11 Subatomic Stories: The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2020
- The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is one of the counterintuitive ideas that arises from early twentieth century quantum mechanics. In episode eleven of Subatomic Stories, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains what the principle is, how many people get it wrong, and how to understand it properly.
What is quantum mechanics really all about?
• What is quantum mechan...
Can leptogenesis explain why there is something instead of nothing?
• Can leptogenesis expla...
Neutrino Oscillation Calculator (Provided by Wolfram Alpha)
demonstrations.wolfram.com/Ne...
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov
CMB image credit: European Space Agency, Planck Collaboration
Neutron star image credit: NASA
Flashlight vector graphic by Vecteezy - Věda a technologie
This may continue as far as im concerned. This is a great series!
That’s amazing how generous people are these days!
it pieces everything together
Agree 100% with no uncertainty :)
Ive been following fermilabs for a few years now, but this series is just so chill. Im always learning, but in this format it feels great!!!!
Please specify. Thanks.
Ana M. Abreu. 08/21/20.
2:30
That's what I learned in high school as well. Finally in digital signal processing course at the university I learned how waves work and immediately knew that's the real thing behind Heisenberg's theory.
I got taught a lot of outdated and/or incomplete information regarding physics in school.
Wave mechanics is just one representation of quantum mechanics. I think the reason is even deeper. I think the true essence of quantum mechanics is the non commutative algebra of observables.
It’s a thing but it’s not the thing. The thing is non-commuting operators
Best Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Explanation I have heard so far! Thank you! I love the series!
Thank you Dr. Lincoln, I could watch and rewatch this series forever. It’s one of the best about physics.
Edit: Corrected mixup names. Sorry.
Fadi Fortuna hahaha! Corrected. One of my physics teacher was a *Don Franklin* and I always mixup names.
Thank you! I learned about the Fourier Transform 20 years ago in college but never imagined that it would relate to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal. I love it when something you learn connects to something else, even years later! Thank you good sir!
This video is the best explanation of the Uncertainty Principle I've ever seen. It really should be interpreted in the context of Fourier Transformation.
Please keep making these videos. They help me connect the different parts of physics together and just makes it even more interesting! Good work! :D
I have to say that was one of the best explanations of the real meaning behind the uncertainty principle I have ever heard. Thank you Dr. Lincoln. I really appreciate you taking the time to sit down and chat about these various topics. They have all been good, but this was the most enlightening for me personally.
This was a great episode, I was likewise told an incorrect interpretation of the uncertainty principle. I think Sub atomic stories is your best series yet.
Yes, I love these chats. I have learned a lot about things I read about 45 years ago. Keep it coming. Thanks and stay safe.
OML this is such a great explanation! I always saw Heisenberg uncertainty explained as a measurement problem. The wave freq vs localization makes so much more sense! Thanks!
Thank you, Dr Lincoln! Like you, my earlier education experience provided “a less than helpful “ explanation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty. And I have still struggled with the details all of these years, especially if trying to describe it to someone else. NOW I feel that I have finally GOT it (at least more) cemented in my head! Thanks to you for taking the effort to help clear this difficult subject 😊 for All of us; great video.
This was a particularly charming episode of subatomic stories. ❤️
What an intelligent and informative series this is. It is presented by an exceptional teacher! Thank you...
Thank you so much for explaining this. Having taken calculus courses, this makes sense. This also demystifies the point so that it is a clearly understood principle with discreet variables rather than the mystical paradox it is often presented as.
Funny thing is, if you dig deeper into quantum mechanics its not founded on discrete variables and becomes mystical (from our classical view) again.
Please, dont stop doing this videos, are just great.
I'm just not sure about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle but I am certain your explanation is easy to understand and makes sense.
This is a quality episode. Keep up this extra level of explanation.
Enlightening!!! Great explanation!!! Amazing series... pls continue posting amazing videos... I have seldom come across such reliable and interesting source of correct explanation for such complex topics.
Great content as always. Thank you so much Fermilab.
This is the best explanation of HUP I've seen, thank you Dr Lincoln
Finished your course on the great courses. Excellent. You are a great teacher!
Keep up the great work Don. I love your series.
Yes Don - I’m really enjoying the series - Many Thanks
Bumper sticker seen on a physics prof's door: "Heisenberg may have slept here!"
sir i have recently started following you like from the time of lockdown in my country.
i love physics. I am blown to gain such massive amounts of knowledge that you provide , I admire you so much thanks for giving me a role model.
now i wish to pursue a career in physics.
Do it. You'll never regret it.
I watch your videos whenever I get the chance and all I can say is --Thanks! I guess I was lucky and got a decent understanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle from my Prof's but I have to admit yours offered a nice, short, and concise conceptualization.
Cool....didn't know about the time/energy application of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle...I LOVE learning new (to me) aspects of scientific principles (and getting more accurate explanations)....Thank you!
Lovely explanation, thank you. Please do continue this series.
Great timing, I was having trouble finding a good explanation of this!
The best explanation i’v ever seen, easy to understand, thank you sir.
Awesome series!! Thanks a lot for doing this and making physics understandable and approachable by anyone!! I used to live near Fermi lab and always wanted to visit. I hope I can one day! Brilliant!
Wow, what a great video and series! Much thanks :)
these videos are actually amazing for deeper knowledge for a level physics highly recommend!
I am certain that I would like to see a massive number of your videos coming forever, you have enough energy to do that !
... The ghost of Heisenberg
I love these videos! Thanks for sharing. 👍
Dr. Lincoln great episode+ Thank you so much :)
Very well explained, better than my former college professors. You have a gift for teaching.
Although I would add that the "wrong" observational explanation you provide is also true, however it would be true in principle also for classical systems, while -as you explained- the Heisenberg uncertainty is rather an intrinsic feature of matter.
Another great video! Thanks for sharing!
That's awesome explanation for this principal
For all who say ni
Buy them a shrubbery
I was sooooooo hoping that someone would say that.
Indeed.
Down chew poot very yubbles inta they aquasian?
Then it wouldn't be constant, would it?
Who the hell are you? We're the knights that say "nu".
embustero71 -sorry, crunchy frog excursion
The neutron star question litteraly BLEW MY MIND😦😱🤯
So my mathematically uneducated photographer's mind imagines a potato gun firing a spud along a tape measure. If you photograph it with a slow shutter, you get a motion blur that can tell you the speed because of the tape measure markings and known shutter interval, but there's no definite location. Just a blurred range of locations. If you photograph it with a high shutter speed you can "freeze" the potato in one location, but then there's no blur against the tape measure to calculate velocity.
Is this even a remotely useful way of thinking about it?
Cool analogy. Here are a few places that it breaks down though. In your example the long motion blur of the potato doesn't mean the potato is somewhere randomly in that blurry streak, the potato will be at the front tip of it, although, interestingly, you wouldn't know where the front was! So even if it was a very long blur from a very slow shutter, the potato can only be at either end of it. With the subatomic particles, they can be anywhere "in the streak".
@@yousifucv Makes sense... because the "blur" is probabilities on the quantum scale, not just a record of "potato was here", right? I really should get on Khan Academy and learn calculus.
How hard can it be? :-P
Not really. After all, you could imagine getting a much faster shutter, or a fast movie camera, and you could measure both the position in every frame, as well as its velocity.
The HUP can't be circumvented, no matter how good the equipment is.
@@drdon5205 Yeah, I guess it makes sense there wouldn't be any shortcuts quite this convenient when dealing with quantum physics. :-)
It is, if you keep in mind that the projectile doesn't move randomly through space, and that the principle says you can't know both position and momentum at the same time.
Trying to determine the speed or position of a crazed cat through a room might be a more fitting example: by the time you take the second exposure, the cat will have changed position, direction and velocity (and possibly broken the Ming vase)
Another good one Doc ! Funny, I'm enjoying physics more now in my 70's then I did in university (slide rule generation). Take care.
I love the Questions ! Its super entertaining. Please keep it up?
Wow are you good at explaining things. I love your videos. Thanks from an old (OLD) guy and retired engineer!
Nicely stated, Dr. Don. Very nice. Glad to see that the zombie cat wasn't even mentioned!
I love this series. A bit over my head, but every time I watch an episode I feel a little smarter for the bits I DO understand.
Wow - this makes the comments a few weeks ago about the mass of the W and Z bosons make SO much more sense! Thank you!
On the pronunciation of ν and other Greek letters. "Nee" is the modern Greek pronunciation, whereas "noo" is a very ancient Greek pronunciation. There are numerous changes in pronunciation that have happened in the history of the Greek language(s), and one of the most notable is called "iotacism", which is really a whole bunch of different changes, but refers to the fact that many different vowels and diphthongs in Ancient Greek have somehow all become "ee" in Modern Greek.
Since the most famous works of Greek literature and philosophy, including early work in math and physics, come from over 2000 years ago, it is Ancient Greek that learned Europeans studied in the middle ages and Renaissance, and it is this tradition that led scientists and mathematicians to think of Greek letters as convenient symbols. Thus, common parlance about how to pronounce Greek letters also comes from this tradition of studying Ancient Greek.
However, it is not so simple as saying that Ancient Greek pronunciations are used in math and physics. The issue is that people in this long European tradition of studying Ancient Greek mostly didn't really know, or even care very much, how Ancient Greek was ACTUALLY pronounced. (To some extent the reconstruction of actual ancient pronunciations is really more of a modern phenomenon that got going with the development of modern historical linguistics in the 19th century; however, there were attempts to do such long before that.) Thus, there are actually numerous traditional pronunciations of Greek that developed in different European countries where people spoke different languages.
These are often influenced by the native languages of the different countries; in particular, (1): Greek words could essentially become like native words of the language of an academic community familiar with them, and their pronunciations would then change according to the same phonetic rules that changed the native language of that community over the centuries, and (2): When Greek words are spelled out "phonetically" in non-Greek writing systems, people tend to read those spellings as if they were native words of their own native language, even if those "phonetic" transcriptions are designed to be read in a certain non-obvious way or were designed for an older version of their native language that had different correspondences between letters and sounds.
For instance, I tend to pronounce μ and ν as "myoo" and "nyoo", which arguably makes sense for 3 reasons: (1) These are the ways I first heard these letters pronounced, (2) These are reasonable readings of the traditional "phonetic" spellings "mu" and "nu", according to modern English spelling-sound correspondences, and (3) The very ancient Greek "oo" sound (υ) became fronted to sound more like the French "u" or German "ü" in most situations even before Alexander the Great in Attic (Athenian) and Ionic Greek. While this sound eventually came to sound like "ee" in Modern Greek (after staying around through much of the Middle Ages), that is not what happened in French. In French, an old Latin "oo" sound (French is descended from Latin) became a fronted, much like what happen in Ancient Greek. When the English language became flooded by French loan words after the Norman conquest, and after various vowel changes in the English language between then and now, these "u"s from French are now generally pronounced as "yoo" (which is the reason why "u" is often pronounced "yoo" in English and "myoo" and "nyoo" are reasonable English pronunciations of the spellings "mu" and "nu"). It also seems quite natural that the French would match up the Greek "υ" sound with their own basically identical fronted "u" sound, and with this traditional correspondence of this fronted "u" sound to an English "yoo", it only seems reasonable that the same thing might happen in English to the Greek "υ"-sound, especially if they were often introduced to it by the French. It's actually quite likely this is not true, because the Romans invented the letter "y" to transcribe the fronted Greek "υ" sound, and this is pronounced "ee" in the French words derived from Greek, at least when they come from Greek words that were borrowed into Latin; however, there were multiple attempts in the Renaissance to reform pronunciation of Ancient Greek to more authentically match ancient pronunciation, and my "myoo" and "nyoo" pronunciations might somehow be descended from such an attempt, similar to how the reformed pronunciation proposed by the Dutch scholar Erasmus's 1486 reconstruction of Ancient Greek pronunciation (which was adapted and popularized in England by Cheke and Smith in 1540) started a tradition of pronouncing Greek in English speaking countries that was then greatly distorted by vowel changes that happened in the last 500 years, such as the tail end of the "Great Vowel Shift". (Although I said there were multiple attempts to reform the pronunciation, I think most of them were based on Erasmus's reconstruction. It should be noted that I actually just looked Wikipedia because I realized that I was starting to write about things I didn't really know.)
These traditional pronunciations also may have influences from the Latin pronunciations of Greek words (since the Romans incorporated lots of Greek words first, and then Latin became the language of learning in Europe for centuries), as well as from various later versions of Greek, such as Byzantine Greek and Modern Greek. (Keep in mind it's a continuum, languages change slowly over time; they don't just suddenly morph into different languages.) This influence from later versions of Greek no doubt comes from things like the person who corrected his pronunciation from "noo" to "nee", i.e., it comes from the idea that whatever they say in Greece now must be the actual "correct" pronunciation (with some maybe even thinking it's the original pronunciation, due to not considering language change). The idea of "correctness" is fundamentally pretty arbitrary, so it's hard for me to say that it's wrong to think that, but it is a bit misguided to assume that everyone should just change their pronunciation to match the Modern Greek pronunciations without justifying why this is better.
An example of influence from later versions of Greek, and also somewhat from Latin, is the pronunciations of the Greek letters φ="phi", θ="theta", and χ="chi" with the English "f", "th", and "k", sounds. The romanizations "ph", "th", and "ch", were invented by the Romans to transliterate Greek. In Pre-Roman Greek (and probably also in Early the Roman Period), these letters were pronounced like "p", "t", and "k" (followed by a puff of air, like how we pronounce them at the beginning of words in English); however, between the Roman and Medieval periods, the pronunciation of these sounds softened to sound like "f", "th", and a raspy sound similar to the Spanish "j" or the German "ch". These new pronunciations were prevalent in Greece throughout the entire history of the English language, and the fact that we write our "th" sound the way do is probably by analogy to Medieval Greek (since "th" was the normal romanization of θ, which was pronounced this way). Back in Middle Ages, when English had that raspy sound like German and Spanish do, it was often spelled "ch", as it still is in German, by a similar analogy with Medieval Greek, (although the spelling "gh" is what we generally see in Modern English spellings of words that used to have this sound, like "though", and "night"). The medieval and Modern Greek pronunciations of these sounds (which are "unvoiced fricatives", by the way) have almost always been the preferred pronunciations of these sounds in medieval, Renaissance, and modern times alike, no doubt because that has been the pronunciation in Greece throughout all of these time periods, despite that the fact that these are not the pronunciations that Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, or most of the other famous Ancient Greeks would have used.
This also shows influence from native language phonology. English has the Modern Greek φ аnd θ sounds, but no longer has the χ sound; French has only the φ sound; and German has the φ and χ sounds, but not the θ sound. As it happens, all these languages use the Ancient-Greek-like ("p"), "t", "k" values when they don't have the Modern-Greek-like sounds (or rather, people who aren't studying Greek seriously use these sounds for the stray Greek words and letters that come up), though I think Germans often match French and use "k" for the χ-sound, even though they theoretically know how to say a sound like the Modern Greek sound. (This probably mostly has to do with the fact that the German "ch" sound usually only occurs in certain parts of words, at least in "standard" dialects.)
I love it when Don uploads
That's what she said.
It's beyond me how people try to teach this without pointing to the Fourier Transform. I'm glad to see that you did it.
That said, you should have also spoken about information and which domain it's present in a bit more.
Bosons are in the space domain (stretched out) and does not change in time (specific).
Fermions are a little bit in both unless they are at absolute zero and all of their information would be in the time domain (stretched out) and not in space (specific).
Something more,
The uncertainty in energy does point to mass, but it also points to what kind of energy it is.
I understood some of this so I have a bit of a better understanding which is cool. I still have a long way to go. Thanks for getting me just a little bit further :)
I would really apreciate it if you would make an entire Video about the CMB. I am curious to learn more about it.
cheers Dr. Don!!
You and Matt are the best - thanks much
Dr. Don, You're a national treasure!
Wow
Great work
Keep it up Sir
Wow, this video tied together quite a few facts about quantum physics and the universe that I've heard before in independent contexts.
That's awesome you use Wolfram Alpha
Excellent video!
I studied engineering in college decades ago, which made a video I watched on CZcams several years ago make the Uncertainty Principle click. It said the same thing you did, that the momentum and matter (i.e. position) waves are Fourier duals.
This is a great series. Thank you for the lectures Don. Defund science outreach never!
Excellent. Thank you.
--------------------
For me personally modern physics & its vastly developed fields are important for curbing aside all forms of anthropic misconcepts of the post Aristotle periods.
And Heisenberg's Uncertainty, although at Quantum levels, but it also reminds us of indeterminism in evolutionary history, which many branches of different human hybrids have falsely treated with certainty/ deterministically.
Dr. Lincoln, I LOVE looking at the books on your book shelf. I suggest Martin van Crevelds "supplying war" for a different way to look at warfare.
this series is great
I love watching all these, but I'm an old man and I'd be lying if I said I understand all this stuff, but I think I kinda get some of it , so keep em coming please.....
brilliant explanation
There's a 3Blue1Brown (math-animation&explanation) video about the uncertainty principle, and where it shows up both inside and outside of physics: "The more general uncertainty priniciple, beyond quantum"
What does it really mean to add the wavefunctions ? Are we combining the electrons?
Way above my understanding.
THANK YOU... PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
I enjoy the series, I understand very little of it, but I like it.
Dr. Don Lincoln,can we substitute position and momentum at the same time in Max Born`s equation?
I've run out of Fermi lab videos to binge watch during quarantine. Pls help
There are more science channels to the rescue:
Sci Show / Microcosmos (general popular science)
Kurzgesagt (scientific stuff with a moral)
Launchpad Astronomy (accurate science facts on astronomy)
PBS Spacetime (specialized science, math free)
Isaac Arthur (science and speculation on the future of humanity)
Many of Brady Haran's videos with the University of Nottingham
Royal Institution (recorded public lectures)
Anton Petrov (astrophysics papers summarized)
i love the series, but i can only watch one at a time because they have so much that blows my ,mind i need a good long period to think about it before i dare watch another!!
I LOVE THE SERIES
Given the explanation you used to describe the adding of wave functions, I would suggest to have included reference to Feynman's Path Integral.
Thanks Don
At university (before the top quark had been discovered) I came up with the idea of gravity being the cause of all forces, which in turn gives rise to particles.
The idea is that space is moving (in 3 dimensions) and that movement causes areas of space to be both expanding AND collapsing.
Collapsing space accelerates towards the speed of light which results in tiny areas (points) of the field of moving space appearing "permanent".
That is, a particle is not an actual "thing" but an area of very fast moving space.
Wow, this video did me better than the entire course of physics in my college.
An awesome series indeed, thank you!
We now know what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says. Thanks!
Next can you give us an overview of the evidence for it? Thanks in advance.
Terrific series Dr. Don! Reading an interesting book by Brian Greene ("Until The End Of Time") and I thought that you would find this quote useful: "LIFE IS PHYSICS ORCHESTRATED"!
Dr. Lincoln, can you do an episode on spin? I've heard a bunch of explanations but never managed to really understand it and I'm probably not the only one 🙂
What is the corresponding equation for angular momentum? Delta L Delta theta < hbar/2? Are there other equations for other conserved quantities like electric charge and quantum info?
For total angular momentum there is a similar inequality when looking at angular momentum in perpendicular planes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Examples
For charge and quantum information there is no such uncertainty inequality, since they are not operators in quantum mechanics. Their conservation is explained in different terms.
Look up "commutator relations". Any two non-commuting observables have an uncertainty relation.
I'm not sure it's been said, but I've always thought a good way to explain it to people who don't get it is to imagine taking a picture of a bright yellow/green tennis ball, thrown in no specific direction in a clear blue sky. The more crisp the picture, the less information you have on the direction/momentum of travel. However, if you get the blurr effect of movement, you get a more accurate indication of those measurements, but less information on its exact location.
I'm not sure how accurate that is? But it always made sense in my head, at least.
Can you please make a video on invisible quark, because I can't find a good explanation of it on the internet.
I am absolutely enjoying this series. Keep it up! Was your description of the uncertainty principle at all inspired by Prof. P Moriarty’s video on the subject?
Both are "inspired" by any actual textbook on QM.
Nope. Lincoln is more of a Sherlock Holmes guy.
But, more seriously, this is standard stuff to anybody who has studied it.
I am frankly concerned and curious as to why this particular channel doesn't have a higher subscription rate. Its FermiLab folk!! Not some goober with a grasp of physics but no clout( yes that sort of thing counts in believability and school choices).
I've heard of this guy before I came across the channel.
Now I'm not saying the other lads aren't on the ball or inaccurate, hell some of their info was probably from FermiLab. I'm just saying history, pedigree, veracity means a lot. It's just human nature I suppose.
Anyway I read about1 Enrico Fermi in the 4th grade for kicks instead of sports. As a result I had a career, family, a measure of success somewhat larger then Max Planck's rather intriguing constant though I prefer the unredacted version just to terrorize students and new teachers.
I expect a more rarefied appeal from Utbes proudly jaded Higher Branch MatheAddicts.
Please excuse my waaaaay too stylized writing. I've not had coffee yet.
Hi Mr. Lincoln. -douglas
My thinking uncertainly exact! It doesn't get better than Fermilab and having someone that can reveal things without excessive "dumbing down" is great at the same time not throwing a blizzard of integrals that glaze my eyes over.
In one episode of ST:TNG there was a "Heisenberg compensator". Which worked around the problems caused by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, allowing the transporter sensors to compensate for their inability to determine both the position and momentum of the target particles to the same degree of accuracy. This ensured the matter stream remained coherent during transport, and no data was lost. How can that thing be built?
Hi, Dr. Lincoln. Thanks to you and the Fermilab team for putting this series together.
I have some quantum skeptic friends that aren't convinced by theory alone that the uncertainty principle is anything deeper than the observer effect. Is there any experimental evidence that discredits this idea?
@Dr Deuteron This is a theoretical argument, not the experimental evidence I'm looking for. Wavefunctions themselves are never observable, after all.
Dr Lincoln thank you for your fascinating video series. I have been puzzled since high school at the extremely uniform masses of the electron and proton. You have made the mass uniformity of the electron perfectly clear. However I have learned from your videos that the internal mechanisms of the proton are very complex. Is the proton mass as equally uniform from proton to proton as the electron?
Yes.
Well I'm a little clearer. I get the FFTs, used those in the past. So there's a trade off between positional and energy information. Certainly the analogy of hitting the particle with a photon is wrong but I suppose it's a place to start. Not one that my A-Level Chemistry teacher used, but I remember the first test we had in A-Level Chemistry and there was a very high uncertainty factor indeed. It was a brutal shock that made us realise just how much harder A-Level was than O-Level/GCSE (UK school examinations).
Hey Dr. Don. In your response to the last question in this video you said that the CMB is due to the annihilation of matter with antimatter in the early universe. Some sources say that the CMB is caused by the (re!)combination of electrons with protons to form neutral hydrogen when the universe was about 300K years old. Do these 2 mechanisms (matter/anti-matter annihilation and electron/proton recombination) both contribute to the CMB? If so, are there two distince CMB signatures that reflect the different initial energies and origination times? Thanks as always for a very interesting series!
Thanks for your videos, Dr Lincoln. I am anything but a physicist, but you have helped familiarize me with current thinking. I sincerely appreciate that. I have 2 questions (I apologize if they are stupid ones): 1. If I understand correctly (& please correct me if I am not), the galaxies are flying apart from one another not as objects flying outward from the original explosive Big Bang, but as a phenomenon of constantly expanding space pulling them apart. Yet you mention in this segment that matter and antimatter annihilated one another in the Big Bang at a rate of 3 billion particles of matter to 3 billion particles of antimatter (with 1 particle of matter left over for each 3 billion destroyed after contact with 3 billion particles of antimatter). Shouldn't this massive matter/antimatter contact have created an unimaginably powerful explosion, that Big Bang which would explain the spread of all matter outward from the point of the original singularity?; 2. Does that combination of 6 billion particles of matter + antimatter whose annihilating contact left over 1 particle each of the matter that comprises the universe today indicate that at the instant the Big Bang happened, the mass of the universe (in the singularity) was almost infinitely greater than what has been left over in the universe as we know it? Is there enough radiation in the Cosmic Microwave Background to account for all the Gamma Rays released in an explosion of such incredible size?
Could there be a mirror universe that favours antimatter more than matter?
hey D.lincoln i want to ask u about the Axion particle and if it is maybe the answer for the missing antimatter in the universe
Hello there Dr. Lincoln, I'm a fan of yours and I was wondering, have you ever considered making appearances on podcasts? I have one particular in mind of course, The Portal by Eric Weinstein. I'm not sure how familiar the two of you are with each other but something tells me you two would have some very intriguing conversations.
What is a mechanism of stretching the wavelength of the photon due to space expansion?