It's been 2 years since your last video apparently so here's a like and comment to encourage you to make more

@adamw.7242

7 ай бұрын

Yes! Please post more videos :)

Very nice video, and you've a new subscriber. Only one comment: lattice QCD isn't just very difficult maths that will let you calculate a value, it's a stochastic approach that does use QCD maths and experimental values, but it's nowhere near a closed form calculation. It uses stochastic (random) simulations. That's one of the problems with QCD maths. There's just no way to directly calculate anything given foreseeable hardware. Thus, each calculation method (each attempt at simplifying enough to make calculation feasible) is necessarily going to be different. QED + perturbation theory makes QED things ridiculously straightforward to calculate compared to QCD, in which a similar approach just can't be used.

One of my favourite science communicators when it comes to physics

@harryvcliff

7 ай бұрын

Thanks! That’s kind of you to say

Great video I was also very impressed by the number of buses that went by.

My favorite physicist hands down. Now if I could just get him to autograph my copy of his book.

@harryvcliff

8 ай бұрын

Thanks! That’s really kind of you. Would be glad sign your book if you ever make it to one of my in person talks in London/Cambridge

@thejorgelopez9135

7 ай бұрын

@@harryvcliff Don’t mind if I do. I need a vacation anyways.

MAN you've got the most critics concentrated in the least number of comments I've ever seen! Im pretty sure it's approaching some critical threshold, but I enjoy what you're saying and i appreciate the work that's being done!

Amazing talent as a video presenter. Flawless delivery, great explanations of difficult subject matter.

Great video Harry. Not heard the phrase "quantum forth" before, hilarious. I don't know how normal non-sciencey layman people like me aren't more enchanted by science, and great orators like you. I could listen to you talk daily for the rest of my life, I really appreciate the insight you give me into the universe. I would love to hear more in the future about the plan on how we reconcile Lattice and Electron Positron work.

@harryvcliff

8 ай бұрын

Thank you! Really glad you found the video interesting. Hopefully there will be more news on this story soon.

@aleksanderh.5407

7 ай бұрын

It's only laymen /nonscience people who believe in "quantum froth" just like they believe in gods or other metaphysical ideas of pure esoterica.

@aleksanderh.5407

7 ай бұрын

@@harryvcliff You start out pretty well by admitting that muons are very heavy electrons, but then somehow end up throwing out a whole lot of pretty religious ideas that contradicts 126 years of lab evidence on particles. How is a "heavy electron" a virtual concept of no volume or inertial energy? How do you *scientifically* prove a "quantum froth" as a mysterious part of space NOT being physical localities....? 😅 Don't confuse theosophical hippie thoughts and abstracted equations with science ! You are using an example of two magnets where you can see the magnetic field borders (with the right equipment) and feel the repulsion or attraction easily, as an invisible force at play. Well : Every engineer and actual scientist on magnets know that this field of force consist of electron dynamics/electron interactions. Where do you go from that to saying that it must be a mysterious froth of the void? Do you realize how fundamentally anti-science such esoterical ideas are?

@comment8767

7 ай бұрын

I though it was "quantum froth".

@76rjackson

7 ай бұрын

​@@comment8767Schrodinger's cat pawed the keyboard. Pesky kitty.

They just calculated the prediction wrong. They'll cancel a few different infinities and magically the new calculation will match the experiment.

@isbestlizard

8 ай бұрын

Yep, knew it! They always do this. What use is a theory, if nobody can EVER calculate anything correctly using it, and whenever they discover their calculations don't match experiment, they can suddenly 'fix' the calculation?

@Ni999

7 ай бұрын

​@@isbestlizardThey've spent years working on the correct calculation. The disagreement is precisely why the experiment was upgraded and repeated - to make sure that the work was warranted. What good is a theory? It's not dogma, that's what's good about it. The measurement data aren't being swept under the carpet, our explanation is required to change instead. No one has ever proven that this has been calculated this correctly. Meanwhile, go ahead and use your computer to complain about it and just ignore that it exists because of the parts of the quantum field theory that we do understand. Add in medical imaging and about a hundred other things that were unheard of a century ago, and gosh yes, you're absolutely correct. They're all stupid and dishonest - and you're not projecting or anything. Please have children and raise them to think like you. We're going to need someone to bitch about the work going after future breakthroughs long after you're gone.

@genessab

7 ай бұрын

What’s funny is, there is no actual theoretical prediction for the HVP contribution to a_mu. QCD is inherently non-perturbative and so the only way you can grasp at interesting quantities like this are through the lattice or through experiment.

@FunkyDexter

7 ай бұрын

​@@Ni999 "Medical imaging and hundreds other things" are certainly NOT the result of QCD or QFT calculations...That is plain old quantum mechanics. Even quantum computers don't use QFT. The standard model is notorious for not having produced a single piece of technological advancement, aside the engineering innovation in colliders it required to be studied. Do you realize how many free parameters the standard model has? At best, the theory is an enormous exercise of data fitting.

@Ni999

7 ай бұрын

@@FunkyDexter You have no idea what you are talking about. None.

Excellent video clearly explained. Please post more. Subbed.

@harryvcliff

7 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Brilliant as always, Harry.

@harryvcliff

8 ай бұрын

Many thanks!

This is an extremely well explained video for an interested lay person such as myself.

Great video, and a really good presenting style. Big ups

@harryvcliff

8 ай бұрын

Much appreciated!

@johnclapperton8211

7 ай бұрын

...and glory be, no music! Subscribed

Wow! Nice throw down. U make it easy to follow. Well done. The excitement is yet to come. U guys are gonna luv it. Consciousness 🙃😉

Exceptionally good explanation, thank you very much. I learnt more from this short exposé than from all the (often sensationalist) articles I read about these experiments. One other thought I had while listening to your discussion relates to the relationship between theory and experiment in science. Richard Feynman described this relationship in one of his early lectures by saying something like “it’s irrelevant how beautiful your theory is, if it does not accord with experiment, it’s wrong”. And that makes a lot of sense. But your explanation shows that the relationship is far more subtle - if theory and experiment are in disagreement, it may show that the experiment is not sufficiently well designed. Or - worse - when it IS sufficiently well designed, as in the case of the muon experiment, a disagreement between theory and experiment may highlight a deficient interpretation of the theory, rather than demonstrate that the overall theory is incorrect, or incomplete. So I am left in a bit of a quandary now. You said that the results of the ‘two theories’ need to be identical before we can conclude that the experimental data highlighted the incompleteness of the standard model. But is this really the case? Is it not also conceivable that one way to calculate the prediction can be shown to be deficient, to be ‘not as good’ as the other method? Perhaps if lattice QCD can be shown as the more appropriate way to calculate the prediction, the 5 SD gap to experiment can be restored by making the experimental readings more precise? It seems that the basic Popperian dictum of falsifiability is increasingly difficult to bring about in reality. As we progress in our understanding of nature, the battle to find ‘truths’ in the overall puzzle is becoming increasingly more difficult, and the tactics and strategies involved ever more subtle. Thanks for the interesting chat! Will certainly check out your book.

@therealpbristow

7 ай бұрын

I think "making the experimental readings more precise" can narrow the error bars on each method, but actually shifting one set of bars to overlap the other requires an "aha, *that's* what we were doing wrong!" moment in either the theoretical or experimental camps (or maybe even in both!)

It was a great video. I love hearing good explanations from people that actually know the science. I missed how big the difference is between the values in percent. I think you are only expressing the difference in terms of an estimated uncertainty. Nice to get a little bit of an insight into what you are doing to analyze experiments. I am a physicist myself in the field of fusion, working with tokamaks. It feels like engineering instead of science.

@KibyNykraft

7 ай бұрын

Haha. The video starts out seemingly science-oriented but then wanes into some really abs..rd, r..ligious types of rhetorics during the clip. The first part totally contradicts the last part. If you have evidence of electrons and muons and largely their energy states ,which there is zero doubt about in science, you can't just afterwards throw out that they are "virtual" pseudoparticles" ,and that a magnetic field operating is a mystical "froth" of empty darkness itself...(!) Loads of laboratory experiments and engineering proved very well that a magnetic force field is consisting of electron mechanics. Why are all these halfbaked wannabe-scholars on the internet mass producing all this anti-scientifiic concepts and f*ke news like this? It's not only immoral and disrespectful to over 100 years of particle research. It must have some kind of consp..racy- theoretical / neo-platonic disinf..rmation motive to it.

Thanks for this. Wonderfully clear explanation.

@harryvcliff

7 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

Brilliant explanation of this fascinating challenge to the standard model.

@imnewtothistuff

8 ай бұрын

Particle physics IS, the standard model you clown.

Your explanation of fields and what’s new with Muon is superb 🤌 please keep making informative videos like this🙏

@harryvcliff

7 ай бұрын

Thank you, I will

First time ever that a physicist states clearly the the universe is made of fields not of particles. People are still arguing on the double nature of electrons and photons, when an electron (or a photon) is a wave and when it is a particle, with a majority of students unable to "unlearn" some erroneous concepts they were previously tought. Thank you for the explanation of the new measurement regarding the magnetism of muons. Muons have already fascinated me, i was thinking about a lump of "muonic matter" which - for one millionth of a second - had a density 200 times that "electron matter". Regards Anthony

@SLYdevil

7 ай бұрын

Well, when you look down at the base level, yes - of course everything is going to be a wave of probability, we now know. But that's everything. Things are still particals. Particle theory work is standing up to all the quantum dumbing down of sciences & the sort of 'comments' this brings.

Excellent clarification...

@harryvcliff

7 ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

Dear Mr Cliff, welcome back to KZread. Hope to see more videos soon 😅

@harryvcliff

8 ай бұрын

Thanks! Am trying a more rough and ready approach so I can post more frequently. Will do by best 😅

Fantastically explained. Regards from Kolkata, India P.S : What LatticeQCD Theory predicted about other fundamental particles and are there any Sigma Variations?

Such a great chan, just discovered you, subbed

what a brilliant name for a fizzies book I think i will buy it because if you can come up with something so clever the rest of the book should be amazing.

@harryvcliff

8 ай бұрын

Thanks! I hope you enjoy it

Hi! Any thoughts if the attosecond physics in anyway will help with the muon problem? Any chance of ur video on that? ...and it is my second subscription to ur channel from another account)) a loyal viewer))

I knew that the standard model was a quantum theory. What I didn't expect was for the standard model itself to be in quantum superposition.

Good for you for making an American-English language version of the text!

Yes you have made a impact on me by your channel and the subject you are highlighted. Since it a heavy electron, we can expect it's e/m ratio is different than electron. Magnet yet have not seen a monopolar degree but it is weird that it's magnetic charter is anamolous . Is it had been studied in those angle too ? What if the more heavy version of electron could have monopolar magnetic character shift. Thank you for giving a view of lattice QCD and it's future .

Great video Sir, I choose to become a particle physicist inspired by you. Thank you so much Sir. I want to ask a question. Why did we choose muon for the experiment?

@chesta2046

7 ай бұрын

@@BanterMaestro2-vh5vn thank you so much for you reply...!

@genessab

7 ай бұрын

The muon is the only particle who’s magnetic moment is in conflict with the standard model!

Interesting topic

Did the experiment use electrons and positrons as controls for measuring g? Assuming we have confidence in the theoretical results for electrons?

@harryvcliff

8 ай бұрын

There have also been experiments to measure g-2 for the electron (at Harvard and Northwestern Universities) using single electron traps - in that case theory and experiment agree to parts in a trillion! But you don’t expect the electron to be as strongly affected by new physics (or quarks and gluons) because they’re much lighter than muons

This was superb! But I have to note, based on your comparison of the old theoretical method and the new one, that the error bars seem to me to be optimistic. There is nothing wrong with there being muddled parts. But if you take those muddled parts adequately seriously, there should be no way that the error bars of the old and new method do not overlap! And I've just ordered your book! I do prefer the British spellings of colour and the like, being a HUGE fan of Tolkien, but I went for the American edition despite that.

@therealpbristow

7 ай бұрын

There's an unspoken caveat to all error bars: "IF we're doing this correctly, then... the value should be within this range." There's basically no way to calculate an error range for "if on the other hand we've used a flawed method", without actually doing the calculation using a less flawed method. So the way to interpret that first result (and indeed all the later ones) is "according to his particular method of figuring things out, the answer lies in this range"; not "the answer DEFINITELY IS in this range". When we have at least three different methods all giving results that fall within each other's error bars, *THEN* we can maybe dare to start using the word "definitely"... as long as we put the word "almost" in front of it. =;o)

@Tordvergar

7 ай бұрын

@@therealpbristow Great answer! My father was a professor of physics, and of engineering. In engineering, the error bars must enclose a higher level of certainty, or bridges collapse and other equivalent loss of life. It makes perfect sense, after your explanation, why physics would do it differently-and doing so encode more information. Thank you.

What I’m confused about the g-2 experiment is that, as far as I know, all results have been produced by the same ring, which got moved from one lab to another and got upgrades. Couldn’t there be a bias in this one ring? Thanks

@genessab

7 ай бұрын

That’s not true. Only the CMD-2 and CMD-3 results come from that ring that’s been moved. There are many other sources of experimental data, including the Belle-2 experiment, KLOE, BaBar, SND, and BESIII.

Hi there! Watching from Mexico 🙋🏽‍♂️🇲🇽.

Great vid..enjoy the candid convo aspect of it and very well described! Would love to hear you speak on what other "breaking" particle physics/general "on the horizon" sort of theoretical physics are out there but not quite at 5sigma that you're excited about. Signed, a curious non physicist aerospace engineer 🤓

Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

@drdca8263

7 ай бұрын

My understanding is that the belt trick is about how the group SO(3) isn’t simply connected, and instead it’s universal cover is its double cover (and that this double cover is SU(2) iirc? ... or maybe it was that the double cover of SO(3,1)^+ is SU(2)? I forget the details.) If your thought of physically-entangling is based on the fact that the word “entangled” is used when talking about quantum entanglement, please note that that if those two things do end up being related, that it is entirely a coincidence. The fact that people use the word “entanglement” to talk about quantum entanglement, should not be taken as any evidence for there being a physical entangling (like strands of something) going on. I’m not saying “definitely there isn’t such physical-entangling”, just that the name by itself should not at all point you towards a conclusion that there is. As a separate note: I *personally* wouldn’t really expect there to be, because for there to be such physical-entangling the things would have to act like, solid bodies which can’t pass through each-other, which, personally, doesn’t feel likely to me? Like, I don’t know string theory or anything, but that’s not the impression I have of it. Like, in the classical (non-quantum) version of a single string-theory string, my impression is that the only way it interacts with itself is through just, the tension it has? I don’t think there was any like, interaction that goes against it passing through itself? But I suppose maybe when you add in the interactions that let them split and merge, maybe that could cause the passing-through-self to be prevented? Again, I don’t know string theory.

@SpotterVideo

7 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 Thank you for the kind response. They are rare these days. I do understand the difference between the entanglement of two photons and nonlocality, and what I am proposing here about quark bonding in protons and neutrons.

@drdca8263

7 ай бұрын

@@SpotterVideo Alright, cool. (Though, side note: quantum entanglement isn’t exclusive to photons. It applies to any two quantum systems. But you probably knew that and were just listing photons as an example.)

@SpotterVideo

7 ай бұрын

@@drdca8263 If the "Twisted Hypertube" model is correct, it may help explain all of the types of quantum entanglement since these particles could be connected through one extra spatial dimension.

@drdca8263

7 ай бұрын

@@SpotterVideo So, I know that there is the “ER=EPR” idea..., so apparently some version of “entangled particles are actually connected somehow” is plausible, but, I really don’t feel like “things are physically connected through looping strands” is likely to explain the kind of ~correlations that quantum entanglement consists of/is. I don’t think there is actually any need to explain “why is there entanglement”? I think it is just, what has to happen when you have a quantum system that can be decomposed into multiple smaller quantum systems which interact with each-other. Entanglement is just when the state isn’t a product state (and is instead a linear combination of product states). Oh, also, by the way, since you mentioned multiple dimensions: you can’t tie a string into a knot in 4D (or higher), because the parts can just go around each-other. You can knot two *surfaces* in 4D though. Hm, well, I suppose if the string is like, kind of thick, and there is a constraint preventing it from making too tight of turns, then maybe *that* could allow for some kind of knotting of a string in 4D? I’m not sure. (And I’m not sure if anyone knows yet. Should be something mathematicians could figure out, but I don’t know if it has been answered yet.)

The reading debunks The Standard Model cold. "new physics" is code for "please don't fire us for being so horribly wrong". "QED is the most powerful tool in physics we have. It predicts the spin of the muon to 11 decimal places." ~Richard Feynman I guess not. "If your measurement disagrees with your theory, then your theory is wrong" ~Richard Feynman

@genessab

7 ай бұрын

QCD is very different than QED. QCD is non perturbative because of the scale of α_s, so predicting the HVP contribution to the magnetic moment of the muon is an infinitely harder task than calculating the EM contribution. You have to calculate it either on the lattice or through data driven analysis. The discrepancy is not really between data and theory here, it’s between computational simulations that are mathematically proven to be robust (google LQCD continuum limit), and data-driven analyses of experiment. Both require much theoretical understanding and can’t really just give a number without imputing some major assumptions about the underlying physics.

@bcddd214

7 ай бұрын

QCD comes from QED. The entire chain is junk. @@genessab

I would expect this is more a demonstration that physics is NOT the same in ALL frames. We are moving through the universe at about 0.1c, which means we are not at rest... but rather that the magnetic field and muons, although relatively within a stationary frame, are not actually in a stationary frame. Or otherwise said that the principle of equivalence that says that it's the rest of the universe that's moving and the experiment is stationary is not actually true. Also these experiments are made in slightly different gravitational gradients, and different latitudes which gives a slightly different speed based on the earths rotation. When they first moved the apparatus to the new site there was a difference immediately found - eventually with enough samples though that disappeared; but then that's time of year since we orbit the sun at about 0.01c, and the earth is spinning at like 0.001c (maybe that's 0.0001c).

Free space is an energy field with uniform energy density. Presence of Mass/ charge changes uniform energy density balance. Energy density increases towards the mass/charge.This imbalance in energy density induces a force field directed from higher energy density to lower energy density region. The effects particles/ objects produce during their motion in space arise from their interactions with Space.

The standard model reminds me of those clowns that keep coming out of the tiny car.

Can I buy your book in India?

Measuring the magnetic field of the muon must be difficult because of its short lifetime. A tau has an even shorter life time, is it so short that one could NEVER measure its magnetic field? Knowing its magnetic field could presumably be valuable?

@harryvcliff

6 ай бұрын

You’re right yes, the short tau lifetime makes measure its magnetic moment extremely challenging (they’re also harder to produce due to their large mass), but there are ways to it. One idea is to use what are called ‘ultra-peripheral collisions’ at the Large Hadron Collider where two protons glance off each other by exchanging photons, which then pair produce taus. We’re actually looking into the feasibility of this at LHCb right now. In principle the tau’s magnetism could be very strongly affected by new forces/particles so it would be fascinating if it could be measured precisely.

@derckvanschuylenburch1325

6 ай бұрын

Thanks for your reply! So interesting, I'll look forward to hearing about it!

Surely the most important thing you could do would be to explore what causes Gravity. If you can't explain that in the Standard Model, that's a pretty big issue. Why is this not the most important question in Physics?

Are you talking about the aether?

I thought neutrinos having mass already violated the Standard Model bigtime. Is that not true?

@harryvcliff

6 ай бұрын

Depends how you look at it - they were massless originally but it’s a trivial change to give them mass in the standard model by adding right-handed components of the neutrino fields. Then they can get their mass from the Higgs mechanism in the same way as the other matter particle, without needing altogether new particles or forces.

@Valdagast

6 ай бұрын

@@harryvcliffOk. Thanks. Have we discovered these 'right-hand neutrinos'?

For a simplistic non mathematician would it not be interesting (& probably very difficult) to tinker with the calculation to see what changes are needed to get that 5 sigma result?

Are you back 4Real?

The rate of frequency &; distance between it's super position, the difference in magnetic materials as well, if I had to shoot in the dark....

How can it be the same in every way except for mass?

England really does have proper public transportation

Muon ... like _a _*_heavy electron,_* yes? cheers

I think that to find the answer you need to precisely define the nature of magnetism itself, not knowing the nature of magnetism creates a huge blind spot it’s like trying to grok an equation without knowing it conceptually, then what your doing is route calculation?? You could try and fit in the current value within the ambit of the standard model, if there is absolutely no way for it to fit in according to the standard model that is when you begin to try tweaking the model itself??

Wild goose chase!

has nothing to o with QCD, but more with relativity. After all we observe a magnetic field that moves with a high relative speed. That speed itself creates the perception of a mag field that appears to be stronger than from within the traveller

@drdca8263

7 ай бұрын

... and that explains how it differs from when the same measurement is done on an electron, how?

Comment for engagement. We need more good science.

Doesn't anyone ever think about what it is that particle interactions approximate? The idea that distributed phenomena coexisting in the same space can possibly be "fundamental" seems patently absurd to me.

Well, any tangible application for this discovery. We can say yes we have a better understanding of nature until another couple of years that things are changing and a new theory comes up. In mean time the world is confronted with other serious issues.

Lucid and accessible for the non physicist.

Very Interesting. Can I bake a cake with it?

I am curious to know if Fermi lab replaced the large magnets that are used for the detection process. I had read that they ported the same storage ring magnets form the original Brookhaven experiment and installed them at Fermi lab. So it seems that it would be more surprising if the measurements were different. Clearly more data provides for better statistics so the accuracy of the measurement should hopefully be more precise. But it reminds me of an old saying that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of madness. Perhaps this is the definition of statistical insanity. I'm not saying that the measurement is right or wrong, but it would be more believable if it were reproduced in a completely independent environment. Then perhaps it would be reasonable to talk about "new Physics". I want to add that your presentation is excellent and I will definitely be exploring your book (the American version of course ;).

@denysvlasenko1865

7 ай бұрын

The magnets in question are huge and expensive superconducting magnets (IIRC they weigh several tons). Reusing them was a financially prudent idea. The measurement electronics had been completely replaced. Unless there is a reason to believe these are "special magic magents" giving slightly different results from any other magnets with the same magnetic field, the validity of the results are not undermined by their use.

How one could get high precision measurements from a particle with such a short lifetime... With electrons, you have all the time in the world...

Not Fermi Lab - Argonne National Lab

Prediction is always relative

Quantum fields appear to be providing physical structure to information in the form of matter through quantized units of energy. 🤷

Advancing on this maybe, only maybe, can result on the cold fusion theory be actually viable.

electron + antineutrino enveloped by the weak force model works for me....

@genessab

7 ай бұрын

The electroweak corrections to g-2 are already well understood, to a much higher precision than the strong contributions. The hadronic vacuum polarization is the focus of 95% of the researchers on this topic, for good reason.

I think the standard model needs to renamed to non-standard model!😅

Fermilab actually moved the equipment from Brookhaven to Chicago to use it for the experiment

@comment8767

7 ай бұрын

Then it got ripped off by a flash mob.

-0- equals a true symetry

The Phlogiston of the 19th century has gotten complicated.

you cannot derive quantum fields from particles. seriously magical physics/maths

Oh! The Aether.

Do we have a problem with the universe?

The fact that we can get two different calculations from the same theory to me means the theory is fundamentally prone to interpretation and retrofitting, which makes it a bad theory. If you look up the history of the electron magnetic moment calculation (which requires hundreds of higher order feynman diagrams) you surprisingly find that every new measurement that contradicted the previous calculated value was after found to be consistent with new, "more precise" calculations. This happened at least three times from my readings, and this muon calculation is just history repeating itself. A famous physicis once said: "with four free parameters i can describe an elephant; with five i can make it wiggle its trunk"

@denysvlasenko1865

7 ай бұрын

> The fact that we can get two different calculations from the same theory to me means the theory is fundamentally prone to interpretation and retrofitting, which makes it a bad theory. You did not understand the video. One of the predictions was not completely theoretic: it used some experimental input. Thus, experimental measurement errors from _those_ earlier experiments were affecting it.

@FunkyDexter

7 ай бұрын

@@denysvlasenko1865 EVERY calculation in the standard model requires experimental input. That's the point.

Not going to trust a lattice QCD calculation - magnifying inaccuracies in unpredictable ways

You know it was literally the same machine from Brookhaven that they disassembled and moved to CERN, not some new "souped up version" just the old one cleaned up and recalibrated a bit better.

@harryvcliff

7 ай бұрын

That’s absolutely not the case - they re-used the magnet but otherwise it was an entirely new experiment - new calorimeters, new environmental controls, new beams etc. The magnet is only one element, albeit a large and expensive one. The Fermilab version is far more capable as a result.

@genessab

7 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠​⁠@@harryvcliffas Davier and his team have been saying since this result came out, they are comparable experiments that should have a strong correlation in data because of the shared equipment and analysis. CMD-3 has 30x the statistics, but the same collaboration did the analysis on both experiments.

@petevenuti7355

7 ай бұрын

@@harryvcliff like a camera if you replace the sensor chip and regrind the lenses to get 100x better resolution and magnification. Yeah 99%(approx) of the machine is still the same.. but if you weight by functional importance 99% changed.. I get it. It's similar to a ship of Theseus argument... With repairs and upgrades , it's like something new but still same name ... Take a Rutan design ultralight and put a large jet engine in and it doesn't make it a Saab Viggen, but ye-haaa.. Sorry to be the first to bring it up. Good video, don't let one annoying individual who gets a little stuck on semantics get to you. (meaning me) . Heck, it's not even criticism when you think about it... Keep up the good work.

👍👍

Shades of Schrödinger?

The magnetic field is not an aspect of the electro magnetic field. It's the other way around.

I'm betting on a much simpler base field than QFT's many field theory. Sternglass's Muon Model is the closest theory by a proper scientist to my universe.. The evidence clearly points to a single base Electro-Positronic Field with electrons and positrons as the only proper permanent massive elementary particles, with all matter composed from them. Proton = p_e_p, Anti-proton = e_p_e and Muons are mal-formed anti-protons travelling at close to C so their electrical forces are not felt by constituent electrons and positrons until they slow then annihilate, leaving an electron. -- It's literally a load of +ve old balls (base field cell / quanta +1) close-packed by free-flowing, compressible, displace-abe pixie farts / -ve electro-gas (or liquid in another version - wet old farts)... Kick a cell free with Full Escape Energy and the far more balanced, close-packed surrounding field repels the aberration / field imbalance into a (pulsating, pumping) ball with the same happening to the excess -ve gas left behind... A Positron + Electron Pair, and they ALWAYS come in pairs. The Matter-Energy EM Field. -- Positrons continuously attract and electrons trap 1 quanta of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe that expands as it is !CLEARLY FINITE? so less -ve electro gas in voids to hold them together (but still plenty enough to stop them 'big ripping'). There's denser charge around matter compared to an empty, perfectly equidistant celled universe so gravity fields may compact space too. Gravity is either a pretty static field charge density gradient or a flowing one, which I prefer. -ve electro-gas flows to the centre of each electron and positron, spiralling out after colliding at the centre. DARK GRAVITY. -- Magnetism and spin can also be modelled as -ve electro-gas flow in various ways. In-out loops in loops around a particle centre can merge with those close by so instead of looping around a particle many times they flow straight to another particle (and another, another, and so on), with conservation of energy meaning the loops (magnetic circuits) extend out into 'empty space'. Spin is due to -ve electro gas collisions causing gas to take a 90' turn in each direction, spiralling out on a plane in the same rotational direction. A stationary particle has no spin bias, collisions happen equally from all directions. When a particle moves there is spin bias at 90' to the direction of travel that follows the LHS / RHS rules in a magnetic field.

@denysvlasenko1865

7 ай бұрын

Say no to drugs!

@PrivateSi

7 ай бұрын

@@denysvlasenko1865 .. Grant Money is like a drug. Say no to useless, tax funded Big Science vanity projects and sort the basics out. Keep it as simple as possible... In The Beginning the Electro-Positronic Field was empty and bloody big - a bloody big ball of equidistant tiny little balls, perfectly balanced by -ve electro-gas... Then The Big Bang happened - or a big external hit by another universe... -- This was a matter + antimatter formation chain reaction happening all over the universe. 2 positrons strongly bonded with 1 electron to form a proton + left over electron = hydrogen plasma soup, more than 2 electrons hit a positron at the same time and energy from opposite angles to form an anti-proton so we have a matter universe rather than antimatter one. E_P SYMMETRY IS PRESERVED but reaction symmetry is not (which is not a problem, it's a solution to the Antimatter Paradox - the most sensible solution). -- The Mass Multiplier Mechanism is key to the mass of the Muon and protons and all partially / fully strongly bonded particles. The Mass Addition Mechanism concerns the addition of an electron to a proton to form a neutron, with Beta- Decay as a neutron losing it's neutralising electron, turning back into a proton. Beta+ Decay as a new e_p pair formed near a proton (ie. by the 2 half-neutralised proton positrons bashing together or against the neutralised electron, spitting out a field cell). The electron is retained, forming a neutron while the positron is expelled. -- 1 e_p pair formed together annihilates, as do 2, 3 form a proton_antiproton pair, 4 a neutron_anti-neutron.. -- I go by the evidence and don't believe the universe, let alone any sensible model, given the evidence, would throw out the idea of a literal Dirac Sea as the basis of our matter-energy EM field and all of 1 of only 2 base fundamental particle types.. To believe otherwise would be mental. QFT, QED, QCD are blatant mathematical fudges that obscure at a lower level as much as they predict at their level.

I make shapes that allow people to feel quantum fields, not joking and can prove it.

This is interesting but I have known this since 1984 No one is paying attention I am assuming because I am not a physicist

Ok. So maybe a muon is particle that carries the magnetic force. Ok r something like that.

Such a nice view outside the window of your house spoiled by graffiti.

Why is an improved calculation from a theory bad? If I understand it, the mathematical theory underlying quantum mechanics and the standard model is complex, as is GR. Equations can be often be quite unsolvable without finding a particular ideal situation , employing some simplification, or having some advanced calculator. Indeed, they can be so untenable that the solutions get named for the person that solve it. Just as experimental measurements become more precise and accurate with better equipment, so will the solutions to problems. And, of course, as the path to a solution is refined, the calculated solution and the experimental results converge. So why is this not that? The other issue that I keep running up against is specific to the magnetism. My understanding is that magnetism was shown to be an illusion of general relativity and that magnetism is not a real thing. So, why do we keep talking about magnetism as if it is a real field that is uniquely unique and separate from the magnetism effect as described by relativity?

How do we know that the data - that appears to be a “measurements” of some impact made by something we picture to be a “subatomic particle” that leaves the atom when we smash it - really applicable to that part/ingredient/aspect of that former atom before we forced to fall apart? Is it really too scientifically inappropriate to think that the particles are not resembling to their own self once they stopped being a part of the smallest piece of material in it’s full glory, the atom? What if I’m right and the particles don’t even fully exist in our discoverable universe independently? Not even for a millionth of a second (or at least not even for an amount of time that is considered to be a valid/existing time frame). I’m confident that they just partly “exist” independently if we use our intuitive, traditional, well known definition of existence like having a full set of physical attributes, a size, a location, a weight etc.? Would any knowledgeable person bother to consider this idea just to explain me WHY is it a complete nonsense?

[Quantum aether > quantum gravity]: The idea of the ether as a gas-like medium can also be accepted on the basis of the analysis of the behavior of elementary particles at their interactions. The question arises how the particles of ether can be held in the composition of the elementary particles of matter, if ether is a gas? The answer to this question is not difficult if we take into account that elementary particles of matter are toroidal vortex formations of compacted gas-like ether. The basis for this statement is the fact that toroidal vortex formations are the only form of motion capable of holding a compacted gas in a closed volume.

super preciso e.....errado.

All tip and no iceberg

"Hey everybody," we've got an anomalous result honest, (OK it's only 3 Sigma,) but if you give us loads of dosh to build an even more expensive piece junk we'll probably nudge it up to 4 sigma, (remember we had to lower the goal posts for the Higgs from 6 to 5 sigma and that's still the only important result that CERN has so far produced despite the billions that have been sunk into it.) But, "Hey everybody," maybe The Standard Model isn't quite right in every detail, (though no one seriously thinks it is,) So far this isn't even a proper result, it's just a pitch for even more funding; so kindly bugger off.

@comment8767

7 ай бұрын

They would get more funding from the US Department of Energy is they reformulated their request in terms of trans and non-gendered particles.

@Eris123451

7 ай бұрын

Nothing I can add to that really.

it's never aliens and it's never new physics

I think it is time that the standard model is just accepted and we start thinking through the ramifications of the model instead of spending hundreds of billions to build and support new colliders that measure the slightest discrepancy in something we don't even know if we're measuring right in the first place.

@denysvlasenko1865

7 ай бұрын

Well, explain how neutrinos got their mass. In SM, they must be massless.

So why are muons are not ripples in the electron field with higher quantum numbers? Virtual particles are just mathematical structures. Your fundamental "particles" don't seem to be fundamental. (Of course you can fit anything to anything with using enough parameters 😂)

Shouldn't there be a field per force instead of one per particle?

@bosnbruce5837

7 ай бұрын

No. These are QFT particle fields that are quantized; not your classical force fields that are smooth. Particles _are_ excitations of fields. Forces are remnants of older theories. If you can't have well defined position, how you're going to define acceleration and force?

Disparat results from Russia implies low density plasma bubble, photonium amplification. **Berny**

Modeling? Uh oh.

Seems kind of like BS to claim some new computation numerical approach to calculating this value when you also already have the value

@trucid2

7 ай бұрын

That's how it's been ever since they started doing these calculations. They'd make a calculation, then experiment would get a different value, then they'd say "oops we made an error" and give a new value that matched the experiment. But then the people who did the experiment said *they* made their own error, and the new value was different, and then the theoretical physicists would correct their value again. It's, uhh, highly sus.

@ronin123958

7 ай бұрын

@@trucid2 I know it sounds hokey pokey but unfortunately it's all very indirect when those theories give formulas that take half a notebook page to write

@trucid2

7 ай бұрын

@@ronin123958 I'll say it directly. What I've seen is that the theoretical physicists, instead of starting from theory and getting an independent prediction, they look at experimental results and then fiddle with the numbers until they get something that's close. It's been like that for 50 years.

If each "thing" has its own quantum field, it wouldn't interact with the "other fields" because it is entirely distinct and separate... that is to say, the only way for various fields to interact is for it to be the same field, or an aspect of the same one field or "thing."

@drdca8263

7 ай бұрын

... why so? My understanding is that the Lagrangian is written as like, an integral over spacetime of a Lagrangian density which gives a combination of the kinetic energy density of each field at that location, along with an interaction at that location, which includes interactions between the fields. My impression is also that the “how to split it up into different fields” is partially a convention/choice in at least some cases?

Having two models for the same particle means that the Standard Model is not Fundamental. It is overparameterized, and there is an overparameterized model for the muon that can FINALLY replicate observations. It is just a bad model (the Standard Model), and the paradigm of "fields blah, blah, blah" is not a good paradigm.. never mind "Quantum Froh"...:)of course, if you add Dark Matter "field" then everything is right...:) (I am kidding). It is just idiotic. By the way, one does not need more data to know the model is wrong. If two logically adjacent experiments (a collision experiment and a magnetic susceptibility experiment) where empirical parameters from one model do not allow decent predictions on the other, it is a sign that you don't know anything. They are logically adjacent because they are supposedly sensitive to the same "fields" (everything and Dark Stuff), and thus, if the connections to the underlying "reality" were correct, they would predict reality consistently. Since they don't, the underlying model is wrong.