If you enjoyed this, watch Sean's first lecture in this series here: ruclips.net/video/BRudidBcfXk/видео.html and buy his book here: geni.us/BrCs You can also watch the Q&A for this talk by signing up as one of our Science Supporters: ruclips.net/video/HNfEBxaJd-I/видео.html
How amazing is it to live in a world in which (a) a platform like RUclips exists to directly disseminate information in a way that I never could have dreamed of as a child, (b) popularizing scientists explain ideas w/ visual references, and (c) Sean Carroll exists! Love it!!!
@@RogerRosenquist Nature. You would, of course, have to study it to notice that there are very significant differences between physical reality and the things Sean Carroll tells you about it. Which you won't.... that takes a lot of work. Fanboyism is so much easier than actual science. ;-)
@@ArtemAndrusov The evidence is nature. Get yourself a single quantum detector and do a few experiments. You will soon find out why the stuff Sean Carroll talks about is complete nonsense. Oh, wait... there is YOUR problem. You won't do that. ;-)
@@jolly-rancher why? What did i do? I just was wondering about if that person knew or remmberd carl segan too, i was curious about his opinion, so what did i do wrong?
@@amerhamed Carl Sagan was undoubtedly a great scientist and science communicator, but Sean is much more approachable, as in, he's much closer to his audience. Listening to him is like talking to an old friend, a fellow scientist, eye-to-eye, not professor-to-student. I'm a scientist myself, and while I don't agree with everything he says (but with the vast majority of it), I do appreciate his tone, his openness to different fields, and his efforts to include his community in his podcast. His monthly AMAs are often 3+ hours long. He just seems to be a genuinely great human being (albeit being a bit too American for my liking - but I guess having been raised in such a country does rub off even on the brightest of minds).
This is by far, by a long stretch on of the best dissertation about QTF. The way he explains and dissects perhaps one of the most compelled subjects is nothing but amazing! For us, enthusiast of Physics and mathematics but not physicist is priceless!
Prof. Sean Carroll is one of the very few absolutely brilliant Science Communicators in the World! Loved the talk and I am going to buy Vol 2 as well! I already have Vol 1.
@@rayn_0ff No doubt about that rack_off. He owes everyone in here an apology. I have a PhD but you will never see me publicly making a grand supreme qualification announcement on any forum - even if I do indeed have a PhD. I would never use my PhD is such a blatantly commercial and egotistical manner. It’s my PhD and it only relates to my overall level of excellence and supreme geniuosity. My PhD qualification is really nobody else’s business- it’s my PhD. If you look at my academic qualification certificate it has my name on it - clear as day. Doctor of Philosophy - it’s written there right next to my name. It’s MY PhD ladies and gentlemen. (too much? 😁)
he’s got a ton of them, and they’re all excellent. I highly recommend his “Greatest Ideas in the Universe” series/playlist that he did during the pandemic.
I think this is the 4th iteration of this presentation that I've seen, and it is definitely the best! Sean, you are such a great communicator! I have listened to every Mindscape Podcast you have done, and The Greatest Ideas in the Universe series got me through Covid. I'm an English teacher by training, and have spent about 25 years helping people understand difficult concepts. My specialty is Adult English Language Learning for Academics, Business and Special Purposes, which brings me into contact with people in all kinds of disciplines, like Engineering, Biology, Medicine and very occasionaly Physics. I had an opportunity not too long ago to have a fairly in-depth conversation with a PhD student about Quantum Physics and he couldn't understand how I knew so much about a topic that is usually restricted only to those who have studied it at some length. So, kudos to you for giving me the foundation to engage with people with whom I otherwise would not be able to engage. To be able to ask the right questions and learn as much from my students as I pass on to them.
Excellent lecture! For popular science knowledge, enthusiasts could still be confused before understanding how each symmetry working through corresponding Lagrangians after creating the covariant derivatives. I every much enjoy every Sean's talk!
I have Sean’s first book and it’s great! Looking forward to ordering this one, too. I do have one burning question, however, that Sean doesn’t venture to speculate about. What is a field made of? Saying, “Lines of force,” doesn’t provide much illumination. I listened to another lecture that theoretical physicist David Tong gave at the RI a bunch of years ago, and he said that fields are “fluid-like substances” that fill the entire universe, and that what we call “particles” are nothing but the excitation, or vibration, of these fluidic fields. What could be the nature of these substances that cannot be directly observed in any way? As Roger Penrose once commented, “What is a magnetic field in a vacuum? I don’t know. No one does. Nothing is there. It’s a mystery.” Is it that these insubstantial substances that are in fact there since they wave and vibrate are so far beyond our present level of science that we have no mathematics or physics capable of exploring the question at this time, and for that reason, it is rarely, if ever, mentioned?
A field is an abstract notion. It's not made of anything. You are simply mistaking the phenomenon and its description. The phenomenon we are observing is irreversible energy transfer between systems. The description necessary to explain it ON AVERAGE is an operator valued field. The energy transfers are real, the operators are just human constructs to account for the data.
Bravo! Great podcast video. I'm sending this to my grandchildren to watch. You explain science so clearly that it draws the viewer into the subject. I'm sitting on my seat as I watch. Thank you for such a good video.
Def my favorite science communicator, brilliant speaker! I'm psyched to be a mindscape patreon supporter for him, it's on my to do list. Priority question is def gonna be "Doesn't your wife ever tell you to get a haircut"? Thanks for all your fine work in public education.
In “Something Deeply Hidden,” Dr. Carroll presents the case that Everett’s Universal Wavefunction (Many Worlds) is the simplest explanation for our quantum mechanical observations. It is easy to understand and to me convincing. I highly recommended it. He is a marvelous teacher in print and in speech.
@@xBINARYGODxMany worlds just accepts the math, it doesn't add a sketchy idea like wave function collapse that we made up. Einstein's math predicted black holes, and some scientists tried to make them go away by making stuff up. They were wrong, black holes are real. Carrol just asks, why not accept the math?
@@MarkAhlquist When does it branch then? My point is that many worlds doesn't do away with the issue of wave function collapse. You still have to explain when a branch happens and why
OK, so the Higgs boson is a rocky road that slows everything down. Where did it get its energy, what interaction forms mass in condensate, why would it follow in the flow of gravity to any other concentration of mass? And if so, from where?
14:56 having figured out how natural and artificial harmonics work on my own, and having a huge respect for Dr. Carroll, it feels wonderful for his view to categorize me as an "expert guitar player".
Great work, Sean ! +/- grounded by vacuum of space has left listeners phase changes in a proper state of mind where surly they can cellular network with each other somewhat on the same line of measure even if they prefer to start bi polar opposite of fine tuned universally emerging energetic actors and values because that encoded encrypting defibrillating process is just as intervening interactional.
I have watched endless lectures, including many by Sean Carroll, about symmetry/gauge theory, and while I feel I am slowly grasping it, there is a level of technical abstraction which I think I cannot reach without the actual mathematics involved. One central question which remains to me is: why does this invariance actually *matter*? I understand the idea of something staying the same when rotating some field(s), but the physical implications of why that matters continues to escape me. There is some connection to symmetry breaking and the particles that carry forces, but it gets hazy at that point> Still, great talk.
15:52 No. 0.In fact, the string is discrete and it is this property of the string that determines the formation of harmonics. 1. It is easy to verify this, since the formation of overtones depends on the place of sound production. 2. If you produce sound in the middle of the string, you will get only the first harmonic, that is, the sound is an octave higher than the main tone, and there will be no other overtones. 3. Accordingly, if we extract the sound in ⅓ part, we get both an octave and a fifth, if in ¼, then an octave, a fifth and an overtone two octaves higher than the main tone, we get all the previous ones and a large third, and so on. 4.The natural scale begins with the ⅛ part, which is practically a major scale (after “calibration”, of course). By the way, this is not temperament: the chromatic scale is obtained by artificially dividing the octave into 12 equal parts according to the parameter 2^1/12~ 1,059. 5. Interestingly, it was Kepler's laws that inspired Mersenne to create “string theory” at the beginning of the XVII century, as well as music theory.
The universe, expressing it's ' love ' by being complex and demanding from you is a brilliant approach. Paul Erdos used to solve the MATHS ! and then demand you find the , 'elegant solution ' to whatever proof you were pursuing. Two tremendous approaches to problem solving. You are trying to work it out Because! It is difficult to do so . Achieve that , then dig further , a really healthy approach.
Whenever you see the letter 't' representing time in a mathematical formula for a law of physics, just replace it with the letter 'n' 'to represent the count of periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Then you never have to worry about the direction of the arrow of time or the mathematical formula running in reverse. This is because no one has ever observed the count of periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom decrease.
24:12 Sean talks about quark field vibrating at one point in space. Is it possible to interpret this space as k space? Would this mean that each point in k-space is associated with a three-item vector of complex numbers that tells us about the probabilities assigned to red, blue and green?
The biggest ideas in the universe from the vast scales of cosmology to the mind-bending phenomena in quantum mechanics-reshape our understanding of reality in ways that challenge our everyday experience. Quantum mechanics, with its concepts of superposition, entanglement, and the uncertainty principle, reveals a universe that operates in ways we can barely comprehend. It’s incredible how particles can exist in multiple states at once or influence each other instantly across vast distances, suggesting that at the most fundamental level, reality is far stranger than it appears. If quantum mechanics shows us that reality is probabilistic and interconnected at a fundamental level, what does that mean for our understanding of space, time, and causality in the broader universe?
the waiter analogy confuses me. the topological map is the gauge field and the orientation of the tray in relation to the ground represents the orientation of the colors for any given quark when you compare them? what does the force being applied to the waiter represent? is that the force carrying particle? what does that have to do with comparing quark colors? is the waiter the force carrier since he is moving to different tables? r the tables the quarks?
What puzzles me is that the forces which as I understand it are actually mediated by the exchange of particles seem in some cases to be far larger than any sensible number of paticles can transmit. If I bring a moderately powerful magnet near enough to a piece of steel that for the sake of a number I will say weighs 10gm. The force is due to the exchange of momentum of photons (is that right?). But that would need photons with huge momentum and/or huge numbers. Can that be right?
I like trying to understand abstract concepts, and they don't get much more abstract than the role of symmetry in particle physics. A lot of talks I've seen just mention symmetry in passing, so it's great to take a whole hour just looking at how it connects to the rest of the structure of the Standard Model.
JUST A THOUGHT. If gravity is still a problem, however we know it is the curvature of spacetime, not a force. Why not look for gravity inside quantum mechanics instead of outside. Gluons hold quarks together with the most strong force we know, hence the name. Neutron stars are as close as possible neutrons can be packed together, that means that the gluons are packed in a small part of spacetime. Gluons don't only make 99% of the mass (E=MC2) of the celestial body, but also most or the volume now. So, gluons make spacetime curve extremely and start to rule. When a star collapsed itself into a blackhole gluons did the work: extreme curvature. Is a blackhole nothing else than gluons' grip on spacetime and therefore are the fabric of blackholes? Everything has to follow the closed loop curvature of spacetime now, including light. All straight lines are now closed loops and give rise to 'nothings escapes'.
Greetings from Sweden! Good talk! How might quantum field theory (QFT) evolve, or what new principles might need to be introduced, in order to fully incorporate gravity into its framework? Given that QFT successfully describes three of the four fundamental forces but cannot yet account for gravity at the quantum level, what theoretical shifts or modifications could enable a coherent theory that unifies all forces, including gravity? Specifically, could a future theory integrate the mathematical structure of QFT with the curvature of spacetime described by general relativity, or will an entirely new conceptual framework be required?
Quantum field theory is the unitary representation of Poincare symmetry in a flat spacetime. If you want to carry the same program out on a curved spacetime, then you end up with string theory.
When a plasma ball touches your finger the gas "collapses" into a filament. A quantum interaction wavefunction collapse would be analogous right? Does anyone have any references that explain the math/physics of a plasma ball?
if you rotate an equilateral triangle less than 60 degrees it looks different. Why do we have to start with symmetry. It is just a mathematical constraint that we introduced that neglects other ways of looking at it.
A universe with symmetry and breaking of symmetry is a functional universe, that has more probability of being in existence. A universe with just symmetry is a static one, you could say a dead one, where nothing is gonna evolve, also one that can exist, but more rare that the first one, and anyway won't be anyone in it to notice it. A universe without symmetry is one that is a very chaotic, instabil , and is more prone to decay or evolve into the first tipe of universe presented. Simply, put it, our universe with symmetry and breaking of symmetry has more probability to exist.
Superb, as always from Professor Carroll. It is such a gift to be able to explain incredibly complicated ideas in accessible and digestible ways. Thank you for helping me appreciate our best current knowledge about how nature put this all together
That did explain a few things. I'd probably have to watch this many times to understand better, and still, much of it would still be hard to understand. You mention graviton like it is a real thing. Last I heard some were only guessing as to its existence. Did they find one in any experiment?
"Gauge feild added." I just can't.. Why make it so convoluted? It's just a reference frame. Any measurement needs a definition of what the measurement is measured FROM. Measurements are taken relative to this.
Right. So, how about we think of locality as the result of interior pressure inside our huge black hole that we inhibit and call an observable universe? It`s movement in "super"-space would be explanation of unrest rest of Higgs field.
I sometimes wonder about Gödel's 1st incompleteness theorem and how it might apply as it relates to various sciences. His first theorem essentially states, any consistent formal system that is capable of expressing basic arithmetic will contain statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system itself. Quantum dynamics is a formal axiomatic system that uses math sufficently advanced as to do basic arthmatic. Therefor, logically we must conclude that there are true statements that can be made in the language of quantum dynamics that can not be proven with the axiums that make up quantum dynamics. Any thoughts on the implications of this, or does anyone wish to speculate on a possible quantum Gödel incompleteness example?
@@rayn_0ff Maybe, but there are not many places to go looking for an answer to a question like this. I can only hope to start a conversation among those that understand and are willing to explore the logical consequences. The lack of responces so far makes me think Gödel incompleteness might make many scientist uncomfortable. It challenges the notion that all truths can be proven. The corollary to Gödel incompleteness must be equally troubling, a formal system that is complete and can do basic arthmatic must be inconsistant. Maybe the safest statment on the possible consequences is that Science deals with new incompleteness by adding new postulates or axiums or modifying existing ones to create new more acurate formal descriptions. But the history of science shows that a continual refinement of a formal description of our universe and how everything works has been nesesary, and this may be a consequence of Gödel incompleteness that we will never be abke to describe everything about the universe and how it works.
It seems to me that the interface that we interact with is described by classical physics. The construct that holds up the interface is described (incompletely) by quantum mechanics.
Hey buddy you might want to a video about dr chris mcginty founder of the mcginty equation he talks about Ai holographic computing and zero point energy and wormholes.
If the weak bosons get their mass by directly interacting with the Higgs field, does that mean the Higgs boson doesn't actually transmit the force? Although I do get that it results from an oscillation in the Higgs field.
could i just say i love sean and everything he is talking about but how is it 2024 and we have a zoom call lecture in 480p being uploaded to the RI channel like please we know u can do better
"When the University of Chicago denied tenure to cosmologist Sean Carroll in 2006, he was caught off guard." (He also failed to achieve tenure at Cal Tech.) 😅😊
50:29: "We can claim with very high confidence that there are no particles and forces that we haven't yet discovered that have any role whatsoever in your life (...), but I mean literally in your brain, in your biology. There's no new particle or field that is affecting the firing of neurons in your brain".
So there are no particles affecting the neurons or the electrons fired by neurons in your brain. And there's people that can say they know this for sure. 🤦
@@BLSFL_HAZEI wasn’t clear; I am suggesting consciousness is contingent in discovering any new particles. Carroll at 50 min to about 53 min describes how there are going to be any new particles discovered relevant to our biological life … so I am asking how do we explain consciousness if we have all the physics needed to explain our biological processes He stated early that Vol 3 would get into emergence but I am looking (perhaps too soon) for a description of how such emergence might work to explain consciousness without any new forces or laws of physics being involved
@@robertspies4695Thanks. Please see my reply to the previous comment. I am hoping someone might venture an explanation of emergence given Carroll’s statement at 50 to 52 min that we know all the physics related to biological life (but not to various cosmological issues). How does emergence explain consciousness given the current physics affecting or determining biological processes?
Ha! When you said there are no new particles to be discovered that interact with us, I immediately went to type a question about consciousness :) and then you answered it. But would it be legitimate to say, then, that consciousness has the possibility of being outside of the realm of physics? As Roger Penrose states, that perhaps consciousness is not computable?
I just began, but I hope Shawn goes on to explain how these tremendous and lesser energies were/are imparted to the quantum environment. A wound clock will unwind and a river will run dry without renewal. How can a mating nucleus and surrounding gravity inflow maintain its resonant or circulation layers with constant separation without constant collisions and frictions wearing them down? Quantum specs may be isolated from a rotating universe, but in an unevenly-distributed gravity field that spans a billion or so light years, they are not unrelated with their own power supply, are they? Hope your calculus figures sin that in the same blender.
Maybe the gauge boson paragraphs touch on that holistic effect? But do various quark colors affect their host? Is that a resonant imbalance that compliments or contradicts the fields of its neighbors?
EM/gravitational field irregularity is a great tie-in. But gyroscopic precession is force conversion within particle behaviors and interactions too? A bumpy landscape can interfere with neighbors’ survey stakes?
So, there is no gluon-like force binding our universe together, other than gravity seas, yet in the absence of depth there is a formula for field density? And atomic spheres are isolated from the resonance of greater gravity and its celestial orbital motions? All are at rest, barring some inevitable overload in one system of the ‘grid’ or another?
So quarks and antiquarks are the same unit, but matter/gravity are not? The symbiosis is hard to escape. If Einstein released strong field energy, he didn’t mention how to avoid it or prevent it?
Yeh and what did proffessor higgs have to say when given the recognition. And the field is the place where the play circuit dwells. Language numbers the symbol of the jingjang juggly glads 🙏⌚🍀
My question would be: why is there a terrain at all that the waiter has to worry about, and why does the universe allow hills in this terrain to manifest as effecting the particles motion, rather than any other aspect?
If you enjoyed this, watch Sean's first lecture in this series here: ruclips.net/video/BRudidBcfXk/видео.html and buy his book here: geni.us/BrCs You can also watch the Q&A for this talk by signing up as one of our Science Supporters: ruclips.net/video/HNfEBxaJd-I/видео.html
How amazing is it to live in a world in which (a) a platform like RUclips exists to directly disseminate information in a way that I never could have dreamed of as a child, (b) popularizing scientists explain ideas w/ visual references, and (c) Sean Carroll exists! Love it!!!
Yes, he is very good at spreading false information, too. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 What is your proof of that?
@@RogerRosenquist Nature. You would, of course, have to study it to notice that there are very significant differences between physical reality and the things Sean Carroll tells you about it. Which you won't.... that takes a lot of work. Fanboyism is so much easier than actual science. ;-)
- He is lyin'!
- What's your evidence?
- My wisdom and scientific knowledge!
I find it amusing
@@ArtemAndrusov The evidence is nature. Get yourself a single quantum detector and do a few experiments. You will soon find out why the stuff Sean Carroll talks about is complete nonsense. Oh, wait... there is YOUR problem. You won't do that. ;-)
Sean Carroll is my favorite science communicator of all time.
What about carl sagan? There are luctures too here on youtube if you've never heard of him
@@amerhamed stop embarrassing yourself
@@jolly-rancher why? What did i do? I just was wondering about if that person knew or remmberd carl segan too, i was curious about his opinion, so what did i do wrong?
@@amerhamed Carl Sagan was undoubtedly a great scientist and science communicator, but Sean is much more approachable, as in, he's much closer to his audience. Listening to him is like talking to an old friend, a fellow scientist, eye-to-eye, not professor-to-student. I'm a scientist myself, and while I don't agree with everything he says (but with the vast majority of it), I do appreciate his tone, his openness to different fields, and his efforts to include his community in his podcast. His monthly AMAs are often 3+ hours long. He just seems to be a genuinely great human being (albeit being a bit too American for my liking - but I guess having been raised in such a country does rub off even on the brightest of minds).
Agree
This is by far, by a long stretch on of the best dissertation about QTF. The way he explains and dissects perhaps one of the most compelled subjects is nothing but amazing! For us, enthusiast of Physics and mathematics but not physicist is priceless!
Carroll is brilliant at explaining complex ideas, his break down of relativity changed my life. I also recommend Carlo Rovelli
Prof. Sean Carroll is one of the very few absolutely brilliant Science Communicators in the World! Loved the talk and I am going to buy Vol 2 as well! I already have Vol 1.
Brilliant talk! I am PhD student in mathematical physics and I can confirm Prof Carroll has done a fantastic job of making this subject accessible!
Don't even think you can or are allowed to confirm or deny anything just because you're a phd student. Keep your ego in check.
@@rayn_0ff well said!
@@rayn_0ff
No doubt about that rack_off.
He owes everyone in here an apology.
I have a PhD but you will never see me publicly making a grand supreme qualification announcement on any forum - even if I do indeed have a PhD. I would never use my PhD is such a blatantly commercial and egotistical manner. It’s my PhD and it only relates to my overall level of excellence and supreme geniuosity. My PhD qualification is really nobody else’s business- it’s my PhD. If you look at my academic qualification certificate it has my name on it - clear as day. Doctor of Philosophy - it’s written there right next to my name.
It’s MY PhD ladies and gentlemen.
(too much? 😁)
This was fascinating. Sean's voice is very calming, which helps me when he is talking about difficult ideas.
This has to be one of my favorite physics videos of all time. More please with this level of explanation!
he’s got a ton of them, and they’re all excellent. I highly recommend his “Greatest Ideas in the Universe” series/playlist that he did during the pandemic.
I think this is the 4th iteration of this presentation that I've seen, and it is definitely the best! Sean, you are such a great communicator! I have listened to every Mindscape Podcast you have done, and The Greatest Ideas in the Universe series got me through Covid. I'm an English teacher by training, and have spent about 25 years helping people understand difficult concepts. My specialty is Adult English Language Learning for Academics, Business and Special Purposes, which brings me into contact with people in all kinds of disciplines, like Engineering, Biology, Medicine and very occasionaly Physics. I had an opportunity not too long ago to have a fairly in-depth conversation with a PhD student about Quantum Physics and he couldn't understand how I knew so much about a topic that is usually restricted only to those who have studied it at some length. So, kudos to you for giving me the foundation to engage with people with whom I otherwise would not be able to engage. To be able to ask the right questions and learn as much from my students as I pass on to them.
Sean Carroll is one of the best teachers. Thank you so much.
If I had been in the same room as Carroll I would have stood up and applauded after this explanation, I understood so many topics.
I can't believe I actually understood this by the end. He's a brilliant teacher.
Love that you have a 4 string bass in the background Dr. Carroll. Musical analogies help me tremendously in understanding particle physics.
Excellent lecture! For popular science knowledge, enthusiasts could still be confused before understanding how each symmetry working through corresponding Lagrangians after creating the covariant derivatives. I every much enjoy every Sean's talk!
He loves his subject and this it's contagious! He also has a good inner compass. I like it!
I have Sean’s first book and it’s great! Looking forward to ordering this one, too. I do have one burning question, however, that Sean doesn’t venture to speculate about. What is a field made of? Saying, “Lines of force,” doesn’t provide much illumination. I listened to another lecture that theoretical physicist David Tong gave at the RI a bunch of years ago, and he said that fields are “fluid-like substances” that fill the entire universe, and that what we call “particles” are nothing but the excitation, or vibration, of these fluidic fields. What could be the nature of these substances that cannot be directly observed in any way? As Roger Penrose once commented, “What is a magnetic field in a vacuum? I don’t know. No one does. Nothing is there. It’s a mystery.” Is it that these insubstantial substances that are in fact there since they wave and vibrate are so far beyond our present level of science that we have no mathematics or physics capable of exploring the question at this time, and for that reason, it is rarely, if ever, mentioned?
A field is an abstract notion. It's not made of anything. You are simply mistaking the phenomenon and its description. The phenomenon we are observing is irreversible energy transfer between systems. The description necessary to explain it ON AVERAGE is an operator valued field. The energy transfers are real, the operators are just human constructs to account for the data.
Amazing video! The analogy of the waiter to explain gauge simmetries is really nice!
Bravo! Great podcast video. I'm sending this to my grandchildren to watch. You explain science so clearly that it draws the viewer into the subject. I'm sitting on my seat as I watch. Thank you for such a good video.
Thanks
Thanks!
This is a talk that gives excitement and understanding. Prof SC has always made quantum physics flow to gain momentum and become solid (memorable)
Def my favorite science communicator, brilliant speaker!
I'm psyched to be a mindscape patreon supporter for him, it's on my to do list.
Priority question is def gonna be "Doesn't your wife ever tell you to get a haircut"?
Thanks for all your fine work in public education.
Excellent professor and superb lecturer - there is always something new to learn from him.
He's the best public communicator. I love every one of his books, including his textbook
Have the books - looking forward to this ....
In “Something Deeply Hidden,” Dr. Carroll presents the case that Everett’s Universal Wavefunction (Many Worlds) is the simplest explanation for our quantum mechanical observations. It is easy to understand and to me convincing. I highly recommended it. He is a marvelous teacher in print and in speech.
many worlds barely counts as a hypothesis so anything based on it is very sketchy
What causes a world to split?
@@xBINARYGODxMany worlds just accepts the math, it doesn't add a sketchy idea like wave function collapse that we made up.
Einstein's math predicted black holes, and some scientists tried to make them go away by making stuff up. They were wrong, black holes are real.
Carrol just asks, why not accept the math?
@@MandragaraThe wave function math simply says that these 'branches' exist. The idea of anything 'splitting' is made up by humans.
@@MarkAhlquist When does it branch then? My point is that many worlds doesn't do away with the issue of wave function collapse. You still have to explain when a branch happens and why
OK, so the Higgs boson is a rocky road that slows everything down. Where did it get its energy, what interaction forms mass in condensate, why would it follow in the flow of gravity to any other concentration of mass? And if so, from where?
It is actually the Higgs fields that does this, not the Higgs Bosson.
I was planning on watching five minutes and going to bed. Well o got sucked in and watched the whole thing 😂 Great lecture. Thank you very much
wow... I always say Quantum science is intuitive (only that it is contrary to the "historically tamed mind"). This is so wonderful.
14:56 having figured out how natural and artificial harmonics work on my own, and having a huge respect for Dr. Carroll, it feels wonderful for his view to categorize me as an "expert guitar player".
This is a great lecture. Really appreciate how Sean steps through the theory/thinking incrementally. Thank you!
Sean Carroll - he is so humble
He should be!
Lol.
Great work, Sean !
+/- grounded by vacuum of space has left listeners phase changes in a proper state of mind where surly they can cellular network with each other somewhat on the same line of measure even if they prefer to start bi polar opposite of fine tuned universally emerging energetic actors and values because that encoded encrypting defibrillating process is just as intervening interactional.
Sean seems to pick his enemies without pushback
That was great. One question though....... huh?
🤯⁉️
What a talented fellow you are. My thanks.
I have watched endless lectures, including many by Sean Carroll, about symmetry/gauge theory, and while I feel I am slowly grasping it, there is a level of technical abstraction which I think I cannot reach without the actual mathematics involved.
One central question which remains to me is: why does this invariance actually *matter*? I understand the idea of something staying the same when rotating some field(s), but the physical implications of why that matters continues to escape me. There is some connection to symmetry breaking and the particles that carry forces, but it gets hazy at that point>
Still, great talk.
My favorite ambassador of physics!
15:52 No.
0.In fact, the string is discrete and it is this property of the string that determines the formation of harmonics.
1. It is easy to verify this, since the formation of overtones depends on the place of sound production.
2. If you produce sound in the middle of the string, you will get only the first harmonic, that is, the sound is an octave higher than the main tone, and there will be no other overtones.
3. Accordingly, if we extract the sound in ⅓ part, we get both an octave and a fifth, if in ¼, then an octave, a fifth and an overtone two octaves higher than the main tone, we get all the previous ones and a large third, and so on.
4.The natural scale begins with the ⅛ part, which is practically a major scale (after “calibration”, of course).
By the way, this is not temperament: the chromatic scale is obtained by artificially dividing the octave into 12 equal parts according to the parameter 2^1/12~ 1,059.
5. Interestingly, it was Kepler's laws that inspired Mersenne to create “string theory” at the beginning of the XVII century, as well as music theory.
But at the end of the day string theory is just a romantic idea used by crooks to make a living.
Sean is an incredible communicator
Many thanks Sean, super educational. keep it up. more please. 🙏
Thank you to Dr. Carroll and to the Ri for hosting this lecture, amazing and insightful!
The universe, expressing it's ' love ' by being complex and demanding from you is a brilliant approach. Paul Erdos used to solve the MATHS ! and then demand you find the , 'elegant solution ' to whatever proof you were pursuing. Two tremendous approaches to problem solving. You are trying to work it out Because! It is difficult to do so . Achieve that , then dig further , a really healthy approach.
Whenever you see the letter 't' representing time in a mathematical formula for a law of physics, just replace it with the letter 'n' 'to represent the count of periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Then you never have to worry about the direction of the arrow of time or the mathematical formula running in reverse. This is because no one has ever observed the count of periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom decrease.
OK I now have an idea what "gauge symmetry" means. I never understood it before.
24:12 Sean talks about quark field vibrating at one point in space. Is it possible to interpret this space as k space? Would this mean that each point in k-space is associated with a three-item vector of complex numbers that tells us about the probabilities assigned to red, blue and green?
Sean Carroll is the most charismatic speaker I have ever heard.
The biggest ideas in the universe from the vast scales of cosmology to the mind-bending phenomena in quantum mechanics-reshape our understanding of reality in ways that challenge our everyday experience. Quantum mechanics, with its concepts of superposition, entanglement, and the uncertainty principle, reveals a universe that operates in ways we can barely comprehend. It’s incredible how particles can exist in multiple states at once or influence each other instantly across vast distances, suggesting that at the most fundamental level, reality is far stranger than it appears. If quantum mechanics shows us that reality is probabilistic and interconnected at a fundamental level, what does that mean for our understanding of space, time, and causality in the broader universe?
THANK YOU... DR. SEAN CARROLL...!!!
Excellent again by Prof. Carroll.
the waiter analogy confuses me. the topological map is the gauge field and the orientation of the tray in relation to the ground represents the orientation of the colors for any given quark when you compare them? what does the force being applied to the waiter represent? is that the force carrying particle? what does that have to do with comparing quark colors? is the waiter the force carrier since he is moving to different tables? r the tables the quarks?
What puzzles me is that the forces which as I understand it are actually mediated by the exchange of particles seem in some cases to be far larger than any sensible number of paticles can transmit. If I bring a moderately powerful magnet near enough to a piece of steel that for the sake of a number I will say weighs 10gm. The force is due to the exchange of momentum of photons (is that right?). But that would need photons with huge momentum and/or huge numbers. Can that be right?
Great lecture, I learned a lot from it, thanks Sean
That’s truly amazing! Let’s stay in touch!
I like trying to understand abstract concepts, and they don't get much more abstract than the role of symmetry in particle physics. A lot of talks I've seen just mention symmetry in passing, so it's great to take a whole hour just looking at how it connects to the rest of the structure of the Standard Model.
JUST A THOUGHT. If gravity is still a problem, however we know it is the curvature of spacetime, not a force. Why not look for gravity inside quantum mechanics instead of outside. Gluons hold quarks together with the most strong force we know, hence the name. Neutron stars are as close as possible neutrons can be packed together, that means that the gluons are packed in a small part of spacetime. Gluons don't only make 99% of the mass (E=MC2) of the celestial body, but also most or the volume now. So, gluons make spacetime curve extremely and start to rule. When a star collapsed itself into a blackhole gluons did the work: extreme curvature. Is a blackhole nothing else than gluons' grip on spacetime and therefore are the fabric of blackholes? Everything has to follow the closed loop curvature of spacetime now, including light. All straight lines are now closed loops and give rise to 'nothings escapes'.
People are looking, but it's not in there. ;-)
Amazing, thank you, Sean!!
wow, great explanation❤
Thank you very much, you help me to understand more about symmetry
Greetings from Sweden!
Good talk!
How might quantum field theory (QFT) evolve, or what new principles might need to be introduced, in order to fully incorporate gravity into its framework? Given that QFT successfully describes three of the four fundamental forces but cannot yet account for gravity at the quantum level, what theoretical shifts or modifications could enable a coherent theory that unifies all forces, including gravity? Specifically, could a future theory integrate the mathematical structure of QFT with the curvature of spacetime described by general relativity, or will an entirely new conceptual framework be required?
Quantum field theory is the unitary representation of Poincare symmetry in a flat spacetime. If you want to carry the same program out on a curved spacetime, then you end up with string theory.
He mentions at the beginning there was another video about classical mechanics and Einstein, anyone got the link to that?
It's maybe Einstein's unknown equation.
But are you disabled? Are you not able to search the internet?
When a plasma ball touches your finger the gas "collapses" into a filament. A quantum interaction wavefunction collapse would be analogous right? Does anyone have any references that explain the math/physics of a plasma ball?
Great talk!!
Wonderful talk!
That was excellent!
if you rotate an equilateral triangle less than 60 degrees it looks different. Why do we have to start with symmetry. It is just a mathematical constraint that we introduced that neglects other ways of looking at it.
Because, like you, most people don't understand symmetry or how it is fundamental to everything that follows.
@@jssamp4442 its fundamental because we say it is lol its just math
A universe with symmetry and breaking of symmetry is a functional universe, that has more probability of being in existence.
A universe with just symmetry is a static one, you could say a dead one, where nothing is gonna evolve, also one that can exist, but more rare that the first one, and anyway won't be anyone in it to notice it.
A universe without symmetry is one that is a very chaotic, instabil , and is more prone to decay or evolve into the first tipe of universe presented.
Simply, put it, our universe with symmetry and breaking of symmetry has more probability to exist.
It was good. I listened to it twice. 😮
Superb, as always from Professor Carroll. It is such a gift to be able to explain incredibly complicated ideas in accessible and digestible ways. Thank you for helping me appreciate our best current knowledge about how nature put this all together
Why is the reference "professor"?
That did explain a few things. I'd probably have to watch this many times to understand better, and still, much of it would still be hard to understand.
You mention graviton like it is a real thing. Last I heard some were only guessing as to its existence. Did they find one in any experiment?
Hey Sean, awesome guy, awersome podd 😀😀
"Gauge feild added." I just can't.. Why make it so convoluted? It's just a reference frame. Any measurement needs a definition of what the measurement is measured FROM. Measurements are taken relative to this.
Thanks for the video
What experiment is the image in the thumbnail from?
Is Higgs a field or a particle? If both, how does that work?
I have no idea. But if you study for few years... or whole life... you might figure it out.
It's both particle and a field with the same name. Objects have mass by having higgs bosons that manifest the phenomenon of mass via the higgs field.
Where do we find the 1st lecture on classical mechanics?
You can find the first lecture here: ruclips.net/video/BRudidBcfXk/видео.html
Right. So, how about we think of locality as the result of interior pressure inside our huge black hole that we inhibit and call an observable universe? It`s movement in "super"-space would be explanation of unrest rest of Higgs field.
What's outside of the hole?
I sometimes wonder about Gödel's 1st incompleteness theorem and how it might apply as it relates to various sciences. His first theorem essentially states, any consistent formal system that is capable of expressing basic arithmetic will contain statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system itself.
Quantum dynamics is a formal axiomatic system that uses math sufficently advanced as to do basic arthmatic. Therefor, logically we must conclude that there are true statements that can be made in the language of quantum dynamics that can not be proven with the axiums that make up quantum dynamics.
Any thoughts on the implications of this, or does anyone wish to speculate on a possible quantum Gödel incompleteness example?
Maybe a RUclips comments section is not the right place for this discussion.
@@rayn_0ff Maybe, but there are not many places to go looking for an answer to a question like this. I can only hope to start a conversation among those that understand and are willing to explore the logical consequences. The lack of responces so far makes me think Gödel incompleteness might make many scientist uncomfortable. It challenges the notion that all truths can be proven. The corollary to Gödel incompleteness must be equally troubling, a formal system that is complete and can do basic arthmatic must be inconsistant.
Maybe the safest statment on the possible consequences is that Science deals with new incompleteness by adding new postulates or axiums or modifying existing ones to create new more acurate formal descriptions. But the history of science shows that a continual refinement of a formal description of our universe and how everything works has been nesesary, and this may be a consequence of Gödel incompleteness that we will never be abke to describe everything about the universe and how it works.
It seems to me that the interface that we interact with is described by classical physics. The construct that holds up the interface is described (incompletely) by quantum mechanics.
Hey buddy you might want to a video about dr chris mcginty founder of the mcginty equation he talks about Ai holographic computing and zero point energy and wormholes.
He mentioned gravitons 6:42
If the weak bosons get their mass by directly interacting with the Higgs field, does that mean the Higgs boson doesn't actually transmit the force? Although I do get that it results from an oscillation in the Higgs field.
28:00 waiter/symmetry & gauge bosons
Can the Higgs field decay like the inflaton field and reheat space?
Absolutely fantastic.
QQ: if you have a field contour/change (gauge field) that exists but with equals zero that would mean no mass, but it should exist..
You didn't ask an actual question.
Can't wait for Sabina's response.
Who's that? Another one like him that thinks they have any idea of what's happening in our universe?
@@rayn_0ffSabine Hossenfelder. She can keep up and make Sean sweat with her explanations. And funny too.
So, so good
could i just say i love sean and everything he is talking about but how is it 2024 and we have a zoom call lecture in 480p being uploaded to the RI channel like please we know u can do better
"When the University of Chicago denied tenure to cosmologist Sean Carroll in 2006, he was caught off
guard."
(He also failed to achieve tenure at Cal Tech.)
😅😊
Apparently, tenure committees sometimes make mistakes.
50:29: "We can claim with very high confidence that there are no particles and forces that we haven't yet discovered that have any role whatsoever
in your life (...), but I mean literally in your brain, in your biology. There's no new particle or field that is affecting the firing of neurons in your brain".
So there are no particles affecting the neurons or the electrons fired by neurons in your brain. And there's people that can say they know this for sure. 🤦
18:07 “you don’t need matter and forces”.. IMHO as a “matter of fact” you don’t need energy and time either….
No, you don't but the universe gives them to you anyway. It doesn't give you matter and forces, though. Those are just emergent effects.
Then how do we explain consciousness (if there are no new particles to discover)?
Why does explaining consciousness have to be contingent on discovering new particles?
It is an emergent not an elementary property of matter.
@@BLSFL_HAZEI wasn’t clear; I am suggesting consciousness is contingent in discovering any new particles.
Carroll at 50 min to about 53 min describes how there are going to be any new particles discovered relevant to our biological life … so I am asking how do we explain consciousness if we have all the physics needed to explain our biological processes
He stated early that Vol 3 would get into emergence but I am looking (perhaps too soon) for a description of how such emergence might work to explain consciousness without any new forces or laws of physics being involved
@@robertspies4695Thanks. Please see my reply to the previous comment. I am hoping someone might venture an explanation of emergence given Carroll’s statement at 50 to 52 min that we know all the physics related to biological life (but not to various cosmological issues).
How does emergence explain consciousness given the current physics affecting or determining biological processes?
Conscious experience will never be explained in terms of physical stuff. You can hang your hat on that.
Ha! When you said there are no new particles to be discovered that interact with us, I immediately went to type a question about consciousness :) and then you answered it. But would it be legitimate to say, then, that consciousness has the possibility of being outside of the realm of physics? As Roger Penrose states, that perhaps consciousness is not computable?
No. When Penrose states that consciousness is not computable, I think he is thinking that it is emergent. Wait for Dr. Caroll's next book.
I don't get it. How do you rotate a field?
I just began, but I hope Shawn goes on to explain how these tremendous and lesser energies were/are imparted to the quantum environment. A wound clock will unwind and a river will run dry without renewal. How can a mating nucleus and surrounding gravity inflow maintain its resonant or circulation layers with constant separation without constant collisions and frictions wearing them down? Quantum specs may be isolated from a rotating universe, but in an unevenly-distributed gravity field that spans a billion or so light years, they are not unrelated with their own power supply, are they? Hope your calculus figures sin that in the same blender.
Maybe the gauge boson paragraphs touch on that holistic effect? But do various quark colors affect their host? Is that a resonant imbalance that compliments or contradicts the fields of its neighbors?
EM/gravitational field irregularity is a great tie-in. But gyroscopic precession is force conversion within particle behaviors and interactions too? A bumpy landscape can interfere with neighbors’ survey stakes?
So, there is no gluon-like force binding our universe together, other than gravity seas, yet in the absence of depth there is a formula for field density? And atomic spheres are isolated from the resonance of greater gravity and its celestial orbital motions? All are at rest, barring some inevitable overload in one system of the ‘grid’ or another?
So quarks and antiquarks are the same unit, but matter/gravity are not? The symbiosis is hard to escape. If Einstein released strong field energy, he didn’t mention how to avoid it or prevent it?
Yeh and what did proffessor higgs have to say when given the recognition.
And the field is the place where the play circuit dwells.
Language numbers the symbol of the jingjang juggly glads
🙏⌚🍀
His podcast is the absolute best. Check it out if you haven't yet. Cannot recommend it enough :)
Miss Noether will be spinning in her rotationally -invariant under R1 grave at not being mentioned
But she is in the slide of all the names of those who contributed to the Lagrangian at 4:45.
Fantastic.
My question would be: why is there a terrain at all that the waiter has to worry about, and why does the universe allow hills in this terrain to manifest as effecting the particles motion, rather than any other aspect?