so meny people listen to you brian you fool large parts of the papulation ,with your theories , einstain einstain he is not enough for celectial knowledge ,one day youll understand till then go on and spread the mist people are anyway quite stupid
- 'the universe is possibly infinite in extent' - don't be silly Brian, nothing in real life is infinite. Don't confuse mathematics with reality. Now carry on.....
On what basis do you make that assertion? Lots of physicists think the infinite may exist. The only thing we know so far is that infinity usally indicates a mathematical discrepancy- and required a new theory. Assuming the infinite doesn't exist is too narrow minded for a scientist- we are restricted by our present understanding.
Knowing how a star turns hydro to helium, and then to heavier stuff, what would happen if the sun collapsed in intself like... 5000 times. For argument sake pretend it happened instantly. Would it produce a super super heavy elemtn??? further more, elements/atoms, are the building blocks of objects. and the quarks are the building blocks of atoms, shouldnt those things be the elements?
@SIRA063 Our sun would first shed it's outer layers frying the closest planets to it (mercury, venus, earth and mars) then collapse in on itself to form a white dwarf star, a very dense white glowing ball of iron, carbon (and helium undergoing fusion). a larger star (about 4 times the size of our sun) would collapse in on itself to produce either a neutron star (which consists mainly of neutrons, a cluster of neutrons the size of a full stop would weigh as much as 5 fully grown elephants).
@SIRA063 Or it would create a black hole. Also the structure of atoms (protons, neutrons and electrons) are made up of quarks, it is actually the structure and numbers that these three things happen to take that decide what element is created, the quarks only form the matter that allows this to happen. Quarks cannot be elements as there would technically speaking only be 3 elements on the periodic table.
The Universe was very simple at its beginning. And things have become complex. So... is all that symmetry breaking in the early Universe another, and rather dramatic, manifestation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Listening to Brian speak, that just occurred to me. I've never thought of it that way before.
The Universe started falling apart way back when it was not only under warranty, but in fact, before it even left the showroom.
Why are particles accelerated 99.9999% to the speed of light? Is the speed of light some sort of limit, or do they do that so they can measure more accurately?
Energy has mass, when particles accelerate they gain kinetic energy, to reach the speed of light you have to have infinite mass would collapse the universe! E=mc^2
Yes 'c' (speed of light) is the cosmic speed limit... as Sam posted above, that's about as close to speed of light we can reach. They're reaching these speeds to search for the Graviton, higgs-field (wiki that), and lots of other exotic particles.
I understand most of the things you talk about but E=mc^2 talks very little about speed (c is merely a constant). The point I'm curious about is why c is the "cosmic speed limit".
That's what I thought. It is apparently. I don't understand why. It seems that the protons gain mass rather than velocity once they get near the speed of light.
What i gotta criticize though is that you should have showed the screen far more often. It was really crucial for the talk, and the online-viewer feels a bit left out.
Thank You........Easy to understand .....Well.......it gave me a starting point...no lots of starting points......to look into .......its great that guys that know...like Brian.....can tell in easy ways ....that anyone can enjoy........BLINK OF AN EYE ......
so meny people listen to you brian you fool large parts of the papulation ,with your theories , einstain einstain he is not enough for celectial knowledge ,one day youll understand till then go on and spread the mist people are anyway quite stupid
benshalomgad 8 months ago
No sirve al no mostrar las diapositivas que describe el Dr Cox!
Jearlug 10 months ago
- 'the universe is possibly infinite in extent' - don't be silly Brian, nothing in real life is infinite. Don't confuse mathematics with reality. Now carry on.....
maureenOWW 1 year ago
@maureenOWW
On what basis do you make that assertion? Lots of physicists think the infinite may exist. The only thing we know so far is that infinity usally indicates a mathematical discrepancy- and required a new theory. Assuming the infinite doesn't exist is too narrow minded for a scientist- we are restricted by our present understanding.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
Trying to explain physics to the french is like trying to teach them to use soap. Exhausting and pointless.
maureenOWW 1 year ago
Shame to the people in charge of the cameras!!!!!!
CGRafy 1 year ago 9
Knowing how a star turns hydro to helium, and then to heavier stuff, what would happen if the sun collapsed in intself like... 5000 times. For argument sake pretend it happened instantly. Would it produce a super super heavy elemtn??? further more, elements/atoms, are the building blocks of objects. and the quarks are the building blocks of atoms, shouldnt those things be the elements?
SIRA063 1 year ago
@SIRA063 Our sun would first shed it's outer layers frying the closest planets to it (mercury, venus, earth and mars) then collapse in on itself to form a white dwarf star, a very dense white glowing ball of iron, carbon (and helium undergoing fusion). a larger star (about 4 times the size of our sun) would collapse in on itself to produce either a neutron star (which consists mainly of neutrons, a cluster of neutrons the size of a full stop would weigh as much as 5 fully grown elephants).
conkel29692 1 year ago
@SIRA063 Or it would create a black hole. Also the structure of atoms (protons, neutrons and electrons) are made up of quarks, it is actually the structure and numbers that these three things happen to take that decide what element is created, the quarks only form the matter that allows this to happen. Quarks cannot be elements as there would technically speaking only be 3 elements on the periodic table.
conkel29692 1 year ago
To (jp1989at), in case you see this, by some physics theory (I think relativity), we see that the speed of light is the limit speed of matter.
A speed greater than the speed of light would cause a negative number to appear under a sqaure root.
melese1988 1 year ago
@melese1988 teach me everyting about physics
SIRA063 1 year ago
The Universe was very simple at its beginning. And things have become complex. So... is all that symmetry breaking in the early Universe another, and rather dramatic, manifestation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Listening to Brian speak, that just occurred to me. I've never thought of it that way before.
The Universe started falling apart way back when it was not only under warranty, but in fact, before it even left the showroom.
sbergman27 2 years ago
Why are particles accelerated 99.9999% to the speed of light? Is the speed of light some sort of limit, or do they do that so they can measure more accurately?
jp1989at 2 years ago
Energy has mass, when particles accelerate they gain kinetic energy, to reach the speed of light you have to have infinite mass would collapse the universe! E=mc^2
TheInnovativeSam 2 years ago
Yes 'c' (speed of light) is the cosmic speed limit... as Sam posted above, that's about as close to speed of light we can reach. They're reaching these speeds to search for the Graviton, higgs-field (wiki that), and lots of other exotic particles.
grofuss 2 years ago
I understand most of the things you talk about but E=mc^2 talks very little about speed (c is merely a constant). The point I'm curious about is why c is the "cosmic speed limit".
Thanks for your reply!
jp1989at 2 years ago
That's what I thought. It is apparently. I don't understand why. It seems that the protons gain mass rather than velocity once they get near the speed of light.
mattsladey111 2 years ago
how can you not gain velocity as you near the spead of light?
ebolart 2 years ago
Comment removed
ebolart 2 years ago
Thank you for uploading this!
HiAdrian 3 years ago
What i gotta criticize though is that you should have showed the screen far more often. It was really crucial for the talk, and the online-viewer feels a bit left out.
HiAdrian 3 years ago
Thank You........Easy to understand .....Well.......it gave me a starting point...no lots of starting points......to look into .......its great that guys that know...like Brian.....can tell in easy ways ....that anyone can enjoy........BLINK OF AN EYE ......
MYENDLESSPATH 3 years ago