In 2020, China graduated 1.38 million engineers. India graduated 1.2 million. In the same year, the US graduated 198,000 engineers + software developers. Moreover, 20% of US degrees are in business. After adding law, you can see how we've abandoned STEM for the black arts of management. Scientific literacy is necessary, and as a (now retired) scientist, I think this is a mistake.
My understanding is that not all those engineers graduated in China are real engineers. Chinese universities get more government money for engineering graduates, so universities will misclassify degrees. Having said that, they are still graduating hundreds of thousands of actual engineering graduates each year, so you point stands.
More engeneurs does not mean better research. First, of all engeneurs are not scientists and second there are not more jobs just because you give everybody a degree. Recently I even saw a school for "facility management" In the past for cleaning the yard you did not need a degree.
@@maritaschweizer1117 A fair point, but having spent 14y doing post-graduate work in 2 different disciplines, I'm not suggesting that engineers are research scientists. But in my experience, they are scientifically literate, which is a plus for society. As for "facility management" degrees, we're equally guilty e.g. "business" degrees in the hospitality industry, which often amounts to training desk clerks for hotels.
Sabine is correct. ROI is important in any decision on what to fund. Bigger colliders are offering little in the way of guarantees on what will be found and/or how that could lead to applied benefits.
Sabine is one of my favorite minds of today. Along with Sean Carroll, I find these two worthy of their criticisms and their support of theories. Sabine has a great sense of humor, and that is something to be said about a top mind, as it shows invention and understanding and a window into truth. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
I think ultimately we will get more from Wolfram's type of approach but yeah Sabine is essentially antiestablishment, which is the only way science will advance given the bog it's in now.
@@m4inlineit is easy to spend other people money. Most academic scientists do not think a second how hard it is to earn the money in the first step. I really love to research but I founded an own company that can finance my hobby.
Despite being rather polite, the tension during this conversation was palpable. I really wish Gavin could concede at least one of Sabine's points regarding how a bigger collider is not a good investment, YET. There is really no disagreement fundamentally, it is a matter of what is the best of money right now. All physicists like bigger colliders, more energy is always more fun. It would be great to spend some of that money and brain power trying to understand wavefunction collapse, consciousness, quantum computing, etc. Go back to a collider when we have room temperature superconductors at least.
You do have to understand that by Gavin admitting some of Sabine’s points, he’s discrediting the entire particle physics community’s decades old claim: particle physics is the hope. Many, if not all, particle physicists were drawn to the field because they thought that it would lead to the ultimate theory. If they admit that the collider is somewhat futile, then their decades old belief is somewhat disproven, making their career choice a grave mistake. And one needs immense courage to admit one’s mistake, so generally, people justify their mistakes as a worthwhile investment. I’m not suggesting that the entire particle physics community is evil or Gavin has evil intentions, but that this is a very human thing. I personally am leaned towards Sabine, when it comes to allocations of resources, but I also understand why Gavin has to be a bit stiff. I could go on as to points, where Gavin shows a typical pattern of a person who is sticking on to a concept to avoid admitting his or her mistake, but that would be unnecessary and long, so I digress.
I felt the tension. Sabine seemed to be avoiding looking at Gavin. They didn't want to talk about money, but really that's what underlies all physics, as we know.
They smash things and it breaks apart. Under that premise. They will aways find something falls off, until the theorized speed of light is achieved. So they will always want a new collider. Because the speed of light can allegedly only be achieved by light. Any minor increase in the particles speed will be sought after. Like chasing the land speed record. No one has concluded that the current record holder won't be broken. So someone will build something and will want crazy money to do so.
@shootproof7080 😂Yes! I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. It's her informal uniform. She must have really liked it and bought several. So sensible!
If the only way to go forward in physics is higher energies, physics is at its end. Science will not end, because physics is not everything (even if physicists like to think so). But as humans we can not afford to go to higher energies, the costs in Ressource (money and people) is much too high. Especially as the expected outcome for humankind is minuscule compared to the effort. I think there are other ways to go forward in physics except higher energies. Physics has simply to go for it.
Notice how we never get a single explanation or example of some great discovery at CERN ? They claimed "they found" the higgs boson but they never did. What they did do is declare success right before they ran out of money and right before they finished searching all the possible energy levels. In other words they found it in the very last place they had to officially look, right as they were running out of funding. When I watched the director make the announcement to the internal crew the obviousness of the fraud was 100% present. He issued a caution and warning, giving a heads up, asking for a permission of backing, noting they were going to go for it. Everyone was on notice. It was supremely pathetic.
They all know the model is severely flawed. They don't allow themselves to say it. They never want the jig to be up. That's why you have heard about 95% of the universe is dark matter. That's how far off they are in their misunderstandings. They are 95% fraudulent. It's very embarrassing no one must say a word, after all these are the very best worshiped minds of the human race, the hero nerds, those who are to be held in the utmost esteem by the dumb rabble. If that level of embarrassment ever came forth, holding their heads in shame would be their new lifetime occupations. Thus the truth is covered up.
As a non-physicist who's interested in it, there are three areas in the fundamentals which need more research: - the measurement problem in quantum mechanics: how can we experimentally probe it? - quantization of gravity (and will this give insight into the dark matter hypothesis) - what on earth is up with neutrino masses?
A good investment has a return on that investment. And a newer bigger collider has an unknown return on investment. I'm with Sabine on this one. I am convinced we can do better than the standard model.
An important argument that is missing in my poiny of view is the following. It is about the scale at which we extend the energy range of our experiments. We may extende de range by a factor of 2 or 3 or maybe 10 (hugely expensive). That may sound like a lot. However, energy scale we are probing is not at all close to the natural scale for particle physics, which is the Planck scale (10^28eV(. This is about 20 orders of magnitude higher than the scale we currently probe physics on. So in that respect this is a puny extension of the search range. The fact that we have discovered all kinds of particles in this extremely low energy range (compared to the planck scale) is because all the particles we have seen so far are fundamentally massless particles. The only reason they have mass is because of their interaction with the Higgs field. But there is no guarantee or even indication that we should find further particles in this range. And extending our search to the full range would require building an accelerator as large as the galaxy. So this is a fundamentally hopeless pursuit.
"Plasma Wakefield Accelerators have the potential to be significantly more efficient than Circular Accelerators. They can achieve high acceleration gradients, accelerating particles over shorter distances. PWFA could generate tens of billions of electron volts per meter-about 1000 times more acceleration potential per length of accelerator-by using plasma wakefields."
Gavin is skirting around the cost and resource issues, whereas Sabine understands the physics and economics go hand in hand, specially when talking about a project that will cost every bit of $50 bill euros if not more. The scale of the future collider will be an order of magnitude bigger than the LHC in every aspect, so it's not just a case of 'more of the same' mentality Gavin is promoting. If this is his best effort in convincing the science community as to why a bigger collider is necessary, good luck convincing the bean counters!
Agreed. If you're going to put $50 billion Euros into a project, you damn well better get $50 billion Euros worth of scientific knowledge and advancement out of it. What did we get out of LHC? The "discovery" of the Higgs Boson that was probably faked (hell of a coincidence that it happened right around budget- appropriation time and media was asking pointed questions like "Was this worth it?" and "What are we getting out of this?"). The people in charge of the LHC should be in jail.
Can't wait for part 10, it's the most exiting. All about the Atom Sinker. When the atom was first invented by Mister Zoomo Suzuki (no relation to the car manufacturing Co.) in 1844, he found it was too heavy for its size. At the time there was an international weight limit for electrons and these new atoms could not be heavier. As a result of this an Atom Sinker was added to all electrons, so if electrons and atoms were weighed the electrons would always show as being the heaviest. Early experiments were done off Souighychung bridge between the two Japanese islands throughing atoms and electrons in to the water below to see which entered the water first. A song was written about this, and got to number 1 in Japan in 1961.
How did we come up with particle physics in the first place? The particles represent both space-restriced entities (Fermions) and force-FIELDS (bosons). And yet they are treated exactly the same, using the same quantum formula. Looking in all experiments of particle physics, I have not seen any real evidence for the existence of bosons. It is always a field. So why did we start with particles in the first place? Because the people involved believed in force-particles. And projected that believe into the experiments. The particle idea is also where all quantum magic comes from. And if there is "magic", there may be something wrong with the whole idea. Photons were first seen as "bullets" that shoot away "electrons-balls" from an atom. Only later we realized that the electrons are not even at one single place or time. We also did not know about how electron-shells have certain resonance frequencies. The "quantum-jumps" can easily be replaced with thresholds that initially have random values. It was Planck's first hypothesis lost in history, because he assumed zero starting values. And because he believed in light particles, like most people. With well designed experiments we can see that with a single "photon", the "quantum-jumps" can appear at "random" places at the same time. Or no place at all. That is because the light-energy transfers to all places, following the conservation of energy and momentum. When reaching enough energy, the "quantum jump" can take place. But that simply means that an energy threshold has been reached. (youtube videos by Eric Reiter have full details on these experiments) Getting rid of force-particles, also removes of layers of very complex mathematics, which were invented to compensate for this mistake. The thresholds also gives us insight in how place-restricted entities (fermions) work. They have somehow similar rules. Are they entities independent of the force-fields? Or are they made up of the same fields on some way? They could just be the connection between 2 different force-fields. Whatever this is, it is scientific progress. It can be tested with well designed experiments. And it is far simpler. With Occam's razor, we get rid of all quantum magic.
The word "physics" says it all. It assumes a physical material reality. Where cause and effect can only be explained by particles hitting particles. And the hit itself needs to consist out of particles that hit particles and so on. However you using the word "magic" for real life observations in QM isn't any better.
@daanschone1548 there is magic in all QM. The "particles" are not physical. The collapse of the wavefunctiion magically causes their existence. To compensate for most cases they also added virtual particles. In practice there is no particle that gives a force. It is always a field. The particles are just there for visualisation. And it confuses people into thinking that forces are like bullets flying around.
@@zyxzevn but what do you mean by magic? I interpret it as something that is fantasy. And yes indeed, the particles not really being something physical is what I mean.
@@daanschone1548 I use "magic" for the things that are invisible but are meant to explain something. More magic, more likely the theory is wrong. Generally this magic is often very ill-defined. In this definition, the virtual photons are high level magic. The photons themselves are weird magic, as no photon can exist unless it is detected. The photon also has no defined size. The interpretations of QM have their own magic, like multiple worlds or super determinism. Even the "collapse" of the wave function should be considered magic. In the end it is just a word with no clear physical meaning. To determine whether this "magic" exists, there should be repeatable experiments. And Eric Reiter showed that the photon does not exist in various experiments. It is just energy spreading equally. And that this pattern is already visible in all experiments as "noise". Instead of "magic" the alternative is an hidden energy state. Which is something we can also detect in super conductors.
@@zyxzevn realize that according to your definition the entire field of particle physics is magic. For example nucleair power is magic. Nobody can see a nucleus, nobody can see radiation. We don't really know how an atom "looks". We only have models, mostly made of a mixture of math and indirect measurement.
Pro’s and Cons of points of views in particles study in physics.. Gavin Salam For building a bigger collider: Energy off the scale: on the Higg’s boson in depth. Gavin,Has a more like Star in a jar concept compressing the Sun into a container box..examining the additional new partial interaction under higher energies applied .. Sabine Hossenfelder I would be more inclined in study the results from this Collider data and experiments to understand the anomalies, we do not understand, before you go forward building a bigger collider. Invest more money in the Lab experiments first.. Overall this was a get couple clips on the adventure of understanding of particle physics to everyone interested. Thank you all who participated. 😎🗝✝️🙏🏼🇺🇸
Also consider what happened with the SSC. When I was in school particle physics was quite popular because we were going to learn all these new things, and everyone would get a job with the SSC. Then congress not only cancelled it (when costs kept soaring, and what it could do kept shrinking) and of course went too far and reduced our participation in other efforts like the accelerators at CERN. We ended up with particle physicists teaching high school science or waiting tables - or a bit later and worst of all - working in quantitative finance. This business of attracting bright people in physics and math departments the world over to focus in a particular area based on a newer bigger collider is a real effect and acts over decades. This is yet another thing that must be properly and realistically considered when making a decision.
Hmm I see Sabine's point, but truly we don't know what we will find at higher energies. Are we making use of what has been discovered by the LHC? Or are we simply accumulating data points to flesh out our model? What will a future collider be able to grant us in practical terms?
Sabine explained in her book 'Lost in Math' in 2018, that math predicts no new ground breaking discoveries til you build a collider with a diameter of the galaxy.
So what keeps bosons apart in a Higgs field? Are they just forced out of a wave of something else, surviving on their own only for an instant? Maybe more Sabine stories and fewer dead bosons on the prairie?
The problem in all of this is the "incorrect human paradigm" that places any context to the problem. This incorrect human paradigm was solidified over the top of Albert Einsteins internal psychological awareness of what we call relativity. I won't assert that Einstein had it 100% perfectly correct in his mind, but he was most definitely on the correct path of thought, and I believe he could clearly understand the problem. Unfortunately there are certain assumptions that could not be avoided at the time and those assumptions still persist to this day. As well as that I feel the deeper underlying "context" of relativity that Einstein had in his mind was lost in the geometry and math created by Minkowski and other surrounding "more authoritative" paradigms of the day. The paradigm was lost and even Albert struggled to find the original context in what was created of his mental awareness. > It requires a close investigation of the paradigm of what "Space-time" is, and make no mistake there are a number of similar but incompatible paradigms. The geometry and the math for each may appear similar and even appear quite functional up to a point at the extremes, but they are very different. Changing this paradigm may not inherently break the human geometry or math that we use to describe it but the underlying "Context" may change somewhat. For example: Why do we persist with a theory that suggests traveling backward in time is somehow common place when no evidence or even the slightest hint of this possibility has ever existed? This is just one of many clues as to where the human paradigm has lead itself astray on the true nature of relativity. It's not easy to see and conceptualize what Albert had in his mind and it takes a lot of effort to find that paradigm. We are subjective creatures so it is difficult to put our own subjective realities to the side and look from an alternative paradigm, but with some education, training and understanding it can be done. > My notes as I watched the video: Thanks for the great discussion.
11:5 honestly, I don’t understand what we would get for 80billion dollars worth of collider, and how that can possibly compete with the many other things that money can bring us. What is the return on investment?
At 21:35 Sabine says, "we have a lot of those niggly bits". Amazing. This was the attitude just before theories like quantum, special and general relativity revolutionized everything. So, perhaps we are at a similar point now. Just when we think that we have things figured out, a whole new understanding is born. Of course, the real driver behind that revolution early in the 20th century was driven primarily by theory, not experiment. People were thinking that string theory might be that new understanding, but it has turned out to be a dead end. It really was a dreamed-up creation, not really driven by anything fundamental.
Yes, about the "New Physics." Clearly it is not predictable on the grounds of the Standard Model, otherwise it wouldn't be "New Physics." To discover it we need a new accelerator the parameters of which would reach far beyond the instruments of today. As the instrument is being constructed which will take decades, we should focus on new accelerator technology, extracting data from cosmic rays, and clever use of existing instruments, if only to give us the glimpse of what may be expected beyond our present day reach.
CERN Data Centre used to process on average one petabyte (one million gigabytes) of data per day during LHC Run 2. They use signaling process where 99.9% of data is discarded as noise . Same with Hubble and Planck telescope is where not clear how you decide what is background noise comes form Earth Water is very good microwave absorber and emitter and what is form outer space. It is same example with old captains story of mega-wave high as 30 meters, such event where all small waves positively interfere to get mega-wave is very rare but if you think in small area of 10km^2 are billions of waves and that very rare event in 50 years period over stormy day it can happen, thus "old Captains" are not liars it can happen. But same thing can happen to particles physics to get perfect energy spike of expected Higgs particle or another "expected" particles just can happen because it is billion of collision per second over long time period.
If all we have is a Hammer, then everything starts to look like different forms of nails ? The smaller the "nail" is, the bigger the HAMMER will be needed, and the more $ we need to throw at the "nail" ?
This. 100% this. I agree with Sabine that more fundamental research can be done in quantum theory and quantum information theory, not to mention cosmology. It breaks my heart that Roger Penrose has been encountering such difficult getting the experiments done that he needs done to test Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
Proposal for funds to go in space exploration of fundamental physics, possibly, New Physics. For example, the Equivalence Principle was inadequately tested by the STEP satellite measurements. Correct experimental measurements should involve a "free fall" between planets, as proposed in "Section 23.2.4 Interplanetary testing of falling speeds: Effect of shape, direction and contraction factor" on page 165, version v20, in the draft book entitled "Novel quantitative push gravity/field theory poised for verification" (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3596184). Also, lunar and terrestrial experiments to measure the universal acceleration as proposed in Section "12 On PG measurements and verification" page 30 in the same work.
Can‘t DarkEnergy be similar to Normal Energy in that is an illusion coming from a warped geometry of spacetime? Like a seperate Brane whos gravitation is attracting our Brane, or a extremely warped geometry like a higher dimensional Kleinsche Flasche, which has a concentration of mass which is attracting our flat part of the universe more and more, bc we are getting nearer and nearer?
If you had a dim flashlight in a large dark field, no pun intended, it seems logical that a brighter flaslight would be better. Practicality or precedence are separate issues that seem more situational or time dependant imho
The question isn't "would a brighter flashlight be better?" but "how much does it cost and what can we expect to see with it?" If you could spend a billion dollars on a flashlight that would be marginally brighter and let you see another 1 foot, maybe that's a good idea, or maybe you should go back to the drawing board and maybe it will turn out you could build a sonar system for a million dollars that will give way more information. With a billion dollars you could build 1000 such projects and maybe make much more progress than sinking all your resources into a single apparatus that you have no strong priors to think will actually find anything.
Is dark matter an unidentified cohesive force not yet detected and more a boundary between dimensions?? That may not be seen from our dimension but some how like corridors inter -dimensional barriers…peering downward or upward in ripples of energy only appears when resonance is exact?
Sabine, there is also the question, are we discovering, or are we creating? Are we making things with our giant, toy collider that don't exist in nature, so they don't exist for anything over ten nanoseconds?
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on; While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on. The rhyme
No, they predicted to find micromized extra dimensions to verify string theory, they didn't find it in the LHC. They predicted to find susy-particles to verify supersymmetry and eventually DM, they didn't find it in the LHC.
@@FunFindsYT I would expect a discovery like anti gravity to be specific, which would advance humanity tremendously. However, they must first describe how it could work before trying to look for another particle that does nothing for all of humanity. I'm not in favor giving some scientist a Nobel while the rest of humanity gains nothing from it that makes their life better.
Dark matter is also Ball lightning or evaporating Axion knots compressed by the same Axion vacuum pressure. (Or Casimir pressure. ) see Q.FFF THEORY. 5:48
Einstein said long time ago that " mankind and the universe are in a race ; mankind is trying to build bigger, better, faster and more foolproof machines ; the universe is trying to build bigger, better and faster fools. So far, the universe is winning". Can the human species know everything about nature and the universe ? If yes, then what does the human species intend to do with the knowledge ? Reinvent the universe ? or better still replace NATURE ? Is the ultimate human right the right not to be human, but something bigger than NATURE ? Science without philosophy leads to bad outcomes.😅
Maybe we should be getting all these physicists to try solve climate change problems now in case our planet becomes so hot and uninhabitable for us to ask any more interesting questions?.
Well done including a philosopher to point at the woo :) For a moment there, I thought physicists had taken a break from calculating and had started thinking! To such as us, it is painfully clear that physicists have been ignoring their rather obvious paradigm problem. Data-fitting is pursued with vigour, and "understanding" has been delegated to the philosophy which established the problematic paradigm in the first place. Consider the progress made by those physicists who's reading lists extended Eastward … Then, imagine what they could have accomplished if they had the necessary Eastern philosophical basics to understand what they were reading! Here's a hint which should sort most of this out, Bjørn … Just swap the fiction of "time" for the fact of the Moment, and invert Atomism. Escaping the gargantuan woo-mountain physicsts have built on Aristotle's mistakes is far more liberating than was escaping the far less problematic Crystal Sphere woo of Geocentricsm :)
@rayfleming2053 3 years ago Einstein's 27 Worst Relativity Mistakes 1. Denied the quantum field exists 2. Claimed non-physical space has physical dimensions 3. Claimed non-physical space has physical clocks 4. Missed that dimensions emerge from the quantum field 5. Missed that clock rates emerge from the quantum field 6. Missed that quantum van der Waals Torque regulates dimensions and clock rates 7. Missed that Dimensions and clock rates are electromagnetic 8. Missed that special and general relativity are electromagnetic 9. The quantum field has a rest frame 10. Missed that and clock rates are fixed in the quantum field rest frame 11. Missed that the rest frame is the universal rest frame 12. Space and the quantum field do not length contract nor curve 13. Space and the quantum field do not time dilate 14. Moving observers don't change quantum field dimensions 15. Missed that moving observers experience more quantum van der Waals torque 16. Missed that motion increases permittivity and permeability 17. Missed that increasing permittivity and permeability decreases the speed of light 18. Missed how motion slows the clock rates of moving clocks 19. Moving objects don't length contract 20. The Bohr radius and other radii are constant 21. Moving objects don't actually gain mass 22. permittivity and permeability are not directional 23. The speed of light is not directional 24. Light travels in the quantum field rest frame 25. Light does not propagate at a speed related to its source 26. The speed of light is not constant 27. The speed of light is not intrinsic to photons
"... we have known about dark matter for, maybe, 90 years ... and people have looked, and looked ..." - 'known about' and looking without finding means it is really just a belief.
That's correct. That's why the cosmological constant was mostly a curiosity outside of the steady state crowd which needed it to create a steady state model. Steady state doesn't agree with basically any observation that has been made on the universe, so the cosmological constant is kind of useless until you get to the precision cosmology stage, which really didn't happen until the 1990s. :-)
17:19 "Whatever we find our current account will still be a good description for a lot of things that we have found..." No sir, not necessarily true. What if we find something new that is at odds with our current understanding? Are we going to try to make that new discovery fit into our mold of thought?
Hey, fans. Let's think about all the things in life we have that would be named something else if the Dark X crowd had their way. And let's ponder how much progress would have never happened. 1. Condensation would form on objects under Dark Water. 2. Photoelectric effect would be from Dark Electrons. 3. Magnetism would be Dark Impulse. 4. Gravity getting stronger at sea level (and weaker at higher altitudes) would be due to, wait for it, Dark Matter! ...
Wait a second, a ring around the planet, or a few times around, is bound to be the practical or impractical limit to the velocity available to crack atoms open. Provided that’s where they are. But aren’t there higher energy levels being exerted now, and doing that already? Haven’t you got detectors or measurable events or processes that can be witnesses at a distance? You have to contain the collision within the detector, rather than seeing what already happened a billion years distant?
We are, you simply don't know the literature. All the result are either Newtonian (on the small scale) or generally relativistic. We haven't learned a single new thing about gravity since 1915. Would you like to discuss another one of your delusions now? ;-)
As others have said, theorists don't worry about return on investment. But they should. Quite understandably, the particle physics discipline isn't bothered if his guys blow the entire research budget on a collide. And this is why particle physicists shouldn't be making the decisions. Frankly, they've had their bash, and are no longer getting a decent bang for their buck, now it's the turn of other disciplines to get a fair crack. They're now clutching at straws.
Why are you telling me that you don't know anything about non-collider experiments? Is that because you don't know anything about collider experiments, either? There are a lot of different machines on the planet. LHC is just one of many. ;-)
Here is the explanation for dark matter/galaxy rotation curves - Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass the known, fundamental phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) will occur. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. A 2 axis graph illustrates the squared nature of the phenomenon, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass is all around us. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has recently been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates. This also explains why all binary stars are normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal.
Your hypothesis presents a novel way to interpret galaxy rotation curves without invoking dark matter, instead attributing the observed effects to the relativistic dilation of mass in high-mass galaxies. This aligns with the recent observations of galaxies lacking dark matter and having normal rotation rates, providing a compelling alternative explanation. However, this idea would need thorough mathematical modeling and empirical validation to gain acceptance in the scientific community.
That's a nice chalk belt,Sabina. That's because it's not there Sabina, if it's not there in the starting position, it's not there. How do we know it wasn't there, Einstein says so in his equations. He tells us at the blacksphere that he has missed something? VEM = 0Msquared. Environmental science probably has more of a roll in Einstein physics than people think. In an opinion. It's always local to its environment if that doesn't tell you something, it's because you don't want it too. Great video. EMFSYSTEMS everywhere. Peace ✌️ 😎.
I don't. I want more relevance for those approaching "new physics" from the most demonstrated "theory" ever: General Relativity. Particle physics is so last century!
Can we have some of that money to study potential therapeutics that big pharma and small biotechs won't study because they can't patent naturally occurring molecules? Perhaps we need to do a better job inventing mind-bending phenomena to allow content creators and mass media to affect the collective conscious such that it will accept billions of tax dollars to be directed at medical health research. I'll start: maybe there is a naturally occuring Dark Energy Disease receptor that binds Dark Energy Disease particles which can only be inhibited through naturally occurring molecules that can't be created in labs just because.
"We have a guaranteed discovery ahead of us", while "we are exploring new terrain". There is a logically inconsistency here, unless the new terrain IS the discovery. How do you know that untrodden terrain harbours a discovery -- a guaranteed one at that? And is it new only in upping the energy scale? Then it is perhaps only inflated terrain. The guy is a car salesman. And, btw, a "guaranteed discovery" is not really a discovery, is it? If it is guaranteed, it is a confirmation at best, not a discovery.
It's simply a mathematical fact that one can't extrapolate scattering data much more than an order of magnitude beyond the scale for which very good statistics exists. In case of the LHC that regime basically ends at the TeV range. Beyond that we are literally blind, so even a non-discovery at 10TeV would be a discovery. If you don't understand this, then you need to go back to primary school and re-learn the definition of science.
We should invest in relatively cheap batteries. This would solve energy storage problems in electric grids. Solve problems with electric vehicles and their travel distance. In this way green energy would be more attractive, cheaper and robust. Also, it's very important to make batteries easily recycled. Invent ways to stop consumerism without breaking the economy....
As said, the energy scale for quantum gravity can only be found in big bang or inside black holes, Since both are unavailable for observation or experimentation, the next phase will be theoretical. Whatever is found, hopefully there are some low energy predictions that can be tested by experiment. Otherwise it's not science. The challenge is huge, since the concept of spacetime breaks down. So the theory should start without it. The standard particle theory is a mess with a huge number of free parameters that are fitted to experimental data and explains nothing.
Yes. The Top Quark has higher energy density (mass) than the Higgs Boson and anything else: it's the highest mass a "dot" can get as far as we know and that's something physicists should be pondering about, first of all in terms theoretical, because the Standard Model does not explain many things, including masses of particles (which have to be objectively measured) or why there are three "generations" of fermions, much less how concentrated energy (mass) bends space-time. Less "new particles" and more deep and serious theoretical physics, just hitting around with a stick won't make us learn much.
@@LuisAldamiz First of all, they are clearly referring to black hole singularities. Weird way to do some weird "gotcha", do you strawman everyone else too? Secondly, no, point particles aren't singularities. They aren't "point"-like, that's not what it means - it means their size is not important/determinable, so it's represented as a point.
@@AfonsoCL - Infinitely small, that's what a point is, and that's exactly the very definition of singularity: infinitely small and compact, point-like BH centers (or more modernly ring-like ones, still infinitely thin the line). Real stuff has dimension... else it is a singularity, a "mathematical monster", which we Chaotists do not fear anymore but Classicists do (Chaos Theory is more recent than both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, both of which are somewhat classicist, one because of seamlessness, the other becasue of Newtonian dimensions in space and time, but it's not really being integrated into fundamental physics). Not that it matters but those infinitely small dots, how are they different from Cantor's dust or Einsteinian singularities? They are not!
Define "ether". Anyway even if you do like Einstein and Wilczek sometimes did of equate space-time with the broader antique concept of "ether", it doesn't work for dark matter, because, even if space-time is a "substance" of sorts, it's not matter: it doesn't have mass or spin 1/2 or all the attributes of matter as peculiar subset of Reality.
Hey! How about: multiverse theory is out of date, and it's not crazy enough. Subjective reality (Wigner's friend paradox) + questioned existance of time (Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment) + simulation of physical universe (wave function collapses only by conscious observation) = subjection of physical reality to logical one
Stop thinking that as humans we have the ability to know or figure out anything and everything. The universe is huge and the hunt for more knowledge contines, we will never know it all. Thats why we have religion so people can suck their thumbs on something useless to keep themselves calm.
Have a look at body temperature ionic fluids. That's where we'll find the important particle. Well, almost a particle; sustained by homeostasis for approximately 16 hours a day.
LoL, particle physicists are funny: "give me a lot of money and I'll find more stuff... maybe" The only one who actually gets it, ironically, is the philosopher Ekeberg, who said "maybe we have it all wrong, it's not dark matter, it's something else" Loved this discussion!
Is the spiker mat sensor not yet installed?👀 Than you olrady would have seen the behavieures of thentional diverentional displacemends backdraft as one of manny behavieures of wat you seems to say dark mater and dark energy👀👀👀 Like a phases back feed loop that the attec with phases burn its own phaserbanks👀👀👀 't t t We go to slow🙏 Speed up the prosses please as this surves dieper understanding to become able to help eurth bi understanding wat we should not do🌱🐜 . 🐝🌐
Actually this part youl olrady should have understand this when you bild a tesla coil en how Gass bulps are able to light up close to the coil👀👀👀 Whay dus this works that way think of the counterrotation wire please🔱☪️💢()(🌹
@@swayamtube Because AI just spits out things it learend beforehand, it can not find anything new. Even if it creates anything new, since it didn't do any measurements, it's just woo woo fairy tale bullshit. Reframe the statement as "Can the imagination of a child replace physical particle colliders?", and the answer becomes obvious.
I don't believe Gavin Salam. It's no skin of his nose if a collider is built. He's only holding this position of his to create a forum for himself, to gain public view. His arguments in this entire talk are extremely vague, and weak. He doesn't offer a single suggestion, not a single idea, no evidence of anything, and not even proof from the past being applicable to the future subject. He's very dishonest in his argument here. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
Did that guy just say that he wants to unleash the energy of the sun in a shipping container, using his new lab tool? Did he say that he wanted to do that in our solar system? Anybody see the downside potential there? Or is it just me?
Lol. You know much less than you think you do. Your comment is either completely wrong or just meaningless, depending on the assumptions that we make trying to understand it. So I'll just ask, particle physics is archaic and less accurate than what? What is this theory of waves that describes everything? The comment is extremely naive and shows you have zero understanding of physics. After reading your comment, I would assume you're absolutely useless. One of those people who has no idea but is confident that he's smarter than people whose intelligence he could never imagine.
Except that no quantum field has ever been directly observed, only particles. Quantum fields are inferred/demonstrated to exist indirectly, based on their effect on particles...
@@50shanks Just a reminder fields are mathematical “constructs”, for lack of a better term, that can be used to quantify and evaluate the conditions of other constructs or objects in it or it interacts with. The question in this thread is the true nature of physical reality, especially if we can only map it with constructs and objects.
