I'm just an average person trying to follow the state of physics. Having watched a bunch of reports on this at various science channels on RUclips, I have to say: The amount of detail and understanding you guys manage to add to this topic was striking. I hope you will do it for many years to come, frequent or not.
@@sixtysymbols I agree, thanks for the video! Question: The names 'top quark' and 'bottom quark' are established, so why are some calling the bottom quark a beauty quark? Should we call the top quark 'terrible quark' (or tu_d quark) to balance things?
@@FLPhotoCatcher when quarks other than up and down were diecovered that was completely new physics with strange effects. The first new quark discovered was then named a strange quark. As the others were discovered they were given similar excotic names: charm, truth and beauty. Then once we had a more theoretical base to group and categorize particles in the standard model it was realized that there are 3 groups, up and down, strange and charm and truth and beauty. Truth and beauty were renamed top and bottom to signify the connection with up and down, but strange and charm were already too in use to change names.
@@timbeaton5045 It seems that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is messing around with his Noodly Appendage again. I alweys knew He preferred _sugo al pomodoro_
This whole thing was extraordinarily well done. The enthusiasm of the professors is contagious. The idea of having only one "particle" in the room at a time ... genius. Well done fellas!!
Exactly! That's what science is all about. There is no glory in preserving status quo. Those mumbling of "scientific dogma" will never understand this.
Yes, like does the rate of radioactive decay suffer direct influence from the amount of solar rays? And, if so, could a sudden increase in solar rays lead to a sudden increase in the radioactive decay going on in the core of the planet Earth? And, in turn, could this cause superheating of mantle and release giant amounts of H2O (and carbon) in the form of steam, causing a global cataclysm?
What I love about this is the excitment about NOT understanding something. We need more of this in this world. Curiosity drives humankind forward, not absolutism based on feeling or singular thoughprocesses. Excited to follow this!
Love the passion and excitement on display here. It's infectious! Thank you for continuing your work and finding creative solutions to the virus-related hindrances.
Thanks for the arrows to keep it clear which number they are talking about ⬅ Feels like effortlessly knowing, with certainty, which number they are refering to kinda frees up more thinking bandwidth 😶🤗
I just love how much these guys love what they do! Really sound explanation, much more stepped out from the news. Thank you for the soup analogy as well.
Ed said we need to do something on cosmic rays but I feel like that would require Ed and Mike Merrifield to exist in the same universe and that concept is wierd and disturbing
It's very important that the 4.2 sigma result doesn't come exclusively from the new measurement! It is a combined deviation from BOTH the new Fermilab experiment and the old Brookhaven experiment clearly improved by combining two separate experiments.
True, but i think there's still the problem that parts of the experiment where reused and therefore we have to wait for a totally new experiment to confirm (i think one is planned for 2024 in Japan)
@@DreckbobBratpfanne - In outer space, I say, to better exclude/reduce the effects of gravity over the greater muon mass. Serious... although I (deviously) want to see how they manage to launch the magnet to microgravity orbit, really.
@@DreckbobBratpfanne Despite the big spectacle of transporting and reusing the ring, there is surprisingly little overlap in the systematics of the two experiments. It seems very unlikely at this point that the experiment is wrong, the only significant possibility there (although still very unlikely) is if there is something incorrect in the understanding of the technique of measuring the "wobble" of the muon as it travels around this storage ring. It is this possibility that some of the other planned experiments can rule out. With this second experimental measurement agreeing with the original, it's very much the theory prediction that has the uncertainty around it at the moment.
@@FinnStokes True. I hope this gets confirmed. Our two best theories atm where basically untouchable for so long, now at least one starts to ... wobble ... because of these muon wobbles 😂.
I actually came out of this with a passing understanding of what's going on. An EXTREMELY basic, broad, layman understanding, but still the gist of it. Really well put together video, and quite exciting times.
"there's a new vegetable that they've never seen before". this is exactly why i will watch anything on this channel with any of the proffs. the interaction between brody and them always teases out a great metaphor to at least give us a handle on what is being talked about. hi future youtube historians. it's saturday night and we're still in the pandemic. i'm sipping a margaritta, puffing on a fine blunt, and pondering the implications of a possible new particle to the standard model of physics. what a time to be alive :)
26:20 Muons can be found pretty much everywhere on Earth surface in fact. Yes they decay in millionth of a second after they get created by collision of cosmic particle with our atmosphere but it's millionth of second their time and they travel near speed of light and in that time they manage to travel from upper atmosphere deep down underground, they can be detected even in mines.
Plus, if they move so fast, relativistic time dilation kicks in. Which means that although, as you say, they decay in a millionth of a second in their time, this may be a thousandth of a second in our time or even more - quite a bit of time to literally make an impact if you travel at 99.x per cent light speed.
@@stefanhensel8611 From our reference frame the muons are moving rapidly enough to experience significant time dilation; their clocks are running slow, which is how they survive long enough to reach the surface. In the muon's reference frame, the distance from the top of the atmosphere to the ground is length-contracted and the muons can therefore reach the surface in their normal lifetime.
@@valorousvigilante2491 decay means to change into something else basically, energy/mass/charge cant be destroyed or created, so whenever something decays in particle physics it just means its splitting up or transforming in some way. A muon iirc will usually turn into a plain old electron and a bunch of neutrinos
Wow this is a crazy brilliant video. It’s mind blowing the level of research going on here, I just have so much respect for these guys and also this channel. I’ve been watching Brady’s work again after some years and it’s just such a service to humanity.
@@elijah_9392 Don't worry, future engineer. Just ride it out and get your degree. Everything that's actually useful and worth learning in engineering you'll learn when you get out in the real world and start being an engineer. That's when it actually gets interesting. And if you're really doing it right, you'll be teaching almost everything to yourself. The best question you can ask as an engineer is "What do I NOT know?" ~ Chemical engineer, 14 years and counting, but probably with about 140 equivalent years of experience
@@kdawg3484 That's true. I read my text books a lot. But I do miss physical labs and projects :/ My university emphasizes theory and practice, so usually we have a lot of opputunities tomake things. Fortunately, everything will be normal this fall. Thank you for the encouragement!
Brady, you've done a really "super" job with this video, and I don't mean to take any credit away from the two physicists. Each tells the story differently which adds greatly to the understanding of the muon "excitement" a few months back. Thank you.
this makes me really happy I am going to university this year and I chose physic I was worried because of all the news that theoretical physics is stuck or things like that this makes it the perfect time to study physic I got really happy hearing this news
Hey, same here, I'll be starting in october. Every time you think physics is stuck just remember - people thought that not much long before discovering quantum dynamics. There will always be something new to uncover :)
I love their excitement and enthusiasm! I don't get a fraction of what they are talking about, but the expectations are high and i'll be waiting for news on the subject.
'I don't know enough to know what I don't know'; but I have been following particle physics since my high school days (50+ years ago). In about 1996 at the company I worked we had a lunch-time lecture by Dr. Murray Gell-Mann . . . WOW! This literally bring a tear to the eye. Press on! Mark *********************************
In very brief terms, what they've found is that what they predict, and what they observe are different. The excitement comes from the possibility that the prediction is wrong. Physicists love to be wrong about their predictions because it leaves them room to ask "why", and "why" is a physicists favourite question.
I love Sixty Symbols, it's so well done and is my favourite science channel. I came across this site some time back by chance searching for the definition of a symbol and Sixty plus many more popped up and since then I am a regular seeker of your fun interesting and enthusiastic explanations. Fortunate are their students.
11 significant digits in a particle physics experiment (in _any_ measurement, for that matter)! That is absolutely bonkers! Those people are magicians!
Yeah I feel like that's almost the most exciting piece of news here. A few years ago in undergrad I remember learning about these g-2 measurements and our lecturer said it's probably the most precise measurement ever done by humans, on anything ever, and it's astounding how well it agrees with theory (heh). I remember it as one of the few times I mentioned my lectures to my (non-physicist) friends, and got some blank stares in response :))
Physicists: "Quantum fluctuations blur everything." Also physicists: "We measured it down to the 25th significant digit." Then again, physicists: "Assuming pi = 3 …"
@@danseremet There are some other fantastically precise measurements out there. For instance the relative difference between the inertial and gravitational masses of a particle (the Eötvös parameter) has been measured as 𝛿 = 4±4 × 10⁻¹⁵ (1σ statistical error), with the presumed true value being 0. Similarly high precision results are obtained for the constancy of some physical constants, like the proton-to-electron mass ratio μ and the fine structure constant α, which have been measured to change at a rate of μ'/μ = 0.2±1.1 × 10⁻¹⁶ yr⁻¹ and α'/α = -0.7±2.1 × 10⁻¹⁷ yr⁻¹. The magnitude of the difference in charge between an electron and a proton has been measured at |ε| ≤ 1 × 10⁻²¹ e. However, measurements that are not expected to yield exactly 0 or 1 are harder to make, and the electron and muon g-factors are certainly among the best measured of these. But there are better ones. The hyperfine splitting frequency of the ground state of hydrogen has been measured as ∆E = 1 420 405 751. 7667 ± 0.0009Hz, a relative standard error of 6.3 × 10⁻¹³. By comparison, the muon g has been measured as g = -2.002 331 841 22 ± 0.000 000 000 82, for a relative standard error of 4.1 × 10⁻¹⁰, still a phenomenal result. However, the "anomalous" muon magnetic dipole moment, (g-2)/2, has a relative standard error of 3.5 × 10⁻⁷ since it is comparing against a much smaller number. So it depends how you count.
Indeed, only seeing a difference in the eighth or ninth significant digit means you're looking at a one part in a billion variation. I imagine that the people running the experiment are double-checking all possible sources of error, as this is a very tiny "signal" that could easily be swamped by noise of various types. Also, since this is the same ring as in the Brookhaven experiment, there could be a subtle flaw of some sort in the design of the experimental apparatus... probably they double- and triple-checked stuff like this before they published, but until these results get duplicated in another experiment with different equipment -or better yet, a different approach to making this measurement- there's always a chance that the equipment being used in the experiment is skewing the results just enough to show this effect.
I actually (very briefly) worked with the team that made the straws for the g-2 experiment so I'm always happy to hear news of how the experiment has progressed :)
This is a very illuminating presentation of the "muon mystery". You really managed to convey the essential experimental and theoretical results that cause the recent excitement.
Those guys told such an interesting and captivating story that's unfolding right in front of our eyes I totally forgot about time and everything else, end of video came unexpected...
Two questions come to mind: 1.) Since they're talking about expected ratios between different kinds of leptons, that raises the question of what the production of tau particles looked like 2.) If it is due to a new particle, could it be that X17 particle they talked about earlier?
It is said that "Infinity" is a term not accepted in the world of physics and mathematics. @13:50 When I hear in the physics community about terms like "dimensionless particles" or "point-like particles with no dimensions" ... I think these terms deserve a better explanation... Thanks for the great videos!
Wonderful!! I love all the twists and turns as we seek to prove our expectations - rather than suspend expectations and witness. Personally, I am fond of Feynman's view - that its up to the theorists to match the experiment - its not the responsibility of the experiment to match our 'concepts' of what we want the 'world' (universe, etc.) to behave like. "We must have a particle (to explain this)" sounds to me like a 'fix' - even if it temporarily fits (Ricky's "splain it to me, Lucy" [I Love Lucy Show]). The proverbial 'looking for the lost car keys under the lamp post' (because that's where the light is) instead of where you more likely dropped them. All that - and kudo's to you both for a great video and an accessible rendering of what's happening at FNAL (and CERN). THANK YOU!
But if all the formulas and calculations work when u use a missing element, then you could also say that this element is obviously there. The missing value.
If there IS a particle "Lepto-Quark" bridging the weak and strong forces, would it be suitable to presume the existence of other intermediate force carrier particles linking the other forces of nature?
Not really. Candidate particles are either a) derived from theory after suitably determining theoretically that they do not contradict existing observations and then deemed suitable for verification by experiments, or b) appear to be observed without explanation and can be deemed suitable for the theory-experiment process. An example of (a) would be the Higgs boson and an example of (b) was a particle that for many years during the theory-experiment cycle was the mu meson - which was eventually discovered to be the muon, not a meson at all. If I take the word _presumed_ at face value, without additional semantics, it is never ok to presume the existence of any particle. Some may do it, some may play with semantics and try to explain that they do it, but presumptions just are not the way to proceed methodically to improve our explanations for the universe. The electromagnetic and weak interactions have already been unified and accepted as electroweak theory. We may be a thousand years away from verifying that gravity has a boson (graviton) that exists and efforts to unify it have led to string theory and loop quantum gravity, neither of which are presumed correct. Unifying the electroweak and strong interactions is based on a scientific hunch - we have no compelling proof that unification is even the right thing to be looking for. Unification started back when we sure that we were 95% of the way home in explaining the universe. Since then our knowledge has doubled at least twice and we've learned that we presently can explain just under 5% of reality. We had a whole wonderful panoply of supersymmetry candidate particles that nearly everyone popular insisted that we'd find with the LHC and then hoped that we'd find with the LHC upgrade. Everything was really solid and it hit the best-selling lists for years in popular science books. It might still be verified someday, somewhere but at this point, no one is holding their breath.
@@Ni999 "Presume" shows up in my lexicon because I'm a writer and therefore operate almost entirely in Imaginationland, where wishes are cheap and wild possibilities abound. I understand the revulsion the word carries within the scientific community, and I appreciate the passion with which you draw that line of distinction. It's an important one. But if you'll allow me to persist slightly on a point: "We may be a thousand years away from verifying that gravity has a boson (graviton) that exists and efforts to unify it have led to string theory and loop quantum gravity, neither of which are presumed correct." Is it possible for an intermediate force carrier to exist between Gravity and [insert choice of forces here]? As a non-rhetorical question, I'd think the answer can be ONLY yes - yes, it's *possible* - but I'm wondering HOW possible it is; and would the discovery of such a particle perhaps point the way to the fabled graviton? (Onward to anti-grav deck plating!) Thank you for taking the time to respond. This channel has been a hallmark of learning for some ungodly reckoning of years. You're appreciated.
@@edibleapeman2 And at the risk of burning you out, let's look at claim that we may be on the path to a new fundamental particle over the latest muon results, reposting one of my comments from elsewhere - Same day as the Fermilab results came out, a paper was published in _Nature_ that showed that the Brookhaven data agreed with a new g factor theoretical calculation using a lattice QCD technique. It's behind a subscription paywall. For an open article about it, search for _"the conversation Proof of new physics from the muon's magnetic moment? Maybe not, according to a new theoretical calculation",_ it's very interesting. For all we know, that could be the tip of the iceberg in a huge advancement in quantum chromodynamics and it's being buried by the hype tsunami promising "new physics." What if the new physics is fixing QCD and no one heard?
A deep analogy. Weren't they basically the sanest most wise characters in the story? All the kids carted off for committing some cardinal sin whilst they rhymed wisdom. As for Wonka, pretty much unstable, overambitious possibly schizotypal, and basically conducting human trafficking of the oompa slave race but thats a bad business model he got.
This stuff is just absolutely incredible. Nothing is more impressive to me than humans probing and understanding fundamental particles like this. The nature of the universe is just so impossibly fascinating and beautiful to think about.
I hate to miss a Copeland video but the noise the weird edit thing is making is genuinely painful. I don't want to seem insincere, I love your channel.
I was happier with the Fermilab results before I knew that they used the exact same magnet used by the Brookhaven team. I'm not trying to armchair quarterback this, but remember that all the best and brightest minds were involved in grinding the Hubble mirror to the most precise shape of any mirror in history. Precise... but wrong :-). The only reason we knew to question the original Hubble results was we had many other telescopes so we could say "Whoa! Those pictures are off! The telescope must be wrong!". With the Brookhaven/Fermilab results, everyone seems willing to say "Whoa! The results are off! New Physics!". This still feels like a "single instrument" measurement to me, and I'm always skeptical about single instrument results. I hope I'm wrong.
That's quite the brilliant idea. Now that you've said it - it's kind of obvious to take it into account. But this is beyond my sphere of competence. I'm curious what the smart guys will come up with.
They only said they used the same magnet. I didn't hear or read anything that suggests they also used the exact same sensors. The whole point of moving the ring to Fermilab was to upgrade the experiment.
@@davidfrey2159 That's correct. But if NASA had upgraded the sensors in the Hubble without adding corrective optics, the new sensors would still give precise-but-incorrect results. I know this isn't the Hubble, but the magnet is part of the system, so a systemic flaw with the magnetic would be a systemic flaw observed from both experiments. As exciting as these results are, they at least in part single-instrument results.
@@MarkARebuckI don't see it that way. The magnet is just the storage ring, giving the muons a place to hang out before they decay. It isn't making the observations, the sensors are.
@@davidfrey2159 The magnet is so much more than just a place for the muons to hang out. It provides the magnetic field in which the measurements are made, and the uniformity of the magnetic field is absolutely critical to the accuracy of the result. A huge part of their testing was around ensuring the uniformity of the field. It's not like the magnets in the LHC ring where the goal is to deliver stuff to the sensors. (Apologies for dragging out the thread. I've said my piece and will retreat. I do hope the results hold up!)
Could the "Observation of Anomalous Internal Pair Creation in 8Be: A Possible Indication of a Light, Neutral Boson" and "New results on the 8Be anomaly" have any relationship with the muon incosistencies?
The way all these particles can have virtual particles appear, interact, and reabsorb, and how all the different ways they can work add up to how they do work makes me think a lot of bubbles and fluid dynamics.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
The Pauli exclusion principle says that there can't be two physics professors at the same room.
But then observing them might actually interfere with whether they are actually in the same room or not...
Two *theoretical* physicists you mean. Adding an experimentalist would be fine. Although they wouldn't interact, obviously.
Hilarious
“Pandemic exclusion principle”
:o)
I'm just an average person trying to follow the state of physics. Having watched a bunch of reports on this at various science channels on RUclips, I have to say: The amount of detail and understanding you guys manage to add to this topic was striking. I hope you will do it for many years to come, frequent or not.
That’s very kind. Thanks.
@@sixtysymbols I agree, thanks for the video!
Question: The names 'top quark' and 'bottom quark' are established, so why are some calling the bottom quark a beauty quark? Should we call the top quark 'terrible quark' (or tu_d quark) to balance things?
@@FLPhotoCatcher The alternate name for the top quark is "truth", but "terrible" is a nice guess :)
Yep, this is the best one I've seen yet!
There's nothing better than highly experienced older professors flexing their skills!
@@FLPhotoCatcher when quarks other than up and down were diecovered that was completely new physics with strange effects. The first new quark discovered was then named a strange quark. As the others were discovered they were given similar excotic names: charm, truth and beauty. Then once we had a more theoretical base to group and categorize particles in the standard model it was realized that there are 3 groups, up and down, strange and charm and truth and beauty. Truth and beauty were renamed top and bottom to signify the connection with up and down, but strange and charm were already too in use to change names.
The smiles on these gentlemen are astoundingly pure
You can tell they're very passionate and excited about it, which in turn makes me super excited about it! It's how all teachers should be.
especially in those LHC clips at CERN - Heartwarming
Pure joy
Yeah, they're having fun. And job security to go along with it. (I say that with no cynicism; I _like_ this stuff. Do more.)
@@novafawks yes!
This video explores Ed at his highest energy level.
We don't get to have enough of him
Power level over 9000
Yup
I've met Ed, I think he's a fantastic guy!
Love Ed he’s my favorite teacher
Oompa Loompa checking in! Very interesting and well made video.
I am very grateful for the work you do
Experimentalist gang rise up!
Oompa Loompa two checking in. Loved the video too!
Never forget: Willy Wonka's theories are useless without Oompa Loompas!
Oompa Loompa Doodeldi Doo,
Without us, what would those guys do?
It's not worth finding anything new,
If you'll never know whether it is true!
"There's a new vegetable they've never seen before."
Physics at its finest
Gordon Ramsay published a paper suggesting it's a fruit masquerading as a vegetable -- a tomato particle
Maybe it's due to ramen noodles? A sort of wheat-based string theory???
👌 mwah!
17:38
Lima beans
@@timbeaton5045 It seems that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is messing around with his Noodly Appendage again. I alweys knew He preferred _sugo al pomodoro_
This is the type of content I'm paying my Internet bills for
And your electron energy to power your device
@@whoeveriam0iam14222 you have multiple bills? are you a flock of ducks?
Amen to that!
(the original comment. lol)
Dont google 21th Concentration Camp China. U can stop 380 unhumanity camp
@@TheChipmunk2008 I would assume he's not just paying for 1 month of service.
This whole thing was extraordinarily well done. The enthusiasm of the professors is contagious. The idea of having only one "particle" in the room at a time ... genius. Well done fellas!!
yeah, and never have a camera operator named Schrodinger
physicists just love nothing more than being wrong. "We have this theory that says A." "We have this experiment that says B" "YEAAAYYY"
Exactly! That's what science is all about. There is no glory in preserving status quo. Those mumbling of "scientific dogma" will never understand this.
Unlike climate science where you bend the results to the theory. 😊
@@MarkAShaw64 The science is settled. Don't question the consensus.
unless it's yours theory
@@MarkAShaw64 oh ffs.
Awesome as always guys. "We need to do something on cosmic rays"........yes please
YES
I want them to go over the thing where muons wouldn't reach the earth's surface without time dilation
26:32 the way he says it is just so seductive!
Yeessss
Yes, like does the rate of radioactive decay suffer direct influence from the amount of solar rays? And, if so, could a sudden increase in solar rays lead to a sudden increase in the radioactive decay going on in the core of the planet Earth? And, in turn, could this cause superheating of mantle and release giant amounts of H2O (and carbon) in the form of steam, causing a global cataclysm?
What I love about this is the excitment about NOT understanding something. We need more of this in this world. Curiosity drives humankind forward, not absolutism based on feeling or singular thoughprocesses.
Excited to follow this!
The Oompa Loompa jab at the end is stellar ;)
blasted into legend.
I love how excited Prof Copeland gets. You can see this is thrilling for him
Ed is the best explainer. He could teach anything to anyone.
@ClockworkEngineer - Not to my dog. Tell him to "sit" & your in for a nasty, smelly suprise...& on your freshly, professionaly shampood carpet.
"There's a new vegetable that we've never seen before."
One of the best analogies I've ever heard.
I read your comment seconds before I heard it in the video, like Déjà Vu
‘It perhaps gets a little bit technical…’
Brother that ship sailed from this channel 5 years ago
I thought the same thing, as if before he was talking 5th grade stuff 🤣
Drown in it. That’s how you “learn to swim”. Lol
Love the part at 26:15 where he looks around like looking for a casual muon to point at.
Headlines in a number of newspapers tomorrow: "physicists have found a new vegetable!"
I've got to say Brady's soup analogy helped me to almost understand this...I think ;)
Seriously, his questions and input help so much.
I cant even express how much I enjoy every one of these videos.
It's nice to see Ed again!
Love the passion and excitement on display here. It's infectious! Thank you for continuing your work and finding creative solutions to the virus-related hindrances.
Thanks for the arrows to keep it clear which number they are talking about ⬅
Feels like effortlessly knowing, with certainty, which number they are refering to kinda frees up more thinking bandwidth 😶🤗
The enthusiasm of those two is not decaying !
I just love how much these guys love what they do! Really sound explanation, much more stepped out from the news. Thank you for the soup analogy as well.
Ed said we need to do something on cosmic rays but I feel like that would require Ed and Mike Merrifield to exist in the same universe and that concept is wierd and disturbing
Ed and Merrifield have been in the same video before, the Nobel Prize for 2019 if I remember correctly.
Same video, fine, same superhero concept world, not so much
It's very important that the 4.2 sigma result doesn't come exclusively from the new measurement! It is a combined deviation from BOTH the new Fermilab experiment and the old Brookhaven experiment clearly improved by combining two separate experiments.
True, but i think there's still the problem that parts of the experiment where reused and therefore we have to wait for a totally new experiment to confirm (i think one is planned for 2024 in Japan)
@@DreckbobBratpfanne - In outer space, I say, to better exclude/reduce the effects of gravity over the greater muon mass.
Serious... although I (deviously) want to see how they manage to launch the magnet to microgravity orbit, really.
@@DreckbobBratpfanne Despite the big spectacle of transporting and reusing the ring, there is surprisingly little overlap in the systematics of the two experiments. It seems very unlikely at this point that the experiment is wrong, the only significant possibility there (although still very unlikely) is if there is something incorrect in the understanding of the technique of measuring the "wobble" of the muon as it travels around this storage ring. It is this possibility that some of the other planned experiments can rule out. With this second experimental measurement agreeing with the original, it's very much the theory prediction that has the uncertainty around it at the moment.
@@FinnStokes True. I hope this gets confirmed. Our two best theories atm where basically untouchable for so long, now at least one starts to ... wobble ... because of these muon wobbles 😂.
@@DreckbobBratpfanne Muons wobble but models fall down!
These videos both astound me with how much people know and with how much we don’t
I would love to just sit down and talk with these gentlemen. Such pure interest and knowledge, it's really inspirational.
These physicists are great. Love these guys. Been watching SixtySymbols for what feels like a decade now.
Its great to see the passion these guys have explaining particles.
Brilliant video with brilliant editing. Both production and educational values are through the roof!
I actually came out of this with a passing understanding of what's going on. An EXTREMELY basic, broad, layman understanding, but still the gist of it. Really well put together video, and quite exciting times.
ok?
"there's a new vegetable that they've never seen before". this is exactly why i will watch anything on this channel with any of the proffs. the interaction between brody and them always teases out a great metaphor to at least give us a handle on what is being talked about.
hi future youtube historians. it's saturday night and we're still in the pandemic. i'm sipping a margaritta, puffing on a fine blunt, and pondering the implications of a possible new particle to the standard model of physics. what a time to be alive :)
26:20 Muons can be found pretty much everywhere on Earth surface in fact. Yes they decay in millionth of a second after they get created by collision of cosmic particle with our atmosphere but it's millionth of second their time and they travel near speed of light and in that time they manage to travel from upper atmosphere deep down underground, they can be detected even in mines.
Thanks!
Plus, if they move so fast, relativistic time dilation kicks in. Which means that although, as you say, they decay in a millionth of a second in their time, this may be a thousandth of a second in our time or even more - quite a bit of time to literally make an impact if you travel at 99.x per cent light speed.
@@stefanhensel8611 From our reference frame the muons are moving rapidly enough to experience significant time dilation; their clocks are running slow, which is how they survive long enough to reach the surface. In the muon's reference frame, the distance from the top of the atmosphere to the ground is length-contracted and the muons can therefore reach the surface in their normal lifetime.
@@valorousvigilante2491 decay means to change into something else basically, energy/mass/charge cant be destroyed or created, so whenever something decays in particle physics it just means its splitting up or transforming in some way. A muon iirc will usually turn into a plain old electron and a bunch of neutrinos
at 0.99c, a particle would only make it about 6900 feet in a microsecond (particle reference frame).
This is the greatest channel on RUclips. Thanks for the clear explination! You guys are the best!
I feel like I could learn just about anything from these professors.
For a sponge Bob make no difference what he's absorbing.
ok?
Looking forward to the cosmic rays episode. Loving these longer episodes by the way. It's far more informative.
Been waiting for this episode... did not disappoint!
Wow this is a crazy brilliant video. It’s mind blowing the level of research going on here, I just have so much respect for these guys and also this channel.
I’ve been watching Brady’s work again after some years and it’s just such a service to humanity.
Aw, I miss being in the lecture theatre. This year of my physics degree has been so uninspiring (and entirely remote) compared with previous years...
I'm doing an engineering degree. I feel you on a spiritual level.
Astrophysics here, couldn't agree more
@@elijah_9392 Don't worry, future engineer. Just ride it out and get your degree. Everything that's actually useful and worth learning in engineering you'll learn when you get out in the real world and start being an engineer. That's when it actually gets interesting.
And if you're really doing it right, you'll be teaching almost everything to yourself. The best question you can ask as an engineer is "What do I NOT know?" ~ Chemical engineer, 14 years and counting, but probably with about 140 equivalent years of experience
@@kdawg3484
That's true. I read my text books a lot.
But I do miss physical labs and projects :/
My university emphasizes theory and practice, so usually we have a lot of opputunities tomake things.
Fortunately, everything will be normal this fall.
Thank you for the encouragement!
Keighton auditorium >>
Brady, you've done a really "super" job with this video, and I don't mean to take any credit away from the two physicists. Each tells the story differently which adds greatly to the understanding of the muon "excitement" a few months back. Thank you.
this makes me really happy I am going to university this year and I chose physic I was worried because of all the news that theoretical physics is stuck or things like that this makes it the perfect time to study physic I got really happy hearing this news
Hey, same here, I'll be starting in october. Every time you think physics is stuck just remember - people thought that not much long before discovering quantum dynamics. There will always be something new to uncover :)
I love their excitement and enthusiasm! I don't get a fraction of what they are talking about, but the expectations are high and i'll be waiting for news on the subject.
At first this was very dense with information but you all managed to put together something accessible, I think! Great stuff!
Each frame has so much going on!
Well, I got a soup recipe.
'I don't know enough to know what I don't know'; but I have been following particle physics since my high school days (50+ years ago). In about 1996 at the company I worked we had a lunch-time lecture by Dr. Murray Gell-Mann . . . WOW! This literally bring a tear to the eye.
Press on!
Mark
*********************************
I like the British English expression “pieces of kit”. And, well, those are quite the significant pieces of kit!
What would you call it ? Supermassiveextremelycomplicatedmachine worth (the income of) a small country that spat out a 7 digit number ?
A super-sized section of a ginormous (giant-enormous) machine?
Egg
I also heard the word "lorry" after a long time, and felt nostalgic for my childhood in India.
Its nice to see Ed Copeland back, I love his videos and his charming calm voice.
I'm gonna have to watch this like two more times to get any idea of what was found. But the professors seem excited about!
In very brief terms, what they've found is that what they predict, and what they observe are different. The excitement comes from the possibility that the prediction is wrong. Physicists love to be wrong about their predictions because it leaves them room to ask "why", and "why" is a physicists favourite question.
ok?
Wow. I've watched many videos on this already and this one is by far the best explanation.
I've been anticipating this video! Yay
Ditto!
YEP - same here - I was like a click demon when I saw it...
I love Sixty Symbols, it's so well done and is my favourite science channel. I came across this site some time back by chance searching for the definition of a symbol and Sixty plus many more popped up and since then I am a regular seeker of your fun interesting and enthusiastic explanations. Fortunate are their students.
11 significant digits in a particle physics experiment (in _any_ measurement, for that matter)! That is absolutely bonkers! Those people are magicians!
Yeah I feel like that's almost the most exciting piece of news here. A few years ago in undergrad I remember learning about these g-2 measurements and our lecturer said it's probably the most precise measurement ever done by humans, on anything ever, and it's astounding how well it agrees with theory (heh).
I remember it as one of the few times I mentioned my lectures to my (non-physicist) friends, and got some blank stares in response :))
Physicists: "Quantum fluctuations blur everything."
Also physicists: "We measured it down to the 25th significant digit."
Then again, physicists: "Assuming pi = 3 …"
@@danseremet There are some other fantastically precise measurements out there. For instance the relative difference between the inertial and gravitational masses of a particle (the Eötvös parameter) has been measured as 𝛿 = 4±4 × 10⁻¹⁵ (1σ statistical error), with the presumed true value being 0. Similarly high precision results are obtained for the constancy of some physical constants, like the proton-to-electron mass ratio μ and the fine structure constant α, which have been measured to change at a rate of μ'/μ = 0.2±1.1 × 10⁻¹⁶ yr⁻¹ and α'/α = -0.7±2.1 × 10⁻¹⁷ yr⁻¹. The magnitude of the difference in charge between an electron and a proton has been measured at |ε| ≤ 1 × 10⁻²¹ e.
However, measurements that are not expected to yield exactly 0 or 1 are harder to make, and the electron and muon g-factors are certainly among the best measured of these. But there are better ones. The hyperfine splitting frequency of the ground state of hydrogen has been measured as ∆E = 1 420 405 751. 7667 ± 0.0009Hz, a relative standard error of 6.3 × 10⁻¹³. By comparison, the muon g has been measured as g = -2.002 331 841 22 ± 0.000 000 000 82, for a relative standard error of 4.1 × 10⁻¹⁰, still a phenomenal result. However, the "anomalous" muon magnetic dipole moment, (g-2)/2, has a relative standard error of 3.5 × 10⁻⁷ since it is comparing against a much smaller number. So it depends how you count.
Indeed, only seeing a difference in the eighth or ninth significant digit means you're looking at a one part in a billion variation. I imagine that the people running the experiment are double-checking all possible sources of error, as this is a very tiny "signal" that could easily be swamped by noise of various types. Also, since this is the same ring as in the Brookhaven experiment, there could be a subtle flaw of some sort in the design of the experimental apparatus... probably they double- and triple-checked stuff like this before they published, but until these results get duplicated in another experiment with different equipment -or better yet, a different approach to making this measurement- there's always a chance that the equipment being used in the experiment is skewing the results just enough to show this effect.
I actually (very briefly) worked with the team that made the straws for the g-2 experiment so I'm always happy to hear news of how the experiment has progressed :)
I totally understood this- but then I didn't take my medication today. Exciting!!
ok?
This is a very illuminating presentation of the "muon mystery". You really managed to convey the essential experimental and theoretical results
that cause the recent excitement.
Those guys told such an interesting and captivating story that's unfolding right in front of our eyes I totally forgot about time and everything else, end of video came unexpected...
This was a treat, I have missed the longer videos with Ed Copeland.
Been waiting for sixty symbols to cover this!!!
It's mostly hype, as both effects are dependent on QCD calculations which are always full of uncertainty.
I really appreciated that discussion of the latest theories and ideas around the standard model. Very satisfying.
19:12 me, an engineer: they are the exact same number
It's within tolerance!
Two questions come to mind:
1.) Since they're talking about expected ratios between different kinds of leptons, that raises the question of what the production of tau particles looked like
2.) If it is due to a new particle, could it be that X17 particle they talked about earlier?
Man, I love Ed Copeland.
It is said that "Infinity" is a term not accepted in the world of physics and mathematics. @13:50 When I hear in the physics community about terms like "dimensionless particles" or "point-like particles with no dimensions" ... I think these terms deserve a better explanation... Thanks for the great videos!
Oompa Loompas. Ah! Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
"Oh, behave!"
Wonderful!! I love all the twists and turns as we seek to prove our expectations - rather than suspend expectations and witness.
Personally, I am fond of Feynman's view - that its up to the theorists to match the experiment - its not the responsibility of the experiment to match our 'concepts' of what we want the 'world' (universe, etc.) to behave like. "We must have a particle (to explain this)" sounds to me like a 'fix' - even if it temporarily fits (Ricky's "splain it to me, Lucy" [I Love Lucy Show]). The proverbial 'looking for the lost car keys under the lamp post' (because that's where the light is) instead of where you more likely dropped them.
All that - and kudo's to you both for a great video and an accessible rendering of what's happening at FNAL (and CERN). THANK YOU!
But if all the formulas and calculations work when u use a missing element, then you could also say that this element is obviously there. The missing value.
I really do hope it's new particles.
The enthusiasm of this man is wonderful. Enthusiasm is cool, teach yer kids this.
If there IS a particle "Lepto-Quark" bridging the weak and strong forces, would it be suitable to presume the existence of other intermediate force carrier particles linking the other forces of nature?
Not really. Candidate particles are either a) derived from theory after suitably determining theoretically that they do not contradict existing observations and then deemed suitable for verification by experiments, or b) appear to be observed without explanation and can be deemed suitable for the theory-experiment process. An example of (a) would be the Higgs boson and an example of (b) was a particle that for many years during the theory-experiment cycle was the mu meson - which was eventually discovered to be the muon, not a meson at all. If I take the word _presumed_ at face value, without additional semantics, it is never ok to presume the existence of any particle. Some may do it, some may play with semantics and try to explain that they do it, but presumptions just are not the way to proceed methodically to improve our explanations for the universe.
The electromagnetic and weak interactions have already been unified and accepted as electroweak theory. We may be a thousand years away from verifying that gravity has a boson (graviton) that exists and efforts to unify it have led to string theory and loop quantum gravity, neither of which are presumed correct. Unifying the electroweak and strong interactions is based on a scientific hunch - we have no compelling proof that unification is even the right thing to be looking for. Unification started back when we sure that we were 95% of the way home in explaining the universe. Since then our knowledge has doubled at least twice and we've learned that we presently can explain just under 5% of reality. We had a whole wonderful panoply of supersymmetry candidate particles that nearly everyone popular insisted that we'd find with the LHC and then hoped that we'd find with the LHC upgrade. Everything was really solid and it hit the best-selling lists for years in popular science books. It might still be verified someday, somewhere but at this point, no one is holding their breath.
@@Ni999 beautiful
@@user-me7hx8zf9y Thanks 👍
@@Ni999 "Presume" shows up in my lexicon because I'm a writer and therefore operate almost entirely in Imaginationland, where wishes are cheap and wild possibilities abound. I understand the revulsion the word carries within the scientific community, and I appreciate the passion with which you draw that line of distinction. It's an important one.
But if you'll allow me to persist slightly on a point:
"We may be a thousand years away from verifying that gravity has a boson (graviton) that exists and efforts to unify it have led to string theory and loop quantum gravity, neither of which are presumed correct."
Is it possible for an intermediate force carrier to exist between Gravity and [insert choice of forces here]? As a non-rhetorical question, I'd think the answer can be ONLY yes - yes, it's *possible* - but I'm wondering HOW possible it is; and would the discovery of such a particle perhaps point the way to the fabled graviton?
(Onward to anti-grav deck plating!)
Thank you for taking the time to respond. This channel has been a hallmark of learning for some ungodly reckoning of years. You're appreciated.
@@edibleapeman2 And at the risk of burning you out, let's look at claim that we may be on the path to a new fundamental particle over the latest muon results, reposting one of my comments from elsewhere -
Same day as the Fermilab results came out, a paper was published in _Nature_ that showed that the Brookhaven data agreed with a new g factor theoretical calculation using a lattice QCD technique. It's behind a subscription paywall.
For an open article about it, search for _"the conversation Proof of new physics from the muon's magnetic moment? Maybe not, according to a new theoretical calculation",_ it's very interesting.
For all we know, that could be the tip of the iceberg in a huge advancement in quantum chromodynamics and it's being buried by the hype tsunami promising "new physics." What if the new physics is fixing QCD and no one heard?
We need a video on the "gravitational background", and possibly if it can be used in Prof. Copelands work!
"They are the oompa loompa of science." That sounds like it was spoken by Sheldon Cooper.
He only said what we all know deep inside
Professor Moriarty: Irish mode activated!
A deep analogy. Weren't they basically the sanest most wise characters in the story?
All the kids carted off for committing some cardinal sin whilst they rhymed wisdom.
As for Wonka, pretty much unstable, overambitious possibly schizotypal, and basically conducting human trafficking of the oompa slave race but thats a bad business model he got.
Dang, that comment made me snort😂😂🤣
The simple graphics were helpful thank you.
The experiments I do have around 50% error margins.
If you had the budget Fermilab or CERN have, you might be able to shave a few %age points off that
26:16 I love how he looks around the room for a second almost like he's looking for them
Excellent video, thanks.
You’re welcome.
Seeing Ed again makes me happy.
That sound effect of going back and forth is so intense on my headset gah XD
Get a better headset! It was fine on mine. ;)
Most exciting!!! Thank you for making this video so quickly. 😊
_"Where have all the Muons gone? Gone to graveyards, one-by-one..."_
"When will they ever learn ..."
I´m just amazed that we are helping analyse the data from the LHC in our facilities ! (Cartesius supercomp and the SURFsara grid here in Amsterdam).
The vertical reflection of “LHCb” looks very Russian. I was a bit confused for a moment, thinking it was supposed to be GNSR 🤨😅
Ha.. same thought here :D
This stuff is just absolutely incredible. Nothing is more impressive to me than humans probing and understanding fundamental particles like this. The nature of the universe is just so impossibly fascinating and beautiful to think about.
Can we get some suggestions for the name of the new particle? Assuming it actually exists of course.
Bingus
@@lordwalrus183 😆 That sounds like something Dr Steve Brule would call it.
Muonnaise
Oompaloompon?!
I say call it the "Newton" it ends in -on, it'd be a new discovery, and just like Newton, pave the way for discoveries in Physics.
I wish it wouldn't take me such a long time to understand physics to the point that I could join conversations like this
amazing video of stable physicists at high energy level. ;)
I hate to miss a Copeland video but the noise the weird edit thing is making is genuinely painful.
I don't want to seem insincere, I love your channel.
You got to do something about cosmic rays, indeed.
Best explanation of all the muon excitement I've seen. Congrats.
I was happier with the Fermilab results before I knew that they used the exact same magnet used by the Brookhaven team. I'm not trying to armchair quarterback this, but remember that all the best and brightest minds were involved in grinding the Hubble mirror to the most precise shape of any mirror in history. Precise... but wrong :-). The only reason we knew to question the original Hubble results was we had many other telescopes so we could say "Whoa! Those pictures are off! The telescope must be wrong!". With the Brookhaven/Fermilab results, everyone seems willing to say "Whoa! The results are off! New Physics!". This still feels like a "single instrument" measurement to me, and I'm always skeptical about single instrument results. I hope I'm wrong.
That's quite the brilliant idea. Now that you've said it - it's kind of obvious to take it into account. But this is beyond my sphere of competence. I'm curious what the smart guys will come up with.
They only said they used the same magnet. I didn't hear or read anything that suggests they also used the exact same sensors. The whole point of moving the ring to Fermilab was to upgrade the experiment.
@@davidfrey2159 That's correct. But if NASA had upgraded the sensors in the Hubble without adding corrective optics, the new sensors would still give precise-but-incorrect results. I know this isn't the Hubble, but the magnet is part of the system, so a systemic flaw with the magnetic would be a systemic flaw observed from both experiments. As exciting as these results are, they at least in part single-instrument results.
@@MarkARebuckI don't see it that way. The magnet is just the storage ring, giving the muons a place to hang out before they decay. It isn't making the observations, the sensors are.
@@davidfrey2159 The magnet is so much more than just a place for the muons to hang out. It provides the magnetic field in which the measurements are made, and the uniformity of the magnetic field is absolutely critical to the accuracy of the result. A huge part of their testing was around ensuring the uniformity of the field. It's not like the magnets in the LHC ring where the goal is to deliver stuff to the sensors. (Apologies for dragging out the thread. I've said my piece and will retreat. I do hope the results hold up!)
I’ve been waiting on you guys to come and make sense of everything for me.
Damn muon! Now we gotta go back to school again, new physics
Could the "Observation of Anomalous Internal Pair Creation in 8Be: A Possible Indication of a Light, Neutral Boson" and "New results on the 8Be anomaly" have any relationship with the muon incosistencies?
"Experimentalists are the Oompa Loompas" LOL
I'm so happy Ed's doing this video. When I heard it came out of Fermilab, I knew he'd have perked up about it. ^_^
If you don't watch to the end you miss Tony's funniest comment of the year.
Is there any indication that the Tau properties will also deviate from the electron and muon? Do we have the experiments to measure it?
Yessss thank you Brady
What superbly enthusiastic guys.
if we let these guys keep going, soon they'll be able to make their own path of exile builds
The way all these particles can have virtual particles appear, interact, and reabsorb, and how all the different ways they can work add up to how they do work makes me think a lot of bubbles and fluid dynamics.