Johnny, this is about physics, not about metaphysics. It is not about making gold out of lead, and it is not about conjuring magnetism into counterspace.
🔷 The Conglomerate of Universes - Universe Creation Theory 🔷 combining GOD/Nature, ancient religions, astronomy, cosmology, fined-tuned laws of physics/general relativity/quantum mechanics, chaos theory/fractals, laws of biology & chemistry, linguistics/code-breaking, programming the Universe/GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 theory, intelligent design, mysticism, and philosophy/anthropic principle "Energy can’t be created or destroyed, only transformed/transferred in an isolated system." General relativity's black holes, white holes, Big Bang and wormholes. ‘The BIG Bang-Bit Bang’ inflation/expansion of energy₇₄ and information into the void 13.8 billion years ago was a supermassive white hole spawned by a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy in our ‘parent₇₄ universe’. This duality combines general relativity’s singularities of infinite density breaking through spacetime in ‘Cosmic Egg hatchings’ of all created universes within ‘The Conglomerate’: multiverse with no random quantum fluctuation bubble universes, no parallel worlds, and no universes with different physical laws. Our Universe is 1-in-2 trillion ‘self-similar offspring’ each with the same inherited ‘DNA’. “In the beginning”, the Planck density of the core of a SBH is a birth canal. ‘Quantum bounce SBH-SWH seed transitions’ are ‘quantum tunneling umbilical wormholes’ with energy-matter and data transformed/transferred, albeit scrambled and encoded. The ubiquitous cause-and-effect ‘circle of life cycle’: birth-life-death-transformation-rebirth explains infinite space and eternity - a necessity. Reproduction is GOD/Nature’s plan for greatly spreading life from cells to universes. GOD=7_4 or FOD=6_4 is the #1 program₇₄/law/initial₇₄ condition (Seal #2). Why does this Universe exist? It’s our playground (god + run = ground₆₄). - Seal #1a of the 7seals.blogspot.com . Only the returned Christ & Albert Einstein reincarnated could produce this - it's triggered The Apocalypse/ Revelation which is NOT the 'end of the world'. COVID-19 is part of Seal #4: S=19 (18.6) Theory.
I'm a layperson. I found Dr Carroll's recommendation/insistence on viewing the quantum world as fields rather than as particles (apologies to the physicists who are offended by this inept phrasing) to be very helpful in trying to understand this topic.
Dear Fermilab =) I would like to say, thank you, for taking the time and effort to both upload and share this video with the youtube family =). I hope you have a nice day, Fermilab =). Kind Regards Raymond Lai (Member of the Physics Family)
Even if there were no charged particles, there can be electric fields. If there were no moving charges there still can be magnetic fields, similarly if you remove the planets you will still have gravitational field, IS NOT TRUE, not observable and not verifiable. Sorry Sean Carroll, you are not paid enough to answer such questions, as you admitted, but you were paid enough not to misinform the public. Schwartzchild assumed g=0 while proving/solving the equations of GR.
Great upload! I am so impressed with Sean Carroll. His talks always have a good pace and he delivers concepts in a direct and understandable way. I love his sense of humor too.
@@sislertx To a physicist, explaining magnets mean saying it's a magnetic field and that you can calculate it. To most other people, an explanation is more than that.
Sean Carroll has got to be the best physics-for-the-non-physicist guy out there today. Einstein said to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler, and it's unfortunate that Michio Kaku, Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc seem to have missed the second half of that.
@@iqtime1400 Space-Time. If you want to go further: special relativity is a good place to look for time\length explanations. If you want gravity: General Relativity is what you should look for. That's a tough subject. But some youtube vids give a bit of an idea. If a deeper understanding is what you're after you will need calculus (differential equations) and a very good understanding of "tensors" and vectors. It's a process. There is no easy shortcut for GR. (I shouldn't even attempt it, but: gravity is a distortion or curve in otherwise flat space. This curve is generated by matter (or mass). Once space has a curve, the stuff in space follows that curved shape. It feels like acceleration. That acceleration-like thing is gravity. If you were driving your car in a straight line you would feel nothing. But turn the wheel and make a curve: you feel a force. Now lets say that curve is actually a straight line, and it is space itself that's curved. You would feel a force no matter what path you tried to take. This is sort of what gravity is. And matter puts the curve in space. Everything is trying to follow a straight line, but all straight lines drawn on a curved surface are curves themselves. So that's your 'gravity'. The more matter, the tighter the curve gets. The tighter the curve, the more gravity force you feel. Even if you are not moving, but you are in curved space. ....Well that's idea in a paragraph anyhow. It really needs some time and effort to appreciate. So check out some vids and go for it.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 So....Mass tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells mass how to move. Got it! I don't need no differential stuff.🤦♂️
Dear Dr. Carroll: Thank you. Your presentation was wonderful and it left me with the perception that I now have a better personal understanding of some of the most important concepts of physics. Again, thank you.
Best science communicator I've found to this day. I feel much, much, much more deeply educated after listening to him explain a topic than others I've ever heard. He has a very unique talent for simplifying topics to the level of the layman without "dumbing down" the science - or more specifically, he can simplify a topic without doing so in a way that sacrifices scientific accuracy and rigor in order to make it fit the audience's prejudices and past mis-education. Or, maybe I should say he clears up misconceptions as he speaks while others I listen to try to just pass over the misconceptions so they can put it on our "level." Sean instead raises consciousness and understanding so we can be properly educated.
I think of it as science literacy. He is communicating the basic concepts in terms that a journalist or doctor, a non-physicist, can understand and at least appreciate what the underlying concepts are. He likely doesn't know much about the gall bladder, but somewhere he took a biology course so he is scientifically literate about the fact that it produces bile, or whatever. What's that mean? He doesn't care, that's a doctor's job.
Sean, I appreciate your unique style of explaining difficult and complex ideas of physics to non-experts. You also get a lot of laughs out of me, which is no mean feat! Thanks for sharing your understanding and insights! Mark Koontz
I will apply sunscreen on Monday if I am still interested to be in your position with with me and my wife in case you need need to contact her or my lawyer at any given date and time ⌚ and if there are no issues or issues that are available at this is the only issue in my resume attached below please let
It is amazing that the volume of space of magnetic materials that used to control only a single muon can be used nowadays to store many muons via the accurate placement and displacement of magnetic procedural circuits.
Sean Carroll is a national treasure. He is a great teacher and a great mind all in one. What he says about patience and physicists is true, but he seems to have found a pragmatic loophole through which he can communicate effectively. In earnestness there are clues that exist through human pathos, though not all that is science, it often provides more information than the fundamentality of boilerplate. Thanks for this.
It really turned out sad didn't it Sean? Four years later and we haven't found a SINGLE!! super symmetric particle at the LHC. Makes me want to pull my hair out!!
Thank you very much, at least i can see Quantum physics beyond some kind of obscure and weird level of existence. And i really like the description, very elegant and de"light"ful indeed.
I think this is Sean's best talk. I've never heard Quantum Field Theory explained so well. It's these sort of higher-level talks for the everyday physicists that I believe will lead to unified theory of all dimensions & forces.
Great lecture, Thank You Sean Carroll. I just watched this for the first time roughly nine years later 11/05/2022 . I have a question: Is there a reference system within an individual quantum field or is one created when two or more quantum fields interact?
I was educated a political scientist. Math eludes me COMPLETELY. All my life, I was interested in physics. This video is a great introduction into particle physics. It opened a new world for me.Math still eludes me, but I read and watch everything there is about the fundamental things of nature. And I am getting it to some degree. That makes me see the world (universe) with completely other eyes. I am a richter mind than before.
David Tongs explanation was also excellent. I've watched that one a half dozen times and learn something new each time. I have high hopes for this one too
A particle accelerator visible from an aircraft would not have the required James Bond Evil Genius quality required at CERN. A hollow volcano would have been perfect, but volcanos are in short supply in Europe, except in Italy, but Italy was ruled out as neutrinos travel faster than light down there.
Sean,Imagine a Probability Density FOURIER pulse to be stroboscopic, whose time between collapses is constant and the pulse existential time a function of energy. All fields coexist in the totality of space, and could vibrate, given a characteristic range of each field, in the presence of a given quantum levels of energy, that generates the pulse that characterizes the particles we detect during collision. The Probability Fourier Pulse concept is the same mathematically as that for generating standing pulses for string instruments. The displacement of the pulse is not continuous given that, a collapse is required before it resurges at a given infinitesimal distance. Please notice that this model is consistent with” time dilation” at significant levels of velocity or when it is stationary at a significant gravitational pull
A lot has changed since I graduated from high school in 1972 and college in 1976. The only hint of anything beyond the basic proton/neutron/electron was a curious movie (by Disney, I think) called *"The Strange Case of the Cosmic Ray".* I think it mentioned something called a *"mu meson".*
Anastasis Zampas ......and fast, he is quick on his feet, never has to say, "Uh...uh..." wish I had such a friend. No one around here thinks like this. Nothing interesting to discuss.
A system of fields interlinked within Fields interlinked with fields interlinked Within one universe. And dreadfully distinct... Fields. The wonderful communicators of action(and presence). I apologize for stealing from Nabokov...and a movie. Excellent video.
1:13:00 the early universe had low entropy because black holes have low entropy. A black hole is a pocket universe. Gravity, the curvature of space time, is concentric (it is the pulling of space time) when looked from outside of the black hole. Like that ">" But from the point of view of the singularity, space is expanding. Outside gravity appears as expansion, as dark energy. Let me know if you can see what i mean. Thank you
@@crewrangergaming9582 hey! The "Guy" you speak of is pretty god damn dope too. He helps to get the masses interested in and care about science and our world. We need more people like him. There is an astro physicist named Becky you might like. She is really sweet and talks about...ya know... stars and stuff.
This is fascinating and terrifying all at the same time. Fascinating because science that isn't fully understood is always fun. Terrifying because it challenges everything you claim to know about reality.
Bill Schlafly, that is why it is best not to make such claims. If having a belief about reality causes distress when it is challenged, then it is probably not a good belief. My understanding of science is that there are models to use to make predictions and explanations. If a better model comes along, use that one instead.
No mention of particles entanglement, or did I miss something ?Implications for nonlocality in time and space are interesting, I'd like to hear some explanation of this...
dropped out of school when I was 15.. 19 years later I find myself obsessed by particle physics...its my dream to be a physicist...but it's too late now😟
Professionally, maybe, but you can still learn yourself some physics. The Theoretical Minimum is a good place to start, then you can learn the more advanced stuff with Goldstein (Classical mechanics), Griffiths then Schwartz (electromagnetism/electrodynamics), Ballentine(book) & Frederic Schuller(lectures) (Quantum mechanics), Sean Caroll & The Heraeus Winter School for Gravity and Light w/ Frederic Schuller (General Relativity), etc. For the maths, ocw.mit.edu should do the trick (linear algebra; calculus, single- & multi-variable, differential equations, etc.), and Khan Academy is great if you need to brush up on the basics. Once that's done, you can get to QFT and particle physics. Not an easy ride but, if you're really interested, the Internet has made learning that stuff easier than ever before, especially considering that you have access to lectures from real universities. ;-) Also, you can get degrees from websites such as EdX and Coursera. Depending on where you live, they may be recognized, so if you really want it, the door is still open.
+Jessy Pelletier-Lemire thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply..its very useful information and it will be utilised...thanks again and have a great day!
Outstanding presentation. I now understand the confusion between thinking of matter as particles rather than waves. I'm still a bit confused about why the waves appear as particles once they are observed/ recorded.
How do we really know there are distinct fields as opposed to just one field whereby the multiple fields perspective interactions (or lack thereof) are some sort of additive/subtractive synthesis of the singular underlying field of reality?
Hi sir although I'm not an expert in the subject, but is it possible to see mass of any particle/object as the energy spike in the fabric/field of space time, as we do for the other particals such as higgs boson in the higgs field.
Could someone tell me if dark matter is absorbed into black holes? Or does it just pass straight though? I think it adds mass because it interacts gravitationally. Am I wrong? let me know :)
Brilliantly insightful and witty. I love the answer about Quantum Field Theory not catching the public imagination: "things that are correct are kinda boring...."
I understand (sort of) how fuzzy waves in fundamental fields can produce a discreet (at our scale) Toyota. But how do they produce such a nicely spherical, discreet electron?
Dr.C. is are able to make a delight of your ignorance, and to have you enjoy even the bits that you don't understand, to bring genuine intellectual curiosity, joy of exploring the unknown, to lead you up to previously opaque windows and let you see through them with almost naïve wonder, as a child who is exploring a field of snow for the first time. Truly, one of the best teachers in any universe ever. ❤️⚡✨😈👍🌎☀️🌌😃👍✨⚡💢❗🔺🔺🔺❓❗
please find the origin of this joke and do anything in your power to eradicate all traces of it. Please send me your banking information so I can send money. Take this money and pay anyone who has heard that joke to never speak of it again.
My time theory of matter is an attempt at a deeper description of nature by thinking of an elementary particle not as a little point or a little loop of vibrating string but as a moment in time fluctuating at its ultimate extreme levels. Khalid Masood
At 38:51 -- most important and illustrated with fun examples, look here (quote): If the electrons were massless it would not ever stick to a nucleus; if the electrons were massless there would be no such thing as molecules, or chemistry, or life, the world with massless electrons would be a very very boring place indeed, there would be no Fermilab, no public lectures, nothing like that. He has humor! This is such a great way to explain the hierarchy of basic ontology (existence).
If we could reduce the energy in the Higgs field, couldn't we technically reduce the strength of mass? Regarding the graph, it was mentioned that we could increase the energy to reduce mass, but that would require adding energy. Why not try to reduce the energy?
The text on the slide in the thumbnail should be the first thing taught and be regularly reminded in the field of quantum physics, the phenomena of particles must always be considered within context and treated only as a pin point, time stamped, localised volume of a greater system of waves and fields. It seems this is sometimes forgotten when discussing 'particles'. Anyone with better knowledge on the subject please correct me if I am wrong.
@@schmetterling4477 how would you explain particles, would you describe them as absolute definite objects? I fail to understand their specific definitive nature. I have been lead to consider that what we observe as a particle is only an emergent phenomena of energetic interactions of waves and fields. So when observed under strict conditions and particularly short time frames that specific 'chunk' of space time could show distinct characteristics that it is treated as a separate entity to the rest of the picture, but I don't believe that it is. So particles, in your opinion, are indeed objective individual chunks of mass that due to their relatively low gravitational influence act in the unusual ways that they do, particularly at the 'quantum scale' and derive their properties and effects on other particles not from any external substrate or any kind of field but entirely from their own inherent properties. Not being manifestations of energy or wave interactions of any kind?
@@schmetterling4477 thanks for the effort taken to explain, I think I was a little less wrong than you initially stated as after reading your explanation I think I had a fairly good grasp on what you outlined. I clearly didn't explain it as accurately as you though, can you tell I'm not a physicist haha. But I guess you get the point I was trying to make about particles not being what a lot of people think they are, as you said, object they are not. It seems that this is a bit of a stumbling block in a lot of physics... But if a particle is a measurement of energy, it still is only that specific particle when measured at that exact time and place and isn't necessarily fundamental in any way as the particles themselves are only emergent phenomena of wave and field interactions. Does that sound about right? You sound like you know your stuff. If so, as far as I can tell, the question now is what exactly is the substrate that the fields and waves act in or on? Am I barking up the wrong aether tree? I know that's an outdated term, but isn't it just a general term for all the fields that act on eachother to create particles?
Cox and Krauss have their own unique charisma, and are entertaining. Carroll gives the straight dope, and is clear: easy to understand without a lot of dumbing down. High-level educator, not just a communicator.
Shirley Mason, sure, but I don't let minor details of rhetorical style like that get in the way of learning. I don't mind that Krauss insults (the targets of said insults are certainly deserving), but I think he pauses and laughs at his own jokes too much, and ends up stammering. If you can get past that, he does share very enlightening information.
True. I've tried and tried but I cannot get into Lawrence k. Cox's talks do generally keep it pretty simple, but he delivers with such a sense of great wonder they us very contagious. Brian seems such a good spirited human as well.
@@shirleymason7697 - Spot on and such a trait is never attractive under. I do enjoy Sean Carroll's physics talks The other communicator who I really like to listen to is Prof. Al-Khalili.
The picture of supposedly Democritus actually is a self portrait by the young Rembrandt impersonating as Democritus. Oops reacted to early. He does mention Rembrandt.
