Sean Carroll - The Particle at the End of the Universe

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 พ.ค. 2024
  • It was the universe's most elusive particle, the linchpin for everything scientists dreamed up to explain how stuff works. It had to be found. But projects as big as CERN's Large Hadron Collider don't happen without dealing and conniving, incredible risks and occasional skullduggery.
    Buy Sean's book "The Particle at the End of the Universe" - geni.us/LQYMuM
    Award-winning physicist and science popularizer Sean Carroll reveals the history-making forces of insight, rivalry, and wonder that fuelled the Higgs search and how its discovery opens a door into the mind-boggling domain of dark matter and other phenomena we never predicted.
    Watch the event Q&A: • Sean Carroll - The Par...
    The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
    and Facebook: / royalinstitution
    and Tumblr: / ri-science
    Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
    Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
    Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.
  • วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี

ความคิดเห็น • 1.3K

  • @buzzy-ears
    @buzzy-ears 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I'm a non native English speaker and I am completely charmed by his accent, dialect, whatever it is that makes him sound so endearing. You don't expect him to hit you with all this knowledge when he opens his mouth and starts talking like a 1950's cartoon character

  • @sumtotalofhumanknowledge2174
    @sumtotalofhumanknowledge2174 4 ปีที่แล้ว +75

    Just came to say this to Sean Carroll - Sir! I can't thank you enough for sharing and explaining the kind of complex stuff, for ordinary people like me. Your lectures make the world better. Thanks a million. Keep up the great work!

    • @GodFake-fm2gh
      @GodFake-fm2gh หลายเดือนก่อน

      Then stop begin ordinary and learn fool

  • @robertwilliams204
    @robertwilliams204 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    38:30 As a truck driver who has hauled oversized loads, my hats off to the team who got this piece of the LHC through this small town as it was being constructed.

    • @Jemawin
      @Jemawin 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I appreciate your unique perspective. Thanks.

    • @leh3011
      @leh3011 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Maybe his magnet helped lol... I'm still asking why cosmic rays are hacking my phone

  • @davidbell3975
    @davidbell3975 10 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    I've just finished reading Sean's book and although it was heavy going for a casual physics fan, it has elevated my understanding of the fundamental reality of the world we live in. Highly recommended.

  • @RubixNinja
    @RubixNinja 5 ปีที่แล้ว +209

    This was the best explanation I have ever heard of the subject. And I'm a physics graduate.

    • @dn1697
      @dn1697 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      ... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

    • @citrine615
      @citrine615 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Ditto, RubixNinja.

    • @unclesamzbastardsonu.s.b.s9315
      @unclesamzbastardsonu.s.b.s9315 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      This was the best explanation I have ever heard too, and I'm an idiot 🙄

    • @troydavis1
      @troydavis1 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      thats the hallmark of deep understanding, as Richard Feynman famously remarked

    • @ericparrish1515
      @ericparrish1515 ปีที่แล้ว

      Not to be sewn or weird abstractions may loom

  • @TechNed
    @TechNed 6 ปีที่แล้ว +193

    As usual for Prof. Carroll, a perfect mix of humour and matter of fact explanation. Totally engaging.

    • @dn1697
      @dn1697 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      ... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

    • @Shafeeqh
      @Shafeeqh 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@dn1697 l

    • @inkman6964
      @inkman6964 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Matter of theory not fact

    • @TechNed
      @TechNed 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@inkman6964 "matter of fact explanation" is a phrase describing the style of delivery, not the subject matter.

    • @bitterlyhonest2307
      @bitterlyhonest2307 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@inkman6964 Fact is the evidential data that proves predictions made by a theory. In the case of standard model on particle physics it is now a "matter of fact explanation".

  • @truvelocity
    @truvelocity 8 ปีที่แล้ว +342

    Great communicator. Great at teaching. How much more plainly can he explain something? He's wonderful.

    • @Mendelmandela
      @Mendelmandela 7 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      ....while watching the famous communicator of science talk about mathematics and physics am struck at the sight of Sean Carroll who is the striking reincarnation of Richard Feynman .....

    • @johnkendal5562
      @johnkendal5562 6 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      He is - but sadly what he teaches so excellently is false theory

    • @elrecursodelmetodo
      @elrecursodelmetodo 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      How's that?

    • @DANGJOS
      @DANGJOS 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Enter the Braggn' If anything is a false theory, it would be the electric universe stuff

    • @75hilmar
      @75hilmar 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      We should use croudfunding to buy his books and send them to crucial parts of the science, development and education system

  • @DataSmithy
    @DataSmithy 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    I haven't been that gripped by a TH-cam video for quite a while. What a pleasure to watch and listen to this man talk about our progress the discovery of particle physics and basic knowledge of the universe. And the accomplishments of mankind! This man really gets excited about that part of it also.

  • @fortuner123
    @fortuner123 5 ปีที่แล้ว +49

    As a non scientist I found this talk really interesting. Excellent speaker.

  • @bobsmith-ov3kn
    @bobsmith-ov3kn 7 ปีที่แล้ว +152

    I gotta say, I was NOT expecting Violent Jay and Shaggy2dope to be featured in a Sean Carrol talk about the Higgs boson...

    • @osmium6832
      @osmium6832 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Slightly disappointed that he didn't do the full research and called the fans "jugaloos". I can forgive the error because ICP "culture" is quite alien to most academics.

    • @jimlovesgina
      @jimlovesgina 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@osmium6832 He mispronounced it. Wow. What disrespect. How much research is required to properly quote a couple of idiot creationists rapping about things they know nothing about? "The tide goes in. The tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that!"

    • @iandoyle5017
      @iandoyle5017 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@osmium6832 And countless laymen including those that dont like rap music, gimmicks or clowns.

    • @lsb2623
      @lsb2623 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      juggaluggalos!

    • @pitpotdeeerste
      @pitpotdeeerste 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I did not expect the gender PC talk in here either. The estimated neocortical synapses are 40% less in females. Its science !!!

  • @Dr10Jeeps
    @Dr10Jeeps 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I love this stuff. Thank you RI for all such lectures and Dr. Carroll for this one.

  • @dombrunelli5082
    @dombrunelli5082 9 ปีที่แล้ว +85

    A fascinating lecture. I'm glad to be living at this time; best since the Renaissance

    • @stevenjackson1747
      @stevenjackson1747 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      17,256 BC was the best year. I wish I lived back then.

    • @jimsykes6843
      @jimsykes6843 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I am writing from 17,256 CE. How funny you people thought there was a Higgs Boson and shitting in the woods was bad.

    • @ophiolatreia93
      @ophiolatreia93 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Better than the renaissance

    • @kidmohair8151
      @kidmohair8151 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      some of you appear to have missed the memo about the new numbering system.
      everything is now dated from the coming of our beneficent lord gravitin,
      who illuminated the universe....what is this renaissance thing? for that matter, a year?
      what defines a good one?

    • @dombrunelli5082
      @dombrunelli5082 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@kidmohair8151 I think you missed your meds today.

  • @DataSmithy
    @DataSmithy 5 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    "A thousand years from now we will remember the day we found the Higgs boson.". What an amazing quote.

    • @shanestrickland5006
      @shanestrickland5006 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Yea if we survive that long and that's a big if.

  • @vagabondo2009
    @vagabondo2009 10 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    Brilliant presentation. Thanks

  • @blueberry-ri7eb
    @blueberry-ri7eb 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thank you for making the subject so understandable

  • @BladeRunner-td8be
    @BladeRunner-td8be 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Throughout his talks he always brings us back to what's important about whatever he is talking about. And so much more than that but I'm in a hurry so no time to tell you all the other things. Must go to work. Sean Carroll is in my top 3 favorite physicists to listen to. He's fantastic.

  • @SPKaa
    @SPKaa 11 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    This talk was fantastic on every level. It's as if he focus-grouped his locutory pace and engineered maximum information density with plenty of hooks for younger folks. I'm in awe of Sean Carroll's mind. The pursuit of knowledge is the highest endeavor of mankind. Thank you for sharing, Royal Institution. I look forward to enjoying many more of your videos.

  • @jmmacb03
    @jmmacb03 10 ปีที่แล้ว +32

    Really well done sir! I keep reading and this lecture was such a clear explanation I am going to suggest it to friends, as my brother suggested it to me.

  • @brax300
    @brax300 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I’m in love with particle physics, quantum’ mechanics, all that. I listen to these lectures religiously. Although I’m not that smart, just a dumb stoner college kid, I’m not smart enough to understand the math. I can appreciate and understand what they’re trying to get across. I’m so interested in this stuff and the discoveries keep my mind entertained for hours. If only I understood math better :(

  • @sethrudfelt8380
    @sethrudfelt8380 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Cannot believe he brought up ICP lol that's amazing to even get acknowledgement from someone like him. Been a long time juggalo. He could've chose anyone else to make the point, and he didn't show disrespect, just got the name of us fans a bit wrong. Pretty epic he even mentioned them/us at all without throwing shade, even though it's the world's most hated band and least favorite musical/artistic community in some people's eyes...

  • @theideagirlsays
    @theideagirlsays 8 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    just finished reading your book sean , it explained the standard model, physics and particles and the higgs to me in an easy to read and learn way. I took 97 pages of notes which I draw things you say about particle physics so I can educate myself. I'll be blogging about it soon. I'm going to blog this video to let people know you have a fabulous book which I recommend to all students or anyone wanting to study physics...

  • @ThePinkus
    @ThePinkus 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    It's amazing how the perspective is changed six years later, because we have not found, and we are not finding, those new particles. But even more so, 55:39 is still valid, there must be new physics out there.

  • @michaelogden5958
    @michaelogden5958 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Dr. Carroll is an amazing lecturer. The Royal Institution lectures are a treasure.

  • @ramakrishnagodugunur195
    @ramakrishnagodugunur195 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thank you very much for sharing the wonderful information!

  • @LyzStarwalker
    @LyzStarwalker 10 ปีที่แล้ว +17

    Wonderful explanation of subatomic particles and QFT.
    Many thanks to you Mr. Carroll.

  • @abhityagi6562
    @abhityagi6562 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Amazing, awesome explanation on how Higgs Field imparts mass to electron and thus resulting in matter we see around us. I wish i can explain IT stuff to participants in class in such effective manner.

  • @sinpi314
    @sinpi314 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Sean Carroll is one of the best science communicators imo

  • @tmjohnson12051989
    @tmjohnson12051989 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I’m halfway in and this is proving to be such an amazing lecture. I love my man Krauss, but Carroll has made the concept of fields understandable for me for the first time ever. I’m loving it!

  • @ubergenie6041
    @ubergenie6041 8 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    Great explanation worthy of the Winton Prize. Contrast it with Larry Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing," where the Higgs boson is pressed into service as a ultimate creator of the universe. Probably the best video I have seen on CERN's discovery.

    • @alberteinstein3078
      @alberteinstein3078 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Uber Genie Larry krauss? You mean Lawrence krauss.

    • @DANGJOS
      @DANGJOS 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Albert Einstein Yes

  • @Chris-ng9zi
    @Chris-ng9zi 9 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    Just a wonderful lecture! Presented beautifully and expertly.

  • @lukasychtyl1938
    @lukasychtyl1938 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    This is JUST AMAZING. I don't even have to leave my home to achieve some progress. I just need to be curious and I can get this amazing lecture from Mr. Carroll. So enriching. Also I'm glad I can understand english...thank you Mr. Carroll, thank you The Royal Instituon for making this possible. Greetings from Czech Republic

  • @ajsim
    @ajsim 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Very informative. Thank you

  • @roychowdhurysomak
    @roychowdhurysomak 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Thank you professor! I even got a layman's takeaway from the lecture from what you explained at 58:00. It's like Higgs Boson added a few drops of lemon to the eternal bowl of simmering milk, which coagulated it to lumps of cottage cheese like the milky way and so on.

  • @osmosis321
    @osmosis321 10 ปีที่แล้ว +84

    Carroll is my new favorite scientist. He knows his stuff, and his epic pwnage of WLC was delightful.

    • @homebrew010homebrew3
      @homebrew010homebrew3 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Osmosis
      WLC ?

    • @DANGJOS
      @DANGJOS 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Homebrew010 Homebrew William Lane Craig

    • @Alessandro-B
      @Alessandro-B 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      DANG JOS You misspelt Lame. ;)

    • @unreal_taxi
      @unreal_taxi 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      I have not heard “pwnage” in at least ten years.

    • @Mirrorgirl492
      @Mirrorgirl492 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@unreal_taxi Us old people are allowed to use the interwebs too, ya know...bwahahaha

  • @onecanina
    @onecanina 10 ปีที่แล้ว

    Sean is the man. I came here just to clarify something real quick and I ended up staying all the way to end once again. Always a pleasure to listen him talking.

  • @Idontgivechainsaw
    @Idontgivechainsaw 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    One of the best lectures i found o yt. Rly good.

  • @BubbaYoga
    @BubbaYoga 10 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Great lecture!

  • @16rumpole
    @16rumpole 8 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    I commend you sir on somehow managing to get the ICP into a lecture on the Higgs

  • @crackmastergeneral
    @crackmastergeneral 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great lecture, glad to have found Sean Carroll.

  • @mac6away
    @mac6away 11 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thanks for the lecture Sean & Ri.

  • @TheRoyalInstitution
    @TheRoyalInstitution  11 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    @WindScar48 No trouble, glad you enjoyed it! We hope to bring more events to TH-cam throughout the year.

  • @TheRoyalInstitution
    @TheRoyalInstitution  11 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    Thanks!

  • @sahraelmi293
    @sahraelmi293 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    You can feel the true desire of Sean Carroll. He is not only conveying the message, but he is also displaying his true passion for the subject matter. LOVELY!!!

  • @ZeedijkMike
    @ZeedijkMike 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Even though this lecture is a little outdated by now - it still a great pleasure to listen to Sean.

  • @cjgreen3836
    @cjgreen3836 10 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I just love Quantum Physics, amazing stuff, thanks.

  • @winstoncat6785
    @winstoncat6785 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Feynman's heir apparent. Fabulous communicator.

  • @KieranGarland
    @KieranGarland ปีที่แล้ว

    am a big fan of Professor Carroll and have watched an awful lot of his work online but this remains one of his best, most accessible, and is genuinely funny. think this was the talk that first got me hooked

  • @philjamieson5572
    @philjamieson5572 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great book. Thanks again for helping us 'laymen' grasp such complex stuff. Great work, Prof.

  • @foobargorch
    @foobargorch 9 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Jeff B:
    First, under special relativity velocities are not additive, there is a correction term, velocities don't just add up simply.
    If v1 = v2 = 99.999999% of c and we plug into the velocity addition formula ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + ( v1 * v2 / c^2 ) ) since we're working with fractions of c it simplifies to to 2*0.99999999 / (1 + 0.99999999^2) = 0.9999999999999995 (a hair less actually, copypaste into wolfram alpha if you really care about all those digits)
    To each particle the other particle looks like it's travelling towards it at that speed, and from the reference frame of the accelerator both are doing 0.99999999 * c in opposite directions.
    The rest mass of a proton is 0.938GeV/c^2 (this is the e=mc2 formula) and the total energy of the proton (mass plus kinetic energy) is ~2.1TeV ( (0.938GeV/c^2) / sqrt(1 - 0.9999999^2) - this is same mass energy equivalence formula but with a nonzero velocity term).
    When the protons collide their quarks will interact and transform to a range of new particles. these interactions are studied in great detail by looking at what sort of particles fly out, what velocities they have, how they move in an electromagnetic field, etc, that's what it's all about in the end, learning about the statistical properties of the fundamental interactions of elementary particles.
    Because you have 4000 as much energy as there is in a proton at rest you can produce much heavier particles (mass energy equivalence goes both ways) than the protons you started with (as long as they end up moving more slowly), and generally see them decay and produce a whole range of particles (elementary and composite).
    Note that wikipedia says 4TeV per proton so those nines are probably rounded =)

    • @jeffb2002
      @jeffb2002 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      foobargorch Thank you for putting the time in to this. I have no idea why my comment will not allow replies.
      It seems that I am off by some small fraction.

  • @Gammacidio
    @Gammacidio 8 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    I Didn't know James Wood was that good in Physics!

    • @Skindoggiedog
      @Skindoggiedog 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Doesn't look anything like him and, by the way, the whole "I didn't know Person X did Y" thing? It isn't funny. It isn't smart. It's just you saying 'He looks like James Wood.' Come up with something a bit better than that.

    • @Phobos_Anomaly
      @Phobos_Anomaly 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Skindoggiedog You're just a jerk.

  • @alucard0712
    @alucard0712 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    this guy explained everything to me. I will come back to his lectures again and again!

    • @dn1697
      @dn1697 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      ... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

  • @nancysmith1296
    @nancysmith1296 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Yes ! Great lecture, learned a lot and will watch it again. Well done sir, thank you.

    • @denniswalsh8476
      @denniswalsh8476 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      That's what's great about this type of presentation on You Tube, (thanks YT). They can be watched (or rewound) over and over until you feel you understand the material.
      Any presentations done by Dr. Carroll are fantastic and certainly worth watching until you feel some decent level of understanding.

  • @Consleazy
    @Consleazy 7 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Wow, this is the first time I've really understood fields. What a great way to explain the weak interaction.

  • @christian53050
    @christian53050 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    great capacity for simplifying very complex matters...we have come a long way in the last hundred and fifty years...

    • @dn1697
      @dn1697 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      ... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

  • @misswhiplashish
    @misswhiplashish 10 ปีที่แล้ว

    I really enjoyed this. Thank you

  • @vishwabanerjee181
    @vishwabanerjee181 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Amazing lecture...its great to hear you Sean..
    From where I can get the Hard copy of your book you mentioned several times during the lecture?

  • @captain_outis
    @captain_outis 6 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Hey guys, did you know Sean wrote a book on this? I don't know if he mentioned it though.

  • @DanielBrownsan
    @DanielBrownsan 8 ปีที่แล้ว +37

    Name another physicist that can incorporate Insane Clown Posse in their presentation. Go ahead, I'll wait. SEAN IS THE ONLY ONE!

    • @DanielBrownsan
      @DanielBrownsan 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      +leon bushnell Yeah, I watched part of a documentary about juggalos and it was clearly a counter culture of "misfit toys". It's more fitting that Mr. Carroll knows who they are and uses a reference to them in his talk than if ICP mentioned him in a "song".

    • @wabbajackwabbajack6932
      @wabbajackwabbajack6932 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      +leon bushnell isn't it true that icp is just trolling and whatever public image they portray is probably the opposite of what they actually believe? Maybe they aren't but I can tell you that I used to claim juggalo and was DEFINITELY trolling. xD

    • @TheYahmez
      @TheYahmez 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Knowledge in present in his mind probably as the result of a failure to google Trapped Charged Particles properly or something such like.

    • @SauceGPT
      @SauceGPT 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Sean Carroll's amazing and loves the Jugaloos

    • @SauceGPT
      @SauceGPT 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      8:17

  • @jimlkosmo5730
    @jimlkosmo5730 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great lecture. Really energetic and restless presentation.

  • @mrhasanwajahat
    @mrhasanwajahat 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Always good to hear Sean Caraoll...
    His lectures on Dark matter were the best physics lectures I have heard.

  • @tdjdk
    @tdjdk 10 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Circa 1850 - "Electricity? What good will ever come of that?"

  • @alexsaves
    @alexsaves 10 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    We actually don't know how magnets work. We describe their properties but we don't have a working understanding of the mechanism of a magnetic field. Definition of a field: "mathematical construct for analysis of remote effects". We describe effects here, not causes.

    • @Felhek
      @Felhek 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      we know nothing. "the electron spins"...ok...why? "i don't know" hehehe

    • @Mandragara
      @Mandragara 10 ปีที่แล้ว

      Felhek Lehrian You can always ask 'why?'
      If you go by your reasoning, we CANNOT know anything.

    • @TheRohBoat
      @TheRohBoat 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      >electron spins around atom
      >atom has magnetic moment
      >atoms are aligned, creating a domain
      >aligned domains result in a uniform magnetic field
      10 points to physics

    • @fernandotta
      @fernandotta 10 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      TheRohBoat your comment does not give credit to Jesus. Therefore invalid.

    • @Felhek
      @Felhek 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Andy Doney
      do you know?

  • @MrKnnknn
    @MrKnnknn 10 ปีที่แล้ว

    Excellent video, thank you Sean!

  • @climbeverest
    @climbeverest 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Sean Carrol is always great to listen to!

  • @cslamov
    @cslamov 9 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Awesome. Who can possibly dislike this?

    • @Mirrorgirl492
      @Mirrorgirl492 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      347 scientists from CERN who aren't getting Nobel Prizes? ;-)

    • @chi-8289
      @chi-8289 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      But biased. There's a mention of Democritus and his Greek gurus(European white supremacy), there's a mention of inconsequential British scientists, there's a mention of Higgs and some 6 other scientists, there's a mention of Einstein, but there's absolutely NO MENTION OF THE MAN WHO FIRST PREDICTED THESE PARTICLES ANS SENT A LETTER TO EINSTEIN sitting in extreme poverty in the British occupied India after whom this particle is named , S.V.Bose. (Boson). Another example of western appropriation of Science and philosophy. Democritus, Plato and Aristotle's and all Greek philosophers' great guru, Ptolemy, is believed to have travelled through India for 10 years before transferring the knowledge of atoms and philosophical reasoning to the west. Disappointing to see the bias even from scientific community

  • @KateeAngel
    @KateeAngel 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I totally love his book "from eternity to here", it is very interesting

  • @willmpet
    @willmpet 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    I was really enlightened and I’ve really tried to understand before! I learned so much!

  • @flawmore
    @flawmore 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I'm so glad to see this channel having over 400,000 subscribers. We aren't all scientists here, in fact I presume most people are just curious and interested like me. This is important for many reasons. The more parents that are interested in this, the more children will be inclined to work in the field when they grow up, meaning society at an even greater pace will wander towards new scientific breakthroughs in the future. And this will also influence politicians to fund research. Combined with the necessary evil that is greed, new companies will pop up and drive us to the stars. I know this escalated quickly, but channels like this are so important.

    • @TheRoyalInstitution
      @TheRoyalInstitution  5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Thank you for your support. Regardless of whether you're a scientist or whether the children who watch our videos go on to become scientists, we believe that understanding the scientific method and appreciating the wonders and applications of science will make everyone a better, more rounded person. Especially in today's society, it's important to question and critically assess the information that comes at you, and we're very glad if we can play a part in that.

  • @kohZeei
    @kohZeei 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Sean Carroll is one of the best explainers ever, second only to Feynman perhaps.

    • @zayanwatchel8780
      @zayanwatchel8780 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I put Krauss second and Carrol third

    • @2CSST2
      @2CSST2 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      You guys are forgetting Carl Sagan, definitely worth mentionning here.

  • @6ca06018ee2c915a25f4
    @6ca06018ee2c915a25f4 10 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    "So in a hundred years from now . . . because by that point we'll all be immortal and uploaded into the singularity"
    Gold.

  • @RayWalker-pythonic
    @RayWalker-pythonic 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Outstanding explanation. Yes, I'm buying this book. And will now buy all of Sean Carroll's books.

  • @narayananshanker6066
    @narayananshanker6066 10 ปีที่แล้ว

    enlightening lecture, thanks.

  • @x42brown
    @x42brown 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    He's good even I can mostly understand what he is talking about even from my ignorance.

  • @stephenperrenod2478
    @stephenperrenod2478 9 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    It's Fields. And his thesis advisor (and mine) was Prof. George Field.

    • @nmarbletoe8210
      @nmarbletoe8210 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      Stephen Perrenod LOL that explains it! Who needs duality when you can play one like that :)

  • @novav4616
    @novav4616 10 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thank you for uploading this.

  • @farheenhossain686
    @farheenhossain686 5 ปีที่แล้ว +24

    "No one tells you that until you buy my book" 😂😂😂

  • @MaxMisterC
    @MaxMisterC 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    I'm not fat. I just, STRONGLY interact, with the Higgs Field!! 😃

    • @emdiar6588
      @emdiar6588 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      That accounts for your weight, but how do you explain your volume? Do you also strongly interact with pies?

    • @suokkos
      @suokkos 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      It is just an excited field near me. You shouldn't be fooled by it

    • @Mirrorgirl492
      @Mirrorgirl492 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I'm so stealing this. :D

    • @medinachete73
      @medinachete73 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      No, you've eaten it!! 🤡

  • @user-jz7rd5cq4d
    @user-jz7rd5cq4d 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Just a wonderful lecture! Presented beautifully and expertly.. Just a wonderful lecture! Presented beautifully and expertly..

  • @JorgeConstancio
    @JorgeConstancio 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    excellent lecture, thank you

  • @jayarava
    @jayarava 9 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    "There are no particles in the world" - It's fields - but by the end of the talk he has lapsed back into talking exclusively about particles. Otherwise a brilliant talk and very helpful take on the subject.

    • @ronaldderooij1774
      @ronaldderooij1774 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Old habits die hard... even in science.

    • @jayarava
      @jayarava 9 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Old habits do die hard, especially when criticising science from a dualist and/or vitalist position which has scarcely changed since Victorian times. Fortunately progress can be made despite the refusal of some to consider the evidence.

    • @nmarbletoe8210
      @nmarbletoe8210 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      ***** it has to be a dual "reality" -- unobserved it's all fields, observed it's particles. wave/particle duality, same thing, it's both.
      Duality is intriguing. In black hole physics there is a dual description of reality where Bob can fall in and hit the singularity in an hour, but Alice sees Bob falling slower and slower and taking an infinite time to reach the event horizon, never reaching the singularity at all.
      In ADS/CFT duality, quantum field theory in flat space at high energy is dual to string theory in Anti-deSitter Space at low energy in 1 higher dimension. (In this usage, "dual to" means "has the same math as.")

    • @nmarbletoe8210
      @nmarbletoe8210 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      N Marbletoe A recently discovered duality may solve Einstein's dream of unifying Relativity and Quantum physics: quantum entanglement is dual to non-traversable wormholes (EPR = ER).
      Since entanglement is everywhere (empty space is near maximally entangled with itself), spacetime is apparently full of wormholes (Einstein-Rosen Bridges). This is a very new discovery and begins to give a geometrical description of quantum mechanics.

    • @nmarbletoe8210
      @nmarbletoe8210 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      ***** I just found the comment below check it out:Stephen Perrenod 1 month ago
      It's Fields. And his thesis advisor (and mine) was Prof. George Field

  • @TenHanger
    @TenHanger 8 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Really like this video, but I don't like the general statement "there are no particles, only fields". particles are excitations inside the fields, and perhaps it is true they are all massless by nature until running into the Higgs, but "particle" doesn't mean "has mass", and therefore it's wrong to dismiss particles. After all, Bosons are considered "particles" in the Standard Model, and they are massless. This becomes important when discussing the slits experiment, and Quantum Mechanics interpretations (Copenhagen, de Broglie-Bohm, or "many worlds"), as the core argument between interpretations is of the existence of particles (vs just fields and/or waves). No one has yet "won" the interpretation game, so should we simplify already by saying all particles are really just fields and waves producting results within our senses? Great video to spur the mind, but obviously lacking rigor and preciseness in order to shed some simpler light on the Higgs and the Standard Model.
    they key phrase one has to be aware: "As long as Quantum Field Theory is right, we know...". Indeed, we don't know if QFT is right yet. Stay tuned, there are very exciting developments in experimental physics which are shedding light on just that very question-- see Aephraim Steinberg, and fluid-dynamics teams in Paris and MIT for details.

    • @PianoGesang
      @PianoGesang 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      The very word boson means particle.

    • @TenHanger
      @TenHanger 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      no. a boson is one of two classes of elementary particles.

    • @davidt1152
      @davidt1152 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      "Really like this video, but I don't like the general statement "there are no particles, only fields"....the Higgs and the Standard Model."
      I think the appropriate response stems from your next section: Carroll is discussing things in terms of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as opposed to Quantum Mechanics (QM). QFT does not define particles, so it is perfectly accurate to say: 'In QFT "there are no particles, only fields".', though it is a bit silly since it is tautological.
      QFT does discuss sustained field states that correlate to particles in QM. But in QFT, the term "particle" simply has no meaning, and that is what he is trying to convey. The things known as 'particles' in theories that have particles are still represented. It is just that the representations are not inherently differentiated from other field phenomena, but instead an internally artificial and externally relational designation is necessary to translate back and forth.
      "they key phrase one has to be aware: "As long as Quantum Field Theory is right, we know...". Indeed, we don't know if QFT is right yet..."
      QFT is right to a point, as it successfully describes some things better (by some definition of 'better') than other theories. Just like Linear Expansion is right to a point. In terms of QFT, we just don't know precisely where that point is yet.
      And that is where the excitement lies.

    • @TenHanger
      @TenHanger 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It's becoming borderline irresponsible to believe in QFT at this point, as both experimental proof AND theoretically-better theories are making much more sense.
      If you really take QFT to its limit, it forces a physicist into believing there's no causality and therefore no free choice, so what's the point of life? We're all on autopilot anyway. That just doesn't make any sense, if you start by believing anything, there's nothing to believe. It's circuitous meaningless contradictory drivel.
      Whereas in Bohm interpretation, it's a start in the right direction, and those pushing even further like Louis Vervoort (for example) are now pushing even Bohm interpreation to the back shelf in favor of more exact and meaningful non-local field theories, or as Vervoort labels it.... "opens the door for local ‘background-based’ theories, describing the interaction of particles and analyzers with a background field, to complete quantum mechanics."
      Vervoort is likely going in the proper direction here, makes tons of sense, especially when you consider the small sizes of things discussed in string theories. We might be right back to the "aether", albeit not at the size the 1800s Physicists were expecting (they looked at the atomic level). When you combine background-based theories with the fact of estimated sizes for Planck length, it's easy to see that we might be able to account for the aether but without actually ever getting to experimentally SEE it. String theory might be wrong, but the math is probably going in the right directions there to allow someone eventually to push thru some math explaining Bell's Inequality problems within Bohm Interpretation. At long last we might actually "double-jump" to the correct and final interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, discarding the last 100 years of mystical believe that the world is nothing but a mass-less vacuum-ensconced probability equation (field) that only takes shape when you look at it. think about this, it's ridiculous, and now that we have some evidence and theory that makes total sense, there's just no more reason to believe in Briane Greene's and Niels Bohr's wave-equation QFT "boogeyman" anymore.
      Check this out:
      link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10701-015-9973-7
      Maybe read some of Hiley's papers first, just to understand the Bohm interpretation before getting into 2nd derivatives of the theory like this, but good nonetheless.

    • @davidt1152
      @davidt1152 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      TenHanger​ I think you may be failing to differentiate between what theories actually say, and what people say about theories.
      QFT does not assume causality, nor really discuss things in those terms. You can't really discuss the meaning of the word 'chair' in a dialect/language that doesn't even have that sounds sequence as an existing word. Likewise, QFT.
      That doesn't make it right or wrong, just a particular way of talking about things.

  • @XxxcloackndaggerxxX
    @XxxcloackndaggerxxX 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Brilliant worth every penny to listen

  • @DoctorThomasElliot
    @DoctorThomasElliot 11 ปีที่แล้ว

    WOW! Awesome. Great talk with a great Power Point Presentation. Really well done.

  • @tnekkc
    @tnekkc 8 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Sean Carroll is a first class compiler of science for non technical consumption, with a minimum of liberal bias.

    • @ii-pw6dy
      @ii-pw6dy 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +Clark Magnuson science & facts always have a liberal bias

    • @tnekkc
      @tnekkc 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      +Daniel Baumann
      Not when Paul J. Steinhardt does it.

    • @lohphat
      @lohphat 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +Clark Magnuson You're so far right that anything looks like "liberal bias".
      There's a reason most educated people are "liberal" -- they use their intelligence and critical thinking skills as apposed to sticking to dogma.

    • @tnekkc
      @tnekkc 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      +lohphat
      Educated?
      The majority of college graduates vote republican.

    • @ryanp1922
      @ryanp1922 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      +Daniel Baumann Not always. There are facts about race and gender that liberals hate and deny. Also, many political issues do not have a scientific answer. They are conflicts between competing principles and values.

  • @henrywang6931
    @henrywang6931 9 ปีที่แล้ว +58

    To the people who thinks a powerful being created a fine tuned universe so that we could live in it:
    Your idea is too egocentric. Why not think the other way? The only reason why you and I are lucky enough to born, is that there is a universe that can supports life with its physics laws .

    • @chalino19
      @chalino19 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      and countless other universes that cannot, the luck of the draw! lol

    • @freetrailer4poor
      @freetrailer4poor 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well true, but you still come to a problem, why is there space or uncertainty at all. The being need not be powerful either. I had a catholic mom and it would be an insult to her to believe in ufos, ghosts, bigfoot, or anything that can not be proven. God sending you to heaven or hell is just as crazy as the current universe understanding is.

    • @johnnythreefour2902
      @johnnythreefour2902 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Another thing to consider is that these laws of physics are the only ones that could ever reliably create and control the size of my huge cock.

    • @dkyoungson151
      @dkyoungson151 7 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      The Universe wasn't fined tuned for human beings. Human beings were fined tuned for the Universe.

    • @johnkendal5562
      @johnkendal5562 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Why is there space? This is a null argument as space is absolute nothingness, These scientists are wrong to assume that fields occupy all space (nothing abyss void) they occupy only the sphere which is the largest 'particle of all - the universe/cosmos. Outside of that sphere is the void absolute which contains abs nothingness which contains nothing; neither particles nor fields. As space is a nothingness or essential ground, it is not a thing therefore it cannot 'exist' - it just 'is' in the negative.

  • @shirleymason7697
    @shirleymason7697 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Super Great ! The best presentation and speaker.

  • @lmelin1959
    @lmelin1959 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Sean explains these things so well !

    • @Michael19841
      @Michael19841 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Oh no he doesn’t

  • @thekaiser4333
    @thekaiser4333 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Isn't the Guardian the paper, that caved in to GCHQ in the Edward Snowden affair?

    • @ophiolatreia93
      @ophiolatreia93 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yh the guardian is a leftist propaganda rag

  • @keggerous
    @keggerous 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I like being able to parrot the things I hear this guy say to my friends and family and pretend to be smart.

  • @CHARLIETWW
    @CHARLIETWW 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    The speech is transcendent and unreal. I am so lucky to watch and listen to all these new scientific discoveries!!

  • @raverdeath100
    @raverdeath100 11 ปีที่แล้ว

    fantastic lecture. first time i've come across Sean Carroll, an omission now rectified.

  • @ttopperr
    @ttopperr 9 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Start of the speech 2:00.

  • @rationalagenda7083
    @rationalagenda7083 9 ปีที่แล้ว +21

    how sad that the science correspondent at the start seems more interested in celebrity and tv shows than the physics. No wonder science journalism is so bad

    • @nickeshchauhan5661
      @nickeshchauhan5661 9 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      There's also a social norm where the general public is not interested in Physics and Mathematics (due to it being taught poorly), so we have to utilise general interests (celebrities and such) in order to entice the audience into the research.

  • @ajwesty13
    @ajwesty13 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    what a fantastic lecture by Sean Carrol ... enjoyed every minute loved to have been there...

  • @GlynWilliams1950
    @GlynWilliams1950 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    Amazing lecture.

  • @skroot7975
    @skroot7975 9 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    The higgs boson is a lie. It's all The Flying Spaghetti monster. Err'body noes dat

    • @kayvee256
      @kayvee256 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      SkrootNissu Yoctomind Aye!

    • @brucejohnwayne7783
      @brucejohnwayne7783 8 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      +SkrootNissu Yoctomind The Higgs Boson is just the flying spaghetti monster of a different religion: like Zeus vs Jupiter.

    • @ubergenie6041
      @ubergenie6041 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      Interestingly enough that is Larry Krauss's claim of the Higgs in "A Universe from Nothing!" The Higgs serves as uncreated creator in Krauss's work. Not here. Sean, although is pathetic to Krauss's religous view, sticks to the science.

    • @edubz1906
      @edubz1906 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Obviously, But did you know The spaghetti monster is actually just Lizard People bouncing a spaghetti monster hologram from their colony in the Flat Earth's core off their orbiting space station mother ship that we have always been told is the "moon".

  • @Dudleymiddleton
    @Dudleymiddleton 10 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    8:20 Correction : Rappers are NOT musicians, let's get that straight please.

    • @mikesimmons9986
      @mikesimmons9986 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Have you heard of the Roots? idiot

    • @Dudleymiddleton
      @Dudleymiddleton 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Yes I have and btw their drummer, Questlove is totally shit. Don't call me an Idiot.

    • @Dudleymiddleton
      @Dudleymiddleton 10 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Dear oh dear. So much anger.

    • @tbagolish
      @tbagolish 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      depends on WHO is rapping

    • @tbagolish
      @tbagolish 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      well, there is a LOT of stupidity out there on the internetz, it can frustrate and anger the best of us...

  • @Vlaid65
    @Vlaid65 11 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great lecture.

  • @Nairuulagch
    @Nairuulagch 10 ปีที่แล้ว

    This was awesome 1hr!

  • @Mendelmandela
    @Mendelmandela 7 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    thats statement of political correctness on women was rubbish pure rubbish...political correctness in a talk on hard science should never contain a commercial break on feministic innuendos on women in science

    • @Dorian_sapiens
      @Dorian_sapiens 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Nah.

    • @boggo3848
      @boggo3848 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It's just hard statistics.

    • @zayanwatchel8780
      @zayanwatchel8780 6 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      If there aren't women in STEM they aren't electing to go into STEM. The women that most often complain about a lack of women in STEM are the reason we don't have women in the field. Because they don't pick to go into the field.

    • @antheiamiya
      @antheiamiya 6 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Zayan Watchel The issue goes a little deeper than that. Sean Carroll chose to incorporate that bit for a reason. Considering that women that have made significant strides in hard science but haven’t gotten any recognition until very recently, the statement was necessary as women tend to get brushed under the rug in the scientific community because of institutional sexism (i know, scary word) . This is why many women had to submit their writings under a males name or a anonymously- otherwise, they’d likely be immediately discarded.
      To reduce this to political correctness shows your own ignorance, honestly. Consider doing your own research and educating yourself, if you all are such intellectual science enthusiasts, rather than making edgy comments because someone who actually cares about hard science making a statement about something he feels is important and relevant to his talk triggers you.

    • @zayanwatchel8780
      @zayanwatchel8780 6 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Punctured Juicebox there is no institutional sexism in reality. In fact the very idea of feminism, and women's rights are praised in our society not degraded as they would be in an institutionally sexist society. If they don't get recognition first of all the question is why? Very few scientists become famous, or get recognition and there are few women that CHOSE to go into stem. As such could it just be none have really gotten much recognition. not because of sexism but because they never did anything worth recognizing for any length of time. "Until very recently" and now they have been recognized when they do do something great.