Why Protons Are Still Such a Mystery to Scientists
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 авг 2024
- Visit brilliant.org/scishow/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
Protons make up most of the regular matter int he universe, but we're still figuring out a few of their quirks... Or quarks. Join Hank Green and learn why protons are still so mysterious to scientists, and what we've discovered about them so far!
Hosted by: Hank Green (he/him)
SciShow is on TikTok! Check us out at / scishow
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever:
Matt Curls, Alisa Sherbow, Dr. Melvin Sanicas, Harrison Mills, Adam Brainard, Chris Peters, charles george, Piya Shedden, Alex Hackman, Christopher R, Boucher, Jeffrey Mckishen, Ash, Silas Emrys, Eric Jensen, Kevin Bealer, Jason A Saslow, Tom Mosner, Tomás Lagos González, Jacob, Christoph Schwanke, Sam Lutfi, Bryan Cloer
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
SciShow Tangents Podcast: scishow-tangents.simplecast.com/
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
#SciShow #science #education
----------
Sources:
www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
newscientist.com/article/2334...
www.sciencenews.org/article/p...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
journals.aps.org/prl/abstract...
www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep...
www.quantamagazine.org/decade...
physicstoday.scitation.org/do...
pdg.lbl.gov/2022/tables/conte...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...
images
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
home.web.cern.ch/resources/vi...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/ph...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/vi...
home.web.cern.ch/resources/im...
www.gettyimages.com/detail/ph...
home.web.cern.ch/resources/vi...
Welp...Maybe We Were Wrong About Protons
The charmed life of the proton
Visit brilliant.org/scishow/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
so lets see, cant find dark matter, matter can be made up of super heavy particles, perhaps dark matter has these charm quarks in abundance?
Is it possible that the smashing of protons causes the up quark to gain energy and shift to a charm quark for a fraction of a second?
A bit random but... could you higher a sign language interpreter or would it cost too much?? I'm dyslexic and becoming hard of hearing so subtitles don't help me enjoy your videos. Just curious. Thank you for your educational content
Keep it a hobby kids, we need plumbers and electricians a lot more.
@@Ancipital_ yikes
Me: "I wish I had more charm."
Genie: "Granted!"
Me: *becomes 166x as dense*
I know that feeling only too well. 🤣
lmao this is mr peanutbutter
Harem manga authors: Sounds about right.
This sounds like a premise for a Stand
“Charm Quark” sounds like a crafting item in a fantasy game lol
the strange quark was named because the particles it made were strange, by contemporary standard. Theorist realized it would be charming if it was part of a doublet, like up, down. And thus it was named.
It'll also get you a discount on the bar on Deep Space 9
To the German ear it sounds like a bowl of beguiling curd.
“Charm Quark” sounds to me like a skill possessed by a dabo girl who also knows oo-mox and wants a raise.
🤵🏼♀️ ©️♓🅰️®️♏ 🦆
The fact that quantum physics is reality makes living in reality so unreal. Seriously amazing and strange.
Doing the math helps.
And charming
@@curtiswfranks that's a good point, (currently) mathematics are the only way to "see" certain behaviours.
Well, it's what some think is reality, we really, REALLY don't KNOW nearly enough to have much certainty about much of any of it, presently.
This is why I love science so much. At first you realize the world isn't magical and everything has a logical explanation but you go further and you realize the world is more magical than you ever thought possible.
Glad to hear Quantum physicists have now installed the fabric launcher and can use the charm mod instead of having to rely on the quark mod
Hey, the charm mod *is* a quark mod. It's just a really heavy-weight version. I don't know why anyone would prefer it.
very funny but a charm particle is still a quark
@@MrV1604and so is charm mod
¿Heavy-weight mod? My computer doesn't even meet the the space-time requirements for to the proton mod :(
But Charm is on Forge too!!! Forge sucks but it do got all the mods
That ‘intrinsic charm’ pun at the end was perfect, thank you
Ive heard people compare particle accelerators to learn how a car works by crashing cars together. I think of it like learning how to build something from Ikea with only a list of parts
I personally think it’s more like learning how Ikea works by smashing furniture parts together
I personally think it's more like learning how IKEA works by smashing IKEA stores together
I personally think it's like learning how to build a piece of IKEA furniture by smashing Scandinavians together.
We smash particles together because that's the only way to observe them. You can't just zoom in 1 million x to see what's up. It's not really possible to find a good analogy for that.
No, they break apart the particles like children break apart a toy to see what's inside. It's high time they stopped being children.
A charm quark is like answering yes to a non-yes-or-no question.
In the weird world of subatomic physics, a watch has more mass when it's wound and running than when it has wound down and stopped.
Indeed. This is correct. Also, an object sitting at a higher elevation has more mass than an identical object sitting at a lower elevation due to the higher object having more potential energy simply due to E=MC².
That one isn't quantum physics, it's relativity.
@@BackYardScience2000 Sorry but no. You are mixing up concepts. Potential Energy of an object sitting higher then an other when both are at rest is not actual energy. they both have the same energy except for the difference in rotation speed from the earths axis. In fact the further away an object is from an other, the lesser the attraction from gravity. This means the higher object is giving lighter pressure on the floor it is compared to the lower object.
The potential energy in a spring or a elastic band is actual energy being stored and release. For instance. Take any rubber band and stretch it in front of a IR camera. The band will heat up. You can visibly see it in winter with sling shot bands. If you leave that rubber band extended and let it cool. it will actual not snap back because you let the energy radiate away. I find it stupid that we call that and the object resting but higher both as potential energy because in the case of the rubber band the energy is actually there. Increasing the mass of the object. The Higher object only gains it's energy when you let it fall back down and imidiatly releases it on impact. You might say you used energy to get that object up but you had to remove that energy to have the object sit still.
Object of different heights having different energy is more of a orbital thing. where the higher you wanna go in a orbit, the more energy you need to have. Intuitively. The lower object is going faster relative to the earths point of view yet the higher object has more energy. Some people still call it potential energy but it is not potentially there. It is there actively. our moon is gaining energy. that's why it's moving away from us every year. Mars's moon are losing energy and will collide with mars eventually.
Please don't confuse mass with weight. The watch analogy that started this thread is about mass, not weight. E=m0c2+K+U
@@peter4210 Sorry, that rubber band analogy can't quite be correct. You can stretch a rubber band around an object and put it in a freezer overnight, and it will still spring back. Its Potential Energy can't all be stored as heat. I get when you stretch it it heats, but it doesn't require holding on to that heat.
I imagine that what is meant by "the proton contains a charm quark" here is that one of the up-quarks is fluctuating into becoming a charm quark for breif moments of time before going back in some structured way not previously apreciated which makes it stand out from the background quantum noise of other random fluctuations inside the proton
That’s what I was thinking too, but can any physicists confirm? It’ll be greatly appreciated 🙏🏾
It's closer to a charm anti-charm pair "fizzing" in due to the binding energy of the proton.
@@darealpoopster Wouldn't this be rather non-intrinsic though?
@@boghag But you do have conservation rules, don’t you? Conservation of charmness included
Whats Up quark
Kind of crazy how Heisenberg's principle and the observer effect, something that seemed so trivial when I briefly learned about it in high school chemistry/physics, is so monumentally important in how we navigate our understanding of the universe.
The observer effect is almost always incorrectly explained though. 'Observer' does not mean what many think it means and has nothing to do with consciousness. I highly recommend Chris Fields' lecture 'What is Entanglement?' for a lucid and straightforward explanation.
Ya it's just we observe a single reality and not all possibilities. Sure before a baseball game we know there will be a winner and a loser. After the game we know who won. It had nothing to do with us watching it, it's just that future options became a past event
The brick comparison is a bit misleading. There are no direct mass measurements for any of the quarks except for the top-quark. All other measurements come from bound states, such as quark-antiquark pairs - which might or might not be closely representative of their masses.
True but I suppose because it’s a bound state it would be a lower limit on mass so it may be an even heavier brick if it could exist alone. But a good point
Maybe cats are made up of protons with an unusually high number of charm quarks, which allows them to become extra-heavy when you try to move them out of the way?
My orange and white Judy does this flop along the back of the sofa onto my neck. No joke, its like being in a car accident the force with which she slams into me. 🐈🪨
Cats certainly are very charming... :D
@@anonymizationoverload9831 agreed so charming
Sci show is flames
@Chelseafagan1 do you really think people will fall for this
this is mindbending....how did they figure out the mass of the charm quark when it only appears sometimes? this is so beyond me
They likely used a nonperturbative trick called the chiral symmetry breaking, and analyzed the mass-dependent effects by using QCD perturbation.
Particle accelerators. They smash atomic nuclei together to see what flies out, and by the way they spin and fly away, they can tell the weights of each individual quarks and gluons.
the particle accelerator has a series of magnets surrounding the tube that are calibrated to attract specific objects; one magnet is used to draw out up quarks, another for down quarks, another for electrons and another for muons, etc.
when a particle is smashed apart, whatever objects are in the collision or the result of the collision will be grabbed by these magnets.
observers can see how those objects traveled to get to the magnets. quarks go one way and spin a certain direction, as do the electrons, etc.
so, in a very basic nutshell, that is how they can tell what is what.
@@felipemonteiro5877 That's a very funny response to a comment which ended with "this is so beyond me"
They hazard a guess, that's all they do.
Oh great. Now I can put “building blocks may weigh more than the atom” alongside “looking at them changes the results” when explaining why quantum and particle physics give me a headache
Does this mean one of the two Up quarks in the proton occasionally converts to a Charm quark and then back? Then would a neutron show signs of occasionally having a Strange quark?
that is a good use of isospin symmetry (really "Flavor SO(4)"), but that symmetry is so broken, ppl don't use it much.
Hank, *you* have intrinsic charm. btw that was your best pun yet :)
Up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom, if you don't know what a quark is, it don't matter; you still got 'em.
Gotta catch'em all
@@SimuLord The elusive Konami quark
Point of order: no one has or can observe a quark much less a charm quark directly. Experimenters use a form of attribute accounting to determine if the particles that result from a collision may contain a charm quark. Your talk sounded like we were observing quarks directly, which we are not, so there is still a lot of guess work going on.
Thought so
Deep Inelastic Scattering: electron makes photon (light) hits quark, scattered electron tells you photon energy and polarization. Quark has been seen, by light.
@@DrDeuteron Cite that paper please.
@@DrDeuteron You can do that with subatomic particles like Protons and Neutrons, but I do not think that works with quarks. When you hit them hard enough to get inside the Baryon the Baryon breaks apart and scatters then the bits and pieces reform immediately into other particles. So, you lose the photon and the Baryon in the collision and what comes out are a bunch of other things that are made of quarks and "virtual" quarks created by the photon's energy. You don't "see" the quark you only see the reformed products of the collision.
@@kimwelch4652 you're describing exclusive scattering. DIS started out as inclusive. A recent Nobel prize (DGLAP eqs.) showed the process can be factored. Once the electron and parton exchange the photon, the harmonic debris doesn't matter.
"New research says this may not be the whole story" is pretty much the motto of quantum physicists, and scientists in general.
Fascinating! I'm curious how they ruled out the Charm quark being generated by the extra energy put into the system by the velocity. Since the energy of the velocity itself can be literally converted into mass (E=mc^2) I'm curious how they showed the up and down quarks weren't the only constituents of the protons meaning the Charm quark was there all along as opposed to being generated from the excess energy of collisions, on occasion.
This co0mes from the collision fragments themselves. When the particles collide, the whole proton doesn't interact. Instead two small parts will, say an up quark and a gluon. Each of the possible components will carry a fraction of the proton's energy and also their own properties, which result in different products after collision. Collision is messy, but you can determine what collided if you have enough to sift through.
That's what I initially thought too, wondering if that extra mass was simply caused by the collision?
I REALLY like this video. The quantum world is truly strange and amazing. GREAT job summarizing a very complex topic! NICE puns too! I especially like the fact that one of the studies you cite seems to have tested both a null hypothesis and an alternate hypothesis. :)
I feel like the Charm Quarks are moving in a weird way to negate the mass like it's spinning in such a way that it's momentum is not felt until its broken apart and "weighed".... Such a cool concept and I'd love to explore it more at the LHC, that would be an awesome field trip but I'm also a little scared of it because it would literally pull the iron out of your blood if you get too close to it when it's on. 😅🙄😁
Unfortunately it’s probably not the charm quarks spinning or anything like that, just some funky gluon interactions most likely(but I don’t specialise in particle so who’s to say!) The radiation down there in the LHC would kill you long before the magnets did, don’t worry they keep you safely up top when it’s switched on!
Doesn't this decrease the binding energy in a proton and isn't that quite impactful?
My favorite model for intrinsic charm is the Hank Green model.
I have no intrinsic charm and I'm pretty sure I'm heavier than Hank. Checkmate, particle physicists!
One of the authors of the Nature paper you linked is actually my quantum mechanics professor at university! So cool to see his research subject in one of your videos
Using machine learning is basically asking someone else for something, there is just some transparency in the reasoning behind the answer, more like an educated bet in the best escenario.
The charm quark proton is an IRL Shiny Pokémon 😂
Im astonished by how quantum and particule physic are evolving so fast what a time to be alive
They've been stagnant for 70 years... The argument could be made they regressed since most of them didn't learn what physicists knew in the 1930s.
I would think this would relate to the string theory gravity proposition where the gravitational force is spread over dimensions we can't experience. It's certainly interesting.
When showing the charm quark graphic around 1:19, there is a box with lines going corner to corner in the upper-left. Is that a missing character that just made it past editing or does that symbol represent something in the Standard Model?
Looks like a missing character.
Yup, it's supposed to be a "≈".
It is difficult to make a clever quip as this is so informative.
Wow, less than a minute into the video being posted. That's a first
"If you don't know what a quark is, it don't matter you still got em"
Quote from my favorite science song
And with leptons and bosons, unless somethings amiss, they make up everything that we can see and that we know exists!
Classic : )
Guess you could say this video has me….charmed
I am already curious about the noise in the proton.
As I understand from this video, a proton is made of quarks and noise (aka particles coming and going in and out of existence).
In biology, after the discovery of DNA, for a long time the ' package' DNA comes in was discarded as not important. It wasn't DNA so it couldn't influence evolution, so was thought. Later it was discovered it did influence evolution.
I wonder if that's the same with the 'noise' in protons.
Protons are made of a shell of quantum fluctuations. It's simple, if they let it be.
Personally, I’m made of cool ranch and salted caramel flavoured quarks.
🥪
Those are certainly some .... ..... ..... Strange quarks.
charm quarks are of course quarks precut into handy 5" squares and assembled into matching color sets for easier quark quilting
Can the energy being put into the proton to get to these relativistic velocities be getting converted into mass that is sometimes assumed by an up quark, thereby making it appear charmed?
no
This question was addressed in the video
No, because it is impossible for an up-type quark to be converted into another up-type quark. To put in technical terminology, a quark with weak hypercharge T3 = 1/2 cannot directly be converted to a quark of the same weak hypercharge (the same is true for the quarks with weak hypercharge -1/2).
@@angelmendez-rivera351 Thank you much, this one helps!
Yes. It's a temporarily stable resonance of a relativistic proton. It's obvious... but not to particle physicists for some reason.
Ah yes quantum mechanics...when you start needing to roll sanity checks and the quantum mechanic's lab has nice straight jackets ready for when someone snaps and starts screaming "this doesn't make sense!" and needs to be sedated and calmed down...
Thank you, Hank Green, for giving us the quantum science
Protons have always been my favorite subatomic particle cause their so positive!
Oh you...
Hahahaha, yes, they are definitely for the tons.
You should be 'charged' for that comment.
Maybe a the charm quarks in a proton are only there sometimes, so their gravity doesn't appear as strong.. Kinda like pulse width modulation..
protons don't evolve in time. If it's there then it's there now.
Yes quantum mechanics is a game of probabilities, like working out the probability of going mad before you start to understand it.
True. Ultimately it boils down to statistics at such a fundamental level.
@@luciddewseed3095 Actually, no.
Love you guys 💗 making science cool Again
The Antman movies are going to have a field day with this!
0:53 Hasn't the idea always been that there are three valence quarks, but infinitely many other virtual quarks and gluons popping in and out of existence? The three quark model is just a model we used for representing the math and simplifying the interactions.
Edit: You know, for a video titled "We still don't know how protons work", there seems to be a lot of people who seem to definitely know how protons work. Maybe you guys should be telling Hank Green and getting him to print a retraction.
The thing with virtual particles is they can't be directly detected, but the collider is detecting these so it's not the same phenomenon. The fact that the protons are kicked up to near light-speed through imparted magnetic energy though makes me wonder if that's what is allowing these to be produced here. It may be they occur in nature but only in high energy cosmic ray collisions.
@@AlmightyXI I had thought the same, but why would only the charm quark appear by itself, and not the strange quark by itself?
There is no such a thing as virtual quarks. Quantum chromdynamics is studied using lattice field theory, and lattice field theory is a more accurate approximation for modelling the violent disturbances in the quantum fields inside a proton. The concept of virtual particles is used in quantum electrodynamics, but they do not actually physically exist. They are merely a mathematical tool, and there are alternative mathematical approaches to quantum chromodynamics that actually completely avoid the concept of virtual particles, and they account for the disturbances of quantum fields in some other way. You actually could also just use lattice field theory for quantum electrodynamics, and this approach has been successful. There are yet other approaches, such as the field configuration Feynman integrals.
@@localverse This has something to do with the (limited) conservation of weak hypercharge. A strange quark is a down-type quark, but a charm quark is an up-type quark.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 True, but I meant that if magnetically speeding up protons to near the speed of light would've somehow sometimes produced the charm quark as Brian hypothesizes, then why wouldn't it sometimes (hypothetically) produce a strange quark.
I’m a little skeptical that they were able to apply rigorous statistical analysis to a machine learning model. How can they rule out the possibility of it doing some kind of complicated overfitting under the hood?
Concerns like that is why the results are being me with increased peer review and skepticism.
@@garethdean6382 You're confusing skepticism bias.
Can you make video of animals that are in the process of modifying their niche? Like I heard there's are wolves in British Colombia that are taking streams as their habitat and hunting aquatic prey, not unlike bears.
Not really modifying, wolves have fished for thousands of years.
Is it possible that there are two different flavors of protons? Most only contain up and down quarks, but a small percentage contain charm and down quarks instead?
Any fans of Deep Space 9 will know that Quark has intrinsic charm 😄
Aside from cultural misogyny, he's pretty adorable sometimes 🤣
That 0.6% is tantalizingly close to the fine structure constant, though I haven’t the foggiest idea what that means.
It's probably just a coincidence tbh. Our brain really like to look for pattern even if there isn't any
It doesn't mean anything to be honest, we can play this game finding similarity between basically any given number in physics. It's not even that much close
@@UnCavi It's close enough to be interesting given that both numbers are describing probability magnitudes, and the 0.6% was arrived at by more or less Monte Carlo means, which limits the precision of the pseudo measurement.
Sounds like it's time for a new verse of Strange Charm, Hank!
Yeah boi
There is still so very much we do not know. Imagine an advanced civilization "out there" that not only understands all this, but can put that knowledge to us. Whatever they do would seem like magic, isn't that right Arthur C. Clark?
The proton is like the Doctor's Tardis. It is bigger on the inside than the outside.
I'd love to know how they know a 1 in 3 million chance was achieved. What are the steps to confirm such a number?
I don't know how it is refined to such a degree, but it is the statistics concept of "likelihood of significance." In the wider world of physics, a likelihood of one in ten merits additional research and a likelihood of one in a hundred might be considered a discovery. Particle physics is much more careful though.
it's arbitrary--based on 5 standard deviations for a normal distribution
Toss a coin 10 times, ifn you get 6 heads, 4 tails, then it is probably a fair coin. Ifn you get 10 heads in a row, there is 1/1,024 chance the coin is fair and 1,023/1,024 chance it is a cheat coin. 20 heads in a row, the chance of a fair coin is less than 1/ 1.000.000. 30 heads in a row, the chance of it being fair is less than 1/ 1,000,000,000
It's statistics to show what the chance is that the results occurred by accident
@@Moingboy It's like covering the state of Texas with a bunch of quarters a mile high where all of them but 1 are heads up and asking you to find the one that is heads down... Well, I'm exaggerating a bit here cause that's way more than 1 in 3 million... but you get the idea.
Correction: the sigma 3 doesn't mean a 1 in a 1000 chance they're wrong. It actually means a 1 in 1000 chance of getting these results by pure chance with the currently accepted model. These 1 in a 1000 happen all the time and especially in particle physics, turn out to indeed be caused by pure chance more often than not. So nothing to get excited about, yet.
hence the 5 sigma threshold for discovery
Who th is eating quarks?!
This has been a concept bouncing around in my own head for awhile, just from probabilities, and to see that quantum physics agrees with that silly idea in my head sorta breaks my brain a bit. Just crazy. But quantum physics is crazy, anyway!
Thanks, Hank & all, for all you do! ❤️❤️
if you really want a head trip, start reading the Hindu Vedas and see just how precise the language gets about the atomic world they could hardly know anything about way back when.
I'm curious, what was the concept you came up with exactly? The idea of massive subatomic particles existing a fraction of the time and so only lending a fraction of their mass to the whole?
It’s not that weird. Weight means a different thing on such a small scale. It’s more about how a thing behaves. When you separate parts they behave differently and apparently “weigh” differently. It’s not that weird. It’s more like looking at weight in terms of value. You take a house apart then some of the parts may have more value on their own than as part of a house.
After you've said "weight" instead of mass, I stopped reading
@@blinded6502 if you understood what they were saying enough to correct it it doesn’t need to be corrected
@@pe1900 I understood that he doesn't know what he's talking about. And that neither do you.
@@blinded6502 Easy buddy; save the disdainful snark for Facebook.
@@jesse7631 If someone is going to speak authoritatively on this, the least we should expect is that they get the basics like the difference between mass and weight correct. It's high school science. (More like middle school for my Americans.)
2 wildly cool things about this: it was discovered by running ML algorithms on accelerator data to recreate from scratch rather than our assumptions, and found the charm quark, mostly in heavier nuclear collisions. (oh shoot I started typing too soon, he got to this point, nice!)
Second cool thing: I've been telling people I think this is the case and that we're probably going to discover it soon since around 2013, and that this may open up a couple new potential dimensions of the periodic table as we find new potentially stable configurations around 2015, but we're still a few years out from having simulations high enough quality to start finding potential new stable elements orthogonal to our present table and I'm not seeing nearly enough work in that direction.
And might it so happen that (some of) those orthogonal elements do not interact with the electromagnetic field?
@@lonestarr1490 I imagine this'd mostly be different flavors of quark, replacing inner orbitals with muons in very heavy elements where the inner orbitals are very relativistic, or wrapping ordinary shells of nuclear matter around more exotic psuedostable things like tetraquarks, all of which still interact with the EM field. But we could likely get elements with significantly stronger chemical binding energies, with more symmetry that fall into superconducting states more easily, etc.
If matter can't be created or destroyed, how can these particles just pop into and out of existence? Or, is this one of those cases where things get really strange (no sub-atomic particle pun intended) at the quantum level?
The simple explanation is that matter CAN be created, so long as it is then destroyed in a certain amount of time. Virtual particles 'pop in and out of existence' all the time and the mass they add is the 'average' of their mass and nothing.
The more complex explanation is that these are not 'real particles' (Hence the term 'virtual') and are more like 'energy shadows' in that particle's field. A sort of random background static noise that, because it exists, carries a certain amount of energy that does not increase or decrease over time.
@@garethdean6382 Oh! I missed that they're virtual particles. Thanks!
Matter can be created from energy. Energy and mass can transform into one another. After all, E=MC^2.
The real answer or the answer in textbooks?
They're from the quantum field which has essentially infinite energy. It's not a creation it's conservation of energy. Hank's answer would be they are virtual. But they are as measurably real -- more real -- than any particle the LHC has come up with.
SECOND COMMENT
Sci show is always up-to-date 👏👏
The seeming contradiction in saying a brick from the house can weigh more than the house can also be found in aspects of physiology. For example, IL-6 is part of the pro-inflammatory cascade that leads to inflammation. What's something that can stop inflammation and be anti-inflammatory? IL-6 when secreted as a myokine. Similarly, an increase in T regulatory cells can be linked to an anti-inflammatory state that protects healthy individuals from disease. What's something that goes wrong in the immune system when cancer develops? Often times there was yet another increase in the number of T regulatory cells.
Videos like these are quite charming ^.^
Loved the conclusion!
I still find it funny that physicists' method of learning how the universe works is smashing things together until the results get interesting.
Thank you for this video - it made my QFT-addled brain happy :)
"There are lots of plausible models of intrinsic charm."
Preach.
Amazing!! 🥰🥰🤯
I'm waiting for the pineapple quark to be discovered in a pizza proton.
Intrinsically charming! ✨
Thanks for producing such a high quality video that I, who know absolutely nothing about this stuff, kinda gets the idea of what a charm quark is, why it's interesting for theorizing, and the challenges inherent to & approaches of observing them. All in under 6 minutes. Lifelong SciShow fan!
Question about something @4:13
Where does this one in three million standard of certainty for new knowledge come from? And how is it estimated? Thank you to everyone involved in making these videos!
This comes from physics, social sciences and statistical analysis. We call this standard deviation, "significance", or sigma confidence interval. 5 sigma confidence is the 1 in 3 million chance error which is needed to determine the likelihood that a discovery has been made. (However, the process of verification and publishing a discovery is way more complicated than that) They calculate this based on the accuracy and precision of the experiment. This also depends on the error bars and repetition of the hypotheses, and also whether other experiments/methods can prove or disprove the hypotheses. (By merging and doing metanalysis of papers and other studies) If you wanna do further reading, go look for sigma confidence interval, or "the 68-95-99.7 rule".
@@albert6157 thank you for the informative reply!!
Whoa... Never seen a SciShow that confused me. Hank, you got me!
So the mass of the component quarks is 0.2% the mass of the proton, but the charm quark is more massive, but only rarely there? Does this potentially dispel the confusing explanation that most of the mass of a proton comes from the binding energy of massless gluons?
No, it doesn't. And it's not confusing.
If you were to confine two massless particles together via some force, they would have mass, since they can now either stand still or travel at any fraction of the speed of light.
Charm quarks are just the real world equivalent to load bearing coconut PNG's in videogames
I find this stuff so interesting
That pun at the end was perfect.
So interesting
Thanks!
This video is intrinsically charming
The title of the video really made me smile, a knowing (well, ish, this is quantum physics afterall), satisfied smile. Thankyou for that, whoever came up with the video title.
Nice to know awesome 😁👍.
Please talk about oxbow lakes They're so cool!
The micro is so interesting, it can't help but make you think about the macro, its a dimension were too big yet too small to see without aid, we just have this mental perception of it at best, I wonder what we'd see if we could multiply our size by a billion billion times while keeping our known universe it's same size, imagine being able to take a cruse across an atom
"Hey, your intrinsic charm is showing."
"Are you calling me fat?"
Maybe I'm living a semi-charmed kind of life?
This video was charming.
I was just listening to a podcast where they were discussing how the discovery of statistical and probability mathematics is really a rather new thing. We even had calculus so long before it. They postulate that thinking in terms of probability is so foreign to our human minds, so it took a while. We make probability judgments all day, but don’t use numbers to do so.
What is wild, is that statistics and probability underlie the nature of reality in our universe, and we know this now, yet feel completely detached from it, because we cannot EXPERIENCE it.
Up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom; if you don't know what a quark is, it don't matter, you still got 'em.
I came here to say this
What i got from this video:
Thanks to Brilliant we still don't know what is all matter in the universe is made of
But we know they are made of up and down spinning chraming squarks
(tastes quark)
Yes. Definitely Charm flavoured
I also have been searching for submitted subtle hints of intrinsic charm quarks for decades.
Hank Greene as reached narration level god
Do a video on phonon interaction in a crystal lattice
I could be misunderstanding something, however isn't it also possible that the charm quark could be formed during the collision from the massive amounts of energy involved, and not something that was there intrinsically?
I think that's exactly what they are trying to prove. For a long time, people believe that these charm quarks are extrinsic
However, in August 2022, the NNPDF Collaboration published a paper saying that they have evidence which supports the possibility that these things are actually intrinsic.
@@rekagotik2785 ah that makes sense. thanks.
I love how obvious this is to everyone but the 'experts.'
"... and that's how the brick weighs more than a house." 😭😂😂
Is there a possibility that there will be a build up of the particles after they smashed the protons that there would be a leftover of energy….. unless I’m completely missing the whole thing and not understanding what I just heard.
My great great grandparents i don't think could have imagined us putting a man on the moon. We might not be able to imagine being able to zoom in on a proton yet, but we'll get there.