@icupfreely23 Tesseract geometry confines an atom to function without the use of quarks but begins with thermal k mesons instead of the electron, so all electrons must channel through it and the box would have to squeeze flattish and spin. This cannot last for very long, which is why antimatter has never been observed very long. It has to do with where particles sit and react with like ones using DeBroglie waves to send orbiting waves inside a so called shell made by arranging bosons/largest.
Is the Anti-Christ made up completely of antimatter? If Christ and the Anti-Christ decide to "Kiss and make up", should they hug one another? Is this why Good and Evil are always dueling? How do we know that Noah's wife was a blonde?...Because he caught her trying to smuggle 2 termites on board the Ark!
Antimatter has only been observed during the ion shell collapse of an atom. Why is simple; it exists everywhere already using larger particles that connect much looser/weaker using kinetic DeBroglie waves as all space is filled with particles in great pressure. I've unified the fields using simple projective geometry. It's parameter based so without exact weights you have to use fuzzy logic, but it works. I've explained Edward Leedskalnin's stone levitation and so much more.
@heartlessvietboy Yes there is, yet it has not been defined this way, it's what I call it. You wouldn't know this because I never published a book on my work. What I mean by this is; all atoms are surrounded by boson particles, and the number, arrangement, and ratio spacing of those particles determines the inner, through, and outer ion charges. If you study basic chemistry or acid based chemistry, they do teach ion charges there.
@heartlessvietboy You don't understand, stop mocking me and maybe you'll learn something. Massive energy used to make antimatter unnaturally didn't really prove the existence of antimatter, it merely proved that particles group without quarks powered by super polarized electrons. This event takes place only when stars explode, or in brown dwarfs in very small amounts. All it is, is a fractal shift of the stages of the magnetic family which you can learn of in Ed Leedskalnin's book.
First, the original Matter Work is bull crap. How can we be talking about it til' today? I hear it all the time. Second, then they come up with Anti-matter who someone copied from Matter and is 10x's more bull crap than Matter itself!! Three, the speed of light and polarized electrons (electricity) don't mean the Universe is 11 dimensions. Four, Using Uranium to explode in a chamber doesn't mean the Universe is that. Five, Space Time is bull crap. There isnt even a right equation for Time.
@heartlessvietboy Well put man. Most grads have been brainwashed by the ideal of make believe magical particle motions, interactions with strings and photons. Anyone who honestly thinks that some massless thing can wiggle or suck other masses together should be put in a straight jacket!! It is purely psychotic. Einstein told people before he died it was just a shortcut. His last words were "Everything is relative." Many don't know that he witnessed the Philadelphia Experiment from the pier.
@cmfluteguy Your theory is full of holes and always will be. Just one example of many, the MASSIVE gap in big bang theory, so no, it's not correct down to decimal places that is an outright lie. If it only works inside light gas atoms which is all smashers have observed, it's B.S. There are over 100 elements not tested. You must be a democrat, and I am a conservative, thank you for the compliment.
@MikeRoePhonicsMusic Okay I'll spell it out for you; ALL branch theory physics is b.s. because they assume operations for all elements which they have not even tested in smashers yet to understand. Myself and many others have seen the photon and superstring lies for what they are. You cannot do anything but blow things up using branch geometry. It'll never explain mysteries such as galactic bulge, pulsar energizing, red shift. I've had a battle with the editors of Wikipedia because they lie
@mikefromspace Seriously wtf are you talking about? You are throwing out random terms that you obviously don't understand. Read wikipedia articles about particle physics before you embarrass yourself further.
@KalontheGreat People edit Wikipedia, even I do. Just because something is in wiki does not make it solid fact. I am not and never will be embarrassed over my theory. I understand more about antimatter than you will ever know probably. You and every other fool who believes that photons or superstrings actually exist need to face the cold hard reality that particle physics is just particles. Your theories will never be finished you are all doomed to infinite loops haha
someone below called them lawrence Transformations' a lot of listening but no reading it wasn';t the great Lawrence...it's the "Lorentz" transformation (shrinking as you go faster one over SQRT of 1 - v2/??
Don't worry, he actually doesn't explain the math very well at all. He also lied. Einstein didn't discover those transformations. They are called Lawrence transformation because Lawrence derived them, not Einstein.
Explosive so it will produce light and heat as well as kinetic. Unless you meant something else, antimatter explosion = Antimatter + matter. This would cause a huge energy release that could probably sent us all to hell, the main fear about CERN was that antimatter that would 'probably' be created would go out of control and touch matter and... well... send us all to hell. Not because the huge amounts of energy were likely to create a black hole, but just the explosion would be more than enough.
Particles in space do not 'suck' to eachother, wiggle to eachother, they are kinetically pushed there. I've proven this using various experiments alongside electron photography. A positron is really large particles moving in the opposite direction that would normally have had the electron at center when neutrally ionized by passing neutrinos. Neutrinos not only maintain ionization, they cause atoms to move, time to pass, all the forces to unify the way they do. I have infinite proofs of this.
I've heard physicists call hadron "bags" of particles, but sometimes they are referred to as particles alone, but they're really just a group, although nobody knows all the particles involved because of the power limits of atom smashers.
Depends. Most schools structure intro calc-based physics courses as such: Classical Mechanics; Electromagnetism; Intro to Quantum. At my school, Intro to Quantum is where you will start off with special relativity and learn more about this kind of stuff.
@chuckinator0 So there is a chance this is first year material? And there's no chance of this being 2nd degree material? My curiosity is bent around the question: " how complex is what I'm looking at in the video?" - I'm a physics lover, but still a mere neophyte
@LogEekumenAgination Like most subjects in Physics, there are many levels of complexity. You might cover a topic in high school, and then cover it again in college with a better understanding of the math beneath it, and then cover it a third time in grad school with an even deeper understanding. Special relativity, as it is presented in this video, is 2nd year physics material, but you probably won't really learn the gory details until grad school.
@chuckinator0 Thank you. That makes sense considering Newtonian mechanics is always built on from one year to the next with new juicier material thrown into the mix.
I just don't appreciate going through my entire schooling career and now only am I given glimpses of the underlying reality from of quarks, antimatter, neutrinos, Heisenberg etc... Why tell me now this stuff exists! I've been brainwashed into believing it ends with well defined mathematics. Now with all this quantum uncertainty...
@LogEekumenAgination I know. I was quite shocked and troubled by what I learned in intro Quantum. It's an entirely new way of thinking, incredibly strange, and most troubling of all, it's really TRUE. A ton of modern technology is built upon QM, and simply wouldn't work if these strange ideas weren't actually true. It's just mind boggling.
@chuckinator0 Einstein didn't believe in QM, just goes to show you nobody is perfect and that he was prolly more wrong than right, but you'll prolly know just how simple his physics is compared to QM. then again he died still trying to disprove QM, he was very much the "big" man of physics. ;P
Einstein didn't "believe in" QM? You mean the man who invented QM? The man who got his Noble for inventing QM? The man who explained Brownian Motion? The photoelectric effect, that Einstein got his Noble for, is the reason QM exists. People were farting in bathtubes and laughing before Einstein's "simple" physics.
What Einstein didn't "believe in" was parts of the uncertainty principle. He, as do i, have problems with the "freewill" of atoms. "god doesn't play dice"
You're a fucking idiot.... Did i say he won more than one Noble? Did I say I believe in "god"? Einstein's "photoelectric effect" gave birth to nearly everything we know of QM.
Einstein didn't try to disprove QM, he tried to prove QM was incomplete by indirectly explaining a cause and effect that QM can't. He didn't believe "god plays dice", in other words "random". Why don't you just fucking read about it and stop trying to talk about shit you don't understand?
@LogEekumenAgination There's also a chance you could learn it much sooner in a lower level conceptual class, albeit without having to know anything about the mathematics that underlies it.
Tell me what are the students hearing?? When I ask them what is X - Prime, they say its T- Prime. When I ask them how can T Prime be X Prime, they say they don't know. And if they don't know, why are they writing this stuff?
I highly advise you go see the attached "video response" which was the "second take" of the lecture under much less time pressure. The first take was "candid camera" and unrehearsed. Gosh, I'd like to do a third take.
Th3GPR is right, there is a missing exponent 2
on c, ie, t' - (gam)(t - vx/c^2). I always set c=1
(with hbar) but the students probably did get confused. C'est la vie.
Anyway, it's all in
Lederman and Hill, "Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe."
meh ... t prime is equal to gamma t minus v x over c SQUARED! (ie not just over c) ... Those poor students who actually attempted the "homework" must have had major headaches ...
Using mere projective geometry and parameter sciences I've cornered all the forces with only particles and using large bodies, ie; stars, black holes, as particle processors. They constantly consume and create particles. the POSITRON is just a set of particles that were always there, but now set into motion. All space is packed with a ratio of particles large to small, just not quarks, they exist built upon a different set of progressively larger fractals. no am.
he's saying light is traveling at a constant speed but the thing i dont get if why light isnt having any resitance by for example air or gravety what slows it down cous normal things like us cant roll on forever on a bike or something so why light does?
because his lecture is oldschool and apparently he doesn't care anymore. light is a "warpable" force. that is to say, it is affected by things like magnetism and gravity, but only on a scale such that we can observe it from a great distance.
If someone were to form a thermonuclear weapon made from anti-hydrogen, they would need more than 1 atom of it to wipe out the world. And after the destructive force emitted from the anti-matter, would the anti-matter Atom be destroyed or would it still exist and then keep contacting matter.............. :o i think i get it.....i think. would the anti-matter keep contacting matter and then eventually destroy the world? ooooooooohh!! sorry if i sound dumb. im 15! :P I find this suff interesting
No, when anti-matter and matter collide they are completely destroyed and either completely turn to energy in the ratio E=mc^2 or form other particles, but there is no chance a small amount of anti-matter will destroy the Earth. Neither will the LHC.
guys, why there is so much matter? cos it is cheap particle physics, like fission. the look of matter is like sh*t, no style no history - Take a look at anti-matter. those how hate ANTI-MATTER. try to look at new antimatter X and matter. antimatter forever. was riding matter electron, than antimatter positron. forget matter find something better than few stars, find rantimatter
I think they want to devulge into antimatter because of it's unstable and destructive force. Ehenthough it's not practical right now...it will be soon.
I think that the reason anyone would want to investigate antimatter is that it has a lot of potential as a new energy source. When antimatter and matter converge, all the mass involved in the interaction is annihilated and converted into energy. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, converts less than 1% of the matter involved into energy. You can just imagine the tremendous amount of energy that would be released from the joining of hydrogen and antihydrogen.
Definately, but it is a double edge sword. What can create can also destroy, and if man does harness it for destruction, there will be no coming back...
I here you. This is just like the issue with nuclear energy...just 1,000 times more potentially creative or destructive. Though, somebody is bound to harness antimatter for destructive purposes.
true, but it can be used as a weapon just as efficiently... if we do harness the power of antimatter, you can bet that someone will try and conquer the world or w/e...be a dictator, etc.etc.etc. also if we could harness a stabilization between matter and antimatter... what do u think would happen :O where one object and its natural opposite collide...ying and yang, only alot stronger >=D
Would it be possible to form a thermonuclear weapon made of antimatter. Due to the fact that antihydrogen is the most basic, if you created an atom of it and then stored it in a container that is unreactive with it, could you bombard it till it reaches explosive reactivity. (Anti-h-Bomb). My guess is the outcome would be catastrophic and most likely would be the end of the world as we know it. However, in the future it could be a galactic weapon. A destroyer of worlds if you will.
You are correct, an anti nuclear weapon could be created. However it must be pointed out that the cost of making a single anti hydrogen atom is prohibitive, let alone making the number necessary for any type of weapon.
we can only see a fraction of our universe due to the fact that our eyes are build that way. all im saying is that there is some crazy stuff out there we can´t explain because where incapable of actually seeing certain things. on the other hand maybe our brain is not constructed to understand the universe. a dog will never play poker, regardless how log you teach him because its brain is not build this way.
arent they left overs from evolution? mutations over the millions of years eventually had them "turned off". i heard of an experiment where these genes were turned on in birds and the resulting embryo had teeth. so the birds had kept the genes to have teeth, but the genes havent been used since the birds evolved to not have them. forgive me if im not accurate on the specifics of what was actually modified to cause this to occur- i saw an article on the story some time ago, thats the jist of it
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I wish all these geniuses would shut the fuck up about all these "theories" and actually do something. We have been "looking" at the stars long enough. It's about time we figure out how to make people go thousands of miles per second so we can actually visit other planets.
Purely by definition Paul, if there is a change on the molecular level, something has been changed. Split. Same water to start out with. Poured into a control bottle, and the rest blended with toxic foam remvoved. Repeat. Until I make a water that if you drank a 32oz sized bottle at once?
I'm in the process of making 'heavier water' right now Paul. Blending Stevia into EXPLODING LIKE IT SAFELY DOES INSIDE THE BLENDER, INTO A BUBBLY WHITE SOIUP. That Soup? It 'returns,' or seperates into purer h2o underneath a layer of foam that ph's toxic for the things that are making millions sick. I've made one hand held bottle of water 6 grams heavier, and I'm not done blending the chemicals out.
the first part he's talking about an assumption that electons only exist at certain energy levels. and the pauli-exclusion of electons just means you cant have more than one in the same level. I would take that to be quantum theory, and not classic. classic is usually based on the assumption that things dont move in jumps. In quantum, small movments happen instantaneously between levels (for bound electrons orbiting nucleas) and a quanta of energy is emmitted - ie a photon when going down lev.
i dont think he fully understands what he is talking about. he speaks loudly when he is explaining the math, but speaks very softly in explaining what it means conceptually. he keeps repeating, "if we had more time i could explain why this is so". if you dont have the time to explain it completely then dont waste other people's time in giving half explanations. this is the source of misconception. interesting idea, but very badly presented.
he's just semi- explaining observations. I hate when lecturers dumb things down. What do you mean by "physical state"? He does not know. I'm a physics major, just pointing out that anyone, even pros, can spit out what they've been told. But few actually understand what they are asking us to remember for their tests. Is this then actually education??
i completely agree. i wont be able to understand every physics concept, but theres no point in just memorizing formulas and accepting everything as fact. i cringed everytime he said, "i would demonstrate this in more detail if i had more time". my favorite physics professor would derivate every equation, and explain concepts along the way. from this video, im guessing this is a strange way of teaching... actually understanding the material you are presenting.
by my standards i feel that anti matter is an imagine way of felling 3 gigajewls per sec in you atomic/-/cosmiticular body in ways that motion is nott real and can or cannot exist in an after life it makes sense..
that was really informative and actually resonably easy to understand! hope the lecturers are that good when i go to uni next year.... wont b doing physics tho... hardcore maths not my thing!
when i get my bedford running properly, how would you explain wot will happen when i turn my lights on, at just under the speed of light? and if i wer to over take the light and look back, will it be dark or will i see the light??
The speed of light is relative so even if you were travelling at C light would be leaving you at the speed of light relative to you. so you would see a reflection,
yes but it will need to reflect of the mirror and reach you and because your moving the speed of light it cannot catch up to yo and unless light goes faster or bends through time.
light always moves towards/away from you at 186,000mi/sec., whether you are standing still or moving. he explained this in the video, if you are traveling in the same direction as the light trying to catch it you will make no progress. so to two different observers moving at different speeds the photons are actually percieved in two different places.
You would not go back in time. You will observe that no time has passed if you are moving at the speed of light relative to something. Also nice job copying that formula of that screen, but your formula had nothing to do with what you just said (which was wrong). As for the mirror part you really weren't specific enough so it really doesn't make much sense(was it moving relative to you? how far was it?). Nice try you might get it next time.
you couldn't see it because nothing can travel faster than light speed - not even relative to another thing traveling at light speed thus no light rays from you could reach the mirror and so you couldn't see yourself.
If we see by light, and we travel faster then light would we be able to see anything at all? If we would, would we be able to prcess the information before it is irrelevent to us left far far behind?
I didn't do physics but i'm pretty sure you can't go faster than light. but whatever light will still travel at the same speed relative to you no matter how fast you move. I couldn't process your last question in time...
Yes you are correct, if a human goes faster than light, (which is doubted highly but not impossible) and the human body is still in tact,then they will not be able to see anything because the light is behind them, and they cannot see. About going faster than tsol (the speed of light) you would have to be in space being bent by a powerfull force in a circular motion, and you being moved along with it, then you would go faster than tsol but this is not known how it would be done until recently.
No that's incorrect. Even if a human moves at the speed of c, c will always be c! Light is infinite, so you would need to have infinite energy too move at the speed of light. That would require all the energy in the universe rendering that impossible. But when a high enough gravitation force occurs. It will bend space time (a black hole is one instance off this happening!) But that is also incorrect because anything with mass bends space/time!
waterutalkingabout is wrong, Bhinder14 is correct.
Einstein went to prove this with a thought experiment with a mirror on a train traveling at the speed of light. Logic will tell you that you wouldn't see your face in the mirror, but in reality, you will. But light isnt infinite, it is an illusion that it is.
Yeah I get that. I kind off explained it wrong. Physics will become really interesting if the find the Higgs Boson. Well another sub atomic particle wouldn't be so interesting, unless the Higgs field actually exists. (The latter was just some random thought). Strange thing though. Light can be in more than one place at any one time. They tested this out before. It was a simple experiment. They fired a proton through glass. Which was spilt into 3 segments (The glass). Something random happened.
well, what if light does have a variable speed? what is the mechanism which propels the photon anyways?
if photons are relative to each others speed based on their energy level; if one could have a mirror at the speed of light, the mirror would first reflect the lower energy photons first right? (saying one could see the individual photons) also, what is time while traveling the speed of light or from a photon's pov? variable speed? ->
wtf?
Dalroc 1 month ago
Why didn't you just say: they are standing wave's?
KorrazonCold 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
very well said..thanks!
lovelplants 2 months ago
haha, wow. there is a nerd fight in the comments...XD (people arguing about string theory vs particles) nothing wrong with that tho :D
Friedrice2010 3 months ago
What a bad instructor, no interaction or plausible explanation, repetition of the equations from PP- absolutely boring
vanko81 9 months ago in playlist Freemon Prespective: HAARP Weapon (Part 1)
Anti-matter is fake!!!!
heartlessvietboy 11 months ago 2
This doesn't matter.
GrudonX 1 year ago
Lol that's a tesseract on the blackboard :P
icupfreely23 1 year ago
@icupfreely23 Tesseract geometry confines an atom to function without the use of quarks but begins with thermal k mesons instead of the electron, so all electrons must channel through it and the box would have to squeeze flattish and spin. This cannot last for very long, which is why antimatter has never been observed very long. It has to do with where particles sit and react with like ones using DeBroglie waves to send orbiting waves inside a so called shell made by arranging bosons/largest.
mikefromspace 10 months ago
You need either a shotgun mic on that camera or ask the Prof to wear a wireless.
BackInTheGarden 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Real BBw wives online now naneedj.info
cheristessa 1 year ago
Is the Anti-Christ made up completely of antimatter? If Christ and the Anti-Christ decide to "Kiss and make up", should they hug one another? Is this why Good and Evil are always dueling? How do we know that Noah's wife was a blonde?...Because he caught her trying to smuggle 2 termites on board the Ark!
adamrspears1981 1 year ago
Antimatter has only been observed during the ion shell collapse of an atom. Why is simple; it exists everywhere already using larger particles that connect much looser/weaker using kinetic DeBroglie waves as all space is filled with particles in great pressure. I've unified the fields using simple projective geometry. It's parameter based so without exact weights you have to use fuzzy logic, but it works. I've explained Edward Leedskalnin's stone levitation and so much more.
mikefromspace 1 year ago
There is no such thing as an ion shell collapse of an atom. OMG!!!
heartlessvietboy 11 months ago
@heartlessvietboy Yes there is, yet it has not been defined this way, it's what I call it. You wouldn't know this because I never published a book on my work. What I mean by this is; all atoms are surrounded by boson particles, and the number, arrangement, and ratio spacing of those particles determines the inner, through, and outer ion charges. If you study basic chemistry or acid based chemistry, they do teach ion charges there.
mikefromspace 10 months ago
Thats ion charges, not anti-matter.
heartlessvietboy 10 months ago
@heartlessvietboy You don't understand, stop mocking me and maybe you'll learn something. Massive energy used to make antimatter unnaturally didn't really prove the existence of antimatter, it merely proved that particles group without quarks powered by super polarized electrons. This event takes place only when stars explode, or in brown dwarfs in very small amounts. All it is, is a fractal shift of the stages of the magnetic family which you can learn of in Ed Leedskalnin's book.
mikefromspace 10 months ago
First, the original Matter Work is bull crap. How can we be talking about it til' today? I hear it all the time. Second, then they come up with Anti-matter who someone copied from Matter and is 10x's more bull crap than Matter itself!! Three, the speed of light and polarized electrons (electricity) don't mean the Universe is 11 dimensions. Four, Using Uranium to explode in a chamber doesn't mean the Universe is that. Five, Space Time is bull crap. There isnt even a right equation for Time.
heartlessvietboy 10 months ago
@heartlessvietboy Well put man. Most grads have been brainwashed by the ideal of make believe magical particle motions, interactions with strings and photons. Anyone who honestly thinks that some massless thing can wiggle or suck other masses together should be put in a straight jacket!! It is purely psychotic. Einstein told people before he died it was just a shortcut. His last words were "Everything is relative." Many don't know that he witnessed the Philadelphia Experiment from the pier.
mikefromspace 10 months ago
@mikefromspace
Please do everybody (and yourself) and take some physics courses.
Your nonsensical drivel would embarrass you if you weren't so pathetically clueless.
Quantum field theory is correct up to 13 decimal places, and physicists are still looking for ways to
improve it.
All the while you are pondering your navel.
You must be a republican.
cmfluteguy 10 months ago
@cmfluteguy Your theory is full of holes and always will be. Just one example of many, the MASSIVE gap in big bang theory, so no, it's not correct down to decimal places that is an outright lie. If it only works inside light gas atoms which is all smashers have observed, it's B.S. There are over 100 elements not tested. You must be a democrat, and I am a conservative, thank you for the compliment.
mikefromspace 10 months ago
@mikefromspace wat
MikeRoePhonicsMusic 7 months ago
@MikeRoePhonicsMusic Okay I'll spell it out for you; ALL branch theory physics is b.s. because they assume operations for all elements which they have not even tested in smashers yet to understand. Myself and many others have seen the photon and superstring lies for what they are. You cannot do anything but blow things up using branch geometry. It'll never explain mysteries such as galactic bulge, pulsar energizing, red shift. I've had a battle with the editors of Wikipedia because they lie
mikefromspace 7 months ago
@heartlessvietboy You mad bro? Can't handle it? lolololol
CRISNCHIPS12398 10 months ago
@mikefromspace Seriously wtf are you talking about? You are throwing out random terms that you obviously don't understand. Read wikipedia articles about particle physics before you embarrass yourself further.
KalontheGreat 8 months ago
@KalontheGreat People edit Wikipedia, even I do. Just because something is in wiki does not make it solid fact. I am not and never will be embarrassed over my theory. I understand more about antimatter than you will ever know probably. You and every other fool who believes that photons or superstrings actually exist need to face the cold hard reality that particle physics is just particles. Your theories will never be finished you are all doomed to infinite loops haha
mikefromspace 8 months ago
Hopefully caltech accepts me so I can get a better professor than this.
Deathdome9 1 year ago
Anti-Matter is a Hoax.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
@heartlessvietboy
If so, what exactly is the mathematical expression of your theory sir?
Pretending to be a physicist is not how the world works. Grow up and try to be honest about
what your education lacks and get busy.
You are intellectually lazy and dishonest.
TURD
cmfluteguy 10 months ago
THIS VIDEO IS ALL ABOUT RELITIVY DUDE!
groundzerobuild 1 year ago
are they still teaching about "electrons orbiting"?
VarykGerai 1 year ago
3:21
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
someone below called them lawrence Transformations' a lot of listening but no reading it wasn';t the great Lawrence...it's the "Lorentz" transformation (shrinking as you go faster one over SQRT of 1 - v2/??
CosmicRay137 1 year ago
Fascinating stuff. The math is a bit beyond me, but it's still interesting.
salvo711 1 year ago
Don't worry, he actually doesn't explain the math very well at all. He also lied. Einstein didn't discover those transformations. They are called Lawrence transformation because Lawrence derived them, not Einstein.
chuckinator0 1 year ago
hi, does anyone know what format the energy created by an antimatter explosion is? is it kinetic, heat, etc energy?
McLardopolis 2 years ago
Explosive so it will produce light and heat as well as kinetic. Unless you meant something else, antimatter explosion = Antimatter + matter. This would cause a huge energy release that could probably sent us all to hell, the main fear about CERN was that antimatter that would 'probably' be created would go out of control and touch matter and... well... send us all to hell. Not because the huge amounts of energy were likely to create a black hole, but just the explosion would be more than enough.
Razgrits 2 years ago
thank you so much, thats really going to help with my game i'm making!!!! thankyouthankyouthankyou!!!!!!!!!!!
McLardopolis 2 years ago
Uh, t'is no problem but- you wanted this for a game?
That makes me wonder...
Razgrits 2 years ago
I didn't just want it for a game, I was interested, too.
it makes you wonder what?
McLardopolis 1 year ago
@McLardopolis in PET SCANNER it is gamma rays
maciejwrotek 1 year ago
Chris Hill really is a very good lecturer
strange6 2 years ago
this video is not really about antimatter
quefnot 2 years ago 31
@quefnot
He was building up the whole lecture to finally explain at the end what a positron is.
cloud72191 2 years ago
@quefnot That is because it is cut off to 9 minutes. The stuff about antimatter comes later. There is a full version out there somewhere.
TirianB 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quefnot You need to understand this before you can fully understand Anti-matter.
wcdfilms 1 year ago
@quefnot He mentions antimatter towards the end :)
zangetsu2k8 1 year ago
light beams of what we see and feel are a reflation of heating energy. long live forrest gump.doc gaywodasskratch.
youloveus93 2 years ago
Particles in space do not 'suck' to eachother, wiggle to eachother, they are kinetically pushed there. I've proven this using various experiments alongside electron photography. A positron is really large particles moving in the opposite direction that would normally have had the electron at center when neutrally ionized by passing neutrinos. Neutrinos not only maintain ionization, they cause atoms to move, time to pass, all the forces to unify the way they do. I have infinite proofs of this.
mikefromspace 2 years ago
do particles give you a hadron?
JBS19 2 years ago
@JBS19
I've heard physicists call hadron "bags" of particles, but sometimes they are referred to as particles alone, but they're really just a group, although nobody knows all the particles involved because of the power limits of atom smashers.
mikefromspace 1 year ago
do particles give you a hadron?
JBS19 2 years ago
8:37 sneeze lol
CarnalDiafragma 2 years ago
gheghe he walk the walk... but he cant talk the talk
broeskoenen 2 years ago
lol
greenleaf81 2 years ago
Is this 1st year physics?
Because I really want to get outta useless high school fast to study this
Tell me honestly that this is what I'm studying right after I'm free from high school and you will have made my day
LogEekumenAgination 2 years ago 21
Depends. Most schools structure intro calc-based physics courses as such: Classical Mechanics; Electromagnetism; Intro to Quantum. At my school, Intro to Quantum is where you will start off with special relativity and learn more about this kind of stuff.
chuckinator0 1 year ago
@chuckinator0 So there is a chance this is first year material? And there's no chance of this being 2nd degree material? My curiosity is bent around the question: " how complex is what I'm looking at in the video?" - I'm a physics lover, but still a mere neophyte
LogEekumenAgination 1 year ago
@LogEekumenAgination Like most subjects in Physics, there are many levels of complexity. You might cover a topic in high school, and then cover it again in college with a better understanding of the math beneath it, and then cover it a third time in grad school with an even deeper understanding. Special relativity, as it is presented in this video, is 2nd year physics material, but you probably won't really learn the gory details until grad school.
chuckinator0 1 year ago
@chuckinator0 Thank you. That makes sense considering Newtonian mechanics is always built on from one year to the next with new juicier material thrown into the mix.
I just don't appreciate going through my entire schooling career and now only am I given glimpses of the underlying reality from of quarks, antimatter, neutrinos, Heisenberg etc... Why tell me now this stuff exists! I've been brainwashed into believing it ends with well defined mathematics. Now with all this quantum uncertainty...
LogEekumenAgination 1 year ago
@LogEekumenAgination I know. I was quite shocked and troubled by what I learned in intro Quantum. It's an entirely new way of thinking, incredibly strange, and most troubling of all, it's really TRUE. A ton of modern technology is built upon QM, and simply wouldn't work if these strange ideas weren't actually true. It's just mind boggling.
chuckinator0 1 year ago 5
@chuckinator0 Einstein didn't believe in QM, just goes to show you nobody is perfect and that he was prolly more wrong than right, but you'll prolly know just how simple his physics is compared to QM. then again he died still trying to disprove QM, he was very much the "big" man of physics. ;P
DarthCelcius 1 year ago
@DarthCelcius
Einstein didn't "believe in" QM? You mean the man who invented QM? The man who got his Noble for inventing QM? The man who explained Brownian Motion? The photoelectric effect, that Einstein got his Noble for, is the reason QM exists. People were farting in bathtubes and laughing before Einstein's "simple" physics.
What Einstein didn't "believe in" was parts of the uncertainty principle. He, as do i, have problems with the "freewill" of atoms. "god doesn't play dice"
evilsinz 1 year ago
@evilsinz Please see "Bohr–Einstein debates"
Einstein did not invent QM, The phrase "quantum mechanics" was first used in Max Born's 1924 paper "Zur Quantenmechanik".
And its well documented that Einstein constantly and unsuccessfully tried to disprove QM up until his death.
Hence he did NOT believe in the as then accepted rules of QM.
Ohh and he only won 1 noble for his photoelectric effect theory not for inventing QM.
Maybe If you believed less in God and more in facts youl understand more
DarthCelcius 1 year ago
@DarthCelcius
You're a fucking idiot.... Did i say he won more than one Noble? Did I say I believe in "god"? Einstein's "photoelectric effect" gave birth to nearly everything we know of QM.
Einstein didn't try to disprove QM, he tried to prove QM was incomplete by indirectly explaining a cause and effect that QM can't. He didn't believe "god plays dice", in other words "random". Why don't you just fucking read about it and stop trying to talk about shit you don't understand?
evilsinz 1 year ago
@LogEekumenAgination There's also a chance you could learn it much sooner in a lower level conceptual class, albeit without having to know anything about the mathematics that underlies it.
chuckinator0 1 year ago
Tell me what are the students hearing?? When I ask them what is X - Prime, they say its T- Prime. When I ask them how can T Prime be X Prime, they say they don't know. And if they don't know, why are they writing this stuff?
heartlessvietboy 11 months ago
@LogEekumenAgination I feel your pain :(
rhcp212 9 months ago
I highly advise you go see the attached "video response" which was the "second take" of the lecture under much less time pressure. The first take was "candid camera" and unrehearsed. Gosh, I'd like to do a third take.
Th3GPR is right, there is a missing exponent 2
on c, ie, t' - (gam)(t - vx/c^2). I always set c=1
(with hbar) but the students probably did get confused. C'est la vie.
Anyway, it's all in
Lederman and Hill, "Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe."
topcoloron 2 years ago
see, one man can make a difference....look at the human race now.
5/5
peace.
destroyergmv 2 years ago
fear professor. smart guy. bad, bad, bad, terrible prof.
amh5034 2 years ago
meh ... t prime is equal to gamma t minus v x over c SQUARED! (ie not just over c) ... Those poor students who actually attempted the "homework" must have had major headaches ...
Th3GPR 2 years ago
they're there for a reason. they actually understand what he's talking about.
amh5034 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fact All 3 WTC Towers Brought Down By Explosives.
1.WT7 fell at free fall speed
2.Not a single pancaked floor was found
3.Molten steel found under all 3 towers (jet fuel will never burn hot enough to do this )
4.90+ unaffected floors put up 0 resistance to collapse
5.1000ft debris field radius
6.Multiple Squibs seen before collapse wave
7.Multiple explosion caught on camera before collapse
8.1100 bodies never found
9.Concrete pulverised into fine dust10.Massive steel beams blasted 400ft
TruthLogic 2 years ago
oh lol, I thought this channel's name was "No on Science" like some sort of religious bullshit group.
TAz69x 2 years ago
Ummm is it Noon Science ? lol....just confirming!
Dubaifreak 2 years ago
LOL
ProJanitor 2 years ago
EVERYTHING you know is WRONG.
Using mere projective geometry and parameter sciences I've cornered all the forces with only particles and using large bodies, ie; stars, black holes, as particle processors. They constantly consume and create particles. the POSITRON is just a set of particles that were always there, but now set into motion. All space is packed with a ratio of particles large to small, just not quarks, they exist built upon a different set of progressively larger fractals. no am.
mikefromspace 2 years ago
he's saying light is traveling at a constant speed but the thing i dont get if why light isnt having any resitance by for example air or gravety what slows it down cous normal things like us cant roll on forever on a bike or something so why light does?
rnedisc 2 years ago
because his lecture is oldschool and apparently he doesn't care anymore. light is a "warpable" force. that is to say, it is affected by things like magnetism and gravity, but only on a scale such that we can observe it from a great distance.
amh5034 2 years ago
no duh...what, you had to watch 1 more video to figure that out? and no: light isn't a force.
deathpass422 2 years ago
Eurekaliel!Einsteins Theory Billy
We did it !Cornell and associates Waka1
Eurekaliel!Einsteins Theory Billy
We did it
Break out the champagne-
Cog&stuff
DoubleDutchBust 2 years ago
Egg Sack sis
Sis Kcas ggE
Particle Physics: Antimatter
Saddel My HorseSuckersCiencemattersg
KalielEinsteinsTheoryOfBillyEmcegghead
GrayAlbert
DoubleDutchBust 2 years ago
GoodMorningAmerica
Particle Physics: Antimatter
SeanKalielGrayAlbertEinstein
Particle Physics: Antimatter
Your FavoriteyolkBc
YourVeryOwnaes
SpecialRelativity Egg sack isis
DoubleDutchBust 2 years ago
If someone were to form a thermonuclear weapon made from anti-hydrogen, they would need more than 1 atom of it to wipe out the world. And after the destructive force emitted from the anti-matter, would the anti-matter Atom be destroyed or would it still exist and then keep contacting matter.............. :o i think i get it.....i think. would the anti-matter keep contacting matter and then eventually destroy the world? ooooooooohh!! sorry if i sound dumb. im 15! :P I find this suff interesting
Badboysam39 2 years ago
No, when anti-matter and matter collide they are completely destroyed and either completely turn to energy in the ratio E=mc^2 or form other particles, but there is no chance a small amount of anti-matter will destroy the Earth. Neither will the LHC.
Maquox 2 years ago
guys, why there is so much matter? cos it is cheap particle physics, like fission. the look of matter is like sh*t, no style no history - Take a look at anti-matter. those how hate ANTI-MATTER. try to look at new antimatter X and matter. antimatter forever. was riding matter electron, than antimatter positron. forget matter find something better than few stars, find rantimatter
wimbotkang 2 years ago
I think they want to devulge into antimatter because of it's unstable and destructive force. Ehenthough it's not practical right now...it will be soon.
admiralcrash1 2 years ago
if everything was made out of anti matter, it wouldnt be a destructive force, and matter would.
OurenV2 2 years ago
but everything isn't made out of antimatter. black, white...all pink on the inside...
admiralcrash1 2 years ago
Are you talking about women
JYizzleDizzle 2 years ago
I think that the reason anyone would want to investigate antimatter is that it has a lot of potential as a new energy source. When antimatter and matter converge, all the mass involved in the interaction is annihilated and converted into energy. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, converts less than 1% of the matter involved into energy. You can just imagine the tremendous amount of energy that would be released from the joining of hydrogen and antihydrogen.
MiStAhChEw 2 years ago
Definately, but it is a double edge sword. What can create can also destroy, and if man does harness it for destruction, there will be no coming back...
admiralcrash1 2 years ago
I here you. This is just like the issue with nuclear energy...just 1,000 times more potentially creative or destructive. Though, somebody is bound to harness antimatter for destructive purposes.
MiStAhChEw 2 years ago
true, but it can be used as a weapon just as efficiently... if we do harness the power of antimatter, you can bet that someone will try and conquer the world or w/e...be a dictator, etc.etc.etc. also if we could harness a stabilization between matter and antimatter... what do u think would happen :O where one object and its natural opposite collide...ying and yang, only alot stronger >=D
sergiy182 2 years ago
Would it be possible for the video owner to translate it to portuguese? Thanks
annamolly41 2 years ago
Would it be possible to form a thermonuclear weapon made of antimatter. Due to the fact that antihydrogen is the most basic, if you created an atom of it and then stored it in a container that is unreactive with it, could you bombard it till it reaches explosive reactivity. (Anti-h-Bomb). My guess is the outcome would be catastrophic and most likely would be the end of the world as we know it. However, in the future it could be a galactic weapon. A destroyer of worlds if you will.
Haxorz92 2 years ago
You are correct, an anti nuclear weapon could be created. However it must be pointed out that the cost of making a single anti hydrogen atom is prohibitive, let alone making the number necessary for any type of weapon.
ufhanubis 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThinkTankExperiment 2 years ago
we can only see a fraction of our universe due to the fact that our eyes are build that way. all im saying is that there is some crazy stuff out there we can´t explain because where incapable of actually seeing certain things. on the other hand maybe our brain is not constructed to understand the universe. a dog will never play poker, regardless how log you teach him because its brain is not build this way.
aikidoka20 2 years ago
well keep in mind we only use 23 of our 46 chromosomes, what were they used for and why do we have them?
thermass 2 years ago
They determine the traits of our body.
samn100 2 years ago
scientist dont know what the other 23 actually. i work for the university of calgary, i think id know...
thermass 2 years ago
really?? can u elaborate?
are you saying that we really just need 23 chromosomes and that it?
004308 2 years ago
arent they left overs from evolution? mutations over the millions of years eventually had them "turned off". i heard of an experiment where these genes were turned on in birds and the resulting embryo had teeth. so the birds had kept the genes to have teeth, but the genes havent been used since the birds evolved to not have them. forgive me if im not accurate on the specifics of what was actually modified to cause this to occur- i saw an article on the story some time ago, thats the jist of it
lejink 2 years ago 2
your right. thats my point, what do the other 23 do? telepathy or something crazy? its just something fun to think about
thermass 2 years ago
hmmm leftovers from evolution sounds like what they'd be used for.
I want wings and gills :D
RarewareLover 2 years ago
Comment removed
giveusascream 2 years ago
you work for the university of calgary...i guess they don't stress the importance of proper grammar there
ManUtdFootball4Ever 2 years ago
no, i just decide how id rather type actually. most of my work is written duecher, now go fuck your sister you prick
thermass 2 years ago 2
And just who says we don't use them...
Where and HOW did they come about that information anyway?
enphax 2 years ago
We have them for random crossover during meiosis of reproduction of the offspring
beatriXkibo 2 years ago
Comment removed
KoiChannel 2 years ago
if i ever had and anti matter counterpart that son of a bitch will be far away from me
k5lta 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I wish all these geniuses would shut the fuck up about all these "theories" and actually do something. We have been "looking" at the stars long enough. It's about time we figure out how to make people go thousands of miles per second so we can actually visit other planets.
Shabaka87 2 years ago
That has to be the most un-intelligent and ridiculus post i've ever seen on youtube.
ni1337 2 years ago 4
you dumbass lol
004308 2 years ago
natures law of balance... how awesome
how come the human mind seems so fricking imbalanced.
DaniaVlogMania 2 years ago
Interesting
ClosingInOnMaths 3 years ago
.
Purely by definition Paul, if there is a change on the molecular level, something has been changed. Split. Same water to start out with. Poured into a control bottle, and the rest blended with toxic foam remvoved. Repeat. Until I make a water that if you drank a 32oz sized bottle at once?
poetwarrior4l 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm in the process of making 'heavier water' right now Paul. Blending Stevia into EXPLODING LIKE IT SAFELY DOES INSIDE THE BLENDER, INTO A BUBBLY WHITE SOIUP. That Soup? It 'returns,' or seperates into purer h2o underneath a layer of foam that ph's toxic for the things that are making millions sick. I've made one hand held bottle of water 6 grams heavier, and I'm not done blending the chemicals out.
poetwarrior4l 3 years ago
WOOT! Love it. But this falls under classical physics which really does not work under the very small or the very large. But still love it.
DruidicSlave 3 years ago
the first part he's talking about an assumption that electons only exist at certain energy levels. and the pauli-exclusion of electons just means you cant have more than one in the same level. I would take that to be quantum theory, and not classic. classic is usually based on the assumption that things dont move in jumps. In quantum, small movments happen instantaneously between levels (for bound electrons orbiting nucleas) and a quanta of energy is emmitted - ie a photon when going down lev.
geoffart 3 years ago
you can have two electrons at the same energy level... you can't have two electrons in the same physical quantum state.
gtg309v 3 years ago
sorry, yes - your quite right. sounds like im refuring only to principal number n. OK, the complete quantum state then. I should have said state.
geoffart 3 years ago
Well probably he is explaining it to secondary school students...
dannykanoista 3 years ago
i dont think he fully understands what he is talking about. he speaks loudly when he is explaining the math, but speaks very softly in explaining what it means conceptually. he keeps repeating, "if we had more time i could explain why this is so". if you dont have the time to explain it completely then dont waste other people's time in giving half explanations. this is the source of misconception. interesting idea, but very badly presented.
snapapple123 3 years ago
he's just semi- explaining observations. I hate when lecturers dumb things down. What do you mean by "physical state"? He does not know. I'm a physics major, just pointing out that anyone, even pros, can spit out what they've been told. But few actually understand what they are asking us to remember for their tests. Is this then actually education??
marclab1 3 years ago
i completely agree. i wont be able to understand every physics concept, but theres no point in just memorizing formulas and accepting everything as fact. i cringed everytime he said, "i would demonstrate this in more detail if i had more time". my favorite physics professor would derivate every equation, and explain concepts along the way. from this video, im guessing this is a strange way of teaching... actually understanding the material you are presenting.
snapapple123 3 years ago
Exactly why I want to teach this stuff... I applaud your pursuit for truth...
marclab1 3 years ago 2
Sounds clever
YoelfromNL 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have PhD from the University of Maryland College Park, in fiber quantum rabbit-hole mechanics with focus on determination.
EscapeNewJersey 3 years ago
by my standards i feel that anti matter is an imagine way of felling 3 gigajewls per sec in you atomic/-/cosmiticular body in ways that motion is nott real and can or cannot exist in an after life it makes sense..
colossusx7 3 years ago
My brain hurts a little, but in a good way.
chaikovsky 3 years ago 3
that was really informative and actually resonably easy to understand! hope the lecturers are that good when i go to uni next year.... wont b doing physics tho... hardcore maths not my thing!
btw zythepsarians comment is epic xD
HenryLascelles 3 years ago
math not hard, vision not hard to figure. What is hard, is the connections between different sciences
Fullperson 3 years ago
That is an interesting remark,, I haven't thought about that one..
OnlyTruthCounts 3 years ago
yes agree they have different sets of variables, i say govt must fund them either way, lets see what will unfold.
koolyoh213 3 years ago
when i get my bedford running properly, how would you explain wot will happen when i turn my lights on, at just under the speed of light? and if i wer to over take the light and look back, will it be dark or will i see the light??
snottspott 3 years ago
No, not 1+1=2, wolverine005, the LHC is going to find the answer to life, the universe and everything: 42!
mmapplah 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The L.H.C has found the equation to explain the universe!! I'ts 1+1=2
OMFG
wolverine005 3 years ago
if you are traveling at light speed and you look into a mirror you won't see youserlf
tnuont 3 years ago
The speed of light is relative so even if you were travelling at C light would be leaving you at the speed of light relative to you. so you would see a reflection,
cxdemon 3 years ago
yes but it will need to reflect of the mirror and reach you and because your moving the speed of light it cannot catch up to yo and unless light goes faster or bends through time.
tnuont 3 years ago
light always moves towards/away from you at 186,000mi/sec., whether you are standing still or moving. he explained this in the video, if you are traveling in the same direction as the light trying to catch it you will make no progress. so to two different observers moving at different speeds the photons are actually percieved in two different places.
and1uprise 3 years ago
if you are traveling at 100miles per hour you wont see yourself in a mirror either :D
zappa1243 3 years ago 2
You would actually see yourself since light travels much more faster than 100 mile per hout it would be able to catch you easily.
tnuont 3 years ago
lol yea, you traveling at 100 mph, you don't see yourself in mirror. You see the popo, swat helicopters and maybe sparks coming out of your tires
Fullperson 3 years ago
SO if im traveling with light speed and i look in a mirror i can see myself... oh and i would go back in time ^^
yawn im only high school student but thats my conclusion afterall: m²c^4=E²-p²c² yup
mickderkskouta 3 years ago
You would not go back in time. You will observe that no time has passed if you are moving at the speed of light relative to something. Also nice job copying that formula of that screen, but your formula had nothing to do with what you just said (which was wrong). As for the mirror part you really weren't specific enough so it really doesn't make much sense(was it moving relative to you? how far was it?). Nice try you might get it next time.
aznr4v3m4st3r 3 years ago 3
Haha i was just kidding with this.
Like is said it im just in high school...
As for the mirror ur holding it in front of you and you're moving with light speed.
mickderkskouta 3 years ago
you couldn't see it because nothing can travel faster than light speed - not even relative to another thing traveling at light speed thus no light rays from you could reach the mirror and so you couldn't see yourself.
lcrone5 3 years ago
If we see by light, and we travel faster then light would we be able to see anything at all? If we would, would we be able to prcess the information before it is irrelevent to us left far far behind?
pyrosfriend 3 years ago
I didn't do physics but i'm pretty sure you can't go faster than light. but whatever light will still travel at the same speed relative to you no matter how fast you move. I couldn't process your last question in time...
kevinscales 3 years ago
Yes you are correct, if a human goes faster than light, (which is doubted highly but not impossible) and the human body is still in tact,then they will not be able to see anything because the light is behind them, and they cannot see. About going faster than tsol (the speed of light) you would have to be in space being bent by a powerfull force in a circular motion, and you being moved along with it, then you would go faster than tsol but this is not known how it would be done until recently.
waterutalkingabout 3 years ago
No that's incorrect. Even if a human moves at the speed of c, c will always be c! Light is infinite, so you would need to have infinite energy too move at the speed of light. That would require all the energy in the universe rendering that impossible. But when a high enough gravitation force occurs. It will bend space time (a black hole is one instance off this happening!) But that is also incorrect because anything with mass bends space/time!
Bhinder14 3 years ago
waterutalkingabout is wrong, Bhinder14 is correct.
Einstein went to prove this with a thought experiment with a mirror on a train traveling at the speed of light. Logic will tell you that you wouldn't see your face in the mirror, but in reality, you will. But light isnt infinite, it is an illusion that it is.
einstienear 2 years ago
Yeah I get that. I kind off explained it wrong. Physics will become really interesting if the find the Higgs Boson. Well another sub atomic particle wouldn't be so interesting, unless the Higgs field actually exists. (The latter was just some random thought). Strange thing though. Light can be in more than one place at any one time. They tested this out before. It was a simple experiment. They fired a proton through glass. Which was spilt into 3 segments (The glass). Something random happened.
Bhinder14 2 years ago
well, what if light does have a variable speed? what is the mechanism which propels the photon anyways?
if photons are relative to each others speed based on their energy level; if one could have a mirror at the speed of light, the mirror would first reflect the lower energy photons first right? (saying one could see the individual photons) also, what is time while traveling the speed of light or from a photon's pov? variable speed? ->
sciencedailyDOTcom/releases/2009/02/090219141458.htm
REZJT 2 years ago
i wish my science teacher was .0000001% good as this guy
veggieindian 3 years ago
I love physics teachers :D Every physics teacher i had were always really cool!
orhanc1 3 years ago
what's the books title and author, I'm intrigued
emf36 3 years ago
I'm only in high school and I cna understand this. Good teacher.
navysealboy62 3 years ago 3
Interisting, I only get a few parts, but it's still interisting.
GILGAMESH97 3 years ago 3
I have learned those things in school days. It's easy like hell. Now plz teach me E8 theory. LOL
Sandett 3 years ago
this guy is a clear thinker and a great communicator. great that he teaches
joe31415 3 years ago
Part of me wishes I could understand this.
tominator999 3 years ago
me 2...me 2
ffinfinity1 3 years ago
Great teacher