Well, roughly speaking, the people in particle physics who work on string theory do it pretty much exclusively, and the rest don't work on it at all. (Certainly I am oversimplifying, but that's a rough picture.) String theory tends to get in the public view because people trying to find an "ultimate" theory of nature get more interest from the public than, say, somebody in the trenches measuring the lifetime of a specific particle at a collider. So, basically, you'd probably be interested in physics info from, well, somebody who isn't a string theorist. (I am not one, as is probably evident from my channel content.) Two people who come to mind are: 1) Sean Carroll. He's a cosmologist, and he does a lot of stuff to communicate physics to the public. 2) The blog of Tommaso Dorigo: www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor He's a particle experimentalist, so he is exactly one of those people who's in the trenches doing measurements. You can't get much closer to hard data than that. Actually, also the Fermilab youtube channel isn't bad. That's what I'd recommend off the top of my head.
It's a statement about how well (or poorly) the observation agrees with the null hypothesis. Or, more precisely, how unusual the observation would be if the null hypothesis is true. Let's imagine a universe where the null hypothesis is, in fact, true. We'll also assume that our errors are gaussian-distributed. In that universe, the probability of the observation ending up more than 3 sigma away from the null hypothesis prediction is about 0.3%. So, it's a statement about how weird the result is if the null hypothesis is true. It doesn't actually tell us anything about, say, the probability that the null hypothesis is true. It just tells us how unusual our observed result is if the null hypothesis is true. I've got a couple of videos that might help: ruclips.net/video/OE3slL0trYc/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/DKpTW0QQYlo/видео.html Let me know if that does/doesn't answer your question.
Hi! The leptons of the Standard Model (the electron, the muon, and the tau) can each interact with the W boson. This allows us to write down an interaction where the lepton changes into a W- and a neutrino. (The electron disintegrates into a W- and an electron neutrino; the muon disintegrates into a W- and a muon neutrino, and the tau disintegrates into a W- and a tau neutrino.) The W- can also disintegrate into other particles. This would seem to allow the electron, muon, and tau to decay. However, in order for a particle to decay, it has to decay to particles which weigh less than it does. In the case of the electron, there are no lighter particles for it to decay to (while conserving charge), so it doesn't decay. On the other hand, the muon and tau are heavier, so they can decay. Does that help?
That was an excellent rundown on a topic that scarcely makes it to mainstream news and popular science sources. BUT... please try to eliminate the word "so" from 90% of the instances where you use it in the narration. It's totally redundant as is obvious by the slides with more or less the same words but which don't have it. Easier said than done, I know, but it might help to think of its synonym "therefore". If you don't mean "therefore", don't say "so". End of pedantic rant.
Isn't the word so, a phrase used by most professional scientists, like we may use a semi-colon or the like. It's professional punctuation and you'd really need to live a hundred lifetimes or more to write to every scientist who uses the term. Beware the passing pedant
@@243david7 Well, you're right, it is most widely used by scientists but occasionally also by other qualified people. I guess I am fighting a losing battle against the (not so) slow degradation of the English language which is already irregular enough. This usage of so is relatively recent though. I myself used "well" at the start of this comment in a similar way but that is at least much older than I am (not young).
@@Sparky-vj2dq My gripe with the word so, is that is has spread from science to politicians and those who would pick up any idea, meme or vickipollardism that might somehow enhance their stature. Do you remember when 'Moving forward' or 'Moving on' first came out in meetings? I feel your pain
@@243david7 I do remember. I think these day many of my linguistic gripes derive from social media where the production standards are the average and you often don't have professional editors to take the weeds out of your creations before they are let loose on the masses. Sadly in recent years I've seen a drop in language standards even in professional articles and TV programmes. It's not down to immigration either. Non-native people often use better English than those born here (in England).
Hi! Questions?
Well, roughly speaking, the people in particle physics who work on string theory do it pretty much exclusively, and the rest don't work on it at all. (Certainly I am oversimplifying, but that's a rough picture.) String theory tends to get in the public view because people trying to find an "ultimate" theory of nature get more interest from the public than, say, somebody in the trenches measuring the lifetime of a specific particle at a collider. So, basically, you'd probably be interested in physics info from, well, somebody who isn't a string theorist. (I am not one, as is probably evident from my channel content.)
Two people who come to mind are:
1) Sean Carroll. He's a cosmologist, and he does a lot of stuff to communicate physics to the public.
2) The blog of Tommaso Dorigo:
www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor
He's a particle experimentalist, so he is exactly one of those people who's in the trenches doing measurements. You can't get much closer to hard data than that.
Actually, also the Fermilab youtube channel isn't bad.
That's what I'd recommend off the top of my head.
Best knowledge.......
Thanks!
Think like a physicist - always do that. Physics - nuclear physics is in my blood,in my genes
Interesting !!!
I have some questions from the proton decay video…
OK. What's the first one?
How do we interpret 3 sigma deviation? Does it mean that there's 0.3% of not rejecting the null hypothesis?
It's a statement about how well (or poorly) the observation agrees with the null hypothesis. Or, more precisely, how unusual the observation would be if the null hypothesis is true.
Let's imagine a universe where the null hypothesis is, in fact, true. We'll also assume that our errors are gaussian-distributed. In that universe, the probability of the observation ending up more than 3 sigma away from the null hypothesis prediction is about 0.3%.
So, it's a statement about how weird the result is if the null hypothesis is true. It doesn't actually tell us anything about, say, the probability that the null hypothesis is true. It just tells us how unusual our observed result is if the null hypothesis is true.
I've got a couple of videos that might help:
ruclips.net/video/OE3slL0trYc/видео.html
and
ruclips.net/video/DKpTW0QQYlo/видео.html
Let me know if that does/doesn't answer your question.
I really didn't understand too much of that but it did sound pretty impressive and convincing nonetheless
Why do mu and tua Lupton decay?
Hi!
The leptons of the Standard Model (the electron, the muon, and the tau) can each interact with the W boson. This allows us to write down an interaction where the lepton changes into a W- and a neutrino. (The electron disintegrates into a W- and an electron neutrino; the muon disintegrates into a W- and a muon neutrino, and the tau disintegrates into a W- and a tau neutrino.) The W- can also disintegrate into other particles.
This would seem to allow the electron, muon, and tau to decay. However, in order for a particle to decay, it has to decay to particles which weigh less than it does. In the case of the electron, there are no lighter particles for it to decay to (while conserving charge), so it doesn't decay. On the other hand, the muon and tau are heavier, so they can decay.
Does that help?
🐥
That was an excellent rundown on a topic that scarcely makes it to mainstream news and popular science sources.
BUT... please try to eliminate the word "so" from 90% of the instances where you use it in the narration. It's totally redundant as is obvious by the slides with more or less the same words but which don't have it. Easier said than done, I know, but it might help to think of its synonym "therefore". If you don't mean "therefore", don't say "so". End of pedantic rant.
Isn't the word so, a phrase used by most professional scientists, like we may use a semi-colon or the like. It's professional punctuation and you'd really need to live a hundred lifetimes or more to write to every scientist who uses the term. Beware the passing pedant
@@243david7 Well, you're right, it is most widely used by scientists but occasionally also by other qualified people. I guess I am fighting a losing battle against the (not so) slow degradation of the English language which is already irregular enough. This usage of so is relatively recent though. I myself used "well" at the start of this comment in a similar way but that is at least much older than I am (not young).
I actually like it although I'm infamous when it comes to correct use of language.
@@Sparky-vj2dq My gripe with the word so, is that is has spread from science to politicians and those who would pick up any idea, meme or vickipollardism that might somehow enhance their stature. Do you remember when 'Moving forward' or 'Moving on' first came out in meetings? I feel your pain
@@243david7 I do remember. I think these day many of my linguistic gripes derive from social media where the production standards are the average and you often don't have professional editors to take the weeds out of your creations before they are let loose on the masses. Sadly in recent years I've seen a drop in language standards even in professional articles and TV programmes. It's not down to immigration either. Non-native people often use better English than those born here (in England).