25 Subatomic Stories: What's smaller than quarks?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- The field of particle physics searches to find the explanation for the universe, focusing on the fundamental building blocks and most basic force that governs them. Our current best theory of the subatomic world is the Standard Model, which invokes quarks and leptons to build the cosmos. In this episode of Subatomic Stories, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explores the idea that quarks and leptons might not be the final story.
Scientific American article on preons:
www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov
Glass vector credit:
Freepik - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I like both formats - please keep doing both 😀
Don, I like both formats: I like the shorter ones for when I have only a little time to watch, and of course the longer videos take more time (duh!). In any case, whatever is decided, I'll watch your content!
Keith took the words right out of my mouth
i think the format (length) should be dictated by the material . . . some topics require more in-depth explanation and might even run over several videos . . . others might only need a few minutes.
Same here!!
I look forward to the short ones, they inspire me to seek out the longer material.
Personally, I like my physics in smaller doses. Your shorter videos give me plenty to think about, while longer videos have a harder time keeping my attention. Or perhaps I just digest it better in smaller bites?
I really like the simplicity and the casual form of your _Subatomic Stories_ video series. We feel we’re with you in your home’s library (I can practically hear the crackling from a fireplace not so far). Please don’t abandon this video form, it’s very good.
the crackling you hear is Don burning a pile of theoretical physicists.
I like both formats. The long-form videos are a bit more formal and more carefully formulated and directed, while the subatomic stories videos are more casual but also does a better job fitting the story into a bigger picture. They are both great formats and I think you could continue to do both!
-Matt
Once you understand the layout of the Periodic Table, it is astonishingly beautiful and elegant.
The only beauty I find in it is that it is a table and not some other fashion of storing the data. The shape of the table is sheer ugliness, a square would be beautiful shape. It is nice however, how the table goes on forever.
@@KasiusKlej But if it was a square it wouldn't describe the real world.
@@Valdagast It already doesn't describe all variations of isotopes, the table consists of just bare atoms. And then this strange gap between Hydrogen and Helium. Where is the beauty in that?
@@KasiusKlej Of course it doesn't contains isotopes, they don't make a chemical difference. And as soon as you know the table is wrap.-around, the gap between Hydrogen and Helium makes perfect sense - there are only 2 _s_ orbitals.
I like both formats. Each has its place. The short form is like an appetizer, and the long form is like an entree.
The first prepares you for the second.
13:37 video length. That's some elite physics.
That is the only reason I clicked this video.
This guy is brilliant. Highly intelligent, with an agreeable personality, and with a gift for communicating in a simple and down to earth way.
I like and enjoy very much the section for questions in this format, and I miss the long video format you had before.
I also hope that the channel returns to the long format videos keeping two things from these short ones: the Q&A section and I also really like that the topics of these videos is continuous, each one builds on the previous.
This format with the questions at end is getting better with each episode. This has given me a stronger connection to the data and concepts. When you reference your archived videos to further explain or explore, it ties together well.
This format is a nice break to mix things up, and I also like the depth of the longer form videos. Both are awesome, thank you!
Hello Don, I really appreciate your longer videos since I want more in depth knowledge and better analogies. Really love your work though, I'm always looking forward to your videos!
4:12 "I've looked." One of the most compelling statements in human physics of 2020.
Unfortunately so. He says this in spite of the fact that eyewitness testimony is an incredibly weak way to prove anything. I think he should have said "I've measured". It's a world of difference. Or is it?
He leads big teams, I don’t think he really personally operated on measuring instruments. Technically he only looked on those numbers reported by his teammates.
I like both formats too. I think that the deep dives are appropriate for certain, meaty topics. Your bit on leptogenesis springs to mind. Thanks for doing what you do, I enjoy it all.
+1 on liking both formats. Different tools for different purposes, different strokes for different folks, etc. I love the depth of the long format videos, but I also love the "quick story" format when my time is short.
In reading an article on fusion in the Sun, I came across quantum tunneling and why it is rare even in main-sequence stars as compared to more massive stars. A video on the subject by Dr. Lincoln would really be appreciated. Thanks
"You are right but I am also right ...that means the answer is complicated" haha great one xD
Simple
th-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/w-d-xo.html
Well what i like about this format is answering question part, it is definitely a breath of fresh air....
I enjoy this format. I learn something new every time I watch one! Thank you for sharing.
Could you go into more detail about how we know that electrons and quarks don't have physical size? What do we mean by size? How far do their wave equations extend?
the wave equations extend exactly 0.0359462578 +/- 0.3
Physical size - watch...
th-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/w-d-xo.html
Thanks! I prefer the longer versions, I feel there is more time to fully go over the knowns and unknowns, and possible solutions with potential upcoming experiments
You know the subject matter better than most. You know what an accurate explanation entails. Whatever format fits your teaching style for the specific topic, I assure you, we will watch.
I never committed to my interest in physics in high school and early college and that was 25 years ago so thank you for making these videos and feeding an itch and interest that still remains with me.
I watched a video about how much of the "mass" of a proton is really just the enormous energy of the strong force and the kinetic energy of the quarks, which are moving at nearly the speed of light. How do physicists know that quarks are moving so fast?
name of the video or a link? sounds interesting, haven't crossed roads with that idea yet...
Because of their mass maybe
I like the long question answering sessions, that has filled in so many blank spaces for me it is not funny. Whatever you chose to do, please include as many of those as possible. To say it is a rare privilege to have your questions considered by a high level physics wizard is an understatement. Thank you so very much for taking the time to do these videos, they are one of the highlights of my week. Seriously, every time your videos pop up in my feed it feels like when I was 6 and a bugs bunny cartoon started on the tv! Yay!!! :)
I like both formats as well. The S.Stories are more simple to understand, is a good place to start for newcomers and a good way to review for more advanced people in this lovely science. Don´t stop working from home, Don.
I like these short form videos. You an excellent teacher, and I find it amazing that you can just sit there and explain highly complex matters with very few graphics.
"Mom, is that you?" LOL
He made me love physics in high school
I was lucky to have a HS physics teacher who looked and talked and taught just like Dr. Don. Same bad jokes even.
@@bozo5632 yeah a good teacher makes you love that subject
Love your collection of history books above your shoulders. I am a rank amateur, but it's comforting to know that an interest in physics goes hand in hand with the past (and ongoing) dealings of mankind.
The more abbreviated videos are more casually enjoyable, I think. Thanks for making them. They’re swell.
Hi Don, when can we expect the results of the muon g-2 experiment? I have been eagerly awaiting it since your video and heard it was nearing completion. Also I love the short-form videos and I look forward to them every week.
They aren't saying. It was supposed to be late summer 2020, but the world changed. Best I can say is "soon."
It found aliens and we're all doomed.
12:08 Have you ever made a video about John Wheeler's "one-eletron universe"? I think the story is worth talking about it. Maybe talk about Feynman diagrams there, too!
I second this.
PBS Space Time made a video about that a while ago: th-cam.com/video/9dqtW9MslFk/w-d-xo.html&vl=fr
@@krellemaster my favorite hobby is answering people's questions of physics videos with, "pbs spacetime did a video on that a while back"
I hate when people take such extreme positions. Why are all electrons the same? Must be the same electron. I think to myself, because it is a quanta of a particular fields and they can only exist at their lowest allowable size.
In regards to the video formats, I really love these shorter videos to describe each subject specifically and its easier to isolate questions than going over multiple subjects and a much more diverse range of questions for you to answer with your limited time.
Dr. Lincoln,
I enjoy both formats. Subatomic Stories are great for a quick overview, and the long format for a deep dive. I wouldn't like to lose either format.
I really liked your way of explanation of physics , thank-you keep the good work going ,I would like to keep up like
Sir C.V. Raman ,who won a Nobel prize
Even though he worked in the economy department, he used to do he research in the university during nights
I will surely work hard no matter what it takes ,not matter how hard it is
I will surely manage both work and pursuing scientific exploration
Brother science is like a huge ocean, both magnificent and dangerous..... If one jumps into it, it is impossible for him to escape it......... Humanity was born to explore and we all have the right to question and solve the mysteries of the universe........ specially in a Country like India where students study science only to become a engineer or doctor..... I m utterly pleased that there r still some people who study science because they want to question their own existence.... Keep it up bro..... I m with u...
Fundamental Particle
th-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/w-d-xo.html
@@thegreenguitarstudios7534
Fundamental Particle...
th-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/w-d-xo.html
Assuming gravitons exist, do we have an expectation for what their interactions would look like? Is there a graviton Feynman diagram?
Don, It's your naturally great ability in explaining physics and your laid back yet precise style that attracted me, and I guess the near half a million who subscribe!
I like the longer videos, but these shorter ones are more convenient. Great to take a short break from work and see what's new from all my favorite TH-camrs. And the home library is a perfect background.
Don “the answer is complicated” Lincoln
Yes most of this exotic physics is complicated, so he is perfectly correct when he says so. It is possible to grasp the concepts superficially with enough detail to make it comprehensible to the average non-scientist, but some questions cannot be answered without using some heavy duty math. I have a 600 page textbook that teaches the math needed to do physics calculations and it is only an introductory book, so yes, John, it IS complicated.
Wayne Y. Adams
Wayne Adams hi Wayne. I get it 😂
Simple
th-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/w-d-xo.html
@@wayneyadams sir,
About smallest
th-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/w-d-xo.html
Shouldn't the outer shell of the Neon animation have 8 electrons? 1:26
Yes it should, but there is a bigger problem with this animation in that it depicts electron orbiting the nucleus like planets orbiting the Sun. I am disappointed in Dr. Don for using a misleading animation like this.
what do you expect of physicists explaining chemistry? ;-)
It's just an abstraction and done on purpose. Visualizing the key point that there is a layer more but with almost the same properties and behavior as the layer below. The same, just larger and around it, visualized by drawing the same, but larger and around it.
Diagrams and animations are always an abstraction, where you simplify some properties of the original while you keep others. And it's your choice which ones to simplify based on what you want to demonstrate.
A pile of wood is a good abstraction for a piano if you are a firefighter, but a bad one if you are a musician. Recognizing which properties are kept and which are simplified gives you a good idea of what the author intended to communicate.
Drawing electrons as points, drawing ellipses which aren't there in reality and which definitely aren't yellew. A nucleus that is many many times too big. Some letters floating around it. The movement of the electrons is nowhere close to real time. All that, but we still somehow collectively recognize it as an atom. Abstraction is a strong tool. Yet, it always shows reality in a wrong way. One way, or another.
I love both video formats. Bring it all on.
Hi, Don. Thanks for your videos, they are excellent. Regarding your question about which type of videos format we like more, I would say that the long videos....you can extend on the subject far more than in the short format and that helps at explaining intricate questions. Anyway, both are great!
Hey, Doc, I don't about the form just keep the science accessible while maximizing your snarkiness. You are one of my favorites on TH-cam. Thanks!
I tought about this "harvesting dark energy" idea and I wonder if the following would work: put two black holes at a specific distance from one another where the attraction due to gravity and the repulsion due to dark energy exactly balance. Then, further away, harvest the free gravitational waves which are created by the black holes moving through expanding space and send back the mass the black holes lose due to Hawking radiation by shinig sufficient amounts of light at them. Obviously, the light source needs to be powered by the free energy from the gravitational waves for the energy to be truly free, at which point the question remains if there still would be a surplus of energy left.
Edit: If you are curious about this idea you could upvote my comment so Don gets to see it and possibly talk about it in the next episode! ;)
The distance necessary for the dark energy repulsion would be so great as to render the machine uselessly large, may as well try to harvest energy from receding galaxies. if you made the black holes small enough so that they could be reasonably close together, you may as well harvest energy from the Hawking radiation instead.
1) If the system is static, it doesn't produce gravitational waves; and 2) gravitational waves don't come from nowhere - for example, when two black holes collide, the mass of the resulting black hole will be less than the sum of of masses of the original black holes (the difference corresponding to the energy radiated away in the gravitational waves).
There are a few major flaws in this plan. One, they would have to be very far apart to balance gravity and dark energy. Two, if they were balanced, they wouldn't be orbiting each other, so no gravitational waves. Three, if they were even close to balanced, they would be very far apart, in very slow orbit, making immeasurably small gravitational waves. Imagine a wave that takes millions of years between peaks... What energy could be harvested?
To get significant gravitational waves, they need to be in a close decaying orbit, spiraling together. And even if you could harvest energy from that, dark energy on that scale will never replenish it.
Also, you don't need to replenish the black holes unless they are tiny. Any black hole more massive than the moon will have more CMB radiation hitting it than it loses to hawking radiation.
@@phunkydroid and others: they will create gravitational waves because they are constantly accelerating towards each other. They are in continuous free fall like planets in orbit which also create gravitational waves, that they fall linearly instead of circularly doesn't change anything. The energy for the gravitational waves in black hole collisions not only comes from their masses but also from the potential energy they lose when moving towards each other (that they create gravitational waves before the collision is precisely the reason why they move towards each other in the first place, otherwise they would orbit each other forever). The energy of the gravitational waves in my setup would come from the dark energy pulling them apart. I know that the distances involved would be literally astronomical but I wouldn't bet that you can't get free energy from the setup without seeing the actual calculation. Also, you do need to replenish the Hawking radiation because the CMB will fade away eventually.
Dr. Lincoln
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. It means so much to me. I’ll be looking forward to the upcoming videos 😁
doctor, this format is actually THE best. I recommend you do this format alongside the other, rather than attempting to mix the two together. but keep this one with the way you were answering questions as you went along, rather than leaving it til the end.. This was casual yet the answers authoritatively answered.your own personality came forward here, suave, wistful, precise, in a way that does not in your normal video format.
I remain perplexed by electrons having three times the charge of a down quark, and that the charge of a proton completely balances the charge of an electron. It seems like something important is going on there.
It's my understanding the 2/3 and 1/3 charges just made everything work right theory wise, as you can never get quarks on their own, this can not be directly experimentally validated. However, I do like your question about why protons necessarily exactly cancel out an electron, charge wise. That does stink of fine tuning, but I've not heard this discussed before.
I think that there are symmetry arguments why charge is quantised on a fundamental level (maybe like angular momentum comes in basic units of h). So it seems plausible to me that elementary particles have small multiples of the lowest charge unit (that could be the down quark's charge, and the electron would have three of them). And I think Dirac had some arguments about charge quantisation, but I don't know the details, something with "monopoles"...
@@franks.6547 But even with quantization a proton could have been off by a single charge unit from an electron. So the fact that they're balanced is interesting.
@@mheermance yes, but in proportions of say 2:3 you would just need 50% more protons in the nucleus to balance the charges perfectly. The question that I have heard being discussed earlier was what if the electron had only 0.001% more charge than the proton. That would yield gigantic electric net forces if you add up all the atoms and it could not be balanced in small atoms. But you are right, we can always feel wonder about any fact. The deep thing that you where after, though, I think, was Dirac's argument about charge quantisation, which involves magnetic monopoles and wierdly twisted field configurations, see arxiv.org/abs/1810.13403
@@franks.6547 That makes sense, and thanks for the link.
Has any of the questions posed in these videos brought you some insight or some direction to investigate?
I like this question but I am pessimistic about its answer 😄
I have discovered this channel just now. Very impressive, clear and confident presentation. 👌🏻 Please speak about the String Theory which is almost beyond comprehension for a lay person.
Fantastic show Dr.Lincoln!
"an electron came back from the future back in time to disappear in time to the future"
I'll have two #6s please with a large diet coke
Long format for me, please.
5 minutes of structured scientific info plus 8 minutes of comments feels like eating a single potato chip and some leftover crumbs.
It would be more like a single chip and the crumbs from the previous bag 😂 But, hey, each chip is a different flavor - gives you a chance to find what you like
I like both.
I agree, I want more and it just ends, lol - I guess that's sort of my partners thoughts about me too!
I really like your content and have watched a lot of both formats.
My thoughts are the following:
I find the short format to be very valuable for keeping on top of current trends and "news" from the physics world, things like new experiments and results, but also my favourite; the "unanswered questions".
However I do find that the level of detail delved into is a bit low for my liking and I find myself wanting to know more only to find you cut to questions! That's natural in a shorter format but my preference would be to focus on only the really good questions and leave more time for the physics!
Either way, I find your content to be very informative and I'm very grateful for it in any form.
This format is completely fine.
😍
The real reason to get beyond the standard model... it makes physicists look less like chemists. :P
Hey, watch it! I was a working chemist before I became a Physics instructor.
Wayne Y. Adams
in contrast to the physicists, we chemists know why we have multiple rows and columns in our periodic table. we also refer to sciences behind the make-up of atoms as quantum or theoretical chemistry instead of some kind of physics as in the video. these pesky physicists should stick to making sense of their own standard model instead of trying to claim the fundamentals of chemistry as their own ;-)
I love both formats, it depends on how much time I have. But keep up the good work and enjoy it as much as we do.
I love that my nine month old son can watch this with me. He might not understand it, but he enjoys it.
Never too young or old to learn something.
How do we know quarks exist since we never seen a 1/3 elementary charged particule so far ?
I think we have detected them in particle accelerators
Protons are made of 2 up and 1 down quark and have a charge of 1 unit
Neutrons are made of 2 down and 1 up quark and their charge is 0.
Therefore 2x+y=1 and x+2y=0
Solving the eqn gives you x=2/3 and y=-1/3 so we get fractional charges for quarks
We have seen them, in quark-gluon plasmas. Look into asymptotic freedom of quarks.
For those curious about experimental technique qgp was made at CERN in 2000 by colliding gold and lead nuclei.
Michael Bishop No we haven’t seen them in such plasma. No particle with 1/3 elementary charge has been isolated so far. Confined in a plasma is not a direct detection, it is still just an assumption. I don’t understand why this certainty about the existence of Quarks.
I have really enjoyed your subatomic stories, though I often wish they were longer.
I like the longer format. Thanks.
damn is ur hair a reversible entropic system because it's not changing
I miss "Scientific American". Remember when they cared about science, instead of politics?
You mean, back when they were naive enough to think the two can really be kept completely separated?
@@KaiHenningsen They started in 1845. They understood for over a century that combining the two was a nightmare, especially after the debacle of Lysenkoism.
Now there can only be one. One party you vote for, one belief about masks, about global warming, everything. There is no diversity of thought, and to question anything is heresy, not good science.
That is cult-think - that is the old soviet collectivist thinking, and the thinking of the fascists, and every backward and anti-scientific group throughout history.
One thought. One goal. One dream.
No hope.
No thank you.
Do you miss it? Do you?
I ask because often when people say this sort of thing, they don't actually subscribe. They don't read it regularly, if ever. They "miss" a thing they haven't so much as thought about in years. And they opine that the magazine no longer "cares about science" based on no evidence except for one recent headline.
Is that where you're at? Is this just about one headline about a magazine you don't read? Or are you actually an avid reader of Scientific American who has noticed in recent months and years that they've undergone a History Channel shift away from caring about science?
@@ps.2 you pretend to read my mind, and I have nothing to prove to you. Those who know me also see the screenshots i made of pages in my social media, and that i carry old copies in my bag.
I used to subscribe until the quality declined - and with the cancellation, i sent feedback as to why. They didn't care.
And if they vanish into the void, that will have been their choice. You can't spend your time insulting customers, then be surprised if they no longer buy your products.
My local newsagents no longer stocks them. I never saw anyone else here buying, and without me, its gone.
And I am sure that story is repeated across the globe.
And when it folds, the woke editors will make excuses, and look for another host - but I have to wonder if there will be anywhere for them to run.
No, because that's not how politics works
I like the frequent updates and community engagement of the newer shorter videos.
I like the more detailed explanations, more involved visuals, prolonged analogies, and the physicist dark wizard meme energy of the older videos.
I think it would be interesting to combine a long form video, with a full sit down question session as a separate video. Sort of a lecture and Q & A session afterward.
I second this. "Extra History" does this sort of hybrid approach, and I think it works great.
@@davethefoxmage5797 thanks for the reply! Gotta get the algorithm working for us
Both are awesome and I learn so much. Especially learning misconceptions I had
Great video, especially the questions part
Thankyou Don! You are a national treasure !
I enjoy the longer form videos, but I look forward to subatomic stories a lot. I'd be happy to see a 1:3 ratio
I have not studied physics, merely fascinated, I read a Great deal but you present this in a way I can absorb, I am very grateful sir. Thank you.
I like both formats. I have always enjoyed the chalkboard behind you in the longer videos, which looks like it gets periodically (no puns intended!) redrawn.
I’m a big fan of the new format. Both are great.
please make the longer ones! thank you
Don't get rid of the shorter video's for novices like myself who are "intimidated"/uncomfortable with the math. Love your work!
Please keep up the intriguing video's. Both long and short! 👏👏👏
I once studied physics and I like both your formats. The shorter "armchair" physics are very good to introduce terms and principles. As you see every time, this raises further questions, regularly responded by you with "the answer is complicated". For that the deeper, more lecture-like videos are certainly better.
I like the q&a at the end of 'short'. But the long form allows more time to cover the subject. Both are great. I would love to have your collection of t-shirts. Not YOUR shirts but ones just like them.
I love Subatomic stories. Simpler and more accessible. Don’t go back!
Anxiously waiting for your next video which I hope will answer a long standing question I have had.
I like both formats too, so I hope that the future vids will still do both. The chosen format will depend on the chosen subject, seems very logical.
So nice you mentioned Friedmann, so usually neglected when talking about theories of expanding universe.
THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
I like both types of videos. The Stories are short and like a taster that can get you looking for more and the longer form videos are the ones you find when doing that digging. Plus I like a little humour in my videos!
The jingle of the long series is much more pushing... But seriously - what really matters is Dr. Don!
Thanks for the detailed explanation. 👍
Us non-scientists often aren't aware of the details. We get the "cliff notes" version of science history. Maybe you could make some science history videos in the future?
Hi Don, I found this series a week ago and have finally caught up - great series!
I have a question regarding the detection of dark matter: is that based on the assumption that it must experience the weak force in order to interact with atoms? If they only experience gravity I can't see that being detectable...
The digestible 15 minutes or less videos are the best for me.
Superb...your lecture is fabulous
Don! Your videos have brought me a lot of joy during these crazy times, so thank you Kindly. My questions are about the three families of quarks and leptons. First, the fact that we only see three neutrinos inferring that only three families of leptons makes sense to me. But how do we then extend that line of reasoning to quarks? My second question is also about the families. I've read that the now somewhat out of fashion string theory could explain the number of families because of the topology of higher dimensions. Obviously that's all hypothetical, but what are you thoughts on that? - Thanks!
Hi, Don! I would like you to go more into details of the subject. Thanks!
Awesome as always! Awesome as Physics! 👍🏼
thank you so much doctor for sharing your knowledge with and make us fell love in physics
also,i think everyone in their fields should make youtube videos and share their knowledge with the world after all there are many many people who would like to know things but don't have enough resources or have known path to reach that knowledge.
again,thank you sir
INDIAN
Don... I enjoy your lectures because you don’t try to do a stand up comedy routine. You get on topic, stay there and approach it like the scientist you are. Kudos to you...Jim
I enjoy your long form videos for the more in depth explorations and the shorter form for the concise explanations. Too much to hope for both?
Both formats are great, you can do the other format at the lab and then when you go home you can do this format, no sleep because after all...physics is everything!
I like both, but I have to say, this format fills a particular niche that the longform videos simply can't. The longform videos are more like lectures in a class, which are great for deeply explaining complicated topics, but these videos feel much more like a conversation. A video raises a topic, and the comment responses the following week answer all sorts of points of interest, or potential confusions that often get missed in the long videos.
I like both formats. To me, the question is the level of technical / mathematical detail. I like the math. But, with a day job I don't have the time to wade fully into videos of graduate level physics classes. That requires a serious investment of time. I also appreciate that every equation you put on the screen likely decreases your audience. That's a trade-off you need to make as a content creator. Whatever you do, I'll be watching. When I sit down on Wednesdays and come to the realization that another Subatomic Stories is available, I'm a happy person. Thanks for the hard work. And, I'm okay with more math.
I like both formats. Imho, the longer formats either give you a bit more time to explain and to offer analogies helpful to humanities majors such as myself. The shorter formats are still very informative. (For example the "periodic table" of leptons and quarks which you posted in this video I found most intriguing, because you posted the electric charges of each; gosh, it was interesting to me to see the change from positive to neutral to negative.) I also find the Q&A to be interesting, although most of the questioners must be grad students in physics, because I can barely comprehend their questions. In both events, you are doing a splendid job of teaching that physics truly is everything.
I have enough keeping up with particles that are already part of the standard model, didn't know about preons! Mind-boggling as ever.