20 Subatomic Stories: Is the Planck length really the smallest?
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 05. 2024
- A reasonable question of physics is if there is a smallest possible size and shortest duration and some scientists have claimed that there is and they are called the Planck length and Planck time. In this episode of Subatomic Stories, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains the truth of the Planck constants. It’s not what you think.
Don Lincoln article in Fermilab Today: “Planck length, minimal length”
www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archiv...
Alden Mead’s 1964 paper: “Possible Connection Between Gravitation and Fundamental Length” (subscription required)
journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.11...
Frank Wilczek’s paper on absolute units
ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_tod...
Mead and Wilczek’s public conversation
ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_tod...
Energy conservation in general relativity: John Baez
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics...
Energy conservation in general relativity: Sean Carroll
www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov - Věda a technologie
Tip: always know your plank length before you go to the hardware store.
is 6 inches a good planck length?
Measure twice, cut once
@@mellowfellow6816 that's exactly what my parents thought too, but then they changed their minds when my brother was born
I have a ruler that shows light distance... Got it through V Sauce Curiosity box.
czcams.com/video/_Y8HgmOoLCM/video.html
Thanks for answering my question Dr. Lincoln. I appreciate the links to more info and will certainly read them!
Yes, this was a great question and a superb reply. Really enjoyed this and I will check out the links too.
hello
" Planck time = zorblats " ...I need that tshirt
12 zorblats! Come on man, be precise!
I wonder what civilization came out with zorblats units and how precise they have to be to measure 1/12 of Planck time. Or it may be the exact opposite, they are so underdeveloped that they use a 12 scale factor as some imperial units, and so they must not even know what they are doing!
@@karellen00 Perhaps they count in base 12, which to some extent would be simpler than base 10, if we were to start from scratch?
Or perhaps they name powers of their whatever base (let's say 10) in multiples of 5, and have 10 of them, so rather than having milli/micro/nano etc. they have 10^-5 = "kan", 10^-10 = "lub", ... ,10^-45 = "zor", and a "blat" is 4.5 seconds?
@@RichardKMEvason zorTblats!
12. 12 Zzorblats to the plank. Gotta be 12. Maybe even more.
I still haven't decided what I think about the uncertainty principle.
Simple yet elegant. Well done
😆
Don't put too much energy in it or you might not get away
You must be too sure about something else.
Brilliant. Good job there.
It truly warms my heart to see Fermilab’s CZcams channel doing so well 🥰 it gives me hope for the future
I weep for the future
I am glad that there is so many people that like technical stuff like this!
I will henceforth quote my age in Zortblats
@Roger Dodger 2.9x10^52 Zortblats per Dog Year.
A wonderful episode of Subatomic Stories. I learned so much new about our world! Thank you very much for this series Don Lincoln!
Thank you, Don. The planck length being the length where our math breaks down answers questions and misconceptions I’ve had for years.
It's not the maths - it's the physics. The quantum of action represented by Planck's constant gets us "to those values"; going further (or smaller/shorter/more energetic) is not just a question of maths (though it will probably require a different mathematical approach from current ones).
@Brandon Piperjack I'm not sure what you mean - energy measured at a given length? It is true that (for example) the Bekenstein bound is expressed in terms of (amongst other things) Planck's constant and it is related to the entropic content of black holes, and it is true that by combining (in various ways) Planck units you can get to the same limit conditions that would give rise to a Schwarzschild black hole.
However, the point I was trying to make is that it's not the mathematical structure that breaks down (unlike for example in calculating "curvature of space-time in a black hole singularity" under GR); it's the actual physical interpretation of the numbers that no longer makes sense: QM formulated in terms of Planck's constant describes nonsense "beyond the Planck units" because what it describes contradicts the (physical) assumptions on which the theory itself is based.
@Brandon Piperjack Nothing to forgive!
This may be interesting to read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_particle (and the linked article on the "Black Hole Electron"). And this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273888/can-a-photon-have-a-wavelength-less-than-the-planck-length/273902
@@dlevi67 Does it make sense to say that it is the shortest possible length, then, if we don't have a theory that accounts for anything shorter?
I'm not trying to be pedantic. It's just a philosophical question that arose while I was wondering how it is that I have heard physicists say this.
@@bsadewitz No, you are not being pedantic at all - the 'problem' is a very interesting one, actually: the theory breaks down at the Planck length - as such, it's the shortest meaningful length (or better, distance) that the theory (QM + SR) can describe for particles with mass/energy.
We don't have a better theory, but neither do we have a reason to think that space(-time) is quantised at the Planck length (i.e. there is a physical meaning to it). This is partly because some of the other Planck units (e.g. mass) do not seem to represent a meaningful 'limit', and partly because there is some evidence that space is _not_ quantised. You may also find the discussion here interesting: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185939/is-the-planck-length-the-smallest-length-that-exists-in-the-universe-or-is-it-th
My compliments to you for linking to papers that go into subject matter more in depth! This is needed for those that wish to understand concepts bwyond the cursory .Please continue in future videos.
My goodness me - was this one of the best videos yet or what? Thank you so much Don - this scratched so many itches and answered so many questions that were lingering in my mind it is not funny. Thank you for making my week!!!!
I've followed the channel for years and this is my favourite Fermilab video. Until now I thought the Higgs Boson going to Church was unbeatable.
Thank you Dr. Lincoln!
Where did the Time Crystal one fit in? That was at least funny.
@@drdon5205
Watch only if hav'nt earlier.
czcams.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/video.html
How about ....
czcams.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/video.html
If Einstein's GR only works in the macro world, how do we know microscopic black holes exist?
One of the alleged difficulties of producing a so-called quantum gravity theory is due to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
To probe ever tinier distances, we need ever greater energies. The problem is that if you concentrate too much mass in a tiny space, the gravity of such a space becomes so huge that black holes form, making the measurement impossible.
This is my question. How do we know that a huge energy allocated to a tiny subatomic region of space would create a black hole, since there is no quantum gravity theory to go by?
How do scientists know, what are they basing this idea on, to say that a huge subatomic concentration of energy would lead to a microscopic black hole?
Yay, new vid from Dr. Don! 💖🌌
Shout out to Dr Lincoln for showing us his childhood photos.
Between Subatomic Stories and Sean Carrolls videos I expect my PHD in Physics to arrive by the end of the year! Thank you!
If it helps
Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch...
czcams.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/video.html
That was fascinating, and I'm really looking forward to the next new chapter. Thank you.
How can you not love these videos. Thank you Mr. Lincoln.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I absolutely LOVE this video series.
I understood about 1 zorblat of this talk but still find it interesting .
Thanks Dr. Lincoln. This episode was very instructive.
This series are good for learning in the simplest way possible.
This is a great channel, the questions from the viewers are also awesome. Recently subscribed.
Wow good no-fluff explanations without any sensationalism yet the man makes it interesting, entertaining and easy to digest. Never knew the real story behind the Planck units until now.
Don: astrophysicists aren't funny.
Matt of Pbs Spacetime: 🙄
Well he might be sorta funny must mostly he's dead serious,his voice,his face,everything.
@@loganwolv3393 Someone is not getting all the jokes :P
Or Dr. Becky
@@loganwolv3393 he has a very dry sense of humor, but I get a good lol once or twice per episode.
@@LeoStaley So easy to miss and hard to appriciate huh? i see.
I just discovered your channel and subscribed! I'm excited for your upcoming videos.
Hi Don! I hope that you understand that I learn something new and fascinating every episode. Thanks you so much!
Thanks for the history lesson! 👍
Just great. Thank you.
Awesome video Don! Thanks a lot for sharing! You have a great sense of humor! It's very fun to watch your videos!
This channel is GREAT! As a casual, trying to figure out reality this sort of info is a great roadmap for me. Thank you!
Regarding iron and fusion: theoretically we could add lots more neutrons to let nuclei hold together despite having lots of protons, but there seems to be a rule that you can't have more than about 1.5 times as many neutrons as protons before beta decay starts occuring. How is it that protons stabilise neutrons over a wide variety of nucleus sizes but neutrons aren't able to stabilise each other (you don't get stable n4 or anything)?
Because neutrons are both unstable and more massive than protons. If there exists a lower energy state for the collection of nucleons, then it will decay into that lower energy state, if a decay path exists. Still, I do wonder why no-one has ever studied or even made n2, even if it is short lived.
Dineutron (2 neutrons) was observed 8 years ago. So it's not completely unstudied.
@@MuttFitness Fascinating. I'll have to look into it! Thanks!
Neither protons nor neutrons truly "stabilize" each other; instead, atomic nuclei will fill out their protons and neutrons so that, roughly, the highest energy proton and highest energy neutron will have the same energy in the nucleus. This is because the energy levels in general become more spread out as you add more nucleons, so if you had a very energetic proton or neutron relative to the other "stack" of nucleons, it would be more energetically favorable for that very energetic proton/neutron to beta decay into the shorter stack. You should think of them as two different stacks of energy levels because they are not identical particles so the Pauli exclusion principle doesn't apply between them.
The reason that nuclei tend to fill with a ratio of about 1.5 neutrons per protons is because the proton energy levels are more spaced out due to electrostatic repulsion (since protons are charged). So, roughly speaking, in a given amount of energy, you can fit 3 neutrons per every 2 protons.
The nuclear force is attractive between protons and neutrons, but is slightly repulsive between likes. And protons do not stabilize nuclei. For any given element there are between zero and a few stable isotopes. (Zero for Z > 82, i.e., those elements beyond lead, no isotopes are stable.) For those isotopes with fewer neutrons than the stable ones, the protons tend to beta decay. For those isotopes with more neutrons than the stable ones, the neutrons tend to beta decay. Both processes bring the given nucleus closer to a stable isotope. Makes sense.
Lucky for me, I watched Sean Carol's video about exactly that!
Let's see, something like if the space is expanding faster than a particle can move through it, that particle will actually lose energy to the expansion. Photons red shift, electrons slow down.
If Einstein's GR only works in the macro world, how do we know microscopic black holes exist?
One of the alleged difficulties of producing a so-called quantum gravity theory is due to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
To probe ever tinier distances, we need ever greater energies. The problem is that if you concentrate too much mass in a tiny space, the gravity of such a space becomes so huge that black holes form, making the measurement impossible.
This is my question. How do we know that a huge energy allocated to a tiny subatomic region of space would create a black hole, since there is no quantum gravity theory to go by?
How do scientists know, what are they basing this idea on, to say that a huge subatomic concentration of energy would lead to a microscopic black hole?
As always, great video! Thank you!
Thank you for explaining the Plank length issue...it took 5 videos but your finally was clear enough to understand.
This is further to the question and answer regarding fusion and iron. Turning to fission, for instance in current nuclear power reactors, would it be correct to think the energy we derive is actually stored as potential electrostatic energy inside the nucleus? And that the role of the strong nuclear force in fission is really as a kind of "latch" that keeps that electrostatic energy bound up until it's eventuallly released, either spontaneously or through neutron bombardment?
Furthermore, for fusion of lighter elements, is it correct to think that the energy we get out is fundamentally from the strong nuclear force, as two light nuclei moving around already have quite a lot of potential energy in the strong nuclear field between them -- or is the strong nuclear force so different that we can't even talk about strong nuclear potential?
That seems largely accurate as a heuristic at least baring a few additional complexities for example as atoms get larger the odds that a number of nucleons, typically Helium 4 for some reason perhaps as it is both a local minimum and acts as a boson which means the Pauli exclusion principal need not apply?, will be able to quantum tunnel out of a nucleus. Note the distinction typically as other nuclear atomic configurations can tunnel out of a nucleus it is just orders of magnitude less likely to happen. Probabilistically this effect ignores energy barriers so you need to think of the latch as somewhat "leaky" due to the whole quantum tunneling effect
But yes you can think of the energy difference between the reactants and the products as getting released or absorbed for the reaction to take place and those energy sources are generally based on whether the strong nuclear force or electromagnetic force is dominant.
And further I'm adding with this; stars tends to fusion elements that lighter than iron, up to iron; and there is no more energy left to generate with fusion so we require more energy to create heavier elements. But heavier radioactive elements eventually decays into lead and stops there. Shouldn't it decay more keep giving energy untill it hits to iron again? I thought subatomic particles are lazy and they all tend to stay on lower possible hikikomori energy just like me.
@@Haplo-san I think I can answer that, although not at the deepest level. There are many nuclei that are stable even though they don't have the minimum energy like that of iron. This really goes for most of the stuff you see around you, stable oxygen (lighter than iron), stable gold (heavier than iron). They all have energy, but we don't observe that this energy likes to come out on its own.
I hope you are familiar with the nuclide chart, with numbers of protons on one axis and numbers of neutrons on the other axis. There is a squiggly line going roughly diagonally that represents stable combinations of protons and neutrons. Typically there's only one or a few stable isotopes for each chemical element (proton count). You can imagine the nuclide chart also in 3D, where each cell stands as a column, protruding out from the chart with a height indicating how much energy is bound up in the nucleus represented by that cell. Then you'll see a kind of "valley", with the line of stability going down the middle. The sides of this valley can be quite steep, but the valley itself also goes gently uphill as you move towards the heavier nuclei. It also goes uphill towards the lighter elements, where it becomes very steep. In a real valley, a boulder can tumble down towards the lowest point, but often they'll get stuck in some impediment along the way, a local minimum. Equivalently, in the nuclide chart, an unstable heavy nucleus can undergo the various decay modes, moving it to a lower energy state, but the decay chain will typically get stuck in a local minimum.
We can make a nucleus unstable by bombarding the material with neutrons and hoping that you get a "direct hit". In some situations, like with Thorium, that can nudge the nucleus into another cell in the chart where the energy bound up in the nucleus becomes more easily accessible, hence the interest in Thorium for energy. (Here I'm ignoring that Thorium is very slightly radioactive, for most practical purposes it's stable.) To spell it out, we are adding a small amount of energy to lift the nucleus out of the local minimum, so it can follow another decay path that may move it closer to the global minimum around iron. In the analogy, this is equivalent to lifting a boulder out of a small trench in order to let it continue tumbling down a valley.
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, and may be wrong.
@@eckligt That was informative, thank you. I imagined something like China's rice terraces. If an atom sitting at higher terrace, you may need a neutrons kick of energy to throw it lower terrace but when it reaches ground level, you will require i-don't-know-how-the-f-loads of energy to dig it more into lighter elements. I also imagined splitting a toothpick into two pieces is easier but keep splitting it more into two pieces becomes a pain very quickly. I was seen this chart before but I wasn't familiar with it, so I will dig more into nuclide chart, it looks interresting. Thanks again.
@@Haplo-san I recommend this video from a French research institute that explains this better than anything else I have come across: czcams.com/video/UTOp_2ZVZmM/video.html
Note that you may struggle with their highly accented English.
Good video as usual, thanks so much. But... Could the Planck length be actually *smaller* than the real minimum physical size, if this should happen to be quantized? Thank you
good question
Min. Physical.....
czcams.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/video.html
THank you for clarifying the meaning and essence of Planck's Constant for me, DR. Lincoln. Yes, I until now, had always thought it was the shortest length, or at least the shortest measurable length. Your explanation makes more sense and is more fascinating to me.
You are the best science educator for physics in CZcams as of now !
How can we get some of the great t-shirts you wear?
An interesting bit (Ignoring the ways the current models could break down):
- A Planck mass Schwarzschild black hole would be a Planck length across.
- A Planck energy photon would have a wavelength of a Planck length.
- A Planck energy is equivalent to a Planck mass (via E=mc²).
Naively, a photon of that wavelength should, by it self, be a kugelblitz: a black hole formed only from radiation. (Though I suspect that breaks down when you start asking about what reference frame you are measuring from, but it's still fun.)
your shows are the best, love how you explain things tha twork. you should do a live show some time so people can ask you questions directly. thank you for the show.
Thank you for this video, after years of me trying to understand Quantum physics and either reading or seeing people talk in absolutes which prickled my mind into more questions than I started out with I can now see that those absolutes were not absolute at all but merely interpretations or extrapolations of what was known. Put more clearly I would read, "this is true therefore this must exist because (complicated mathematics I cannot fully understand)" which did not make sense to me. Persistence has paid off, thanks to people like you, Arvin Ash, PBS Space Time and others I am beginning to see a clearer picture.
"So, what is it with astrophysicists?" Badum tish!
What?! Dr Don, you haven't always had a mustache?
My mom made me shave it when I was a baby.
You are an amazing educator. Thank you so much for bringing all this amazing wondrous content and presenting it in a way that I can understand at least some of it! Lol! I wondered if there might be a chance to cover ‘Wigner’s Friend’ please and any more recent developments on this? Once again, Thank you hugely!
You are great scholar and teacher sir. I wish and pray God that people like you to be in all education institution to teach science.
If we send one of the Quantum entanglement particle to Black Hole they are still entaglement?
Well, I am fellow teen little to answer, But I can say entangled particles cohere as they interact with environment, and even measurements
@@divyanshvishwkarma9548 And my english is to weak to write this good but I think that entanglement is above time and space. And even event horizon is no barrier for this.
Conditions under the event horizons changes a lot, for instance Space and Time swapping their role (or properties to say)
And any event that occurs under event horizon doesn't have any effect on an outside observer,
And I am not a physicist now but can say that the monster will either break the entangled, or if it didn't, only a clever experimental physicist can find it😁😁
@@divyanshvishwkarma9548 That I wrote: "entanglement is above time and space"
Cannot believe you actually got out “astrophysicist are known to be dull and not funny “ without Neil deGrass Tyson cutting you off and telling his side instead!!! Lol
neil deGrass Tyson is annoying. Anyone who likes doing TED videos is a tool.
"... I know you didn't ask me, but..." ;)
I really appreciate what Neil deGrasse Tyson does and did for the public awareness of science, though I do think he took it a bit too far. His podcasts with Chuck Nice are some of the unfunniest things I've ever seen.
I'd love to see more in-depth videos from him, which are lacking lately. When he's able to put his ego aside, he's a great communicator.
@@ThelemicMagick true, what you said I agree. I can't stand watching Neil, nothing I saw I liked, but its what appeals to the masses is most important.
Its like donald trump for conservatives/racists/2nd amendment gun toters.
Same goes with left leaning liberal idiots/sjw dimwits/snowflakes.
Of course its not this serious, etx, but the idea is the same, the underlying truth about society, and the mass population is the same: fickle like anything, band wagon jumpers. I wish we had good leaders, moral leaders, and role models. I'd vote Dr. Lincoln as one.
Excellent Video, Don !!
Thanks for the knowledge sir. I have learnt many from you..
Why is Brian May a disciple of Kansas? He made a study of Dust in the wind.
Howdy. Agreed and very funny! I looked at his Paper and am amazed! To say or type anymore will REVEAL my idioticy. Thanks for helping me laugh! Cheers
VINCE BERNAL CZcams done right, glad for giggles
Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch...
czcams.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/video.html
Hi, great video. Has anyone suggested the dark photons as candidates for the hidden variables proposed by Eisten to overcome quantum mechanic uncertainty?
Great video. Helped a lot. Thank you
Dr don you are exactly what I needed
Lmao standup comedy as part of your PhD 😂
PhD thesis defense. It is a thing.
Him: It's been said that the Planck length is the smallest length, but that's not the entire tale, as I will tell you in this week's episode of sub, sub, Subatomic Stories.
Me: Good one, Don!
I like that Dr. Lincoln draws a clear distinction between the known and the speculative.
Your sense of humor is top notch😂😂👍👍
scientists: "Energy is not conserved"
Me: I been lied to my whole life...
Seriously, down with normal "education" and the established media, we all need to get our info from the SAUCE
It still holds well enough in contexts where general relativity doesn’t have to be taken into account. It is still very useful.
joaquin vega Conservation of energy is still the best rule to follow for nearly every phenomena you can see in your everyday life. Especially if an investor aproaches you with his idea about infinite free energy...
If ya wanna run cool, you've got to run on heavy fuel! In other words: ya want the truth? Do the math.
Sure. Everyone should be taught general relativity in first grade. The fact that the kids can't even add yet shouldn't stop them from solving the Einstein field equations.
@@michaelsommers2356 Such fatalism. I've taught 10 year old kids the basics of differential calculus, and I'm nothing but a drunk. Starting from a number line, the x-y plane, linear equations, quadratic equations, and then...bam!...the derivative. Took me 5 hours. That was a class of two, tho.
Dr. Don Lincoln: astrophysicists aren't funny.
Neil deGrasse Tyson: hold my beer.
He isnt an astrophysicist. When was the last time he did any real science? decades ago. For the most part his contributions are posting self-important tweets.
@@rykehuss3435 Agreed, Neil deGrass Tyson is annoying. Anyone who likes doing TED videos is a tool.
If Einstein's GR only works in the macro world, how do we know microscopic black holes exist?
One of the alleged difficulties of producing a so-called quantum gravity theory is due to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
To probe ever tinier distances, we need ever greater energies. The problem is that if you concentrate too much mass in a tiny space, the gravity of such a space becomes so huge that black holes form, making the measurement impossible.
This is my question. How do we know that a huge energy allocated to a tiny subatomic region of space would create a black hole, since there is no quantum gravity theory to go by?
How do scientists know, what are they basing this idea on, to say that a huge subatomic concentration of energy would lead to a microscopic black hole?
@@rykehuss3435 Tyson is hawt,but Not a real scientist
Thanks for the explanation
man id love to see a crossover between fermilab & pbs spacetime. this was a cool episode by the way. got me thinking about the planck length.
I always enjoy your CZcams lectures. Have you done anything on the important physics constants ?
Just fantastic. Thank you very much.
Dear friend in Physics of the Universe!
I am enlightened by your illustrative videos and FermiLab's (USA's) Scientific contributions to the Humanity 💐❣️🙏
Absolutely thank you so much and the whole staff of the FermiLab, USA.
You are all great support to all the Human beings in all countries/ nations of the world 🌎🤗🌍🌄
Your reading choices on the left side (behind you) are very interesting.
THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
A big fan of your effort -- THANK YOU !!
Your lectures are numbered and apparently grouped (current one is in Subatomic Stories. Are there simple links so that one can easily find them? Many thanks in advance
I have never seen someone speak with so much passion about tachyons
Hi Dr. Lincoln! What do you think about super symmetry? Would love if you could do an episode about it! Greetings from Perú!
Thank you, Don.
Thank you, I've noticed that this misconception is often floating around. Are there any ideas for how we could measure things at smaller scales? (I have a hypothesis that what we think of as point particles may be solid objects with diameters far shorter than the planck length)
That before and after pic of Planck's contribution to QM had me rolling!
Wonderful video as usual. I sometimes forget the human drama behind the story of physics, both are fascinating
Thanks Don for another illuminating video! Cheers, Eddy. (ps will think about a question soon.. maybe..)
1:04 Prof Lincoln you're the best.
Dr. Don, you were a bit shaken last time, but I am glad you got your composure back.
Great video! Just wondering if Quantized Inertia is going to be the subject of one of your upcoming videos?
Just bought two of your audiobooks... Looking forward to those!
Question: in the accretion disc of a black hole, is there enough density and energy to fuse elements near or past 103 on the periodic table?
Thanks!
I don't know, but I doubt it. I think the density is the problem.
Wow, so this really deserved a much more compelling title, like, MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT PHYSICS.
I have always, since my early childhood, asked questions about the world around me, always wondered about everything, and almost always thinking about everything I could.
I brainstorm about things much more than most people, yet these scientists from decades and even centuries ago simply shock and amaze me with their insight, intelligence and the ability to come up with these superb solutions.
Though I can understand almost everything, I currently can't fully comprehend how these scientists were able to develop these theories and formulas.
It forces me to humbly admit that there are levels of intelligence beyond my grasp, gifted to very few people in the world.
Thank you sir . Your work is always great . Love from India 🇮🇳
Hello Sir, Loved your videos.
Que: Is accretion disk a disk really (2 dimensional as seen from large distance )???? just like saturn rings or its just a visualisation....
Hi Doc, good video.
Talking about iron being the final element that provides energy you said the most protons in a nucleus is expected to be 120. I was reminded of the island of stability. Could you explain what this is and why this may exist? Thank you!
Also, regarding your comments on energy conservation, if you consider a photon is just an spacial aperture to a big bang temperature and expanding space changes the wavelength of that expression, it is easy to understand that the core energy of the photon has not changed, only the spacial apertures' behaviour of collapse has changed.
B-)
Thanks Don, for answering my query. Indeed you have a great sense of humor and it would have been great to see you in the Big Bang Theory series.
Speaking of black hole secrets.. is it possible to send out a message from inside the event horizon via gravitational waves? For instance, if two black holes are orbiting each other closely, they would form a single event horizon but you can maybe modulate frequency/amplitude of the gravitational waves and thus send a message out?
Awesome vid!!!
Hi thanks for the great series.What is your opinion on plasma cosmology as it seems to explain many things that gravity cosmology Can't such as binary star formation?
My opinion is that its pure bunk. Gravity cosmology can explain binary stars.
Can you make a video talking about The results from the T2K Tokai Neutrino experiment in Japan recently and it's impact on the matter antimatter imbalance?
Hello Dr. Lincoln and team! Thank you for another awesome and informative video.
Slightly off topic question: is it worth for someone after 30 years even to try to go to university to get degree in any science discipline.
P.S. Then I was younger I do not think I choose right thing I really want and enjoy to do.
Tough call. It's always worth doing what you enjoy. But you will not have enough time to establish you professionally. That takes some 30 years or thereabouts.
@@drdon5205 Thank you for the answer.
Thank you doctor Don!
Question! After inflation, all mater cool down...Where all that energy of heat goes and how?
About that “conservation” point. My hair stood up like Planck’s. Holy zorblatts, Doc!
Hi Don
Are zortblats defined in terms of scroungknewts and feffphrittminskitts?
Or do you just normalize the units.
Thanks!
;)
Recently I've started listening to D:REAM and Dare with and without Brian Cox. D:ream I'm really liking so far. Funny you mention music. Thanks for the info i did learn something. I have more to learn. Thanks.
Peace and agap'e.
Thanks for making this series, very neat idea. Look forward to looking thru it. If you haven’t answered, I’d like to ask about quantum field theory. So if energy is conserved in our system, then is that why we call particles as “fields” because they act like they “share energy” equally across the whole system? Is that sort of ‘sharing nature’ what defines a field? Is there any way to test that outside of the math?
Also, please comment, in this video you mention that the smallest plank unit just means our current physics break down, and as I understand black holes are similar, so are black holes like an enlarged version of that ‘at the Plank length’ level? Like things getting too small, supernova’s get “too energetic”? So it reaches the...energy?...plank limit and rips space a new one?
Dr Don, the videos are just getting better and better, thank you for the great information and humor :)
And, Americans, you should vote this guy your president !
i learned something that i never really thought about in depth before
Can you please make a video about the Delayed choice quantum eraiser experement and what "the information going back in time" means.
You taught me something I didn't know!
Siempre me pregunté porqué el hierro era el ultimo producto de la fusión nuclear. No sabia si preguntárselo a un físico o a un químico. Gracias Don por la respuesta!!!!