton consists of xyz quarks etc.. but rarely do we get info on these interactions.

[@Urgelt]

Wonderful interview - probing questions, well-articulated answers a layman can hope to follow, at least for a little way down the particle physics rabbit hole. Thanks!

[@jakeireland6810]

Great, very informative episode.4:40 and 5:03: Isn't the X-particle momentum equal with the photon emission situation, so the velocity is low, as the mass is high (so the momentum is identical as for the photon)?

[@TheSmilingFear]

Absolutely love Ed as well as the Sixty Symbols videos! I think there may have been an editing error this time though- the title cards seem to be displaying a weird flashing behavior :o

[@Hendrix183]

Great video! Small correction though: the Z in the NA64 experiment refers to the scattering of nuclei (bremsstrahlung), not interactions with Z bosons

[@djlungo]

Ed Copeland is brilliant. And Brady is an great interviewer.

[@hectorh.micheos.1717]

"Well, I often am quite excited", that made me have to stop the video and laugh.

[@Triantalex]

ok?

[@digitalplayland]

The most amazing video in the last few years. Thank you.

[@aeroscience9834]

8:46. I don’t think that is correct. I believe the Z they were referring to in interaction in that paper was the nuclei of the target, and not a Z boson. (They said it was a bremsstrahlung reaction, and also a z boson there wouldn’t make sense)

[@hamilkarscha6925]

With enough energy, the electrons will create a pair of Z bosons, and looking for the X17 in the decay products of massive, neutral, weakly interacting Z bosons sounds plausible to me. But the energy he mentioned, 100GeV, wouldn't be enough for two Z bosons. Maybe he misspoke there. Or did you read the paper? If you did, could you point me to a source, please?

[@CorpseTongji]

physicist : we found a new thing that is so small u will never see it and so complex u will never understand it me , not a physicist : my understanding of reality is fundamentally altered now

[@DrewMiller1]

My misunderstanding of physics is fundamentally altered now.

[@justin_5631]

I don't think they really found it.

[@thesaurus1523]

Are you 12?

[@renookami4651]

me, a writer: Did I heard dark matter? Well, now I got the fictive birth date for one of my characters. 10/17 it will be, no matter if that X17 thing exists really or not.

[@bumpty9830]

Been hoping for a more in-depth vid on x17 since I saw a popular article about it!

[@gregbrockway4452]

Truly fascinating content presented in an understandable manner. Thanks SS, you just gained a new sub.

[@TomLeg]

I love Ed's explanations

[@scowell]

Excellent questions Brady... I continue to be impressed. First the result must be replicated! I now (sorta) understand the distinction between nuclear and particle physics... I assume they sometimes share lunches.

[@handlebarfox2366]

21:30 "these are not massive energy scales" ... but are they unique energy sources? Exactly what sort of forces are triggered when the atom loses its excitation?

[@livedandletdie]

Exactly the same forces as when an electron loses it's excitation, the photoelectric force. Or the weak force when it just gets rid of the excited proton and decays back into lithium-7.

[@MrDNMock]

Isn't lithium 7 a problematic isotope already in regards to the big bang? Would this help to explain why the big bang models are messing up on the abundance problem of lithium 7 observed?

[@jaromir_kovar]

Again I'm reminded of the fact that if you love something and your explaining it comes from you heart, you can explain even very complicated things to a layman, or a child. The subjects like chemistry or physics, that many people hate in high school are actually awesome but our relationships with these fields are created by the teachers. If someone just read aloud from the text book and doesn't have a real love and inner understanding for his/her field then how can they pass the love for it onto another? What Brady facilitates is amazing because all these people live it, love it and can bring it down and talk about it on levels which gets everyone captivated. I don't know if this quote of Einstein is true but even if it wasn't it makes the perfect sense: If you cannot explain advanced physics to a child then you don't understand physics :o)

[@sebbes333]

*@Sixty Symbols* 2:04 Does that mean that it's possible to create a (virtual?) photon from an Electron & Positron?

[@igNights77]

Ed Copeland! Awesome, been while.

[@Scanlaid]

I think Prof Copeland is my favorite. He seems so kind and knowledgeable

[@keppela1]

Another great conversation, but I wish you'd pushed him to answer your brilliant question about why matter particles stick around for so long. As you point out, they're just excitations of fields so you'd expect their existence to be very fleeting.

[@ericisawesome476]

Please make more videos w Professor Copeland!

[@maxhaibara8828]

Brady's question is getting tougher and tougher to answer

[@garywill6340]

Could the behaviour found for the experiment, be a result of some standing wave property? When certain elements get to a certain temperature does their nucleus vibrate in a wave pattern? Maybe it messes with the trajectory the same way a double slit experiment does? Maybe a self interference property of the particles own wave messed up by the H. uncertainty princ.

[@rc5989]

Another fantastic discussion. Professor Copeland gives great answers and Brady asks great questions as always! My personal opinion is that the fields in the Standard Model are complete and correct to explain all low-energy physics. However, now that the dangling carrot of SUSY has been removed, new ways of understanding the Standard Model are required to explain nature.

[@areyreyes1541]

What a fantastic find. The periodic table is Growing with the increased intelligence and better performance computers. Can wait for more details.

[@metalwellington]

I had a look around my room too. none here either.

[@nikolaivernerchristensen]

How about an episode on de Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley (dRGT) massive gravity? There has been lots of buzz about it in the media last month. But KZbin videos on it are either too simple or too hard to understand.

[@SonnyBynum]

@BradyStuff, is the flicker effect (which I didn't mind at all, btw) used intentionally for some non-artistic reason, such as to improve audience recall of the content, perhaps?

[@NobbsAndVagene]

"It needs more experimental evidence" Five words and I'm all dewy-eyed and in love.

[@onderozenc4470]

Mr.Copeland, as a physicist, I can conjecture that to have electron-positron pair it is enough to have 1.02 Mev.photon, the rest of the energy must have formed this16.7 Mev X-17 gauge boson.

[@klausvonshnytke]

Love watching Prof Copeland!

[@franks.6547]

1:31 why "virtual" photon? If it produces permanent electron-positron pairs, it could not have been "off shell" violating energy conservation, could it? Did he just misspeak (twice) or am I missing something?

[@kguy152000]

Thank you for your continued dedication to keeping us internet folk informed of amazing things.

[@Domispitaletti]

Real brilliant people, in general are humble like Prof Copeland.

[@MichaelDonlinAwesome]

Very much dig Professor Copeland's vids and explanations.

[@haellm9192]

I literally understood nothing but it was still really fun to watch

[@polares8187]

Amazing video. Thank you professor and thank you Brady. You are both awesome.

[@philanderson5138]

thank you professor Ed C. another amazing explanation. The sort of thing I would fly past in New Scientist.