I love Sixty Symbols! You guys really make me wish I went further with my undergrad physics degree. I could sit and listen to the soft-spoken guy at 0:35 all friggin' day long. Thanks for the great videos!
I love coming home from work and having a new Sixty Symbols video to watch. Makes me not think about the rest of the day but only gets me thinking about some amazing topic that they just discussed.
Yes, very interesting. In industrial management there is actually principle called 6 sigma, meaning basically that you go for 3,4 faulty products in a million.
Oh I knew today was going to be good. Went to physics class, went to tutor some other students in physics, come home, and see a new Sixty Symbols video in my box!
"You should be here, Brady" - the sincerity with which the professor said it should be taken as one of the greatest compliments Brady has ever received.
@PBDPBD I do thank you for your reply. I however do not see the distinction between disproving A to prove B being any different then showing A is very unlikely there for B is very likely. Both assume those are the only two possiblities. What of C or D or E or.... off in to infinitium? ..BTW the only way one can disprove a negative is by eliminating all other possibilities which is impossible.
A wonderful video, as always. I was just hoping the whole time that you're also use the word "random" error to help explain Gaussian error, because I think that's a little more accessible to people. Statistics answers the question, "Is this result to be expected from random error, such as a shaky hand, or particle collisions having many possible results, or is it a systematic error that reveals something I haven't considered? Mind you, I'm a grade school science teacher, not a physicist.
In my physics class at school in 1977 we started the A-level course with dimensional analysis and error theory and both of those have stood me in good stead
I am so grateful for these videos. You are helping me understand something that I am very interested in but is way beyond the parameters of my education. I am all literature and virtually no science. Yet, because of a man named Jacob Bronowski and his program THE ASCENT OF MAN, I have tried to maintain a connection with the current thrust of science. Brian Cox and speakers like you present are very helpful. What is going on a CERN is important to all of us - even arty types like me. Carry on!
@michalchik I know what you mean, but sometimes for the sake of practicality, setting wide margins is more useful than being very specific, especially at the early stages of experimentation - as long as it's clear that wider margins mean lower certainty. The message I got from LHC was "preliminary findings are encouraging" rather than "we've nailed it". If they find the Higgs then the party will be epic.
@sixtysymbols Hey, no one's perfect. Most of the time he comes across as very competent, and perhaps more importantly, genuinely excited to be able to talk about stuff that's interesting to him. You guys all do a great job most of the time :)
After having spent a day reacting to quotes from the likes of Rick Santorum, I turn to Six Symbols, Periodic Videos, and Numberphile to restore my faith in humanity. Thanks Brady. =)
@Jimmy171194 I don't think "the maths guys at Nottingham" watch my videos! It is certainly very hard to get them involved in making any with me!!! Maybe they don't like my editing, which I can assure you is - quite rightly - the main cause of any criticism! ;)
@Squagnut I am not exactly questioning the result as asking why they interpret the way they do. The standard model is great. It is just important to realize that people tend to see and interpret things according to their expectations. A big part of science is making the predictions very, very specific so that we can avoid confirmation bias. In this case I have only people give very general predictions that we would find a decay peak somewhere in a wide energy spectrum.
I had thought it was something like that, the same happened to some of the staff at my university. But it was too good to let pass. Thanks for the link.
Why could you not have posted this in October? I failed Statistics because the guy couldn't speak enough english to explain this. At least now I know I can pass it the second time, but please. This class takes the place of my only elective in all four years of school.
@Typho0n86 I don't consider the particle accelerators to be a controlled experiment and nor the random data values to be indicative of anything. Einstein had rock solid proof of relativistic physics whereas modern physicist tend to do things that just make things more confusing. Sadly I think we're getting another particle to the standard model, whether its real or not.
I have a question: so all data is assembled. Then statistical analysis is performed to confirm a "normal Gauss curve" behaviour of all data assembled. To confirm the results you need data ranging inside 5 standard deviations? Is that right? That is going to take some time... I am surprised they are up to 3 sigma though...
@odinsraven1000 I know the standard model dont account for gravity, but i dont see that as a problem. We already understand the gravitational force through Relativity. Why does it need to be a particle/boson? How will black holes work if it is a particle/boson? They are making things worse and wrong. Gravity is a property of space-time, and the other 3 forces are properties of matter. so they are describing diffrent things
They skirt over the fact that distributions found in nature are not always precisely Gaussian - they tend to be bell curves, but you only get actual Gaussian distribution curves under certain conditions (namely, if the variable measured satisfies the central limit theorem). It's useful, often, to approximate most things as gaussians as they usually have the same general shape, but the percentages being quoted for the various sigma values are not universally applicable.
@sixtysymbols sixty symbols and numberphile. we need more videos on these two channels. very rarely you come across a boradcast where all the presenters are equally brilliant. WE WANT MORE and we need more maths on extended videos.
Oh feh. I see this is one of those videos I'm going to have to watch a few times over before I'm able to grok what's being said. Stats has never been one of my strong areas of study (perhaps something I should rectify in the future). Thank you for learning about all this stuff, and then turning around and telling us. I think Dr. Poliakoff was correct when he said you shared your addictions, and in this case, we all benefit from those. Ya'll deserved that medal.
If you are looking for the Higgs boson... The one construction of quarks that binds energy as matter, should you not look for it in the probabilty range that equates to the ratio of mass to energy in the known universe?
@sixtysymbols Sorry, Brady, this wasn't a attack directed to Sixtysymbols (I love Sixtysymbols) or any of your videos, it was just a general statement. But thank you, anyway.
ok, i'm still kinda confused. could you use some example statistics to explain what you mean? i think i'll get it if i'm looking at some actual numbers.
@Squagnut I see your point, but then to nail this they really need to create prediction about this 125 GeV beastie they have found to distinguish it from something that is simply unknown.
Cool video like always. I want to make a request about the quantum zeno effect, I found it in a few places and would love to here what the professors in Nottingham have to say about it. Thanks alot and hope to see it happen.
are they really using the proving a negative as the proof soemthing? As in we have model A and model B, they are disproving model A there for they think that is proof of model B? Or am misunderstanding?
@masluxx Disproving A is NOT what proves any B. If we changed the mean of the curve to be the expected for hypothesis B, and the data also lies in very low sigma B, then we now know that B is very likely to be correct. The conclusions are not interdependent, because you have two different means for the disproof of A and proof of B. If another model C has a closer average, and still accounts for previous data, then C is less wrong than B.
@525047 If they do add this 'god' particle (the particle that was never there, just like god), would they be any closer to solving the infinite problem with black holes or the start of the universe? My guess is No, so why are they adding this particle if it wont gain us a better understanding of the universe?
@daemonpacman we do for science and measurements etc, but it would be very strange for someone to quote their height/weight in metric units! we use stone and feet for those. also, in car travel, we use miles and mph still :)
@CannonLongshot It does not disagree with philosophy, it is a particular kind of philosophy. what kind? One that states that our knowledge about the world should be based on experience (observation and (if posible) experiment). It disagrees with rationalism - the other kind of philosophy which states that we can know something by pure reason (this is where "armchair philosopher's" "live"). Of course these are ideal types - science procedes both by rationalistic and empiristic means ...
ur editing is very professional and doesnt affect the general truths of any of your videos brady, however i am subscibed to nottingham science, sixty symbols, numberphile, bibledex and im sure theres another one but im drunk so dont quote me on that- however, i still have to wait days sometimes between videos my friend!!! so i agree- u need a partener to help with the filming of episodes... and appoint yourself as executive producer/editor just to be sure that the standard does not slip!
its interesting that other scientists are using other terms, like significance in biology = ) But I think in the end its also the same % value of certainty, so it's up to your field of science if you call it sigma or significance level.
if anybody is intrested..there is a thing called 6 SIgma...i think it was invented by Japanese and is used in manufacturing processes so as to improve efficiency of a plant or a factory among lots of other applications.
I like how Brady sometimes seems to get quite agitated at the seemingly contradicting claims of the scientists.
Muon g-2 announcement brought me here. Brady, still an excellent video!
Me too! Need a recap from my maths days
@NSTartan it's never too late to apply for a place at Nottingham - Professor Copeland gives plenty of lectures!
@Zeldakitteh I think you'll find more and more numberphile videos up your alley... one of them coming this week is very exciting in my opinion! :)
I've been waiting a long time for an explanation of 5 sigma that was this clear. Thanks!
I love Sixty Symbols! You guys really make me wish I went further with my undergrad physics degree. I could sit and listen to the soft-spoken guy at 0:35 all friggin' day long.
Thanks for the great videos!
I love coming home from work and having a new Sixty Symbols video to watch. Makes me not think about the rest of the day but only gets me thinking about some amazing topic that they just discussed.
Yes, very interesting. In industrial management there is actually principle called 6 sigma, meaning basically that you go for 3,4 faulty products in a million.
@iv54 thank you - we enjoy making them
@feuchster explanation on nottinghamscience channel and test-tube website
@derrynator we read and care about (almost) all the comments!
@WeLoveWong might do that some time... we occasionally do viewer questions
Oh I knew today was going to be good. Went to physics class, went to tutor some other students in physics, come home, and see a new Sixty Symbols video in my box!
I have to say I really like Ed Copland. "The look elsewhere effect? Oh, Brady. I'm not... OK, here we go!"
@ottotechnica as others have said, see explanation on nottinghamscience channel or test-tube website
"You should be here, Brady" - the sincerity with which the professor said it should be taken as one of the greatest compliments Brady has ever received.
@stardude3396 always more to come! hope you've watched our back catalog!?
@PBDPBD I do thank you for your reply. I however do not see the distinction between disproving A to prove B being any different then showing A is very unlikely there for B is very likely. Both assume those are the only two possiblities. What of C or D or E or.... off in to infinitium? ..BTW the only way one can disprove a negative is by eliminating all other possibilities which is impossible.
A wonderful video, as always. I was just hoping the whole time that you're also use the word "random" error to help explain Gaussian error, because I think that's a little more accessible to people.
Statistics answers the question, "Is this result to be expected from random error, such as a shaky hand, or particle collisions having many possible results, or is it a systematic error that reveals something I haven't considered?
Mind you, I'm a grade school science teacher, not a physicist.
In my physics class at school in 1977 we started the A-level course with dimensional analysis and error theory and both of those have stood me in good stead
I am so grateful for these videos.
You are helping me understand something that I am very interested in but is way beyond the parameters of my education.
I am all literature and virtually no science.
Yet, because of a man named Jacob Bronowski and his program THE ASCENT OF MAN, I have tried to maintain a connection with the current thrust of science.
Brian Cox and speakers like you present are very helpful.
What is going on a CERN is important to all of us - even arty types like me.
Carry on!
@GranTubone are you certain of that? :)
Thank You. Had Sigma scoring described previously, only here did it make real sense. THANK YOU AGAIN.
@michalchik I know what you mean, but sometimes for the sake of practicality, setting wide margins is more useful than being very specific, especially at the early stages of experimentation - as long as it's clear that wider margins mean lower certainty. The message I got from LHC was "preliminary findings are encouraging" rather than "we've nailed it". If they find the Higgs then the party will be epic.
I really enjoyed this lecture/discussion from the professors.
@sixtysymbols Hey, no one's perfect. Most of the time he comes across as very competent, and perhaps more importantly, genuinely excited to be able to talk about stuff that's interesting to him. You guys all do a great job most of the time :)
@managarm1349 thanks
After having spent a day reacting to quotes from the likes of Rick Santorum, I turn to Six Symbols, Periodic Videos, and Numberphile to restore my faith in humanity. Thanks Brady. =)
@funnyhead222 it makes our week when people write nice comments!
@murdakah we finished 60 and I think we're getting towards 200 now? we're just stuck with the name!:)
every time they upload a new video, it makes my week! :) thanks brady!
@Jimmy171194 I don't think "the maths guys at Nottingham" watch my videos! It is certainly very hard to get them involved in making any with me!!! Maybe they don't like my editing, which I can assure you is - quite rightly - the main cause of any criticism! ;)
@Squagnut I am not exactly questioning the result as asking why they interpret the way they do. The standard model is great. It is just important to realize that people tend to see and interpret things according to their expectations. A big part of science is making the predictions very, very specific so that we can avoid confirmation bias. In this case I have only people give very general predictions that we would find a decay peak somewhere in a wide energy spectrum.
Standard error and how to manipulate it was just about the first thing we learnt as physics undergraduates.
Thanks a lot for a reminder from my stats class. The LHC results seemed like a tangent more interesting than the stats reminder.
I had thought it was something like that, the same happened to some of the staff at my university. But it was too good to let pass. Thanks for the link.
@TheMatrixAussie they'll be plenty more probability on numberphile - but that doesn't mean Sixty Symbols can't play with it too!
Thanks to Brady and the professors for another interesting video.
Why could you not have posted this in October?
I failed Statistics because the guy couldn't speak enough english to explain this. At least now I know I can pass it the second time, but please. This class takes the place of my only elective in all four years of school.
@Typho0n86
I don't consider the particle accelerators to be a controlled experiment and nor the random data values to be indicative of anything. Einstein had rock solid proof of relativistic physics whereas modern physicist tend to do things that just make things more confusing. Sadly I think we're getting another particle to the standard model, whether its real or not.
Awesome! I (hate) am not very fond of statistics buy this explanation for the whole sigma thing is just marvellous.
This is by far my favorite YT channel ... second best being numberphile of course :)
@sixtysymbols i cant possibly ask for more, ty sir, you are doing a great job!
@GranTubone does it mean that you expected it to suck?
I have a question: so all data is assembled. Then statistical analysis is performed to confirm a "normal Gauss curve" behaviour of all data assembled. To confirm the results you need data ranging inside 5 standard deviations? Is that right? That is going to take some time... I am surprised they are up to 3 sigma though...
I enjoyed this discussion with 5 Sigma of certainty.
@odinsraven1000 I know the standard model dont account for gravity, but i dont see that as a problem. We already understand the gravitational force through Relativity. Why does it need to be a particle/boson? How will black holes work if it is a particle/boson? They are making things worse and wrong. Gravity is a property of space-time, and the other 3 forces are properties of matter. so they are describing diffrent things
They skirt over the fact that distributions found in nature are not always precisely Gaussian - they tend to be bell curves, but you only get actual Gaussian distribution curves under certain conditions (namely, if the variable measured satisfies the central limit theorem). It's useful, often, to approximate most things as gaussians as they usually have the same general shape, but the percentages being quoted for the various sigma values are not universally applicable.
@mrnosy1 It's involved in the physics course..
This is a very useful video for every student of sciences.
@daweedcito Well the experiment's being going on pretty much full time for at least a year. It's still going.
@sixtysymbols sixty symbols and numberphile. we need more videos on these two channels. very rarely you come across a boradcast where all the presenters are equally brilliant. WE WANT MORE and we need more maths on extended videos.
In this case it does. There is a video where he clarifies what it is and why it stands there. Shouldn't be to hard to find it.
@Jimmy171194 What particle is produced with the collision of physicists and mathematicians?
I think there was a video about it.
Very nice video of an important concept in all science.
"The whole of science is based on narrowing down the uncertainties" That should be a quote (:
@cooROPyoBODY cool
I haven't watched a Sixty Symbols video in years. Here I am watching it with my son who wasn't even born in 2012.
Oh feh. I see this is one of those videos I'm going to have to watch a few times over before I'm able to grok what's being said. Stats has never been one of my strong areas of study (perhaps something I should rectify in the future).
Thank you for learning about all this stuff, and then turning around and telling us. I think Dr. Poliakoff was correct when he said you shared your addictions, and in this case, we all benefit from those. Ya'll deserved that medal.
Amazing and really helpful video! thanks for uploading.
did one of the animations in this just have feynman diagrams flying through space?
at 6:58? Yeah, seems like it! I spose it's an easy/simple way to communicate the "visual" of virtual particles.
If you are looking for the Higgs boson... The one construction of quarks that binds energy as matter, should you not look for it in the probabilty range that equates to the ratio of mass to energy in the known universe?
wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html
Yes so the 4 to 5 sigma range...
@sixtysymbols Sorry, Brady, this wasn't a attack directed to Sixtysymbols (I love Sixtysymbols) or any of your videos, it was just a general statement. But thank you, anyway.
ok, i'm still kinda confused. could you use some example statistics to explain what you mean? i think i'll get it if i'm looking at some actual numbers.
@ottotechnica I was wondering as well.
@odinsraven1000 I dont think tagging on this new boson or particle will help solve these 2 big problems, so its a step in the wrong direction
@Squagnut I see your point, but then to nail this they really need to create prediction about this 125 GeV beastie they have found to distinguish it from something that is simply unknown.
Cool video like always. I want to make a request about the quantum zeno effect, I found it in a few places and would love to here what the professors in Nottingham have to say about it. Thanks alot and hope to see it happen.
Best... channel... on.... youtube.
this was explained very well imo
Thanks for pointing towards numberphile channel, loved it :) Any more interesting channels you can share with me?
@BROKENCAPS How about 1.00x10^-5%?
It does make sense.
10:00 what's with the "atlas of creation"?
Was that really a copy of "The Atlas of Creation" by Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) in that shelf?
are they really using the proving a negative as the proof soemthing? As in we have model A and model B, they are disproving model A there for they think that is proof of model B? Or am misunderstanding?
@masluxx Disproving A is NOT what proves any B.
If we changed the mean of the curve to be the expected for hypothesis B, and the data also lies in very low sigma B, then we now know that B is very likely to be correct.
The conclusions are not interdependent, because you have two different means for the disproof of A and proof of B. If another model C has a closer average, and still accounts for previous data, then C is less wrong than B.
i love this channel you guys are great, thanks for spreading knowledge and a love for science.
@525047 If they do add this 'god' particle (the particle that was never there, just like god), would they be any closer to solving the infinite problem with black holes or the start of the universe? My guess is No, so why are they adding this particle if it wont gain us a better understanding of the universe?
At 9:50 why not mention the use of the null hypothesis instead of "The status quo?"
@daemonpacman we do for science and measurements etc, but it would be very strange for someone to quote their height/weight in metric units! we use stone and feet for those. also, in car travel, we use miles and mph still :)
y u no offer particle physics courses on UCAS website?
@CannonLongshot It does not disagree with philosophy, it is a particular kind of philosophy. what kind? One that states that our knowledge about the world should be based on experience (observation and (if posible) experiment). It disagrees with rationalism - the other kind of philosophy which states that we can know something by pure reason (this is where "armchair philosopher's" "live"). Of course these are ideal types - science procedes both by rationalistic and empiristic means ...
This is very informative, thank you, I don't regret subbing. Will there be more to come?
@shakemyass9878 maybe, but it's also cool!
@sixtysymbols what are those other channels called
@Zeldakitteh Sixty Symbols has a channel like that called nottinghamscience(or something like that...)
Oh yes, there's also numberphile.
So, do you like the paper?
ur editing is very professional and doesnt affect the general truths of any of your videos brady, however i am subscibed to nottingham science, sixty symbols, numberphile, bibledex and im sure theres another one but im drunk so dont quote me on that- however, i still have to wait days sometimes between videos my friend!!! so i agree- u need a partener to help with the filming of episodes... and appoint yourself as executive producer/editor just to be sure that the standard does not slip!
excellent video!
that was an extra awesome one - good job! the end statement i feel, will end up being very relevant to the 'ftl' neutrinos, mores the pity...
@teknotoast well, maybe a -6σ then you took an arrow to µ. And became a -7σ.
its interesting that other scientists are using other terms, like significance in biology = ) But I think in the end its also the same % value of certainty, so it's up to your field of science if you call it sigma or significance level.
@RayWillamJohmson Who the hell is Ray Willam Johmson?
@DeanMalenko thanks
@ottotechnica yea i think theyve talked about it in a video lol
if anybody is intrested..there is a thing called 6 SIgma...i think it was invented by Japanese and is used in manufacturing processes so as to improve efficiency of a plant or a factory among lots of other applications.
So is Sigma = standard of deviation?
Alexander Krizel Yeh
I want a Sixty Symbols TV show. Sort of like Nova specials. Surely we can make that happen? What say you Brady?