Can leptogenesis explain why there's something instead of nothing? 

This comment deserves more likes

Did you steal that joke?

@@garymartin9777 I see what you did there but I deny everything. Everything. Wasn't even there at the time. Or anytime. Ask anyone. Anytime. I was volunteering in a Kleper colony outside Kleptown not too far from Klep Horn. We'd listen to Klep Kleppard and cure Kleprosy. My buddy was from Ireland - an obvious kleprechaun. Ask him he probably did it.

Kudos.

Stop putting stolen food in your buddies fridge man

Well, of course with an equal amount of anti-sand worms. That should solve the issue.

diGritz1 Just bring in the Sardaukar and don't let Lincoln near any of the harvested spice.

Probably with vast numbers of blue eyed Fermians guarding caches of water in their sietches.

I think you mean Fremen Labs.

Gracefully of course.

makes we wonder if we're going a "ice world" tho

It makes my skin wrinkly...

Fuseteam the ice world is in the future

Fuseteam and past

@@ronmccord8866 lol

yup, captain birdseye.

Chicken of the sea

well they are cousins if you don't mind looking far enough in their genealogy tree.

He always wanted to be a comedian. Obviously. Also, "the details don't matter." Hah!

Flying Fish, definitely

But what I admire most about him is his humility and his acceptance of doubt. He presents things not as facts that we have to accept, but he guides us through observations and explanations and then presents the ideo of leptogenesis. Real SCIENCE at work! :)

@Alset Alokin On what basis do you make these claims? Are you a physicist with a dissenting opinion on the topic, or just claiming no one can understand it when you can't?

@Alset Alokin That's hilarious because you haven't linked any videos in this thread. I'm simply asking how you've come to the conclusion that this video is uninformed, since it's coming from Fermilab, not some crackpot theorist. No organization is impervious to criticism, but all criticism needs to be backed with evidence. Where's yours? The other thing is: How can you claim other viewers couldn't understand a single thing? I understood most of the video. You'd have to be pretty arrogant to claim to be able to read others' minds.

@Alset Alokin lol, "best documentary ever?" someone's a little overconfident there...

@Alset Alokin I appreciate the videos you've shared. I watched them all. Some may call those ideas crackpot, but I think to excommunicate ideas is an unscientific attitude. At first look, I see the problems you've raised as worth addressing, not just dismissing. Pending further research, I'm willing to entertain the ideas you've presented. You must understand, though, that the theories on both sides are subject to criticism (I have some objections to the videos, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion; and you have objections which I have been willing to hear), so you must be willing to disagree with others with a more cool head (more on that later in this comment) and accept conclusions wherever they land, even if they conflict with these theories which you are so eager to share with me. (The same principle applies to me and any other proponent of any other theories, of course.) I think you also need to be careful with how you address others to avoid a similar dogmatic and unscientific appearance. You came off as very presumptuous ("you don't understand a thing he said and neither does he") and aggressive (picking such a fight out of nowhere as though the person should have known about your relatively obscure ideas). You also used the word "crackpot" in a directly dismissive way which I didn't, causing you to also seem unscientifically dogmatic. We all understand the ideas which we are holding - Fermilab among many others, the standard model; and you and well-spoken dissenters, the electric universe - so it doesn't make sense to claim to reach into another person's mind and decree that they don't understand what they're saying just because you disagree with it. Also, we understand each other's theories - I have long understood standard model concepts and you earnestly defend the electric universe model, but I also understand what you've presented and I don't assume you can't understand the standard model, even though you disagree with it.

Everyone who has a minimum of interest in the topic is an intended viewer.

@@pansepot1490 Sure, but it's funded by US tax dollars so it's intended viewer is of course the US general public

@@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012 Not necessarily true. That's very insular thinking. I hope your country becomes more international in the future

"That's research!"

glimmer of sunshine for sure

halogenic There are no answers in science, just more questions.

@@frankschneider6156 whatever you say Cardinal Bellarmine....

I am indeed a saint.

Every since Wayne and Garth got kicked off cable access, Aurora, IL. has kinda sucked.

They were teenage neutrinos

?

D-eep U-nderground N-eutrino E-xpiriment I think the joke is that they are up to something nefarious

Their title isn't the best but it's not wrong, since preponderance of one type of matter is the reason why there is something instead of nothing

I agree. This is a typical confusion. The narrator is con fused about the grounds for asking a scientific question. All scientific problems must be based the fact that something exists. Notice that all his speech is based things existing. The inability to distinguish between scientific and philosophical question is going to kill me.

@@karlwarda7628 YOu mean, versus the preponderance of the other type of matter? The other type that is a THING? That is SOME thing?

r/iamverysmart

If you just woke up from your beauty sleep, why you still ugly? Lol JK bro 🍻

Also watching right after my nap...

You're exactly right. By the "nothing" in the video title, many if not most physicists aren't really referring to no-thing. A good example of this was seen in 2012 when David Albert reviewed Lawrence Krauss's book, "A Universe from Nothing" in the NYT. The fact that your comment has only 2 upvotes (3 now 🤓) is frustratingly depressing since it suggests that most physics-interested folk may be just as befuddled as the pros. There are notable exceptions of course. Sean Carroll is an example.

It is not a question of 'why', rather a question of 'how'. The 'why' question in this regard is non answerable by science. The 'how' question though might be answerable.

@@causeitso In this case, the how isn't really answered either. "How" implies that there is some mechanism that explains the thing in question, and because a mechanism can never be "nothing", that mechanism also needs to be explained, and it's either turtles all the way down, or you reach a necessary or arbitrary brute fact. Either way, we epistemologically bottom out.

You cracked the code, my friend.

Thanks for this comment. I had never heard of the Sphaleron process and was wondering why a process like that wouldn't also be working in reverse. "Spontaneous symmetry breaking" put it in context for me. 👍🏼

General Lee N Knass /knot retired/ Some Moreuon neutrinos.

Evanescent waves wake me up inside

Flying Skyward, 😂

Watch PBS space times video on quantum tunneling

That's precisely how they are making DUNE...using evanescent waves and quantum tunneling. No ditch diggers need apply.

Fishicist

Do fishisicists study nuclear fishon?

Fishion Mailed

Someone give this man a cookie

Same, I thought "oh dear, that sounds a tad ominous"

No, no ... not Doom .. it's Dune, like the desert planet with the nice pet worms and lots of spice (aka worm shit). Pretty sure, once Don rules over Dune, he will snort lots of the stuff and become a Mentat.

My god

@@frankschneider6156 But how a fishisicist would fare on a desert world? I suspect it's more likely he would become a guild navigator - still in a cozy tank but able to see all the universe.

Leptogenesis would explain why there is any matter (or anti-matter) at all. If initially there had been equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, which is what one would expect, then it all would have annihilated, and there would be nothing but radiation left.

@@michaelsommers2356 Radiation is something, though, isn't it? And even if the imbalance between matter and anti-matter is explained by Leptogenesis, that doesn't explain why there was ever any matter and anti-matter in the first place.

@@philochristos Yes, you are right but I think Dr. Don should have made it clear that he is not talking about the philosophical question, but the physics question that is one of the big ones we don't know about. Why is there matter instead of just 100% radiation.

Leptogenesis would explain why there is matter. The answer is: there is matter, because there was more matter and less anti-matter. If there would have been the same amount, both would have annihilated and there wouldn't be anything except energy. This video gives a speculative answer to the problem of the matter-antimatter imbalance. The question why is there is absolutely something (not just matter) instead of anything/nothing very likely requires just a very very very long waiting time and a very big spontaneous vacuum fluctuation.

@@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012 That makes sense.

why not? they had some impulse, like photon does, that value just hadn't changed. And who cares about speed itself?

Not a physicist, but here goes: Massless particles gain mass by interacting with things. Particles which would otherwise be massless gain mass by interacting with the Higgs field if they can; the Higgs field is non-zero everywhere and thus the particles which CAN interact with the Higgs field do so at all times; the higher the frequency of interaction (or, equivalently, the stronger the interaction), the higher the mass generated. Massless photons trapped in a massless reflective box give the entire ensemble mass. Massless gluons interacting within the confines of hadrons gain mass and constitute the majority of the mass of hadrons such as the proton. (Also, massless gluons are predicted to be able to interact with themselves into a confined glueball, which would be massive). Photons respond to warped spacetime and actually warp spacetime themselves; if you get enough of them in a close space so that they can warp spacetime enough to create a black hole, the photons would be trapped, and an outside observer would see that the black hole, called a kugelblitz, has a mass. So, massless particles are those which are not interacting with anything. A high-energy (and thus higher-mass) atom in an excited state can emit a photon, losing mass in the process. The photon then can travel across long distances without itself experiencing time. Then, when it interacts with another atom far away, it can be absorbed by that atom, transforming it into a high-energy (and thus higher-mass) atom. From the point of view of the photon, which is traveling at the speed of light, the journey takes no time at all, and the distance traveled is zero. So, the photon allows the two atoms to interact with each other, even though the photon itself experiences neither time elapsed nor distance traveled. However, if you consider the entire system of two atoms and photon, the whole system has higher mass than if there were no excited state, no photon, or no possibility of interaction. Another example are two electrons brought near each other. One way to think about it is that, the closer the two electrons are to each other, the higher frequency of exchange of massless virtual photons between the two electrons, and the higher the potential energy (and mass) of the system. You could also forget about virtual photons, and just think of it as the electromagnetic field between the electrons gaining energy, and thus mass. To go from massless to massive, massless particles must interact with something. Consider a massless photon passing through glass. During its passage, the photon will be probabilistically absorbed and re-emitted, most likely by an electron in the glass. We can't say when and where this absorption and re-emission will occur, but the odds are that it will happen at a certain frequency. (Also, the photon direction is a result of the superposition of all possible absorption/re-emission outcomes by various atoms, and as it turns out, the most likely path of the photon through the glass is the same way it came from, not scattered randomly like you might expect from classical particles). The higher the frequency of interaction between the photon and electrons, the slower the passage. With a sensitive enough scale, the glass could be seen to increase in mass (due to the temporarily excited electrons) during the period in which the photon is interacting with it. Equivalently, the superposition of all those interactions can be thought of as a massive quasiparticle which travels slower than the speed of light. You can't measure a non-interacting photon in free space, because any measurement would require an interaction of some sort, which destroys the photon. Photons, like all massless particles, only exist BETWEEN interactions. So, massless particles don't actually decelerate once they start interacting with things, but they transform into some superposition of interactions which must travel slower than light. Photons stuck in a box are all going at the speed of light, bouncing back and forth, but because they're trapped, an outside observer can say that they're effectively moving along at the same speed as the box. Wherever the photon box goes, the photons most follow, due to the interactions they have with the box's reflective walls. I hope that helps, and I apologize for the length and any inaccuracies.

@@radishpineapple74 you're awesome. Please suggest more to read/watch for more info on the actual topic of the video - why is there something rather than nothing, if you've time for it.

A collision would do it.

@@radishpineapple74 very good explanation.

Yup 😥🤕

In fairness, nobody knows but it’s good to speculate (well I like to speculate anyway)

True. Q: Why is there something instead of nothing? A: Well, we start off with matter and anti-matter and then want to know why the anti-matter disap..... Q: NOOOOO! Why was there matter and anti-matter? Why were there fields? Why was there ANYTHING? A: .......

@@capitalist88 I never understand this reasoning - it's pretty damn clear if there was nothing, then you can't ask the question, therefore the fact that you are asking the question is simply due to the fact that there is something.

@@Beer_Dad1975 , we _know_ there is something. The fact that it is a necessary precondition for asking the question is not an _answer_ to the question.

@@ps200306 From a scientific perspective, you are quite correct, it is not an answer to *how* there is something instead of nothing. From a philosophical perspective, it is an answer to *why* there is something instead of nothing. Think of it like this, if you bought a ticket and won a hundred million dollars in a lottery, you can ask *how* you won the lottery and calculate the statistical probabilities that might be say, one in 100,000,000 - so there is your *how*. You can, if you are a bit simple, also ask *why* you won the lottery given the odds are so small it should not have happened - but it's effectively a meaningless question, because you won already - it is already a fact - if it had not happened you would not be asking the question. Now, you can go ahead and make shit up about fate or divine intervention or magic pixies or whatever but that's just making shit up to explain something that simply is.

Actually Matthew Sharpe's answer is still better than the one in the video, because at least it addresses the core meaning of the question without just ignoring it like the video does.

Cool story bro, tell it again (clink)

Beat me to it, thought same thing. Unless he meant that they're only the same in a Zero Higgs Field environment and become distinct in a Non Zero environment.

@Toughen Up, Fluffy I thought, a wizard DID it.

This is one of those things where the simplifications made to make the ideas accessible also can add confusion. The key to making this work is actually alluded to in the video; but, not really explained. You'll not that the new, heavy neutrinos that need to be added to make the idea work were called "right-handed." Without trying to go into detail about what handedness means for fundamental particles, I'll just say that the basic implication of the idea of handedness is that it flips for the mirror image of a particle. (I.e. the mirror image of a left-handed electron is a right-handed electron, and so on.) One of the strangest features of the standard model is that it only has left-handed neutrinos, even though it has both left and right-handed versions of all other matter particles. The thing is, though, in order for a particle to have mass (which we know that neutrinos do) there must be both left and right-handed versions, which is why adding right-handed neutrinos is an extremely common feature of "beyond the standard model" models. (It's actually a very simple addition, as right-handed neutrinos only interact with anything in the standard model by way of the Higgs.) Now, there's one more important detail about handedness that I haven't mentioned yet; and, that's how handedness works with regard to antimatter. And, the piece that matters here is that the antiparticle of a left-handed particle is actually right-handed. The reason for this is related to something called CPT symmetry; but, that's really beyond what's necessary for this discussion. The important thing is that the standard model has left-handed neutrinos and right-handed antineutrinos. The thing that happens when you add right-handed neutrinos with a heavy majorana mass is that (in the low energy - or, as the video calls it, "water" - world) the four neutrino/antineutrino states (i.e. the left and right-handed neutrino and the left and right-handed antineutrino) get mixed up to leave behind a heavy neutrino and a light neutrino, each of which "are their own antiparticle". But, I put this in quotes because we still have to pay attention to handedness. Essentially, we end up with a pair of light states - one left-handed and one right-handed - and a similar pair of heavy states. But, now the light left-handed state can behave both as a left-handed neutrino and as a left-handed antineutrino; and, similarly for the right-handed state. So all of this is to get to the point of saying that the difference in behavior they're looking for is between the left and right-handed states, while the idea that the neutrino is its own antiparticle really means that its the antiparticle of the same - not opposite - handedness.

@@SSGranorYea. But I think we could add some peculiar mathematical reality to the idea of “being its own antiparticle”. The qualitative content of this property had been long since embodied in i2= - 1. So, the state of “being its own antiparticle” is at least as real as it is the imaginary unit i.

* channels * of * time.

_theoretical_ physicist, departed from 'laws' a long time ago. honestly after relativity anything goes..

Infinities matter.

and Anti.

No, it's a threshhold. When the universe was really hot, they had no mass, and after it cooled to a certain point, they had mass. It's like with his steam/water analogy: once the temperature is low enough, the steam condenses into water, but it doesn't keep condensing.

jursamaj no but eventually it freezes.

@@phys0stud True, but that's a whole different state change. Maybe there *is* another state change to the universe, if it gets cold enough. But that threshold would have to be *really* cold, like micro-kelvins.

yes and no. Mass as m=E/c^2 hasn't changed, but inertial mass turned from zero to the same value as first one.

When antimatter and matter collide, they annihilate each other and produce intense gamma rays, so if some galaxies were made of antimatter and some others, matter, we would see shiny gamma ray fireworks in the region between them where they would inevitably come into contact with each other, but we don't, so we're pretty sure there are no antimatter galaxies in the observable universe. Could there be some outside the observable universe, too far for us to see? Theoretically, yes.

@@FarukAhmet To iterate on that point, aside from the fact that intergalactic medium would be a mess of gamma rays signatures due to dust collisions, galactic mergers would be hilariously cataclysmic and energetic by comparison - perhaps the greatest fireworks shows in the universe, but there's been no such source of gamma rays in the observable universe. For some reason, matter won out over antimatter.

This is because all neutrinos detected until now are Left-handed (and antineutrinos all Right-handed).

Correct, "theory" refers to the maths that quantifies the hypothesis.

Curt TDH yes

Strictly speaking, but in practice scientists use the word theory with liberal abandon for almost any conjecture, just like everyone else... shhh don't tell anyone or they might think a scientific theory is not a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world".

I remember hearing that a hypothesis is simply one assertion in a theory, which is a collection of assertions, because technically, except in mathematics, facts don't exist. For example, how do I know you are a conscious person who exists? I'm surely not the only conscious human in the universe? Buildings exist, right? I can't prove these 100%, but to a value extremely close to that. 'Fact' is often used as a sort of colloquial term for a theory proven beyond reasonable doubt, for example, I have a theory that I am a human that I am 99.99999% sure of, so I consider it a fact. There is a technical possibility that I am a cat inside a simulation, but this probability is insignificant. Interesting that Doctors and experts in physics and such mention theories more often than us commonfolk likely due to the dinning-kruger effect :).

WindnWater no

The opposite of dunning kruger effect. Very healthy to feel that way and not the other way around. :)

@@analogueavenue lol, you're right, well done you :)

Smart people know they are stupid but stupid people think they are smart. So hands up for the smart people that realise they are "not that clever".

SE7EN

Humanity is still waiting for a scrap of proof that nothingness could exist before even considering it as an alternative to the known universe

@@knyghtryder3599 Of course nothingness cannot exist. If it could it would be something after all. But that merely definitional fact does not tell us why there should be anything at all rather than not anything at all, which is how the original question should be understood. Nothingness is the absence of anything at all, not the presence of a merely mysterious something.

@@theophilus749 Right but we have no evidence for all of reality not existing All we have evidence for is something , and for something always existing and no evidence for any possible alternative We have no evidence for creation , so this is all fallacious assumption , a straw man

@@knyghtryder3599 Things that do or have existed are possible because they do exist or have existed. But anything that is possible may or may not have existed. That's what 'possible' means. In a sense just this is the evidence: the whole passing show (whether or not it has always existed) may _not_ have existed. It's difficult to see what other kind of evidence even could coherently be asked for. There's no straw man'. I rather think that you are taking 'nothingness' to be some sort of merely empty state of affairs then, quite rightly, pointing out that we have no evidence for that. But that is a false start. To repeat: 'Nothingness = not anything', including any empty states of affairs'. The only way you could block nothingness as a possibility is to point to one thing in the world and justifiably say of it 'this exists necessarily'. But I see no evidence for any such thing.

@@theophilus749 You keep fixating on philosophical nothingness and İ am glad you agree , we don't see any evidence for it or reason to assume that nothingness ever preceded something, but why you believe we have any evidence that the universe could not exist or be any different than it is , is still a mystery, we have a universe, we have evidence for it existing, not proof but evidence, if we ever have any other evidence indicating that this universe came from another or something else or wasn't always here fine , but for some reason we treat this as a default plausible alternative with zero evidence. For example list anything that exists today that you believe could 'not have existed' and then let me know why you think that would be possible For example trees exist , but on mars we see no trees , but they still exist , even if all the trees on earth die , trees still existed , but even with no trees ever all the elements and energy that make up trees currently would always still exist and have always existed, we really see zero evidence for creation anywhere in any sense and very little true destruction , photons loose a tiny bit of energy when stretched across the entire universe but scientists are still debating if that is even true or it is just being absorbed/converted to heat , we always assume it is legit to discuss the creation of the universe or why things exist and we really don't see much of any evidence of anything being created or coming into existence in any real sense of the term, and with a universe or all known existence, we have a sample size of one and incomplete information about it.

Hypothetical situation: this mechanism pans out. It's demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. We now have the matter universe we observe and live in as opposed to a radiation filled one from total annihilation, we have our matter. Is it not a massive, huge step twords that ultimate question? Next come up with fields and laws. An actual, real answer to what happened at the instant of the big bang is a different question.

If nothing existed , we wouldn't worry why .

If something is gonna give the answer to this question then it is a physics. Philosophy just rambles endlessly and makes assumptions and presuppositions. It literally makes things up without any way to verify anything.

@@sasilik Granted philosophy certainly can stretch the imagination, but everybody does philosophy, just not equally well: ideas are often tossed around without consideration to their consequences. This is the case with every discipline, even physics. Verificationism has its own problems: not all truths can be tested much less verified. I'm not convinced that physics can answer these more ultimate questions: how can you test the immaterial? Just presuming it does not exists is a bit naive if not outright irrational.

@@1stGruhn , how can you show that your idea that there is something immaterial has any merits? For that you should have a way to test immaterial. Just presuming that it exist is outright irrational. You are literally making something up without any way to test it and then say that others who do not accept that as a fact are naive and irrational. I also don't understand why there must be something immaterial when all can be equally explained with something material which we just don't know yet.

NAMAN GOYAL same

great accomplishment mate

NAMAN GOYAL And you are watching these videos!? Way to go, youngster!

@@john-or9cf no I had been seeing these videos from 2 years

NAMAN GOYAL I usually watch pbs space time but dr Lincoln’s calming voice and simple analogies for explaining physics make in enjoyable

True, but the title is just clickbait. The video never attempted to address the question in the title. It is just a theory about what gave rise to the asymmetry of matter-to-antimatter in the Universe (of course, by assuming a process which requires an anti-matter dominant asymmetry, to begin with, lol). It's difficult to tell if the theory is garbage, or if the video explanation of it is, or both.

Dr. T is the bomb.