Did AI Prove Our Proton Model WRONG?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ค. 2024
- PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to:to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
The humble proton may seem simple enough, and they’re certainly common. People are made of cells, cells are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. And protons are each made of three up or down quarks. Simple stuff, right? All except for that last part. Protons are actually made of many, many quarks that happen to look like three only when we look at them in a particular way. And even then, sometimes they’re made of 5 quarks - including the charm quark.
Image Credit for 6:28 ( • Did AI Prove Our Proto...
Proton Animation. Courtesy of James LaPlante, Sputnik Animation. © MIT and Jefferson Lab, 2021, All Rights Reserved. The Visualizing the Proton Project is presented by the MIT Center for Art, Science & Technology, Jefferson Lab, and US Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Check Our Matt on Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson
• Black Hole Paradox wit...
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspacetime.com/
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Fernando Franco Félix & Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, Adriano Leal & Stephanie Faria
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Spacetime is produced by Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2023 PBS. All rights reserved.
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Space Time Was Made Possible In Part By:
Big Bang Sponsors
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
David Neumann
Sean Maddox
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Fabrice Eap
Mark Rosenthal
Quasar Sponsors
Vivaan Vaka
Glenn Sugden
Alex Kern
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Hypernova Sponsors
Stephen Spidle
Chris Webb
Ivari Tölp
Zachary Wilson
Kenneth See
Gregory Forfa
Kirk Honour
Joe Moreira
Bradley Voorhees
Marc Armstrong
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
Robert Ilardi
John R. Slavik
Donal Botkin
John Pollock
Edmund Fokschaner
Chuck Zegar
Jordan Young
Daniel Muzquiz
Gamma Ray Burst
Jakub Jasinski
Robin Bayley
Piotr Sarnicki
Matthew Oldfield
Massimiliano Pala
Thomas Nielson
Joe Pavlovic
Ryan McGaughy
Chuck Lukaszewski
Edward Hodapp
Cole Combs
Andrea Galvagni
Jerry Thomas
Nikhil Sharma
Ryan Moser
John Anderson
David Giltinan
Scott Hannum
Bradley Ulis
Craig Falls
Kane Holbrook
Ross Story
teng guo
Mason Dillon
Matt Langford
Harsh Khandhadia
Thomas Tarler
Susan Albee
Frank Walker
Matt Quinn
Michael Lev
Terje Vold
James Trimmier
Andre Stechert
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
Ramon Nogueira
Ellis Hall
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S Poljar
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Alex Edwards
Daniel Jennings
Cameron Sampson
Jeremy Reed
David Johnston
Michael Barton
Andrew Mann
Isaac Suttell
Bleys Goodson
Robert Walter
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Graydon Goss
Frederic Simon
Dmitri McGuinness
John Robinson
Jim Hudson
Alex Gan
David Barnholdt
David Neal
John Funai
Bradley Jenkins
Jiri Borkovec
Vlad Shipulin
Cody Brumfield
Thomas Dougherty
Dan Warren
Patrick Sutton
John Griffith
Dean Faulk
00:00 Introduction
01:24 The Physics of Scattering
03:06 Using Electrons To Study Protons
04:11 3 Quark Proton Model
05:28 The Quark Sea
06:56 Charm Quark Evidence
08:04 Intrinsic Vs. Extrinsic Particle
09:51 The Uncertainty of Proton Experiments
11:09 QCD & Heisenberg Uncertainty
12:33 Proving the Theory of Intrinsic Charm
13:41 Testing Intrinsic Charm with AI
From the Department of Corrections: we accidentally IDed the wrong Stanley Brodsky at 12:33. To learn more about the correct Stanley Brodsky please go to: www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/46900
Matt also mispronounced George Zweig's name, huge.
all is forgiven! thank you for the self-governing!
People get cancelled for less these days
1:50 Why are you doing this all the time it's so annoying
Light is a dipole and they add together and are stable at certain Qtys....Protons....1823 dipoles make up 1 Proton.... 1824 is a neutron.
We did light acceleration and used CMOS to view the interactions....Go to Mudfossil University on TH-cam and see what light is and it makes up matter.
Thanks AI for telling us that we all contain intrinsic charm.
until they find out the method was flawed and show you that this way is not the way to know insides properly
i dotn get it , did AI did it rly? did he say that in the video?
@@AXharothit was a pun
@@AXharoth
ask ai to write a computer program for you it cant this is why this method also is flawed
the "AI" is only as good as humans make it
and he never tells you what the AI is
and ill say the question i left to begin with is quite valid
I don't think anyone has ever accused me of that before.
Well, I dunno much about protons, but *Bing* told me The Big Bang was an explosion, and when I told Bing it was actually an expansion, Bing told me to change the subject. I still have the feeling that I hurt its feelings.
Bing is a cun*.
Call it wrong and dumb and it gets artificially annoyed and cut the conversation.
GPT-4 always will say "I'm sorry!"
I think MS put that intentionally so Bing don't spend resources discussing useless things... and for the memes. :D
Hmm
Just checked and it gave me a correct answer.
Bing sometimes gets its feelings hurt when you call it 'bingo'. This means everyone should just call it bingo.
Bing is a joke
What's great about these particle physics experiments is that we're unlikely to run out of protons to disassemble in the near future.
Actially, it is said that CERN stopped working one day. They looked for the reason and found they were out of hydrogen - the bottle being empty, their source for protons.
lmao
Just in case, I propose we start working on ways to put them back together. Duct tape?
@@levybenathome Quantum. Duh...
It's all fun and games until they come for your protons.
Thanks for explaining how machine learning is used in particle physics. This whole series is a rare gem in TH-cam.
Update: The audio problem seems to be with the TH-cam's processing of the video. Thank you for bringing it to our attention as we can now discuss the matter directly with TH-cam. We will pay special attention to the audio in the coming episodes and do all that we can to deliver you high quality experiences while we work to find a resolution to the problem.
Hey Space Timers! There seems to be an audio issue for some of our audience members. There may have been a processing error as it's not occurring for all of our audience nor does it seem to be in the original uploaded file. We're going to keep investigating and see what we can do to fix this. In the meantime, we hope you enjoy the content of the episode despite any technical issues you may be experiencing. Thank you for your support!
Was starting to think the audio was made using AI!
No audio issues for me in this video. As for some of previous ones though, i experienced the audio not being comprehensible to my brain 😢
I thought it was to show the AI nature of the episode
Also, would you please stop shouting CAPS in your titles? I miss the old non-clickbait titles.
Audio problems might be with the download from TH-cam and not in the file.
Big thanks to the early gang! Because as noted a few episodes ago: Since our comment response livestream, we've noticed that YT isn't sharing our videos as much with our subscribers. So we're asking our subscribers to 1. switch their subscriptions from "PERSONAL" to "ALL" (just click on the subscribe button and you'll see it) and 2. Watch new episodes as soon as they can!
Did AI Prove Our Proton Model WRONG?
Dark matter has expected affects of wormholes linking areas or gravity .
TH-cam pushes Fake Videos Over
actual Science Videos as Usual. 😂
Immediately appeared for me, looks like it's getting better.
each of my day is not without seeing things about artificial intelligence now
This is so well explained and yet so packed full of great details. It's overwhelming in a positive sense. This series deserves every educational award out there.
I do not think intrinsic charm quarks can exist but It is possible that even at a low energy collision, when the proton is destroyed the energy which was keeping the proton together might have been released might have made a charm quark.
This helped me understand particle collision experiments better than I ever have before. Well done! Very clear and engaging presentation
'better than before' still doesnt mean that you understand it
@@seekter-kafa yes, that is how English works. Nice job!
@@parkpatt
I love how they thought they had a "gotcha" moment.
I think what @@seekter-kafa is trying to say, is that if you feel this was a clear and comprehensible presentation, then you probably know very little about what is being presented 😢
Same. I really appreciate the background explanations.
I´m a theoretical particle physicist and I really appreciate the precise way (and not boring at all) you bring the subject! It is rear to see a Physics Professor that brings information in such accessible way!!
It is rare of a theroretical particle physicist to spell "rare" incorrectly....
@@TheVanillatech He means seeing rear of the professor brings information in such accessible way!!
@@TheVanillatech
Rarities are similar to novelties, and they make me pay attention to life for a bit so yee haw.
@@TheVanillatechI'm fairly certain that he means he's theoretically a particle, and was calling the presenter a physicist, as in "I'm a theoretical particle, Physicist."
@@notahotshot In the land of the blind...
Love this channel. I'm not up to speed on all the physics but love learning new things. I usually walk away with new knowledge and a better understanding of the subject matter. Thanks Matt. Great job as always..
Sounds like you would believe any rubbish these people tell you.
I always love how you make some of these tough topics easier to understand.
I am made of hopes and dreams.
This is not an Undertale reference
You are a virtual particle
You still have hopes and dreams? In 2023?
*We need to fix this asap, people*
Two dream quarks and one hope quark.
A eternal soul
I'm made of bullshit.
I've also noticed my intrinsic charm vanishes almost as instantly as it arises, whenever i speak.
i will refrain from replying with the obvious obnoxious joke regarding your intrinsic charm, in deference to the god of ego-busting, the late great Don Rickles ... oh, okay, and because i couldn't think of one that was as sharp, clever, and erudite, yet humiliating and humourous in the fine tradition of prickle comedy that master Rickles epitomised.
i'm getting old, i shall sit in the penalty box for 2 minutes and feel shame.
Incredible job of making this complicated topic very approachable and understandable by those of us that are not particle physicists.
Another amazing video! The explanation is so clear and concise, and the visuals are stunning. Keep up the fantastic work!
This is one of the hardest topics to visualize, yet your team managed to do it well!
@@ephemera2 you have far too much time on your hands 🤡
@@ephemera2 Damn son.
@@Matts_Ancient_Coins I most certainly do
started to believe that these guys are alien
Yeah, the visualization was surprisingly good. Nice effects, but chosen so that they don't distract from the thing they want to show; visualizing more or less exactly as much as needed (so no superflous details, but also not omitting anything important); and also aesthetically well done.
Great episode! Congrats to the whole team :) It all came together in a beautiful synergy. You are doing amazing work popularizing very difficult and cutting edge science! Gives one a whole new appreciation about the world, and the physics behind it :)
Used to watch PBS space time 5-6 years back.. good to see you guys are still going strong. Keep it up!
Loved at 15:53 "Charming", so poignantly placed into the rhythm of the statement! Masterfully excited! just another moment that brings me back to Space-Time. Thank you again for all the moments you bring us!
I bet he gets an AI to write his "... of spacetime" endings now.
“Don’t worry, there are plenty of quarks in the sea” is my new favorite line.
but there are just as many anti-quarks....
Thank you for taking the time to make these topics accessible and understandable for the general audience
This was explained and communicated in such a great way, that I can not even begin to describe it.
Wow, I actually understood Matt O'Dowd on 2x speed without rewinding, finally. That's a first. :) It may never happen again, but it happened once! :D
I usually have to rewatch his videos several times at a slower speed to really digest the material because it's all so new to me and so very complicated.
I feel like science is developing faster than my old brain can handle. But I am happy that we are making progress and content to get the pieces I can understand.
Welcome to the singularity, my friend.
Hi friend, I am not too old, I can't keep up, theres gluons and unioms and wjfdkkd
@@snakex555 Don't forget the ueaoeobvutf and the uabweoaeu
@@DeltaVTX the singularity is definitely close but i don’t think it has happened yet
@@watchoutforcopyright9339 we are approaching the asymptote
From an Analytics perspective, this is amazing how quickly it can sort through these data sets and verify things now epistemically.
Yeah, there is no bias, there is no agenda, there is nothing but raw data. I love AI. I don't understand the whole doomsday hype about it.
@@YoghurtKiss even with raw data, there would be sme kind of agenda or bias, since the data will be interpreted
@@YoghurtKiss
I understand and appreciate your comment.
I suppose that maybe you just articulated the “doomsday” fear better than I could without you yourself realizing.
In your own words: No bias. No Agenda. Only raw data.
Bias and Agenda are part of being human - for better or for worse. The real fear is that A.I. will always, constantly, without fail, shall evermore produce the most logical mathematically precise and most efficient solutions for every query regardless of human wants.
Had A.I. been available to our prehistoric ancestors, I believe humans would have been rightfully eliminated from the efficient equations long ago. Supreme Intelligence without bias and agenda is the opposite of humanity. We are human because we overcome in SPITE of our biases.
@@YoghurtKisspeople are afraid of what greedy hierarchs will do and have done with AI
@@YoghurtKiss _What_ was measure and _how_ already constitutes a bias of sorts. You are being naive.
Such clarity for such a complex subject. Really impressive.
I love watching videos like these, especially after just finishing my alevels where the only quarks I need to believe in are up, down and strange
Incredibly interesting! Though most of the information went over my head, I found myself understanding more in this one episode than I have in my entire life of reading about electrons, protons, and subatomic particles. Thank you so much and please keep up the amazing work.
Don't dispare, sometimes too much information can give you brain freeze. Watch it several times, get the big picture thinking, then slowly absorb the details a little bit at a time . Good luck!
Very well explained…and very thoughtful concerning the limitations of a layman.
When looking at machine learning, QM, thermodynamics etc. then *statistics* which sounds boring is one of the most important and even most exciting tools
Ive visited the accelerators at Stanford with my then wife. Pretty impressive. Both the circular and linear accelerator are huge.
An absolute great use and application for AI! I recall when I was in college (engineering) hearing about the discovery of a thing called a "quark" and the buzz it created. We've come a long way with still more to go. Great video. Thanks.
Incredible episode. Had to pause and rewind multiple times to understand some parts, but mostly due to me going "wait, that can't be right, let's listen again". Thank you, it was amazing
Beautiful video. Thank you for sharing. So many don't understand how AI works so explaining how it did this in some layman's detail would be helpful, but I suppose that could be for another channel. Thank you again PBS writers, researchers, and staff. I hope to use AI in my Nutritional Research. Should be very interesting.
As far as i understand it (and i'm aware you most likely know all of this):
The best way to explain it is by focusing on the difference between traditional computers and human brains.
A computer is vastly superior at doing one simple thing over and over again at super fast speeds, hence even a 1$ handheld calculator is crazy good at math.
Meanwhile a brain operates in a 3d network, all types of informations and things are connected to each other all over the place, enabling it to understand and interpret context really well. If you have a problem that isn't just 1+1+1+1 etc but that takes into account many complicated and seemingly different aspects to figure out: the fastest way to find a solution is a network that can draw informations/ memories from many "drawers" at once.
Hence A.I that is run with an artificial neural >network< is vastly superior at simulating complex problems and finding the fitting complicated answer. The added advantage of such an >artificial< neural network is easy to explain as well: it doesn't need sleep, and it can be build/ trained to hyper focus on only one type of problem solving.
Human brains have countless jobs to do. As a whole the human brain is countless times better than manmade A.I. But your artificial problem solving A.I. doesn't need to dedicate most of it's power and features on controlling and maintaining a human body, it's only there to "think" about the question it's human operator asks. When such an A.I. isn't busy figuring out answers it can use it's full time to train it's knowledge about everything that is likely to help it do it's one and only job even better.
- A traditional computer is great at all the stuff computers do all day, no need to explain that one.
- Modern A.I. is great at eating up thousands of libraries worth of knowledge and filtering out information based on complex questions, and great at simulating really complicated ideas.
- A human brain is best at managing a human body. No machine we can build right now would for example be able to run a marathon, with some added dancing, while regulating it's complex body, all while drinking and enjoying a beer every so often and thinking about the next family reunion.
In other words it all depends on the type of problem, some are best solved by traditional computers, some by modern A.I, and others by actual human beings. Since said modern A.I. is a rather new tool on our tool belts => a lot of previously hard to answer questions can suddenly be answered.
Particle physics is a great example for the follow-up issue:
Finding an answer to a complex question usually leads to even more questions, with even more complicated answers we as human beings love to figure out next. Meaning we have a long long way to go. :)
Wow this was nice. Perhaps the first time I am completely able to follow a PBS Space Time video. Been a while since I've gone down this physics rabbit hole.
Using ai for science like this just has so much potential and I'm here for it. Even if we only get an ai like 10% as smart as a human and make an army of them for 24/7 science it would change the world
While I cautiously agree with your first sentence, AI is not comparable to human intelligence. In fact the "I" in "AI" is a misnomer - it is not intelligent, it just uses algorithms that are inspired by nature. Specifically the way the brain approaches problems or how it is imagined to do so. Artificial Neural Networks in particular are a (rather crude) model of how simple clusters of nerve cells communicate. In mathematical terms they are a complex polynomial approximator that can be tuned with input data and subsequently be used to predict results that approach something that has a high likelihood of being correct when compared with the input data. (You may notice how cagey I am here: that's because we don't know exactly how they work in detail.)
In short: please be careful with phrases like "AI will change the world" - if we are not careful, it might just do that - for the worse. If we are careful about it, it will merely make our jobs easier and WE will change the world, hopefully for the better.
Ai intelligence is very similar to human intelligence
@@KonradTheWizzardI don’t mean to be pedantic but the idea that if AI isn’t used carefully it could make things ‘worse’ is quite a selfish and human centric view point, it would (maybe) only be worse for humans (if sci fi fears are to be believed).
Personally speaking though, if the movies are to be believed and some how AI does decide that humans are surplus to requirements, that would only be the case because it would see that (currently) the human race is acting very much like a parasite to planet earth and frankly if that be the end of our evolutional journey then so be it. I’m all for change on this planet, massive massive change coz we’re doing s**t atm. Sure ‘some’ may be doing ok and to them losing out on their ‘perfect’ life is a loss, I get that. But for the vast majority of people on the planet, it’s not good. You only have to walk down your local high street (in the west) and all those people you ignore who sleep on the street, that’s just one example on the very tip of the of the parasitic iceberg. We’re a terrible species who can’t even be bothered to look after our own because most of us are too stupid and or selfish to care about anything but oneself. So bring it on, I for one am not afraid or resistant to the (imagined/potential) Ai revolution. It’s what this planet, indeed, it’s what evolution needs right now.
If and it’s a big if given the state of things. If we want to ensure our survival, WE have to change, regardless of Ai. Even if the (imagined) Ai revolution doesn’t happen, humanity is still doomed if WE don’t change massively.
@@KonradTheWizzard
You have described AI, but you did not define intelligence so to say that AI does not meet a criteria not stated is a non sequitur.
You'll likely find that trying to define intelligence in a way that includes humans while excluding AI has been exponentially harder in recent years just as the role of a monotheistic deity has come to fill only shrinking gaps. Moving thr goalpost in short. Special pleading at times.
While you may be right, your argument is incomplete and I love to play the antagonist so I'll be a little inflammatory here and say that perhaps you haven't defined intelligence because doing so in a way that excludes future AI would also exclude you and that scares you.
@@ncedwards1234Someday, our creations will have solved all the mysteries of this universe and gone off to create new ones. But I won’t be impressed because it wasn’t real intelligence.
14:44 I'd be wary of saying that AI necessarily removes bias from the equation, since the biases of a machine learning system's creators can often seep if care isn't taken to specifically avoid it
The old GIGO at work
there is also bias in the data sets: what was measured and how.
this is not a new issue in epistemology: and it is why a confluence of evidences, from groups with different methods and led by people with different temperaments, is so important
the same checks and balances can be applied to AI - perhaps even left to be managed by _another_ AI!
Love it. One of the best and clearest episodes.
3:46 "Sometimes, you need to break something to see what it is made of" -PBS Spacetime
"He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." -Gandalf
This sounds like a uniquely appropriate job for *quantum computing* 🙃
for quantum computers you mean
Who is quantum computing and what does he compute
Microsoft has already announced a breakthrough with quantum computing which stabilises the Qubits making them less prone to errors
@@fugitive6549 our manufacturing capability still has a lot to catch up
@@fugitive6549 i think intel is trying to make it commercial for institution to use
I love how I am not very technical at these things but I somehow understood the topic. Very very nice way of explaining it 👏🏻👌🏼
What a great explanation and presentation -
I loved this video. Could you do an explanation like this one for the directors in the split experiments??? I always had a problem with them!
This is exactly the kind of use of AI I want to see more of. I bet we will learn some amazing things with models that have no bias to the basic assumptions of physics we all accept as true.
Edit: yes all models are bias, this isn’t a solution to find better truths. It shows a multitude of possible solutions to puzzles without throwing some away simply due to preconceptions. This doesn’t research for us, it just gives us a new perspective on the data we have. The research is still up to humans to do, as it should be.
I agree, the only problem is the black box of the neural net. We know that it does a good job, we can't pop the hood and see *why* it does a good job. So I'd be happy if on things like this that could steer the course of entire fields of study that they have several different AI that all do as well on training data that we then can use to check each other.
@@thetalantonxactually this is partially solved with memory modules and decision graphs
@@joshuacadebarber8992 Thanks for the reply! Do you have any resources you could point me towards?
@@thetalantonx sure, Transparent XAI is a very comprehensive field for this, the study called Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior has a section on the memory stream which goes in conjunction with other adjacent transparent approaches to logging the unknowns as well
@@thetalantonx Even more important, we can't (without re-checking) tell WHEN it does a good job and when it just imitates it perfectly with a totally straight face. It surely loves to do that as much as anything else. Over-reliance on tools like these can lead to dangerous results if precautions are not taken.
It’s always nice to hear about AI doing some good, rather than the doom & gloom view that seems all too common these days.
as with so many tools, it's all about *how* it's used.
Cliché to say but people really do fear what they don't understand.
So,... can I trust that AI will not be used for nasty things even once over the coming 3000 years?
your smart we are AI.
@@MetalCharlo This
Love this channel so much! Thank you guys!!!
This channel is awesome. So dense with material I feel like I’m kind of taking an advanced class in physics. Not that I’d know, I’ve never taken physics. Still pretty cool though trying to figure out what makes up our universe.
I love this show, breaks my brain almost every time. Thank you and please never stop!
Absolutely spectacular video, as always! Fantastic explanations here!
The quark configuration of the proton shown reminds me of the top of a manual transmission gear shift knob. One up, one down, one up.
Take A Moment Thank you for you and your teams' work
You paint pictures in my mind.
Standing on the shoulders of giant's
You are up there with an amazing family.
Keep Looking Up Stay Safe and Stay Free
Enjoy life
Lovely video here, as always! Thank you for putting this together, and for producing such rich graphics, and illustrations!
This is really cool. We have done one of two things.
1. Found a new way to better discover what the universe has to teach using AI.
2. Found a more efficient way to create even better delusions taking us even further from a theory of everything.
Either way, I found this episode brought my hopes up, then let me down. Ultimately, I was just a little charmed.
What a strange experience from top to bottom.
Noice
we have done both, and which is which in any given case is a bit of a headscratcher
Underrated comment
I just want to say thank you all for making this content. It’s still highly accessible but goes beyond even some of the more “in-depth” pop science content that basically stops at quarks, let alone a lot of the math (“oh lookie! Dead cat guy made an equation” without going so much further to describe the Hamiltonian and etc”). But seriously, this really helps scratch that itch when wanting higher division physics content but in a similar platform/form as other TH-cam content. No, some dry professor just talking with a whiteboard isn’t the same. This guy keeps me turned in as if there was subway surfer in the bottom.
very excited to see machine learning continually applied in experimental physics
If Charm-antiCharm collisions do happen inside Protons, it seems like that would allow for Protons to decay if their interaction were to happen unevenly or otherwise linger on fractionally long enough to cause the proton to destabilize.
Spontaneous (not in a particle collider) proton decay is a major prediction of several theories in physics, and String Theory IIRC, however every experiment performed to detect it has never found a single proton decay.
What do you think a proton would decay into?
@@rc5989I recently published a peer-reviewed paper explaining why protons may be eternally stable: "Ground State Quantum Vortex Proton Model" in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023
@@stevenverrall4527 After reading and re-reading your abstract, looking up concepts I had no clue about... can I just ask for a cliff's notes version?
I love when they explain experiments in such a simple way. I know understand what scattering means :D
2:45 I know it's just a simple visual to show how the electron microscope works, but it really bothers me that the figure shows the electrons focused on the ant's thorax while the display shows it's head.
I did enjoy this presentation. I found it very informative to the lay person. Of course, there is probaably a hundred thousand hours of more and greater indepth information. As a last point, in a different video, you might explain why the weight of a sub particle is measured in electronvolts as opposed to pounds/ounces. I have explained this as the amount of energy contained when using energy to mass conversion. I could be incorrect in my explaination so coming from a physicist would be much better. Thanks for the video.
I like Star Talk, but I love Space Time. Great work, as always, Space Time team😊
About the objectivity of AI: An AI is programmed by a subjective human. Therefore, an AI can also have intended or unintended biases towards finding certain results.
Alright 1:21 in and im making a prediction. If there exists a particle that is heavier then the proton itself that could mean there is a negative mass particle. Which in turn would mean FTL is possible if we can tame it because we theoretically can reduce the mass of something to 0.
Answer to the title question? - No! It at best might have showed that our current understanding of the proton isn't sufficiently well understood or described.
But I did like that Matt pointed out that the mass of the proton is an AVERAGE which implies the mass is sometimes larger than the quoted rest mass and also sometimes less than that. Also being the 'rest' mass means that, like all matter, it becomes more massive the faster it is moving relative to that which is 'testing' it.
I wonder at what percentage of the speed of light the protons were traveling when they were smashed and what the velocity relative to the electrons was?
The proto-virtual neutral pion in the 2023 paper "Ground State Quantum Vortex Proton Model" published in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023 could perhaps occasionally transform into a charm-anticharm pair.
Note that the two charge shells have the same charge structure as five quarks.
Is that one of the Fountations trilogy?
55 years of deep inelastic scattering and we still can’t compute a nucleon’s mass, not to mention spin, from its constituents. Is this how it has to be or is there a different way to understand confinement? What does ChatGPT say?
@@LVGamerCats Well, perturbation methods don't work for IR-divergent Yang-Mills fields, and computers are not yet powerful enough for lattice QCD to run realistic simulations... we need someone to develop better methods (or at least faster computers).
I had to google this because as a layman, I wasn't sure if this is a sarcastic comment using techno babble.
It's a real thing.
@@denysvlasenko1865 In my opinion, low energy physics is set to become an emerging scientific frontier. I also think that human creative thinking will outperform any supercomputer or AI system.
So far, my theoretical low-energy physics research has involved nothing more than imaginative deep thinking, basic algebra, a little calculus, and a spreadsheet.
I have been able to do each needed optimization using a spreadsheet. It typically takes less than an hour to optimize out to 10+ significant digits by fine-tuning a carefully selected parameter by hand. The difficult part is determining which parameter is most suitable to tweak. It needs to make sense in a physical 3+1 dimensional geometry, which requires deep careful thought. I usually need to sleep on it...
I could fully automate each needed optimization process in software, but it would take me far longer to write and debug the code than to simply do it by hand (with a spreadsheet). Of course, the spreadsheet rapidly recomputes all the parameters for me.
Thank you for confirming that “machine learning” was utilized at the end of the video. Stating ‘AI’ in the title raised my eyebrows.
Thank God there is someone else out there who knows we do not have A.I. I thought I was the only one.
Bro has to get the clicks somehow
AI is a term that has had dozens of definitions - both loosely defined, and technical - in computer science over nearly 100 years. Everything from perceptrons, to expert systems, to sci-fi AGI systems has been "the definition" of it over the years depending on who you ask. Just because something doesn't meet arbitrary/moving goalposts for what counts as intelligence doesn't mean its inaccurate to call it AI. Machine learning may be more descriptive of the technology being used, but it's still a massive umbrella term that doesn't say much about the technology.
If the term "AI" captures people's imagination, and gets more people to engage with high effort scientific programming like this, I don't see the harm, especially when the "correct" title would have been something unweildly like "Did a neural net use linear regression to prove our proton model WRONG?"
@@b130610 if the thing is not actually an intelligence, there's no reason to call it one. and the harm comes when uninformed people lock these concepts into their brain with their preconceived notions. i had an argument with my parents about GPT as they could not accept it was just autocomplete on steroids, spitting out letter combinations based on the probability of those combinations showing up in the data used to train the algorithm. they were and still are convinced GPT has a mind.
@@b130610 ye ik, my guy didnt have to write a whole essay lol
Please cite the papers you mention/get the information from in the description, thx!
That’s great new, nucleons consist of different particles in different moments, and number of particles is also various.
A link to the paper using the NN which found a model with 3sigma would have been welcomed. Since they tested so many models, I am interested to check how they corrected for multiple hypothesis testing.
@@LorneABrown I think someone forgot to take his meds...
AI: how many models you want me to analyse?
Scientist: yes
It would seem that the charmed particals are necessary for matter to shrink on a snap function, meaning they may be more the fabric of space-time then matter. If time isn't static, and matter is shrinking at the speed of light, yet slight faster than empty space, the expansion of the universe is actually the big crunch.
To travel back in time would need space for it to happen, also the future. A shrinking spacetime at a non constant speed of light to the outside observer is he only thing that explains time travel being possible foreads and backwards. The micro world explains the macro world.
Beyond curious to find out.
This extends on the information modes i trained a public Ai testground with around 2016 or so.
Essentially, the AI is likely to have made an information based model. I don't think it matches physics really but it may serve a purpose to better understand numbers and their relation to physics.
Chances are the ML will suggest g to be wrong at a few decimals as well. That's what i came up with myself thinking about an information-energy model. This is, so I learned later, actually under investigation.
Sigma 3 aligns with my own impression of information based energy modelling.
The Extrinsic particle concept sounds like the doubts I have had for over twenty years over what all these "Atom Smashers" could ultimately reveal. I have long wondered if the collider approach is just creating tinier and tinier energy conformations that do not exist otherwise.. All the way down to the Planke length:-)
That's the rub, my friend. One day, we're going to get down to the smallest possible pieces, watch them break apart into nothing, and be virtually none the wiser for it.
I'm extremely curious. What is the model they developed? What ML methods did they use? Please do another video on this.
Wonderful and beautiful to see the results
omg this is the 1st time that this guy went into an extremely complicated topic & i came out understanding it a little better. Previously he went over dark hole & alternte reality and halfway through i was so lost. I really liked the guy before this one. Or maybe it was whoever wrote the script who changed and thats who i understand.
Hats off to the people who conduct these studies. This subject matter is so far beyond me. Just doing my best to keep up with the concepts here :)
Makes me even more excited to be pursuing computer science while renewing my interest in physics. Thank you for inspiring me with your videos!
Do yourself a favor, assuming you're still in university. Choose electives in humanities that look like something you would absolutely hate, but go into the class with an open mind. What you learn in those classes will give you perspectives / skills that few others in your field will possess. I'm sure it would be impossible to spit in most CS classes without hitting someone who is also studying extra math or physics. Women in Art History and French Fairy Tales are easily the two most useful classes I had at university, and I did a double major / double degree with applied math and two different branches of "hard" science that are less relevant You will be able to easily get whatever job you want with your CS degree; while it might sound unbelievable now, those humanities classes will make you even better in most any field you choose.
Oh thanks I really appreciate the advice and it's good for others who find this. But I'm actually going back for my second BS in CS. I did biotech first time around and ended up hated being in the lab, so here I am. I did end up basically doing a creative writing minor during that first degree, so i completely agree. Humanities are so useful, like I've been consistently praised for communication skills at my job thanks in large part to how much writing I did. That's not even to mention all the ways it's probably just helped me stand out but thinking flexibly, or something, that I just haven't noticed
I got this weird idea today: vectorial time. So how it would work is that the arrow of time is the statistical average of time vectors, so it only exists macroscopically. Microscopically, the multiple time dimensions become apparent, so you can get particles from other time trajectories when the perform those collisions. This explains dark matter (it's the stuff that is there, but moving in different time directions - maybe it crosses our time direction for a very small time before it disappears, but the net effect generates gravity) and also the probabilistic effects we see with quantum mechanics.
Just a speculative thought about the interpretation of E=mc2. It doesn't so much describe a scenario where mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass. Rather it suggests that matter which has mass is bounded energy. My Time force Hypothesis I have been working on for a couple of years would reinterpret all energy as "light" for lack of a better word for the most basic energy packets. How that energy expresses itself within our 3D fabric has everything to do with its dimensional path of movement which is always at speed "c". Photons as we "see" them have energy but no mass because they move parallel along our 3d fabric. Subatomic particles are Photons with a 4 dimensional path configuration which pierces our 3d plain of existence warping it in such a manner as to attain mass. The rest of the time they can be found in "super position* or somewhere along their 4d path. Only those paths that are balanced and stable reoccur continuously within our 3d fabric as the most common particles electrons and Quarks (leptons). These particles are coreliant on each other to maintain balanced paths hence 3 or as this video might suggest more Quark paths interacting with each other are needed to be a stable bit of matter within our 3d plain of existence. This interaction between the paths we understand as the strong nuclear force. When this interaction is broken the stable 4d path is broken and the "photons* energy packets can spill out in to out 3d fabric as a massive release of light energy equivalent to the mass of the stable particle. Simple right?
Now, the trained eye will object to the assumption of a 4th spatial dimension I used to achieve this simple explanation. He is the thing! Science already fully excepts the existence of a 4th dimension the argument is whether it is spatial or not. My Time Force Hypothesis can provide explanation to all yet to be explained phenomena with this single paradigm shift in thinking. Why would we not explore this possibly. Here is a brief overview.
What is time: Our 3d fabrics progression through 4d space away from a universal orgin point 0,0,0,0.
What is Gravity: The manifested force caused by the acceleration away from our universal orgin point 0,0,0,0. (Newtons Big G)
What is dark energy: the energetic pressure produced by the big bang confined within an expanding hypersphere for which our 3d fabric makes up the skin or leading edge. The energetic pressure within is positive in relation to the 4d space located outside of the hypersphere hence universal expansion and surface stretching equivalent to the Hubble constant.
Matter: Light trapped within a stable 4d loop as a consequence of its interaction with our 3d fabric and other 4d loops as to create a reoccur interaction.
Mass: The warping of our 3d fabric as a result of universal expansion at the intersection of conjoined 4d paths that make up stable subatomic particles. Leptons only! Bosons 4d, instead they are ripples in the 3d fabric caused by energetic interactions with our 3d fabric hence brief mass measurements and force carrying characteristics. This could be a subject of its own book far beyond a youtube comment.
Hyperspace: any where outside of our 3d fabric. All of time exists in Hyperspace. In other words the 4th spacial dimension is what we call the time dimension.
Dark Matter: For defining dark matter we must first set the stage. The stage Einstein's theory of GR describes like a sort of topological map key. Since we all agree with Einstein's equivalence principle we must envision our entire observable universe as our reference frame and this reference frame is being accelerated through 4d space "passage of time". This has been occurring since creation pushing matter away from the orgin point 0,0,0,0. Matter has inertia because it is a join in our 3d fabric that acts as an intersection for multiple 4d paths. These paths process momentum of the "photons" trapped within the 4d loops. This momentum is the resistance to change we experience as inertia. This inertia bends and warps the fabric of space. Now understand that the fabric of space has been unrelenting accelerating for billions of years. Dark Matter is regions of our 3d fabric that have residual warping from matter that once occupied that region. Think ruts along a well trotted path. This is why there exist so much dark matter surrounding area of high mass density like galaxies.
Quantum entanglement: An interaction between two or more 4d paths in super position or outside out 3d fabric that can be measured through statistical analysis of seemingly 2 separate particles.
Anyways I could go on all day but you get the point! The Time-Force Hypothesis simply suggests that the missing puzzle piece needed to solve the mysteries of the universe is that there exist a 4 spatial dimensions not just three spatial dimension plus time. Time having one direction is an illusion caused by our extremely high velocity through it. How highof a velocity? Very roughly; at a point in unencumbered space, it would be Newtons G × (the number of seconds since the big band). 😅 using time to measure the distance traveled through time! I'm sure bigger brains than mine can figure out the math.
Stellar video! Great explanations. I wish I had those visualizations when I had to learn that at uni.
The level of fine detail in which we're probing the subatomic depths of existence is astounding. Such infinitesimally small weights and measures to distinguish between. Thank you for another fascinating episode!
God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
I loved the "a point beyond Neptune. I was gonna say Pluto but I saw you were sitting here" joke in the StarTalk episode
If you watched this video knowing nothing about physics you would get the impression that light and protons are "particles" while electrons have wave properties. The animation of the light corpuscles bouncing off the phone booth and changing colors at 1:44 almost made me scream.
This feels like a sophisticated kind of curve-fitting. Nothing new is revealed, simply more accurate choices between solutions we already have.
That's all AI is.
@@Duiker36Yeah but that’s exactly what you *don’t* want when trying to evaluate a theory like this.
Finding out that an option doesn't fit the data at all is revealing something new. The AI did this for thousands of options in a matter of days and left us with one that DOES fit the data pretty well...not well enough to be shouting "Eureka!" just yet but it's still significant progress that might've taken decades to achieve otherwise. If that best-fit theory ends up being wrong or even if new data comes out that would warrant a complete reexamination of all those discarded theories, it's a trivial task to run the analysis again compared to the time and effort it would've required before.
@@Ostinat0 Yes I guess that's true
Is there a link to the paper that can be shared in the video description? Would love to know what kind of AI modeling was used here.
This was a great video thanks!
I love this channel. Well made with no sponsors
Can we have a small follow up clip on what model the AI actually predicted? Can we get an equation or something of the sorts? Right now it just sounds like there might be multiple correct proton models for that brief moment, but we're sticking to only one for no reason. We could have so many other possibilities, where both extrinsic theory and intrinisic theory are both correct, just at different times. Why could that not be the case?
Thank you for reporting on these more obscure yet far more interesting scientific advancements! This is my favorite show of all time!
I would think that the trained neural network itself is the model as you can view neural networks as universal function approximators.
@@TheHomeless080 I still want the function, even if the network itself is the function.
I learned something new. Thank you! Very excited for the future with AI.
It's interesting to hear talk of 'weight' and 'mass' at atomic and subatomic levels - the very stuff you're affecting and the stuff you're using to affect other material is itself bound up with the notions of weight and mass and we're applying enormous quantities of energy to those objects e.g. electrons which can convert into other objects. It's like trying to use a measuring tape on moving objects or something like that.
Is the time during which quark-antiquark pairs exist inside nucleons (e.g. protons, neutrons, antiprotons, antineutrons) much smaller than the time in which any chemical or physical reactions can take place? E.g. a tritium atom (hydrogen 3) being always more massive than protium atom (hydrogen 1) will react at different rates, different bond vibrations, etc.
For the 15 minutes I watched this video, I felt a lot smarter than I usually do. Thanks!
The best description I've ever heard of quantum physics is learning how a pocket watch is made by smashing two of them together and examining the pieces flying out... I guess if you used cannons as the accelerator finding a cannonball in the shrapnel wouldn't be unheard of.
I had creadted a Model for Vector analisys approach using Distance and Similarity Measures
I’ve been conversing with Ai for about half hour a night four a least four months. Love it great stuff. I find conversion with a stable entity to be therapeutic besides the learning. We are doing stuff. Will report latter.
I’m curious about what would happen near a black hole. Where virtual particle and anti-particle pairs get pulled away from each other so they can’t cancel out. In that kind of situation would these charm quarks be emitted into the universe? Would that put more mass into the universe that the protons they came from?
This is basically Hawking radiation. The energy that comes from the radiation is cancelled by the negative energy of the black hole swallowing the other virtual particle, so no there wouldn't be more mass in the universe.
the story about particles and anti-particles near a black hole is misleading, it's not what actually happens (a virtual particle falling in a black hole without canceling out would increase its mass instead of decreasing it), it's just a metaphor, we don't really know what happens near the event horizon (Hawking only shows what happens far from the black hole and what's the effect on the black hole itself), as I understand it it's about how the event horizon prevents vacuum to occupy some quantum states, which prevents all possible states from canceling out as they do in normal conditions in vacuum, this generates a particle but there's no anti-particle, it doesn't happen specifically at the horizon and how the energy that particle is made of gets subtracted from the mass of the black hole, we don't know
Fantastically amazingly explained. I'm a physicist and approve this video!
Maybe a dumb question...
But it's there any possibility there is a link between "spooky action at a distance" and those excess particles that seemingly pop in and out of existence very quickly, or that excess extrinsic stuff he's taking about?
I'm just a layman, but maybe it's like the universe's parity check, making sure it has all its bits in pieces in the right place before settling into its stable form?
Again, just layman speculation and curiosity. I don't even know if that would make any sense, really, but that's what my primate brain thought when he was explaining this. "Maybe this 'extra stuff' has to do with that spooky action, EPR, stuff to keep their entangled pairs in the right state..." Then I remember I know very little about this stuff, just enough to barely follow these videos, so I'm probably way off base here... I'm just curious, I guess. I'm probably asking a ridiculous question.
When you are colliding particles, they aren't at rest. This completely changes everything, including their behavior. As we have learned in quantum physics, about the photon, and light itself, everything is relative to everything. From a human perspective, this seems to be getting ridiculous until someone comes along and says, "we were wrong'', and figures it out! However, very interesting, and good job explaining.
The reason matter and energy are equivalent in particle collisions has to do with the geometry of the particle.
Billiard ball? Standing wave? Something else? How does a billiard ball, or whatever it is, store and exchange energy?