When I was in grad school I met Dr. Ellis and had dinner with him. I was a lowly doctoral candidate. He treated me as a peer. I really nice guy. Hi Dr. Ellis.
"It is not the main order of business to have a well-worked out alternative." That is the nature of science. Anyone with a better theory can present it, and if it tolerates being picked apart and examined by peer-review it can replace or be added to the existing theory. If you can't show your work, your protest become a protest of your own ignorance rather than a critique of anything else.
I thought the higgs interaction was more of a virtual particle exchange with the field - and the more frequently it happens the more resistance is felt. What about the rest mass eh?
i get the feeling we will all have our, 'you reached for the secret too soon, you cried for the moon' letdown sooner rather than later. while i applaud scientific search, there are risks and unknown side effects to such efforts. all i can do now is enjoy whatever time remains mine to enjoy, and i wish and hope for you to do the same in all peace and tranquility and full of hope and thankful for all good that has been gifted to you.
I always thought that energy was responsible for the mass - as an example binding energy. Elementarparticles also has energy due to their mass, and in some cases this can be released. If the Higgs boson is responsible for the mass of elementary particles, it can also be responsible for its energy. But how do they do that?
Particle Physics... If you want to understand basically how the LHC works, you only need to understand Special Relativity. The faster you make a particle move the more energy it has... and energy and matter are interchangeable. Smack two very very energetic particles together and the result isn't two particles bouncing off of each other, but the release of all of that extra energy as more particles. It's a little like getting an extra 20 hubcaps out of a head-on collision.
"We're fairly positive we've found the HB" directly translates into, "We need 5 more years of funding because we hate working two hours a day teaching this shit to idiotic college kids".
Thanks Dr Ellis. I got the same t. Shirt making the lecture more interesting. Guided tour is available and free. The t.shirt is available for purchase there. A must have items.
gravity is Higgs economy, less higgs particles oppress particles if they merge, the opposite Casmiri effect is the transmition of relativistic entropic informantion among particles so they try to reach a lower equilibreum of inner componental spin time and external speed. Also many claim that not only we have virtual quarks inside atoms, but for even smaller fragments of time among different atoms the last one is mainstream opinion - but only for very tiny fragments of time, way smaller than the tiny fragments of time these spontaneous quark bonds appear inside single atoms. some tried to even mix theories but didn't work well yet. fot the quark gravity were some attempts, but had poor math, not because only of the theory but because that research group had no great mathematician to build a quark gravity probabilistic model, all there teories are fake science for most, some use gravitons but we never detected that, so we might have to start with what we have - even if it is silly
1:09 - The satelite is observing the cosmic microwave background emittied as a relic of a much hotter universe which is cooling all the time. CMB was emitted when mean photon energies were 1eV produced at 3000 kelvin 1x10^3 times great than observed in blackbody radiation of today. This CMB radiation is essentially a fingerprint of the early universe that we can 'look back on' with a satelite.
As i said before we only recognize time passing by because of repetition. Space-Time as we call it can bend because of objects that have a large mass have a big impact in the Higgs field, thus creating more bend. When there is more space in a certain area we see things move in that space normally, but when we look out everything is moving faster. That's only because we perceive it to be that way. It's all perception.
There is a great difference between "the very beginning of the universe" (which has no empirical evidence to support it) and the "relative beginning of mass-matter-energy conversion" of the universe inform of special relativity and the big back which is scientifically supported by empirical evidence through microwave background radiation
Electromagnetism is one of the elementary forces which is integrated into the standard model. What was not established by the standard model was mass. Peter Higgs (and others) proposed various mechanisms for it but Higgs described a field and a mediating boson and his prediction appears to be accurate. If you have a better theory, describe the mechanism, document it, and submit it for peer-review.
The whole reason I said this video is vague is due to a lack of support for some of the claims made (namely the ones I pointed out). If someone here could clarify those things, I'd be glad to hear about it and have a constructive discussion. I'm not going to call you stupid, but I will say that your comment is a rather stupid one. It's pretty immature to just call names rather than actually address the things I'm pointing out (but it is easier!).
To look further back use radio wave lengths. Spectral analysis of radio waves will show more red shift. This will show up as low in frequency as anyone cares to measure. The universe will more than double in size.
As usual, the narcissists complain that he spent a lot of time explaining basic physics which they, being self-absorbed geniuses, completely understand. Too thick to realise that he is speaking to non-physicists and therefore has to explain the basics first.
1:25 - The Hubble relationship (hubble constant) coupled with the Doppler effect which shows that motion an has effect on wavelegths of light in space idicates that space is expanding and at what speed. By working out the rate of expansion (gained from the hubble constant) we can work out the age of the universe to be roughly 14 billion years old.
No its true and I didn't just mean that. There is a wave/particle duality that takes place. Its not saying they are stupid or anything. I'm purely speculating that perhaps the physical architecture of the universe takes form in more ways than just waves/particles or the interesting fabric of spacetype. Im speculating about a different type of geometry taking place that perhaps we haven't thought of.
Even IF we did not know of such a mechanism, that does not mean one does not exist. A gap in understanding is not demonstrative of what does not exist.
Ahhh... good. You have an alternative theory to Special Relativity then yes? Your brilliance must be extraordinary indeed. LOL When can we expect your publication?
My friend and I run a podcast where we have guests on to espouse alternative points of view to the world. Would you be interested in being on an episode?
they found something, that is very likely the higgs boson, but at the time of the video, they had to collect more data to be absolutley sure, that this newly discovered particle really is the predicted higgs boson.
We must understand this is only a popular suggested model explaining what we have discovered and observed in the last century- There are other interpretations that we have yet to explore - Understand this will change in 2015 - Then we will witness a truly historic moment-
But we have time dilation in Einstein’s Relativity that is relative to the energy and momentum of an object! In this theory the physics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual within our own ref-frame! The wave particle duality of light be acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer.
was the laser pointer really needed when explaining whats on the tshirt, also imagine if this guys pants suddenly fell down to his ankles halfway thru the talk
Light is classified as Radio, Tv, microwaves, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma. Particle-wave duality happens with all particles not just light. Nothing is ever spontaneous, there is always a reason that something happens. Also how does it form a blank canvas that we can interact with? Also explain what you mean by reference frame?
Actually, quantum physics is all about seeing the universe as fields/waves and not just as particles. Just because they are looking for one particular "particle" doesn't mean that they don't realize that understanding 'stuff' in the universe requires and understanding of both particle and non-particle (a field/wave) theory. I know it seems like that is all they are looking for but that couldn't be further from the truth. Just check stuff out on Quantum Mechanics & u will understand.
Higgs Boson is like a mixture of the existing particles.. that collided to form new particles.. Hence, by colliding particles at light speed. they have smashed the existing particles together to form their so-called Higgs Boson. I only wonder if the particles actually break down into higgs boson or the particles combined to form higg boson... If the particles are combined, this means that human themselves forcefully created higg boson.
It's not a waste, unless you no longer need the world wide web and medical science...particle physics may seem like a waste to you. But without the study and experimentation of particle physics we would not be as advanced in medicine, national security, industry, computing, science and various other things as we are today.
1:09 An image of the expansion of the universe. The satellite looks back toward the beginning of the universe...oh reallly. Sure 1:25 The beginning of the universe occured something like 13.7 billion years ago. Oh...sure. How did you come with that one? 1:46 Cosmic fire wall. Plasma that filled the early universe. Oh, so we can't observe it (the early universe), we're trying to figure it out by doing these experiments...but we know there was a plasma there. Oh, a plasma. Sounds legit!
Think of gravity and the higgs field as having a kind of symbiotic relationship. Both are explained as a random accident by atheists like Steven Hawking. On the subject of gravity, Hawking says, "some universes may have none, while in ours we got lucky." We don't know why they exist or how they were created. Yet each of these would be worthless without the other. That's intelligent design, and an example of why Christians love science.
ARE YOU ASKING ME TO EXPLAIN QUANTUM PHYSICS? Okay, fine, fine -,- Look at this scenario. We learned to control electrons to build electromagnetic fields used for a massive number of purposes. The Higg Boson is also known as the gravitron. As in the force of gravity rather than electromagnetism. Imagine if we learned to control it in the same way? Or discovered other forms of physics as yet untapped? IT'S CALLED DOING RESEARCH
Okay. I get it. It's huge because it proves a theory. Without this particle the universe would not exist as we know it. But what does this discovery do for us? What might this give us or lead to? Am I to be satisfied with it's existence alone? I either fail to appreciate this or its just a bit anticlimactic.
Just look at the opening picture of the blank faced "where is it" hippy withhis outstretched and empty hands, and you get the exactly clear picture of what the Hadron team found, which is absolutely nothing. I watched the internal video, where the director in the classroom there at the facility ASKS his fellow scientists and researchers "if they think they've got it" and the reaction was far less than " yes ". Well, they were told the deciders were "going with it anyway". It was an internal "intelligence briefing and warning ", notifying those present that a decision had been made, assessing their acquiesence and gently demanding their compliance and cooperation. A sort of polling run, met with fetid results, a nice little political group think exercise, getting all the duckies in a row and on the same page, a preventative measure, to preclude the possibility of near time public embarrassment with members for instance blank faced and stunned that "it had been found" without any of them knowing.
It is explained in "plain English". You just don't understand it and that's a difference. On the other hand, fundamental researches does not have to immediately return invested moneys. By the way, CERN is a world-wide organization. Many countries pay to it's budget which is not that great in the end.
If we set the mass of the electron to 1, then the mass of the neutron would be 1838.683676. Does this mean that the electron has 1 Higgs boson hanging on for the ride and the neutron has 1838.683676 Higgs bosons? Clearly not. For one thing these are not whole numbers. Secondly, why do we not see intermediate values? It seems to me that there is so much wrong with the Higgs theory I don't know where to begin. The Higgs particle was supposed to be the particle which gives other particles their mass, but then they give us the mass of the Higgs particle. What the hell gives the Higgs particle its mass? What they discovered at the LHC was something which lasted 10^-22 of a second. They do not have detectors which can detect anything that short lived. All they can detect are its effects which may or may not agree with the theory. Some scientists are now saying that we need more than one Higgs field. Come on! If a theory is correct it leads to a simplification not an added complication.
i do believe you are actually being quite rude sir. as i always have and will defend your right to dispute the opinions of others i do feel that your remarks are quite unnecessary. again, the statements i have made are PURELY OPINIONATED and therefore required no actual input from anybody. i didnt look to start an argument with anyone, i merely wished to state that IN MY OPINION this "discovery" is not really a monument to human sciences if they don't know what to do with this information yet
No, you have to look at the conservation of energy. Everything is made of energy, even matter or particles as explained by Einsteins E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2. Time has no energy nor does it have mass; thus, we conclude is not physical. Also, time is only apparent when repetition occurs. Time is only a realization of this repetition. In conclusion, time is not physical in any case.
It is my understanding that particle physics is a bit of misnomer now that we understand quantum subjects more in the context of waves/or fields. However, why can't we continue calling it particle physics since the world we live in, and even the universe (after the initial big bang) is filled with planets, stars and galaxies that have 'mass' (particles). Isn't the universe that we know more digital (dealing with mass and stuff of "particles", things we see), than analogue so to speak?
I don't know if I buy it. 1) It seems like a logical loop to say that all particles are a result of other particles. 2) How is it even possible to have a particle that does not have mass? It seems like mass-less particles are a matter of convenience that allow physicists to say "look, we have really complicated math that explains these things we don't really understand but the numbers come out right so sure, why not?." 3) The Higgs-boson sounds a lot like the "luminiferous aether" that was put forward a long time ago. How is this all that different?
Perhaps I'm just crazy and/or an idiot in comparison to these guys (which is a likely possibility) but to say you have a particle that does not occupy space is something of a contradiction in itself. It seems to me that science, in this sense, is operating somewhat backwards. Physicists seem to want to say that mass is a result of other forces whereas, from my observation of the universe, all forces originate from mass and terminate at mass so that mass itself is the fundamental force of the universe. But maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about...
A particle can have a positive, negative or no charge at all. Even though particles are just made up of energy that have no charge-characteristics at all. You can think of it like that when you think about particles with or without mass. Mass is a property of a particle but what the Higgs Boson explains is why it has that property.
1) Particle physics explains how particles change from one form to another. 2) It's actually harder to explain why particles have mass. The Higgs field is the best explanation. 3) Higgs field is like a medium, but it does not act as a force, it interacts with particles to give them inertial mass. The "luminiferous aether" was thought to be a medium in absolute space. It was disproved by Einstein, space is not absolute, it is the same in all reference frames.
It's nice to see science people not calling people stupid for questioning things. Thanks for that. I don't understand particle physics. I seem to confuse myself quite a bit when I try to. Any recommendations on books, videos, lectures?
***** The aether has been conclusively disproved by every experiment in the field. The Higgs field does not mean that all of space is full of Higgs particles. The quantum vacuum has a certain energy value everywhere, particles come into and out of existence continuously for very short periods of time. You can only detect these particles if you cause them to interact in a tiny volume of space. For example, around electrons these virtual particles are interacting with the electromagnetic field of the electron all the time, but do not contribute much energy to the electron overall. The electron interacts with the Higgs field for a very short amount of time (on the order of 10^-25 seconds) and gains inertia from it, by interacting with a virtual Higgs particle. A real Higgs particle can only be created by high energy events, like that created at the LHC, and only exists for a similar amount of time before it decays into photons or quarks, which can be detected.
Or rather vague in the lax use of very broad terms which are not clearly defined. I find it rather odd how you feel you can make that statement. It seems a rather broad one, much like the great majority of the suppositions in this video.
If it is SO significant, this #Bozon discovery, then how significant is it that the Higgs decays into it's detector products (gamma rays) ~1.5X faster than the standard model predicts?
phxmarker mark well actually this is quite significant because it shows that there is physics beyond the standard model that we need to explore in order to get a better understanding of our universe
They want to know for sure what originated us, aren't you curious? And it can also help in technological and quimical development and "know-how". 'nuf said.
One thing has always mystified me about the conclusion drawn from these experiments; When particles collide and break up into various smaller parts, WHY does this automatically imply that it is breaking up into more basic and different types of SUB-UNITS ? Why can it not just be viewed as an already homogeneous, basic and MAIN fundamental particle just being broken up into smaller parts of the SAME material and NOT into different types of sub particles. If I smash a potato and it breaks into smaller pieces, these smaller pieces are not some NEW and different type of right and left, upper and lower QUARK potatoes or IDAHO bosons...they are just smaller parts of the SAME original potato material which has just been broken up into smaller, but same type of material. Why in particle physics do they presume that these pieces which " spin off" after a cyclotron collision are different types of particles. This would be presuming that a particel like a proton, for example, could not be split up UNLESS it was composed of sub-units...BUT that seems like a flawed and self-serving presumption.
Great questions. You should definitely look into it more on your own, so much good information on particle physics on the web for you, even Wiki. What you are thinking of as "splitting" is a bit incorrect. When they smash particles together they are not splitting but converting in to energy and from that energy particles will form of that energy, and the more energy they need to form the shorter they live. So what is happening is the classic equation E=mc^2 in action(the energy is turning into matter and matter into energy). The higgs boson is made by getting enough energy to cause the higgs field to fluctuate (particles are just point like fluctuations in a field) like getting a wave in a pool to pinch off a droplet. Then it decays(remember higher energy shorter life?) and the energy of the decay creates particles again and are detected. of course there is more detail and some finer points to all this but it's a good start explanation.
Hi Ammelid What a great and detailed answer. You are obviously some sort of physics major OR a professor. Naturally, I am not qualified to debate this with someone who seems to be an expert on the subject, and I do understand your explanation about this experiment not really being a " splitting " of particles, but a energy to matter transfer, but I still have some questions, so forgive me if my questions are a bit naive. Till now the common description of this process for us laymen was that it is designed to " split " these particles into their ostensibly smaller sub-components, so this new characterization, that the smashed particles all turn into energy and then turn back again into different particles, i.e., ENERGY coalescing into different size particles of varying life spans...is a bit hard to relate to. Even if this were the case, could it not also still suggest the same conclusion, that these bigger energy compilations are just different size portions of the SAME fundamental material; i.e., that it is still fragments of the same material, bigger in some areas of more energy then others, but NOT a different type of material, and therefore not a different particle ? MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION Can you clarify once and for ALL whether or not the recent CERN experiment did detect particles which traveled faster then the speed of light or NOT ? Some sites say they did and that they subsequently re-confirmed it...while others say this was an error in observation or calibration of their detectors . Even though I am just a dumb former trial lawyer, I am an amateur " theoretical " physicist ( which means I can just guess at stuff and not really know or have to prove anything )...and I have written papers years ago with my own theory, based on numerous world wide experiments, such as the TUNNEL EXPERIMENT and others, that EINSTEIN was wrong about the limitation on the speed of light and that there is an INVISIBLE portion of light which travels much faster but which we cannot detect with our instrumentality until it slows down to the speed of light. I " theorized" that would would resolve and explain many of the contradictions about the nature of light and reconcile and solve many paradoxes in physics, such as the QUANTUM PARADOX issue and the controversy about the true size and meaning of the RED SHIFT What do you think ?
Leon Maliniak First off I'd like to point out physicists will describe the physics to the public in a useful yet simple manner. Talking about Particles instead of fields, it's just harder to understand in general. But everything is thought of as being a field(an area of space with a value), and particles are disturbances in that field(which describes the particle/wave duality weirdness). Talking about it as splitting is and old idea and has been hard to discontinue explaining it as such. Some particles do have smaller particles making up particles. Perfect example is the proton. The proton is made up of 3 quarks. Though even that doesn't “split” and functions like I pointed out earlier. It is hard to relate to. :) so don't feel bad. This is why we use the language of math to explain and understand it. You see what an experiment does and you describe it with math and if you have the right description you can ask questions of the math and infer things and if its correct you can start to predict with it.(this is where the higgs boson came from.”if this and this does this and that does that, that would infer this other particle, let's go see if it is true. And then we found it”). Energy IS the common material everything is made of. The only thing that makes particles different are certain properties. Like charge, spin, etc.. but all made out of energy. There could be more fundamental, or “fragmented” particles. We don' know yet. That's something you could research and find out. And what the LHC will be doing when it comes back online from and upgrade :D. Did CERN detect particles faster than light? Sorry to say, no. No one has found or detected particles faster than light. There was and experiment but it ended up being a timing error. So no FTL yet. The fastest a particle can travel is limited by a fundamental property of space. This is written as c(c stands for a constant). hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c4 And so if you have zero mass you will travel as fast as space will allow. Since Photons are mass-less they travel at the limit(though sometimes slower, but never faster). If a particle did so move faster it would mean our numbers for the Electric Permittivity and Magnetic Permeability of space is not accurate enough and we would just need to build a better experiment in order to get better data. The whole point of building better experiments is to go beyond what we know, and to try and break what we previously thought to be correct. It's a great day in science when we find out we are wrong and see something new! You can guess and theorize all day, but if it can't be tested or you cant run an experiment and describe it in the math, at the end of the day it's just wishful thinking and doesn't help to further understand our reality. Great quote “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” -Richard P. Feynman You should watch some of Sean Carroll's lecture and talks on TH-cam. They are easy to listen to and have very good information. And fun to watch.
NICE DETAILED and EXPERT ANSWER ! You are sort of in fact confirming, in an indirect way that it possible that our current instrumentality may not be accurate enough to detect particles IF some exist which travel faster then light and this is what I concluded in a paper that I wrote entitled " A LAWYER PUTS EINSTEIN ON TRIAL " where I challenge his conclusions and his math about the SPEED OF LIGHT and the true nature of GRAVITY as a FORCE and not just a DEFORMATION OF SPACE, and where I cite the experimental results of many teams around the world who have measured and detected SUPRA-LUMINAL phenomena. The one " smoking gun " experimental construct that is one of the basis of my paper is the so called TUNNEL EFFECT experiment. Since you are obviously an expert, you know what I am referring to. There, ONE beam, slowed down by CESIUM gas molecules wins the race against an unobstructed beam in a vacuum...against the conventional wisdom I conclude from this that there is an INVISIBLE portion of light which our instruments cannot detect until it is SLOWED DOWN to the speed of light...which if true would reconcile and explain many of the classical controversies about the nature of light, including the QUANTUM PARADOX, the nature of the RED SHIFT and the true size of the Universe and the dual nature OF LIGHT. Q.E.D.
The study I think you are referring to was from around 2000? A lot of news outlets missrepresented the study. What happened was the group phase velocity travels faster then the light itself. But light did not travel faster. And no information was transmitted faster. galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Applets/sines/GroupVelocity.html I would love to see your data that challenges Einsteins math. And yes. There is currently a lot happening on whether gravity is a field, or emergent from spacetime curvature, or something else. Waiting on lhc upgrades to test some of those ideas. I know there was a confirmation of quantum tunnelling. And the effect is do to the probabilistic nature of particles. Nothing about ftl.
and im asinine for simply asking, again, WHAT IS THE HIGGS BOSON MADE OF IF THINGS DONT JUST EXIST?! does it have a center, does it contain mass itself, are there other atoms or particles that make up its creation, do we know what this Higgs Boson will do for science and technology if anything at all, can we harness it for something. put simply, what is it made of and why am i supposed to care as much as is stated? why is this so hard to understand?
Could we be creating our own quantum particles? Particle accelerators just use higher energy the process is universal the spontaneous absorption and emission of light (wave particle duality) is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual! Time is an emergent property with the future coming into existence photon by photon within each ref-frame. This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics ‘time’ as a physical process!
Seems like physics is always searching for the next particle to explain a new phenomenon. Its difficult to imagine the universe being made of something different than just a particle. I wonder if this consistently linear mindset is leading us to miss certain things in physics.
We can build cheap houses in developing countries. Made entirely out of Higgs-Bosons. This revolutionary, simple construction material can help eradicate poverty and homelessness moving into the 21st century and beyond.
We might never know the actual age of the universe but we can come close. Just like the age of the earth we can come close, but we have a fair idea of how old both are. We will never be 100% accurate, but why not try to know. Also, yes he was wrong about the beginning being homogeneous, but i also believe that if someone had said something he would have rectified his mistake.
When I was in grad school I met Dr. Ellis and had dinner with him. I was a lowly doctoral candidate. He treated me as a peer. I really nice guy. Hi Dr. Ellis.
I never realized Gandalf was such an expert on particle physics.
I though it was Tommy Chong.
"It is not the main order of business to have a well-worked out alternative."
That is the nature of science. Anyone with a better theory can present it, and if it tolerates being picked apart and examined by peer-review it can replace or be added to the existing theory.
If you can't show your work, your protest become a protest of your own ignorance rather than a critique of anything else.
I thought the higgs interaction was more of a virtual particle exchange with the field - and the more frequently it happens the more resistance is felt. What about the rest mass eh?
i get the feeling we will all have our, 'you reached for the secret too soon, you cried for the moon' letdown sooner rather than later.
while i applaud scientific search, there are risks and unknown side effects to such efforts. all i can do now is enjoy whatever time remains mine to enjoy, and i wish and hope for you to do the same in all peace and tranquility and full of hope and thankful for all good that has been gifted to you.
Thank you hipster Dumbledore for clearing things up for us.
I always thought that energy was responsible for the mass - as an example binding energy. Elementarparticles also has energy due to their mass, and in some cases this can be released. If the Higgs boson is responsible for the mass of elementary particles, it can also be responsible for its energy. But how do they do that?
half of the answer i was looking for. thank you kind sir for words of actual intelligence.
Particle Physics...
If you want to understand basically how the LHC works, you only need to understand Special Relativity.
The faster you make a particle move the more energy it has... and energy and matter are interchangeable.
Smack two very very energetic particles together and the result isn't two particles bouncing off of each other, but the release of all of that extra energy as more particles.
It's a little like getting an extra 20 hubcaps out of a head-on collision.
The legend John Ellis
After he got done with this lecture he was reunited with his band, ZZ-Top.
Why did he emphasize the countries in the Middle East at 19:45?
Neurosponge because that is where the talk was held
"We're fairly positive we've found the HB" directly translates into, "We need 5 more years of funding because we hate working two hours a day teaching this shit to idiotic college kids".
The significance of the Higgs Boson discovery is explained at 18:40
Thanks Dr Ellis. I got the same t. Shirt making the lecture more interesting. Guided tour is available and free. The t.shirt is available for purchase there. A must have items.
Finally, someone pronounces "Einstein" correctly.
A great idea given by a Pakistani scientist Dr Abdul -U.K.-Salam (late). This idea is appreciated world wide by all physicists
gravity is Higgs economy,
less higgs particles oppress particles if they merge,
the opposite Casmiri effect is the transmition of relativistic entropic
informantion among particles so they try to reach a lower
equilibreum of inner componental spin time and external speed.
Also many claim that not only we have virtual quarks inside atoms,
but for even smaller fragments of time among different atoms
the last one is mainstream opinion - but only for very tiny fragments of time,
way smaller than the tiny fragments of time these spontaneous quark bonds
appear inside single atoms.
some tried to even mix theories but didn't work well yet.
fot the quark gravity were some attempts,
but had poor math, not because only of the theory but because
that research group had no great mathematician to build a quark gravity
probabilistic model,
all there teories are fake science for most,
some use gravitons but we never detected that, so
we might have to start with what we have - even if it is silly
constantly arriving to new possibilities...
1:09 - The satelite is observing the cosmic microwave background emittied as a relic of a much hotter universe which is cooling all the time. CMB was emitted when mean photon energies were 1eV produced at 3000 kelvin 1x10^3 times great than observed in blackbody radiation of today. This CMB radiation is essentially a fingerprint of the early universe that we can 'look back on' with a satelite.
Clicked this video solely based on the fact this dude looks like what a smart ass scientist should be.
Hmm, I see. Interesting perspective. I'd be curious to know more.
As i said before we only recognize time passing by because of repetition. Space-Time as we call it can bend because of objects that have a large mass have a big impact in the Higgs field, thus creating more bend. When there is more space in a certain area we see things move in that space normally, but when we look out everything is moving faster. That's only because we perceive it to be that way. It's all perception.
There is a great difference between "the very beginning of the universe" (which has no empirical evidence to support it) and the "relative beginning of mass-matter-energy conversion" of the universe inform of special relativity and the big back which is scientifically supported by empirical evidence through microwave background radiation
we all depend on one another...
we talk about the future and experience...
Electromagnetism is one of the elementary forces which is integrated into the standard model. What was not established by the standard model was mass. Peter Higgs (and others) proposed various mechanisms for it but Higgs described a field and a mediating boson and his prediction appears to be accurate.
If you have a better theory, describe the mechanism, document it, and submit it for peer-review.
This guy worked with the famous John Hagelin who created the flipped SU(5) grand unified theory
The whole reason I said this video is vague is due to a lack of support for some of the claims made (namely the ones I pointed out).
If someone here could clarify those things, I'd be glad to hear about it and have a constructive discussion.
I'm not going to call you stupid, but I will say that your comment is a rather stupid one. It's pretty immature to just call names rather than actually address the things I'm pointing out (but it is easier!).
To look further back use radio wave lengths. Spectral analysis of radio waves will show more red shift. This will show up as low in frequency as anyone cares to measure. The universe will more than double in size.
As usual, the narcissists complain that he spent a lot of time explaining basic physics which they, being self-absorbed geniuses, completely understand. Too thick to realise that he is speaking to non-physicists and therefore has to explain the basics first.
Good job John
Now can we get to what matter and energy are made of and where it comes from?
…… always have a doubt on "how do virus analyse human when they are inside the human body"
1:25 - The Hubble relationship (hubble constant) coupled with the Doppler effect which shows that motion an has effect on wavelegths of light in space idicates that space is expanding and at what speed. By working out the rate of expansion (gained from the hubble constant) we can work out the age of the universe to be roughly 14 billion years old.
No its true and I didn't just mean that. There is a wave/particle duality that takes place. Its not saying they are stupid or anything. I'm purely speculating that perhaps the physical architecture of the universe takes form in more ways than just waves/particles or the interesting fabric of spacetype. Im speculating about a different type of geometry taking place that perhaps we haven't thought of.
Even IF we did not know of such a mechanism, that does not mean one does not exist. A gap in understanding is not demonstrative of what does not exist.
Ahhh... good.
You have an alternative theory to Special Relativity then yes?
Your brilliance must be extraordinary indeed. LOL
When can we expect your publication?
Can Dark matter be explained with Higgs Boson?
so, are we going to see anti gravity and new flying machines??
2:12 Burnnnn. I imagine that's how high order physicists exchange insults.
But what are the particles it produces?
My friend and I run a podcast where we have guests on to espouse alternative points of view to the world. Would you be interested in being on an episode?
they found something, that is very likely the higgs boson, but at the time of the video, they had to collect more data to be absolutley sure, that this newly discovered particle really is the predicted higgs boson.
We must understand this is only a popular suggested model explaining what we have discovered and observed in the last century- There are other interpretations that we have yet to explore - Understand this will change in 2015 - Then we will witness a truly historic moment-
Great new hair style for Brian Cox he would look great with this hairstyle haha
At 15:55 he says they decay into particles of light/photon.
But we have time dilation in Einstein’s Relativity that is relative to the energy and momentum of an object! In this theory the physics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ as a physical process. The spontaneous absorption and emission of light is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual within our own ref-frame! The wave particle duality of light be acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer.
So....did they didn't find manbearpig?!
love the tshirt
was the laser pointer really needed when explaining whats on the tshirt, also imagine if this guys pants suddenly fell down to his ankles halfway thru the talk
Light is classified as Radio, Tv, microwaves, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma. Particle-wave duality happens with all particles not just light. Nothing is ever spontaneous, there is always a reason that something happens. Also how does it form a blank canvas that we can interact with? Also explain what you mean by reference frame?
It sounds like Johnny believes in The Aether Bunny! You see his tracks in that Higgs snow? ;-)
Found the T-shirt online. Just google higgs boson t shirt.
Actually, quantum physics is all about seeing the universe as fields/waves and not just as particles. Just because they are looking for one particular "particle" doesn't mean that they don't realize that understanding 'stuff' in the universe requires and understanding of both particle and non-particle (a field/wave) theory. I know it seems like that is all they are looking for but that couldn't be further from the truth. Just check stuff out on Quantum Mechanics & u will understand.
Higgs Boson is like a mixture of the existing particles.. that collided to form new particles.. Hence, by colliding particles at light speed. they have smashed the existing particles together to form their so-called Higgs Boson. I only wonder if the particles actually break down into higgs boson or the particles combined to form higg boson... If the particles are combined, this means that human themselves forcefully created higg boson.
always arriving at the same possibility... World Peace;)...
Divine Love
I love how his shirt looks like is says T.H.C.
Thanks a lot sir
Dr Ellis please answer my question, is the God gene in both positive and negative blood types, and do animals have it also?
It's not a waste, unless you no longer need the world wide web and medical science...particle physics may seem like a waste to you. But without the study and experimentation of particle physics we would not be as advanced in medicine, national security, industry, computing, science and various other things as we are today.
1:09 An image of the expansion of the universe.
The satellite looks back toward the beginning of the universe...oh reallly. Sure
1:25 The beginning of the universe occured something like 13.7 billion years ago. Oh...sure. How did you come with that one?
1:46 Cosmic fire wall. Plasma that filled the early universe. Oh, so we can't observe it (the early universe), we're trying to figure it out by doing these experiments...but we know there was a plasma there.
Oh, a plasma. Sounds legit!
Think of gravity and the higgs field as having a kind of symbiotic relationship. Both are explained as a random accident by atheists like Steven Hawking. On the subject of gravity, Hawking says, "some universes may have none, while in ours we got lucky." We don't know why they exist or how they were created. Yet each of these would be worthless without the other. That's intelligent design, and an example of why Christians love science.
I love how he looks like that scientist from Jurassic Park series. lol. but overall. he's very informative.
ARE YOU ASKING ME TO EXPLAIN QUANTUM PHYSICS?
Okay, fine, fine -,- Look at this scenario. We learned to control electrons to build electromagnetic fields used for a massive number of purposes.
The Higg Boson is also known as the gravitron. As in the force of gravity rather than electromagnetism. Imagine if we learned to control it in the same way? Or discovered other forms of physics as yet untapped?
IT'S CALLED DOING RESEARCH
oh dat region..
Okay. I get it. It's huge because it proves a theory. Without this particle the universe would not exist as we know it. But what does this discovery do for us? What might this give us or lead to? Am I to be satisfied with it's existence alone? I either fail to appreciate this or its just a bit anticlimactic.
he says, 'could be the particle' that means it's not definite!
Just look at the opening picture of the blank faced "where is it" hippy withhis outstretched and empty hands, and you get the exactly clear picture of what the Hadron team found, which is absolutely nothing.
I watched the internal video, where the director in the classroom there at the facility ASKS his fellow scientists and researchers "if they think they've got it" and the reaction was far less than " yes ".
Well, they were told the deciders were "going with it anyway".
It was an internal "intelligence briefing and warning ", notifying those present that a decision had been made, assessing their acquiesence and gently demanding their compliance and cooperation.
A sort of polling run, met with fetid results, a nice little political group think exercise, getting all the duckies in a row and on the same page, a preventative measure, to preclude the possibility of near time public embarrassment with members for instance blank faced and stunned that "it had been found" without any of them knowing.
It is explained in "plain English". You just don't understand it and that's a difference. On the other hand, fundamental researches does not have to immediately return invested moneys. By the way, CERN is a world-wide organization. Many countries pay to it's budget which is not that great in the end.
If we set the mass of the electron to 1, then the mass of the neutron would be 1838.683676. Does this mean that the electron has 1 Higgs boson hanging on for the ride and the neutron has 1838.683676 Higgs bosons? Clearly not. For one thing these are not whole numbers. Secondly, why do we not see intermediate values? It seems to me that there is so much wrong with the Higgs theory I don't know where to begin. The Higgs particle was supposed to be the particle which gives other particles their mass, but then they give us the mass of the Higgs particle. What the hell gives the Higgs particle its mass? What they discovered at the LHC was something which lasted 10^-22 of a second. They do not have detectors which can detect anything that short lived. All they can detect are its effects which may or may not agree with the theory. Some scientists are now saying that we need more than one Higgs field. Come on! If a theory is correct it leads to a simplification not an added complication.
I just want to know whats on the t-shirt
I don't understand "beginning" of the Universe-I always thought of the universe as something without a beginning or end...Can someone enlighten me?
i do believe you are actually being quite rude sir. as i always have and will defend your right to dispute the opinions of others i do feel that your remarks are quite unnecessary. again, the statements i have made are PURELY OPINIONATED and therefore required no actual input from anybody. i didnt look to start an argument with anyone, i merely wished to state that IN MY OPINION this "discovery" is not really a monument to human sciences if they don't know what to do with this information yet
If you can refute this so easily then publish your own theories. (If you have any)
Good to see Venezuela there
No, you have to look at the conservation of energy. Everything is made of energy, even matter or particles as explained by Einsteins E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2. Time has no energy nor does it have mass; thus, we conclude is not physical. Also, time is only apparent when repetition occurs. Time is only a realization of this repetition. In conclusion, time is not physical in any case.
It is my understanding that particle physics is a bit of misnomer now that we understand quantum subjects more in the context of waves/or fields.
However, why can't we continue calling it particle physics since the world we live in, and even the universe (after the initial big bang) is filled with planets, stars and galaxies that have 'mass' (particles). Isn't the universe that we know more digital (dealing with mass and stuff of "particles", things we see), than analogue so to speak?
I don't know if I buy it.
1) It seems like a logical loop to say that all particles are a result of other particles. 2) How is it even possible to have a particle that does not have mass? It seems like mass-less particles are a matter of convenience that allow physicists to say "look, we have really complicated math that explains these things we don't really understand but the numbers come out right so sure, why not?."
3) The Higgs-boson sounds a lot like the "luminiferous aether" that was put forward a long time ago. How is this all that different?
Perhaps I'm just crazy and/or an idiot in comparison to these guys (which is a likely possibility) but to say you have a particle that does not occupy space is something of a contradiction in itself. It seems to me that science, in this sense, is operating somewhat backwards. Physicists seem to want to say that mass is a result of other forces whereas, from my observation of the universe, all forces originate from mass and terminate at mass so that mass itself is the fundamental force of the universe. But maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about...
A particle can have a positive, negative or no charge at all. Even though particles are just made up of energy that have no charge-characteristics at all.
You can think of it like that when you think about particles with or without mass. Mass is a property of a particle but what the Higgs Boson explains is why it has that property.
1) Particle physics explains how particles change from one form to another.
2) It's actually harder to explain why particles have mass. The Higgs field is the best explanation.
3) Higgs field is like a medium, but it does not act as a force, it interacts with particles to give them inertial mass. The "luminiferous aether" was thought to be a medium in absolute space. It was disproved by Einstein, space is not absolute, it is the same in all reference frames.
It's nice to see science people not calling people stupid for questioning things. Thanks for that. I don't understand particle physics. I seem to confuse myself quite a bit when I try to. Any recommendations on books, videos, lectures?
***** The aether has been conclusively disproved by every experiment in the field. The Higgs field does not mean that all of space is full of Higgs particles. The quantum vacuum has a certain energy value everywhere, particles come into and out of existence continuously for very short periods of time.
You can only detect these particles if you cause them to interact in a tiny volume of space. For example, around electrons these virtual particles are interacting with the electromagnetic field of the electron all the time, but do not contribute much energy to the electron overall.
The electron interacts with the Higgs field for a very short amount of time (on the order of 10^-25 seconds) and gains inertia from it, by interacting with a virtual Higgs particle.
A real Higgs particle can only be created by high energy events, like that created at the LHC, and only exists for a similar amount of time before it decays into photons or quarks, which can be detected.
Or rather vague in the lax use of very broad terms which are not clearly defined.
I find it rather odd how you feel you can make that statement. It seems a rather broad one, much like the great majority of the suppositions in this video.
If it is SO significant, this #Bozon discovery, then how significant is it that the Higgs decays into it's detector products (gamma rays) ~1.5X faster than the standard model predicts?
phxmarker mark well actually this is quite significant because it shows that there is physics beyond the standard model that we need to explore in order to get a better understanding of our universe
I have that same tee shirt!!! I got it from the British Museum.
They want to know for sure what originated us, aren't you curious? And it can also help in technological and quimical development and "know-how". 'nuf said.
I understand what you mean now. Fair enough.
One thing has always mystified me about the conclusion drawn from these experiments; When particles collide and break up into various smaller parts, WHY does this automatically imply that it is breaking up into more basic and different types of SUB-UNITS ?
Why can it not just be viewed as an already homogeneous, basic and MAIN fundamental particle just being broken up into smaller parts of the SAME material and NOT into different types of sub particles.
If I smash a potato and it breaks into smaller pieces, these smaller pieces are not some NEW and different type of right and left, upper and lower QUARK potatoes or IDAHO bosons...they are just smaller parts of the SAME original potato material which has just been broken up into smaller, but same type of material.
Why in particle physics do they presume that these pieces which " spin off" after a cyclotron collision are different types of particles. This would be presuming that a particel like a proton, for example, could not be split up UNLESS it was composed of sub-units...BUT that seems like a flawed and self-serving presumption.
Great questions. You should definitely look into it more on your own, so much good information on particle physics on the web for you, even Wiki. What you are thinking of as "splitting" is a bit incorrect.
When they smash particles together they are not splitting but converting in to energy and from that energy particles will form of that energy, and the more energy they need to form the shorter they live.
So what is happening is the classic equation E=mc^2 in action(the energy is turning into matter and matter into energy).
The higgs boson is made by getting enough energy to cause the higgs field to fluctuate (particles are just point like fluctuations in a field) like getting a wave in a pool to pinch off a droplet.
Then it decays(remember higher energy shorter life?) and the energy of the decay creates particles again and are detected.
of course there is more detail and some finer points to all this but it's a good start explanation.
Hi Ammelid
What a great and detailed answer. You are obviously some sort of physics major OR a professor.
Naturally, I am not qualified to debate this with someone who seems to be an expert on the subject, and I do understand your explanation about this experiment not really being a " splitting " of particles, but a energy to matter transfer, but I still have some questions, so forgive me if my questions are a bit naive.
Till now the common description of this process for us laymen was that it is designed to " split " these particles into their ostensibly smaller sub-components, so this new characterization, that the smashed particles all turn into energy and then turn back again into different particles, i.e., ENERGY coalescing into different size particles of varying life spans...is a bit hard to relate to.
Even if this were the case, could it not also still suggest the same conclusion, that these bigger energy compilations are just different size portions of the SAME fundamental material; i.e., that it is still fragments of the same material, bigger in some areas of more energy then others, but NOT a different type of material, and therefore not a different particle ?
MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION
Can you clarify once and for ALL whether or not the recent CERN experiment did detect particles which traveled faster then the speed of light or NOT ?
Some sites say they did and that they subsequently re-confirmed it...while others say this was an error in observation or calibration of their detectors .
Even though I am just a dumb former trial lawyer, I am an amateur " theoretical " physicist ( which means I can just guess at stuff and not really know or have to prove anything )...and I have written papers years ago with my own theory, based on numerous world wide experiments, such as the TUNNEL EXPERIMENT and others, that EINSTEIN was wrong about the limitation on the speed of light and that there is an INVISIBLE portion of light which travels much faster but which we cannot detect with our instrumentality until it slows down to the speed of light.
I " theorized" that would would resolve and explain many of the contradictions about the nature of light and reconcile and solve many paradoxes in physics, such as the QUANTUM PARADOX issue and the controversy about the true size and meaning of the RED SHIFT
What do you think ?
Leon Maliniak First off I'd like to point out physicists will describe the physics to the public in a useful yet simple manner. Talking about Particles instead of fields, it's just harder to understand in general. But everything is thought of as being a field(an area of space with a value), and particles are disturbances in that field(which describes the particle/wave duality weirdness). Talking about it as splitting is and old idea and has been hard to discontinue explaining it as such.
Some particles do have smaller particles making up particles. Perfect example is the proton.
The proton is made up of 3 quarks. Though even that doesn't “split” and functions like I pointed out earlier.
It is hard to relate to. :) so don't feel bad. This is why we use the language of math to explain and understand it. You see what an experiment does and you describe it with math and if you have the right description you can ask questions of the math and infer things and if its correct you can start to predict with it.(this is where the higgs boson came from.”if this and this does this and that does that, that would infer this other particle, let's go see if it is true. And then we found it”).
Energy IS the common material everything is made of. The only thing that makes particles different are certain properties. Like charge, spin, etc.. but all made out of energy. There could be more fundamental, or “fragmented” particles. We don' know yet. That's something you could research and find out. And what the LHC will be doing when it comes back online from and upgrade :D.
Did CERN detect particles faster than light? Sorry to say, no. No one has found or detected particles faster than light. There was and experiment but it ended up being a timing error. So no FTL yet.
The fastest a particle can travel is limited by a fundamental property of space. This is written as c(c stands for a constant). hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefie.html#c4
And so if you have zero mass you will travel as fast as space will allow. Since Photons are mass-less they travel at the limit(though sometimes slower, but never faster).
If a particle did so move faster it would mean our numbers for the Electric Permittivity and Magnetic Permeability of space is not accurate enough and we would just need to build a better experiment in order to get better data.
The whole point of building better experiments is to go beyond what we know, and to try and break what we previously thought to be correct. It's a great day in science when we find out we are wrong and see something new!
You can guess and theorize all day, but if it can't be tested or you cant run an experiment and describe it in the math, at the end of the day it's just wishful thinking and doesn't help to further understand our reality.
Great quote “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” -Richard P. Feynman
You should watch some of Sean Carroll's lecture and talks on TH-cam. They are easy to listen to and have very good information. And fun to watch.
NICE DETAILED and EXPERT ANSWER !
You are sort of in fact confirming, in an indirect way that it possible that our current instrumentality may not be accurate enough to detect particles IF some exist which travel faster then light and this is what I concluded in a paper that I wrote entitled " A LAWYER PUTS EINSTEIN ON TRIAL " where I challenge his conclusions and his math about the SPEED OF LIGHT and the true nature of GRAVITY as a FORCE and not just a DEFORMATION OF SPACE, and where I cite the experimental results of many teams around the world who have measured and detected SUPRA-LUMINAL phenomena.
The one " smoking gun " experimental construct that is one of the basis of my paper is the so called TUNNEL EFFECT experiment.
Since you are obviously an expert, you know what I am referring to. There, ONE beam, slowed down by CESIUM gas molecules wins the race against an unobstructed beam in a vacuum...against the conventional wisdom
I conclude from this that there is an INVISIBLE portion of light which our instruments cannot detect until it is SLOWED DOWN to the speed of light...which if true would reconcile and explain many of the classical controversies about the nature of light, including the QUANTUM PARADOX, the nature of the RED SHIFT and the true size of the Universe and the dual nature OF LIGHT.
Q.E.D.
The study I think you are referring to was from around 2000? A lot of news outlets missrepresented the study.
What happened was the group phase velocity travels faster then the light itself. But light did not travel faster. And no information was transmitted faster. galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Applets/sines/GroupVelocity.html
I would love to see your data that challenges Einsteins math.
And yes. There is currently a lot happening on whether gravity is a field, or emergent from spacetime curvature, or something else. Waiting on lhc upgrades to test some of those ideas.
I know there was a confirmation of quantum tunnelling. And the effect is do to the probabilistic nature of particles. Nothing about ftl.
"consistently linear mindset "
I've never known students to be terribly "linear" about anything.
So.......if something moves fast enough does it lose mass due to it interacting with the boson field less?
and im asinine for simply asking, again, WHAT IS THE HIGGS BOSON MADE OF IF THINGS DONT JUST EXIST?!
does it have a center, does it contain mass itself, are there other atoms or particles that make up its creation, do we know what this Higgs Boson will do for science and technology if anything at all, can we harness it for something.
put simply, what is it made of and why am i supposed to care as much as is stated? why is this so hard to understand?
Could we be creating our own quantum particles?
Particle accelerators just use higher energy the process is universal the spontaneous absorption and emission of light (wave particle duality) is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual! Time is an emergent property with the future coming into existence photon by photon within each ref-frame.
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics ‘time’ as a physical process!
I always wondered what was inside Einstein's little sister!
Again, you don't even understand the concepts you are criticizing. The above demonstrates a secondary level of understanding of physics.
Seems like physics is always searching for the next particle to explain a new phenomenon. Its difficult to imagine the universe being made of something different than just a particle. I wonder if this consistently linear mindset is leading us to miss certain things in physics.
cool piano, can I get my own higgs boson?
What can you do with a Higgs-Boson particle ? Is it worth the trouble finding it ?
Cam Tinley
Thats a damn good question, any practical uses for a higgs boson?
the higgs boson is what gives you mass or makes you solid.
We can build cheap houses in developing countries. Made entirely out of Higgs-Bosons. This revolutionary, simple construction material can help eradicate poverty and homelessness moving into the 21st century and beyond.
Lisa how big is probability for a super coliderrrr to create any particles improper for Universe or for natural way???/
I suppose you understand after so long time this probability can to exist.
Don't think it works that way you smash cars together you get smaller particles of flying glass, metal, plastic, etc. you don't get extra hubcaps.
lol
We might never know the actual age of the universe but we can come close. Just like the age of the earth we can come close, but we have a fair idea of how old both are. We will never be 100% accurate, but why not try to know. Also, yes he was wrong about the beginning being homogeneous, but i also believe that if someone had said something he would have rectified his mistake.
I though that was Dr. Zaius from the thumbnail.
Awesome