ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Ghost Particles (for Halloween) - Sixty Symbols
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ต.ค. 2011
- More mind-mending particle physics from the guys at the University of Nottingham. Happy Halloween?
With Ed Copeland and Tony Padilla
Visit our website at www.sixtysymbol...
We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
And Twitter at #!/...
Who're you gonna call? Particle physicists!
*Ghostbusters
Bit of a mind bender... but a simpler Halloween video about astronomy will be uploaded soon!
@Jeuhann I think you might like my soon-to-be-launched channel called numberphile - you can subscribe already and videos are on the way!
I really would have liked to hear an example when they used this.
Thanks for that little bit of mind-mending! :-)
Richard Feynmann wrote an excellent book entitled QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, which explains the ghost particles and path integrals in a very thorough and understandable way.
@ASwiftHippie no worries. was just explaining.
The majority of scientists I've met are not usually very "extreme" in their attitudes to anything. It clouds rational thought.
It is a minority of so-called "science people" on the web who can sometimes be a bit more rabid and get frothy at the mere mention of the word Bible... that is not the same thing!
(And of course I'm well aware that there are some religious people who can be strangely irrational about science!)
great job with the editing Brady !
Between ghost particles, quantum mechanics, and the different string theories. Sometimes its just like ".....does anyone know whats going on?". It feels like we are just batting at and measuring the interactions of shadows. Like "Oh that dog barked at a rabbit and it ran away" then we explain why the rabbit ran because of its fear response to the dog. Then when we turn around we find out its just two hands playing shadow puppets and the things we thought we saw and their interaction have nothing to do with what was actually happening. That's just what it always feels like .3.
One of the very best 60 Symbols ⭐️⭐️⭐️
"No."
why was there not a T.A.R.D.I.S. materializing noise?
@TheHeyderefatty glad you liked it
@hevyAccel In a very simplified way, something like this is a way of saying "we know something is happening, we know its effects, we know what properties it displays and we know how it would have to happen in order to get the observable results we get, but we can't actually see this process occurring". This is actually somewhat common in physics.
So basically, bad ghost particles is an exploit.
It's an exploit in the rules of physics.
There are two definitions of the term "Theory", the one that is used in ordinary speech means essentially a "Guess" or a "Hypothesis". But the way the term is used in science is to mean "a well-substantiated explanation". Germ theory for instance is an explanation of how micro-organisms can cause disease, while there is enough evidence to show that this is a fact it is still an explanation and thus still a theory (In the scientific sense of the word).
still not clear... still sounds like mathematical tricks... crazy particle physics!!!
Brady - really going nuts on the editing tricks on this one. I think you've already got quite the reel, you didn't need this to show off your skills. But this is a nice, condensed orchestra of Brady and his editing. Good on you.
They need to do a follow up video on virtual particles. Its a math trick though and the math focused physics community usually refers to their tricks as particles as opposed to theorems.
7:00 a ghost physicist, holding a ghost doll, explaining ghost particles.
ghostception.
Love it Brady that you plays devil's advocate and ask questions, that as a viewer, I had watching the video. Continue the wonderful work.
The problem with trying to explain these concepts is that most people think about quantum effects as having a linear timeline. Something as simple as two electrons bouncing off one another is a perfectly reversible event in conventional time. The causal component is determined by a "probability topology" made up of equally likely outcomes. A traveling electron is in fact interacting with its future, reducing the possibilities to the most likely outcome.
I can't help but notice that this sounds exactly like Taoism.
You have yin and yang (ie good and bad ghost particles), canceling each other out and what's left is the "Tao"; the infinitesimally thin line between those two invisible forces which makes up our physical universe.
@xeel224109 He's talking about an invented type of particle that doesn't actually exist, but in mathematical terms it does. The trick is that you place this "ghost particle" as a factor in a open part of an ecuation making it a valid or invalid depending on where you need to go. As they said, there isn't only one path to getting a result there are numerous ways of getting the same result, what the ghost particles do is they clear the other ways and so you get the real, physical way of doing it.
You should draw a distinction between your "ghost particles", of quantum chromodynamics, and the "emergent" particles like the quasiparticles and collective excitations, in condensed matter, which you could also call "virtual particles" in some sense, if I am not mistaken!
I love the editing, great job :)
Magical fading in and out professors!
To do this all Brady did was use the background with no-one in the seats, then use normal footage being transparent over the top of it. Everything aligns except the new thing in the scene, the person. Giving the person a ghost like appearance.
Yes, that's it in a nutshell. If you observer an closed system with an x amount of energy, like 2 particles interacting, and you introduce virtual particle/antiparticle pairs (whose sum energy is 0) into those interactions, and then you observe the result of the interactions, and the total energy of all the result is not equal to x, then either your theory, or your calculations are wrong.
The reason they do this at all, is because in particle physics, the interactions are not the same as in Newtonian physics. Interactions are through fields, and some theories postulate that the fields interact via virtual particles.
Consider a permanent magnet, it has a permanent electro-magnetic field around it. If it was radiating real photons, it would become less energetic over time, it would decay, but that doesn't happen, and virtual photons are used to mathematise the field.
I'm reminded of the Look Around You episode about the haunted laboratory.
When we have Quantum Computers in working order, then some of these virtual particles may be able to be established, as conglomerates of primes assembled as wave probabilities. (?) Ie any property established to exist at all, can then be found to have relative associations in proportion, completing the sets of path probabilities. (?)
Great video even amateur scientists can get.
@killernat I always go a bit crazy at Halloween!
Brady, I have a request.
A series of videos on the standard model, the different category of particles as well as the particles, how did we detect them, what do they mean for use on day to day life, and so on and so forth.
What do you say?
@FoundOdyssey oh dear... I hope it was insured!
brady seems to have been having fun with superimposition
A tachyon is a theoretical particle that travels faster than the speed of light (in fact, it cannot travel slower). I believe theory goes that a particle with a negative mass would act like a tachyon in that it could not travel slower than the speed of light (hence it is tachyonic). Don't quote me on that though!
@mentld It's not just a math trick though. Physicists add up divergent infinite series like that all the time and apparently it's useful for something.
Sixty Symbols im my subscription box!! im happy now!
Haha I really enjoyed this ghost effect, it was rather simple but the subject they were talking about was so complex that the idea in the end closed perfectly.
Good job Brady
the theory of gravitation includes the law of gravitation which is F=G(m1m2)/r^2
In essence it just attempts to describe how the gravitational force between two objects changes depending on how far apart they are, and how much mass either of them have.
You seem to think that the thing physicists are describing as a "theory" is the *existence* of gravity. You would be wrong. Gravity exists - fact.
ohhh rigghtt... the higgs symmetry breaking phase transition!
@qazmkofy well there is the problem. divergent series. it does not converge to any limit. that means you can't "add up" when n->infinity. in physics its mostly about approximations. they take averages or cut the series at some point that and use it.
Brady always asks the perfect questions. I was thinking: If they're not real why use them? Is it not like finding random words just to finish a crossword? Of course, I'm wrong. I really tried to follow this but like so much of particle physics I just have to accept that it is beyond me. Oh boy, but I do love to try!
@oficiallyunofficial you're welcome
I'm loving this guys..
@Woosly192 hey, at least you tried!
Interesting, but a particle of mathematical convenience. A discussion of how we would quantify and detect actual ghosts would have been great =)
@LordZentei Yes. And this is what happens all the time around us apparently, the quantum fluctuations at the best smallest, lowest energies imaginable. Smaller even.
And it lends a hand to stealing mass from blackholes, if Hawkings Radiation is correct. (which it has to be, or there is some other huge thing happening we don't understand)
The Vacuum Energy article on Wikipedia has a pretty good description of the process last I checked.
awesome audio work i must say
I so enjoy this!
Feynman: The Don Johnson of physics.
Ghost Particles burn cold, sink up, float down, explode slowly and exist in non-reality
I actually find these types of phenomena harder to understand when the scientist tries to make them super accessible.
@xarepe1 I noticed that too, wondered if it might be some sort of deliberate physics in-joke, but then I remembered "never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity".
4:38 this looks awesome! If only we could actually film atoms like that!
No, there's no energy produced or destroyed - as he said in the video they always appear in a pair with overall 0 energy. They're coming into existence with no energy. Like you can write 0 as 8-8, 6-6, (36/6)-6, but they're still all 0 even though there are numbers there.
@stardude692001 My guess is that they could not remove the quantum uncertainty of the sub-atomic particles themselves, so that you could never say they were at absolute zero.
Do keep in mind, I'm a layman myself, and this is a layman understanding and explanation of it. It's much more intricate than this, but this is the basic concept behind it I believe.
If there is someone more knowledgeable on the subject, please join in.
I feel the same way! Most of the others deliver an intuitive understanding of the complex concepts being explained. But this one just has my head spinning, confused.
@sidewaysfcs0718 photons doesn't cause the repelling force between Z and W gauge bosons are. PHOTONS that you mention are LIGHT.
i love the symbol for this sixty symbols video XD
An interesting coverage and I feel glad to have audited it.
As for Gauge particles and gauge fields . . .
A lot of fun with numbers trying to describe realms where quantum dimensions house particles living in negative time, without which our understanding of the observable universe would be extensively disrupted (as Newtonian Physics no longer satisfy). I am both a Science Fiction Writer and an oldster and, so, outre concepts like Supersymmetry, 11D Fractals, and Planck Basal Tension, are my meat and potatoes . . . and I find myself loath to give them up--even if Hawkings fudged his "negative time" math to increase sales.
DR. COPELAND! YOU DA MAN!
if you were able to essentially fire "a stream of ghost particles" at a substance and the ghost particles are constantly taking energy from that substance, would you be able to get it eventually down to 0 K since it would eventually take away all energy from the molecules?
So, are they used like complex numbers are in mathematics?
+Voz in mathemitics complex numbers are used in pretty much the same way as any other kind of numbers.
+Voz Complex numbers exist
+Kardop yea in your heads
The apple and inflatable ghost were essential. :-)
I've never been more confused by a sixty symbols video.
Great job, Brady! You all are a fine group of people.
@QwoPhasaArius the astronomy one is much simpler! even I understand it!
loved the video...thanks brady
@Doenerwa It is a TH-cam thing - until someone at TH-cam reviews the video the view count stays around 300.
After a little bit of research (okay, I just looked it up on wiki) it seems that a particle with an imaginary rest mass (that is, a rest mass of the square root of a minus number) would travel faster than light. I know nothing about imaginary numbers, but I think I was wrong in my belief that a particle with a negative mass travels faster than light.
@AudioJustG You will have to spend a lot of energy on producing these particles. And then you will spend energy on separating those particles, since they will be attracted to each other. Beside, a load of charged particles isn't really that useful.
@mentld No, it's different than that. It goes against common sense, but remember that mathematics is a human invention, and we can do whatever we want with numbers. Summing divergent series actually has applications in the real world. Look up "Zeta function regularization" on wikipedia if you want to know more.
@lugosky02 great idea; I would enjoy watching a series like that.
so if the positive and negative kinetic energy cancel out, and the fact that energy cannot be destroyed, mean that no energy was in-fact used and that this is essentially free energy?
@gaiagale you would need proof that infinite minus infinite is equal to zero because infinite is not a normal number. It is something which has no upper bound.
Whenever these thoughts occur to you consider this. Is it possible that a large consensus of people that have knowledge in this area, that have worked (WORKED) for their entire careers in this field, have not also thought of the point I (with 10 mins of thought and less knowledge) have stumbled across? These people understand the concepts they have developed very well and not only that but are also acutely aware of any limitations a standard may involve
Typo in the description, though after that I could use some nice 'mind-mending' physics!
I'm learning so much its spooooooooky.
Man, if I earn one coin every time prof. Ed says the word fluctuation...
Well, fluc you British, too!
@Doenerwa I vote that it was an error with the IPS (Internet positioning system) not taking into account the gravitational field of google warping space-ping-time near and around youtube.
Particles with negative energy, huh? I remember in the sixtysymbols video on wormholes, prof. Copeland explained that to have a stable wormhole, you'd need particles with negative energy, so could the "bad ghosts" be the possible solution to this? Or am I completely missing something?
My brain is full of ghosts, this is seriously confusing
Neat editing though!
@sixtysymbols Fantastic answer.
I think it's hard to understand ghost particles in this video because as a "non-physicist" I don't understand the deficiency in the particle physics that Feynman or whoever was trying to fix. If the equation or the energies don't balance because of a missing factor "x", then x is the ghost particle and it is "real" in the sense that the experimental data are both consistent AND predictable using x. If you can predict results with x, x is real within the particle physical model. Or not?
There is no data that doesn't follow what they established as far as I can tell. They base the existence of virtual particles based on the observations they make. This is how science works, you derive a theory (or formula) based on obsevations. That is all they have done here.
Virtual particles exist, but only in ways that we can't detect them. So for example they could be involved in a reaction for a shorter amount of time than a Plank length? Is that right?
Another question: Would it be possible to produce a ton of particles with both positive and negative energy from nowhere, then get rid of the particles with negative energy by, lets say sending them to space, and then be left with particles with normal energy? You take nothing, zero, and make a plus one and a minus one from it, but you only salvage the plus one. Could something like that be used as a source of "free energy"?
Interesting (in a bad way)... I read a very enlightening paper not too long ago on Dirac's FULL equation and his theory of a sea of negative energy, which made a lot more sense than this explanation that sounds more like a cop-out on not being able without doing Heisenberg's 'math trick'. Could you please give us your opinion on Dirac's theory and his complete equation, which seemed to work out perfectly without all the magic hocus pocus'ghost particles?
These people are the true heroes :D
I find it easier not to think about it because I'm neither a physicist nor a mathematician.
This sounds a lot like virtual particles and particle pair creation.
I would be interested to know if this phenomena might account for things such as the Casimir effect, and much of the hidden mass of the universe.
Maybe the mass of Dark Matter is countless pair-created particles?
Maybe the force behind Dark energy is tied to their interaction with the rest of the universe?
If so, then 95% of the universe is virtual... *boggle*
@gaiagale You need no proof to determine that you can't normally calculate infinite minus infinite. You would need a proof that infinite minus infinite is zero. There are ways to calculate the result of infinite minus infinite, you can use certain tricks to do it. The easiest way is to find a way to rewrite the equation to infinite divided by infinite and then use L'Hopitals Rule.
@Hunnter2k3
I was aware of the vacuum energy, but those aren't extant particles; they're virtual, aren't they?
book-keeping to make the math work essentially. We just assume in maths, and go from there.
Another good video, bit hard to understand but youtube is for perserverance
good editing brady
OH I LOVE THE PACMAN PICTURE! ((: