This guy is the best I have seen at explaining things. I didn't like his presentation at first, but as he explained he was so clear in his explanations that I understood everything he said. I would want this guy explaining all the science stuff I watch. Absolutely brilliant.
Amazing that neutrinos preceded light by 2 hours, and amazing that the density of the core was sufficient to contain neutrinos for any time at all! Also that all three types of neutrinos were generated at the core. Wonderful presentation.
Since neutrinos have mass, they travel slower than the speed of light. Therefore, even though the neutrino burst of an exploding supernova gets emitted first, wouldn’t the burst of light overtake them and reach us first? Why does the light arrive 2 hours later?
It depends on the physics of the collapsing star. Photons generated within a star do not immediately radiate to space. They pass through many transitions within the star, because the star is not transparent, as it is to neutrinos. In a stable star like our sun, a photon generated internally can take thousands of years before its energy is radiated to space. A supernove is much more complicared. I can’t even imagine how they compute the dynamics of energy release.
@@GH-oi2jf Great reply. I knew that our sun’s photons take a long time to radiate into space from the time they are created. It didn’t occur to me that the same thing would account for the supernova light delay.
So MeV neutrinos, with micro eV mass gamma = 1e12, and 1-v2=1/g2….v=root(1-1/g2) approx 1-1/2g2….so c-v = c/1e24. While 150ky X pi10 is 1e15 seconds, so mass leads to a microsecond delay. Not observable.
Given that the neutrinos emerge before the other radiation, and assuming that you are protected from the normal radiation from the star, how close would you have to be to the star to feel the effects of the enormous pulse of neutrinos as they pass through on their way out into space?
Question..(18:18) How could the detectors discovered the neutrinos interaction 2 hours before the optical detections? Neutrinos with its mass suppose to hv travelled slower than speed of light right?
Wondering what the relativistic distance the neutrinos from 1987A supernova experienced. Interesting to note that the 10-second emission period of neutrino burst is the same as predicted for a newly-formed neutron star. Puts an upper limit on the deviation from the speed of light neutrinos with mass should have.
The overly aggressive gate on the mic was worse than the clipping. While it is unpleasant, clipping doesn't usually impede understanding. That's why megaphones sacrifice fidelity for power. But the gate cutting off the beginning of every single phrase he spoke was too much for me.
My random musing.. Chain of thought. What is the nature of the fabric of spacetime? Is it a "field" of some sort? What is the nature of the "fundamental" Forces, do they exist separate from "matter"? If the "forces" only exist in relation to "matter", then could it be matter's interactions with the "field" of Spacetime that actually give rise to the other forces? Why does "matter" or "energy" interact with spacetime at all? Are they "relative" to "spacetime" and only perceived as separate while interacting with "matter"??? I don't know but it is fun to think about!🕵
Alexi Chen ...which is one of the more ridiculous notions to come out of the realm of pseudoscience, at least the notions that aren't a priori bullshit, like "ancient aliens" or "UFOs are landing all over the US right now!" and other laughable stuff. This "EU" garbage, unfortunately, is presented by these idiots as if there's even one piece of evidence to support it!
This information is dated. It's now known that electricity is the main contributor to the structure of stars and galaxies. Gravity is not the driving force.
Love & Division what hard evidence do you have for that crazy untrue bullshit? That "electric" universe stuff is total nonsense. It's just a desperate grab for some "new" hypothesis. "Gravity is not the driving force"? Gravity is the WEAKEST of all the "forces" (and NONE of those include any "electric" silliness). Quit "learning" your pseudoscience from non-entities like the idiots on late-night talk radio & start learning real things from credible sources!!
Thunderbolts.info is a good place to start... "The greatest defense against knowledge is the believe you already know everything". The "science has settled this issue" statement that you hear, is the greatest foolishness I know.
I don't like this lecture, almost zero new and interesting information, i was expecting to see whole process of supernova from quantum theory to general realtivity but 90% of lecture was about detectors and some bla bla
With all this absorbed knowledge I wonder why he cannot learn to deliver this information in clear unbroken English. As native English speaker, for me, at least, it is not easy on the ear and really takes a certain extra determination to follow what he is saying.
try to learn a language. Then, you do a PhD with this new language. After that you give a talk with your non-native language regarding the topic of your PhD. After all of this, then you may complain about something... by the way, his English seems fine to me.
I didn't hear any broken English. An extremely light accent was not at all hard to follow. But fading out and a rapid speaking pattern required careful attention, not hard for me. The content was fabulous, and scrupulous in keeping it in language for a general audience, like myself.
It is such an honor to have immediate access to SLAC lectures/presentations, thank you very much!
This guy is the best I have seen at explaining things. I didn't like his presentation at first, but as he explained he was so clear in his explanations that I understood everything he said. I would want this guy explaining all the science stuff I watch. Absolutely brilliant.
exactly my thoughts, too !
Amazing that neutrinos preceded light by 2 hours, and amazing that the density of the core was sufficient to contain neutrinos for any time at all! Also that all three types of neutrinos were generated at the core. Wonderful presentation.
This channel is a treasure
Thank you. I hope we keep our national laboratories strong.
Great presentation!
Wonderful talk - loved your persona and the way you explained things to the lay person
a tip : you can watch series at flixzone. Me and my gf have been using them for watching lots of of movies during the lockdown.
@Jamir Lyle Yup, have been watching on flixzone} for years myself =)
Great job!
Since neutrinos have mass, they travel slower than the speed of light.
Therefore, even though the neutrino burst of an exploding supernova gets emitted first, wouldn’t the burst of light overtake them and reach us first?
Why does the light arrive 2 hours later?
It depends on the physics of the collapsing star. Photons generated within a star do not immediately radiate to space. They pass through many transitions within the star, because the star is not transparent, as it is to neutrinos. In a stable star like our sun, a photon generated internally can take thousands of years before its energy is radiated to space. A supernove is much more complicared. I can’t even imagine how they compute the dynamics of energy release.
@@GH-oi2jf Great reply. I knew that our sun’s photons take a long time to radiate into space from the time they are created. It didn’t occur to me that the same thing would account for the supernova light delay.
So MeV neutrinos, with micro eV mass gamma = 1e12, and 1-v2=1/g2….v=root(1-1/g2) approx 1-1/2g2….so c-v = c/1e24. While 150ky X pi10 is 1e15 seconds, so mass leads to a microsecond delay. Not observable.
شكرا على الترجمه ❤
great talk. But why do nearly all the figures mentioned differ from those shown on the slides that accompany it?
I downloaded this Thank you
Given that the neutrinos emerge before the other radiation, and assuming that you are protected from the normal radiation from the star, how close would you have to be to the star to feel the effects of the enormous pulse of neutrinos as they pass through on their way out into space?
Aren't neutrinos oscillating Inertial planes?
at what temperature does the rms speed of the hot particles approach c?
kT=mc^2
Question..(18:18)
How could the detectors discovered the neutrinos interaction 2 hours before the optical detections? Neutrinos with its mass suppose to hv travelled slower than speed of light right?
Light energy takes time to work its way out of the collapsing star. The neutrinos get a head start because they are not impeded in the same way.
Wondering what the relativistic distance the neutrinos from 1987A supernova experienced. Interesting to note that the 10-second emission period of neutrino burst is the same as predicted for a newly-formed neutron star. Puts an upper limit on the deviation from the speed of light neutrinos with mass should have.
MeV energy with micro eV mass is gamma = trillion. So about 1000 feet.
Great but need to work on the audio, too compressed, very hard to listen too,
The overly aggressive gate on the mic was worse than the clipping. While it is unpleasant, clipping doesn't usually impede understanding. That's why megaphones sacrifice fidelity for power. But the gate cutting off the beginning of every single phrase he spoke was too much for me.
Flamu?
My random musing.. Chain of thought.
What is the nature of the fabric of spacetime?
Is it a "field" of some sort? What is the nature of the "fundamental" Forces, do they exist separate from "matter"?
If the "forces" only exist in relation to "matter", then could it be matter's interactions with the "field" of Spacetime that actually give rise to the other forces?
Why does "matter" or "energy" interact with spacetime at all? Are they "relative" to "spacetime" and only perceived as separate while interacting with "matter"???
I don't know but it is fun to think about!🕵
see the videos about the Higgs Field
Just a simple simulation showing my theory I'm working on
54:30 Q&A
31:47 i wonder if this guy need a haircut, because he cant see. Someone hairstylist help this poor fellah.
some of the comments here either didn't understand the info presented or just plain can't get past their pseudo EU theories
What do you mean by EU?
Electric Universe
Alexi Chen ...which is one of the more ridiculous notions to come out of the realm of pseudoscience, at least the notions that aren't a priori bullshit, like "ancient aliens" or "UFOs are landing all over the US right now!" and other laughable stuff. This "EU" garbage, unfortunately, is presented by these idiots as if there's even one piece of evidence to support it!
All pure white physics.
This information is dated. It's now known that electricity is the main contributor to the structure of stars and galaxies. Gravity is not the driving force.
That flag behind you is also dated.😲
+SeanMauer That chick in the 3rd row is also someone i dated.
The "Electric Universe" is a cult of pseudoscience bullshit. This video is about real science.
Love & Division what hard evidence do you have for that crazy untrue bullshit? That "electric" universe stuff is total nonsense. It's just a desperate grab for some "new" hypothesis. "Gravity is not the driving force"? Gravity is the WEAKEST of all the "forces" (and NONE of those include any "electric" silliness). Quit "learning" your pseudoscience from non-entities like the idiots on late-night talk radio & start learning real things from credible sources!!
Thunderbolts.info is a good place to start... "The greatest defense against knowledge is the believe you already know everything". The "science has settled this issue" statement that you hear, is the greatest foolishness I know.
I don't like this lecture, almost zero new and interesting information, i was expecting to see whole process of supernova from quantum theory to general realtivity but 90% of lecture was about detectors and some bla bla
He does not know how to read number! All the time he was saying some different number from the ones in the slide! Como on!
Craig Wall you're absolutely correct!!
With all this absorbed knowledge I wonder why he cannot learn to deliver this information in clear unbroken English. As native English speaker, for me, at least, it is not easy on the ear and really takes a certain extra determination to follow what he is saying.
try to learn a language. Then, you do a PhD with this new language. After that you give a talk with your non-native language regarding the topic of your PhD. After all of this, then you may complain about something... by the way, his English seems fine to me.
I didn't hear any broken English. An extremely light accent was not at all hard to follow. But fading out and a rapid speaking pattern required careful attention, not hard for me. The content was fabulous, and scrupulous in keeping it in language for a general audience, like myself.