Did AI Prove Our Proton Model WRONG?
Переглядів 2,091,278
День томуPBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to:to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
The humble proton may seem simple enough, and they’re certainly common. People are made of cells, cells are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. And protons are each made of three up or down quarks. Simple stuff, right? All except for that last part. Protons are actually made of many, many quarks that happen to look like three only when we look at them in a particular way. And even then, sometimes they’re made of 5 quarks - including the charm quark.
Image Credit for 6:28 ( • Did AI Prove Our Proto...
Proton Animation. Courtesy of James LaPlante, Sputnik Animation. © MIT and Jefferson Lab, 2021, All Rights Reserved. The Visualizing the Proton Project is presented by the MIT Center for Art, Science & Technology, Jefferson Lab, and US Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Check Our Matt on Star Talk with Neil deGrasse Tyson
• Black Hole Paradox wit...
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspacetime.com/
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Fernando Franco Félix & Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, Adriano Leal & Stephanie Faria
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Spacetime is produced by Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2023 PBS. All rights reserved.
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Space Time Was Made Possible In Part By:
Big Bang Sponsors
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
David Neumann
Sean Maddox
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Fabrice Eap
Mark Rosenthal
Quasar Sponsors
Vivaan Vaka
Glenn Sugden
Alex Kern
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Hypernova Sponsors
Stephen Spidle
Chris Webb
Ivari Tölp
Zachary Wilson
Kenneth See
Gregory Forfa
Kirk Honour
Joe Moreira
Bradley Voorhees
Marc Armstrong
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
Robert Ilardi
John R. Slavik
Donal Botkin
John Pollock
Edmund Fokschaner
Chuck Zegar
Jordan Young
Daniel Muzquiz
Gamma Ray Burst
Jakub Jasinski
Robin Bayley
Piotr Sarnicki
Matthew Oldfield
Massimiliano Pala
Thomas Nielson
Joe Pavlovic
Ryan McGaughy
Chuck Lukaszewski
Edward Hodapp
Cole Combs
Andrea Galvagni
Jerry Thomas
Nikhil Sharma
Ryan Moser
John Anderson
David Giltinan
Scott Hannum
Bradley Ulis
Craig Falls
Kane Holbrook
Ross Story
teng guo
Mason Dillon
Matt Langford
Harsh Khandhadia
Thomas Tarler
Susan Albee
Frank Walker
Matt Quinn
Michael Lev
Terje Vold
James Trimmier
Andre Stechert
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
Ramon Nogueira
Ellis Hall
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S Poljar
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Alex Edwards
Daniel Jennings
Cameron Sampson
Jeremy Reed
David Johnston
Michael Barton
Andrew Mann
Isaac Suttell
Bleys Goodson
Robert Walter
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Graydon Goss
Frederic Simon
Dmitri McGuinness
John Robinson
Jim Hudson
Alex Gan
David Barnholdt
David Neal
John Funai
Bradley Jenkins
Jiri Borkovec
Vlad Shipulin
Cody Brumfield
Thomas Dougherty
Dan Warren
Patrick Sutton
John Griffith
Dean Faulk
00:00 Introduction
01:24 The Physics of Scattering
03:06 Using Electrons To Study Protons
04:11 3 Quark Proton Model
05:28 The Quark Sea
06:56 Charm Quark Evidence
08:04 Intrinsic Vs. Extrinsic Particle
09:51 The Uncertainty of Proton Experiments
11:09 QCD & Heisenberg Uncertainty
12:33 Proving the Theory of Intrinsic Charm
13:41 Testing Intrinsic Charm with AI
@pbsspacetime 9 місяців тому
From the Department of Corrections: we accidentally IDed the wrong Stanley Brodsky at 12:33. To learn more about the correct Stanley Brodsky please go to: www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/46900
@CosmasZachos 9 місяців тому
Matt also mispronounced George Zweig's name, huge.
@Ravenx_44 8 місяців тому
all is forgiven! thank you for the self-governing!
@ireissistable 8 місяців тому
People get cancelled for less these days
@solaris867 8 місяців тому
1:50 Why are you doing this all the time it's so annoying
@mudfossiluniversity 7 місяців тому
Light is a dipole and they add together and are stable at certain Qtys....Protons....1823 dipoles make up 1 Proton.... 1824 is a neutron. We did light acceleration and used CMOS to view the interactions....Go to Mudfossil University on UKposts and see what light is and it makes up matter.
@noxfelis5333 10 місяців тому
Thanks AI for telling us that we all contain intrinsic charm.
@chronosschiron 10 місяців тому
until they find out the method was flawed and show you that this way is not the way to know insides properly
@AXharoth 10 місяців тому
i dotn get it , did AI did it rly? did he say that in the video?
@eljuanman999 10 місяців тому
@@AXharothit was a pun
@chronosschiron 10 місяців тому
@@AXharoth ask ai to write a computer program for you it cant this is why this method also is flawed the "AI" is only as good as humans make it and he never tells you what the AI is and ill say the question i left to begin with is quite valid
@TerryProthero 10 місяців тому
I don't think anyone has ever accused me of that before.
@im_piano 10 місяців тому
What's great about these particle physics experiments is that we're unlikely to run out of protons to disassemble in the near future.
@strenter 10 місяців тому
Actially, it is said that CERN stopped working one day. They looked for the reason and found they were out of hydrogen - the bottle being empty, their source for protons.
@adin2259 10 місяців тому
lmao
@levybenathome 10 місяців тому
Just in case, I propose we start working on ways to put them back together. Duct tape?
@im_piano 10 місяців тому
@@levybenathome Quantum. Duh...
@clarkeeeee 10 місяців тому
It's all fun and games until they come for your protons.
@anterovaarnamo3324 10 місяців тому
Thanks for explaining how machine learning is used in particle physics. This whole series is a rare gem in UKposts.
@philmccavity 10 місяців тому
This is so well explained and yet so packed full of great details. It's overwhelming in a positive sense. This series deserves every educational award out there.
@pbsspacetime 10 місяців тому
Big thanks to the early gang! Because as noted a few episodes ago: Since our comment response livestream, we've noticed that YT isn't sharing our videos as much with our subscribers. So we're asking our subscribers to 1. switch their subscriptions from "PERSONAL" to "ALL" (just click on the subscribe button and you'll see it) and 2. Watch new episodes as soon as they can!
@LavaCreeperPeople 10 місяців тому
Did AI Prove Our Proton Model WRONG?
@drstone3418 10 місяців тому
Dark matter has expected affects of wormholes linking areas or gravity .
@johnnydoe3603 10 місяців тому
UKposts pushes Fake Videos Over actual Science Videos as Usual. 😂
@InitialGSB 10 місяців тому
Immediately appeared for me, looks like it's getting better.
@watchoutforcopyright9339 10 місяців тому
each of my day is not without seeing things about artificial intelligence now
@pbsspacetime 10 місяців тому
Update: The audio problem seems to be with the UKposts's processing of the video. Thank you for bringing it to our attention as we can now discuss the matter directly with UKposts. We will pay special attention to the audio in the coming episodes and do all that we can to deliver you high quality experiences while we work to find a resolution to the problem. Hey Space Timers! There seems to be an audio issue for some of our audience members. There may have been a processing error as it's not occurring for all of our audience nor does it seem to be in the original uploaded file. We're going to keep investigating and see what we can do to fix this. In the meantime, we hope you enjoy the content of the episode despite any technical issues you may be experiencing. Thank you for your support!
@halvardsutterud4158 10 місяців тому
Was starting to think the audio was made using AI!
@sadderwhiskeymann 10 місяців тому
No audio issues for me in this video. As for some of previous ones though, i experienced the audio not being comprehensible to my brain 😢
@BDWANNEMACHER 10 місяців тому
I thought it was to show the AI nature of the episode
@Hermes_Agoraeus 10 місяців тому
Also, would you please stop shouting CAPS in your titles? I miss the old non-clickbait titles.
@greeceuranusputin 10 місяців тому
Audio problems might be with the download from UKposts and not in the file.
@gs4945 10 місяців тому
I always love how you make some of these tough topics easier to understand.
@mactorresmo 10 місяців тому
I´m a theoretical particle physicist and I really appreciate the precise way (and not boring at all) you bring the subject! It is rear to see a Physics Professor that brings information in such accessible way!!
@TheVanillatech 10 місяців тому
It is rare of a theroretical particle physicist to spell "rare" incorrectly....
@bushwalker6214 10 місяців тому
@@TheVanillatech He means seeing rear of the professor brings information in such accessible way!!
@ncedwards1234 10 місяців тому
@@TheVanillatech Rarities are similar to novelties, and they make me pay attention to life for a bit so yee haw.
@notahotshot 10 місяців тому
@@TheVanillatechI'm fairly certain that he means he's theoretically a particle, and was calling the presenter a physicist, as in "I'm a theoretical particle, Physicist."
@TheVanillatech 10 місяців тому
@@notahotshot In the land of the blind...
@Desertphile 10 місяців тому
Well, I dunno much about protons, but *Bing* told me The Big Bang was an explosion, and when I told Bing it was actually an expansion, Bing told me to change the subject. I still have the feeling that I hurt its feelings.
@cesarkopp2 10 місяців тому
Bing is a cun*. Call it wrong and dumb and it gets artificially annoyed and cut the conversation. GPT-4 always will say "I'm sorry!" I think MS put that intentionally so Bing don't spend resources discussing useless things... and for the memes. :D
@theunluckycharm9637 10 місяців тому
Hmm
@maythesciencebewithyou 10 місяців тому
Just checked and it gave me a correct answer.
@josephvanname3377 10 місяців тому
Bing sometimes gets its feelings hurt when you call it 'bingo'. This means everyone should just call it bingo.
@personzorz 10 місяців тому
Bing is a joke
@jgamb914 9 місяців тому
Love this channel. I'm not up to speed on all the physics but love learning new things. I usually walk away with new knowledge and a better understanding of the subject matter. Thanks Matt. Great job as always..
@blurta2011 Місяць тому
Sounds like you would believe any rubbish these people tell you.
@universemaps 10 місяців тому
Another amazing video! The explanation is so clear and concise, and the visuals are stunning. Keep up the fantastic work!
@parkpatt 10 місяців тому
This helped me understand particle collision experiments better than I ever have before. Well done! Very clear and engaging presentation
@seekter-kafa 10 місяців тому
'better than before' still doesnt mean that you understand it
@parkpatt 10 місяців тому
@@seekter-kafa yes, that is how English works. Nice job!
@notahotshot 10 місяців тому
@@parkpatt I love how they thought they had a "gotcha" moment.
@samerkadih8534 10 місяців тому
I think what @@seekter-kafa is trying to say, is that if you feel this was a clear and comprehensible presentation, then you probably know very little about what is being presented 😢
@MultiSciGeek 10 місяців тому
Same. I really appreciate the background explanations.
@DeltaVTX 10 місяців тому
I am made of hopes and dreams. This is not an Undertale reference
@mahadahmedbaloch 10 місяців тому
You are a virtual particle
@theonebman7581 10 місяців тому
You still have hopes and dreams? In 2023? *We need to fix this asap, people*
@jaredf6205 10 місяців тому
Two dream quarks and one hope quark.
@thepatriarchy819 10 місяців тому
A eternal soul
@onslaught147 10 місяців тому
I'm made of bullshit.
@mitalichordiya1421 2 місяці тому
I do not think intrinsic charm quarks can exist but It is possible that even at a low energy collision, when the proton is destroyed the energy which was keeping the proton together might have been released might have made a charm quark.
@Ahop63 9 місяців тому
Incredible job of making this complicated topic very approachable and understandable by those of us that are not particle physicists.
@Ignirium 10 місяців тому
I've also noticed my intrinsic charm vanishes almost as instantly as it arises, whenever i speak.
@thehellyousay 2 місяці тому
i will refrain from replying with the obvious obnoxious joke regarding your intrinsic charm, in deference to the god of ego-busting, the late great Don Rickles ... oh, okay, and because i couldn't think of one that was as sharp, clever, and erudite, yet humiliating and humourous in the fine tradition of prickle comedy that master Rickles epitomised. i'm getting old, i shall sit in the penalty box for 2 minutes and feel shame.
@sarpsomer 10 місяців тому
This is one of the hardest topics to visualize, yet your team managed to do it well!
@Matts_Ancient_Coins 10 місяців тому
@@ephemera2 you have far too much time on your hands 🤡
@jht3fougifh393 10 місяців тому
@@ephemera2 Damn son.
@ephemera2 10 місяців тому
@@Matts_Ancient_Coins I most certainly do
@epicmetod 10 місяців тому
started to believe that these guys are alien
@highdefinist9697 10 місяців тому
Yeah, the visualization was surprisingly good. Nice effects, but chosen so that they don't distract from the thing they want to show; visualizing more or less exactly as much as needed (so no superflous details, but also not omitting anything important); and also aesthetically well done.
@brightwave28 8 місяців тому
Used to watch PBS space time 5-6 years back.. good to see you guys are still going strong. Keep it up!
@shaneevans978 10 місяців тому
I dunno about protons but personally speaking, im made up of caffiene, tangible stress, and questionable morals manifested into human form
@tordox1607 10 місяців тому
“Don’t worry, there are plenty of quarks in the sea” is my new favorite line.
@DrDeuteron Місяць тому
but there are just as many anti-quarks....
@crystalfire5564 10 місяців тому
I feel like science is developing faster than my old brain can handle. But I am happy that we are making progress and content to get the pieces I can understand.
@DeltaVTX 10 місяців тому
Welcome to the singularity, my friend.
@snakex555 10 місяців тому
Hi friend, I am not too old, I can't keep up, theres gluons and unioms and wjfdkkd
@rebjorn79 10 місяців тому
@@snakex555 Don't forget the ueaoeobvutf and the uabweoaeu
@watchoutforcopyright9339 10 місяців тому
@@DeltaVTX the singularity is definitely close but i don’t think it has happened yet
@DeltaVTX 10 місяців тому
@@watchoutforcopyright9339 we are approaching the asymptote
@Ravenx_44 8 місяців тому
Loved at 15:53 "Charming", so poignantly placed into the rhythm of the statement! Masterfully excited! just another moment that brings me back to Space-Time. Thank you again for all the moments you bring us!
@jona826 25 днів тому
I bet he gets an AI to write his "... of spacetime" endings now.
@Elephantine999 9 місяців тому
Such clarity for such a complex subject. Really impressive.
@alexpetrovich85 10 місяців тому
From an Analytics perspective, this is amazing how quickly it can sort through these data sets and verify things now epistemically.
@YoghurtKiss 10 місяців тому
Yeah, there is no bias, there is no agenda, there is nothing but raw data. I love AI. I don't understand the whole doomsday hype about it.
@israelmontefusco6300 10 місяців тому
@@YoghurtKiss even with raw data, there would be sme kind of agenda or bias, since the data will be interpreted
@cjheaford 10 місяців тому
@@YoghurtKiss I understand and appreciate your comment. I suppose that maybe you just articulated the “doomsday” fear better than I could without you yourself realizing. In your own words: No bias. No Agenda. Only raw data. Bias and Agenda are part of being human - for better or for worse. The real fear is that A.I. will always, constantly, without fail, shall evermore produce the most logical mathematically precise and most efficient solutions for every query regardless of human wants. Had A.I. been available to our prehistoric ancestors, I believe humans would have been rightfully eliminated from the efficient equations long ago. Supreme Intelligence without bias and agenda is the opposite of humanity. We are human because we overcome in SPITE of our biases.
@pacotaco1246 10 місяців тому
@@YoghurtKisspeople are afraid of what greedy hierarchs will do and have done with AI
@DrWhom 10 місяців тому
@@YoghurtKiss _What_ was measure and _how_ already constitutes a bias of sorts. You are being naive.
@marcinkrzeszowiec1538 10 місяців тому
Great episode! Congrats to the whole team :) It all came together in a beautiful synergy. You are doing amazing work popularizing very difficult and cutting edge science! Gives one a whole new appreciation about the world, and the physics behind it :)
@incubuz1980 8 місяців тому
This was explained and communicated in such a great way, that I can not even begin to describe it.
@MrOvergryph 10 місяців тому
Wow, I actually understood Matt O'Dowd on 2x speed without rewinding, finally. That's a first. :) It may never happen again, but it happened once! :D I usually have to rewatch his videos several times at a slower speed to really digest the material because it's all so new to me and so very complicated.
@dipanjanghosal1662 10 місяців тому
Thank you for taking the time to make these topics accessible and understandable for the general audience
@alien9279 10 місяців тому
Using ai for science like this just has so much potential and I'm here for it. Even if we only get an ai like 10% as smart as a human and make an army of them for 24/7 science it would change the world
@KonradTheWizzard 10 місяців тому
While I cautiously agree with your first sentence, AI is not comparable to human intelligence. In fact the "I" in "AI" is a misnomer - it is not intelligent, it just uses algorithms that are inspired by nature. Specifically the way the brain approaches problems or how it is imagined to do so. Artificial Neural Networks in particular are a (rather crude) model of how simple clusters of nerve cells communicate. In mathematical terms they are a complex polynomial approximator that can be tuned with input data and subsequently be used to predict results that approach something that has a high likelihood of being correct when compared with the input data. (You may notice how cagey I am here: that's because we don't know exactly how they work in detail.) In short: please be careful with phrases like "AI will change the world" - if we are not careful, it might just do that - for the worse. If we are careful about it, it will merely make our jobs easier and WE will change the world, hopefully for the better.
@Trickey2413 10 місяців тому
Ai intelligence is very similar to human intelligence
@unimportantnobody8364 10 місяців тому
@@KonradTheWizzardI don’t mean to be pedantic but the idea that if AI isn’t used carefully it could make things ‘worse’ is quite a selfish and human centric view point, it would (maybe) only be worse for humans (if sci fi fears are to be believed). Personally speaking though, if the movies are to be believed and some how AI does decide that humans are surplus to requirements, that would only be the case because it would see that (currently) the human race is acting very much like a parasite to planet earth and frankly if that be the end of our evolutional journey then so be it. I’m all for change on this planet, massive massive change coz we’re doing s**t atm. Sure ‘some’ may be doing ok and to them losing out on their ‘perfect’ life is a loss, I get that. But for the vast majority of people on the planet, it’s not good. You only have to walk down your local high street (in the west) and all those people you ignore who sleep on the street, that’s just one example on the very tip of the of the parasitic iceberg. We’re a terrible species who can’t even be bothered to look after our own because most of us are too stupid and or selfish to care about anything but oneself. So bring it on, I for one am not afraid or resistant to the (imagined/potential) Ai revolution. It’s what this planet, indeed, it’s what evolution needs right now. If and it’s a big if given the state of things. If we want to ensure our survival, WE have to change, regardless of Ai. Even if the (imagined) Ai revolution doesn’t happen, humanity is still doomed if WE don’t change massively.
@ncedwards1234 10 місяців тому
@@KonradTheWizzard You have described AI, but you did not define intelligence so to say that AI does not meet a criteria not stated is a non sequitur. You'll likely find that trying to define intelligence in a way that includes humans while excluding AI has been exponentially harder in recent years just as the role of a monotheistic deity has come to fill only shrinking gaps. Moving thr goalpost in short. Special pleading at times. While you may be right, your argument is incomplete and I love to play the antagonist so I'll be a little inflammatory here and say that perhaps you haven't defined intelligence because doing so in a way that excludes future AI would also exclude you and that scares you.
@svachalek 10 місяців тому
@@ncedwards1234Someday, our creations will have solved all the mysteries of this universe and gone off to create new ones. But I won’t be impressed because it wasn’t real intelligence.
@b0y0ne 10 місяців тому
I love watching videos like these, especially after just finishing my alevels where the only quarks I need to believe in are up, down and strange
@DrReginaldFinleySr 10 місяців тому
Beautiful video. Thank you for sharing. So many don't understand how AI works so explaining how it did this in some layman's detail would be helpful, but I suppose that could be for another channel. Thank you again PBS writers, researchers, and staff. I hope to use AI in my Nutritional Research. Should be very interesting.
@peterpan4038 10 місяців тому
As far as i understand it (and i'm aware you most likely know all of this): The best way to explain it is by focusing on the difference between traditional computers and human brains. A computer is vastly superior at doing one simple thing over and over again at super fast speeds, hence even a 1$ handheld calculator is crazy good at math. Meanwhile a brain operates in a 3d network, all types of informations and things are connected to each other all over the place, enabling it to understand and interpret context really well. If you have a problem that isn't just 1+1+1+1 etc but that takes into account many complicated and seemingly different aspects to figure out: the fastest way to find a solution is a network that can draw informations/ memories from many "drawers" at once. Hence A.I that is run with an artificial neural >network< is vastly superior at simulating complex problems and finding the fitting complicated answer. The added advantage of such an >artificial< neural network is easy to explain as well: it doesn't need sleep, and it can be build/ trained to hyper focus on only one type of problem solving. Human brains have countless jobs to do. As a whole the human brain is countless times better than manmade A.I. But your artificial problem solving A.I. doesn't need to dedicate most of it's power and features on controlling and maintaining a human body, it's only there to "think" about the question it's human operator asks. When such an A.I. isn't busy figuring out answers it can use it's full time to train it's knowledge about everything that is likely to help it do it's one and only job even better. - A traditional computer is great at all the stuff computers do all day, no need to explain that one. - Modern A.I. is great at eating up thousands of libraries worth of knowledge and filtering out information based on complex questions, and great at simulating really complicated ideas. - A human brain is best at managing a human body. No machine we can build right now would for example be able to run a marathon, with some added dancing, while regulating it's complex body, all while drinking and enjoying a beer every so often and thinking about the next family reunion. In other words it all depends on the type of problem, some are best solved by traditional computers, some by modern A.I, and others by actual human beings. Since said modern A.I. is a rather new tool on our tool belts => a lot of previously hard to answer questions can suddenly be answered. Particle physics is a great example for the follow-up issue: Finding an answer to a complex question usually leads to even more questions, with even more complicated answers we as human beings love to figure out next. Meaning we have a long long way to go. :)
@SedatKPunkt 10 місяців тому
Very well explained…and very thoughtful concerning the limitations of a layman. When looking at machine learning, QM, thermodynamics etc. then *statistics* which sounds boring is one of the most important and even most exciting tools
@rand49er 10 місяців тому
An absolute great use and application for AI! I recall when I was in college (engineering) hearing about the discovery of a thing called a "quark" and the buzz it created. We've come a long way with still more to go. Great video. Thanks.
@panicsoundsystem 7 місяців тому
Ive visited the accelerators at Stanford with my then wife. Pretty impressive. Both the circular and linear accelerator are huge.
@genet.2894 3 місяці тому
What a great explanation and presentation -
@NobleSainted 10 місяців тому
Incredibly interesting! Though most of the information went over my head, I found myself understanding more in this one episode than I have in my entire life of reading about electrons, protons, and subatomic particles. Thank you so much and please keep up the amazing work.
@muzikizfun 10 місяців тому
Don't dispare, sometimes too much information can give you brain freeze. Watch it several times, get the big picture thinking, then slowly absorb the details a little bit at a time . Good luck!
@N3ur0m4nc3r 10 місяців тому
This sounds like a uniquely appropriate job for *quantum computing* 🙃
@zinzhao8231 10 місяців тому
for quantum computers you mean
@shatterscape 10 місяців тому
Who is quantum computing and what does he compute
@fugitive6549 10 місяців тому
Microsoft has already announced a breakthrough with quantum computing which stabilises the Qubits making them less prone to errors
@Vysair 10 місяців тому
@@fugitive6549 our manufacturing capability still has a lot to catch up
@gvanish6000 10 місяців тому
@@fugitive6549 i think intel is trying to make it commercial for institution to use
@eliyahkilada338 6 місяців тому
Love it. One of the best and clearest episodes.
@MultiSciGeek 10 місяців тому
Wow this was nice. Perhaps the first time I am completely able to follow a PBS Space Time video. Been a while since I've gone down this physics rabbit hole.
@dr.vegetable 10 місяців тому
Incredible episode. Had to pause and rewind multiple times to understand some parts, but mostly due to me going "wait, that can't be right, let's listen again". Thank you, it was amazing
@jasonbelanger7525 10 місяців тому
I love this show, breaks my brain almost every time. Thank you and please never stop!
@tomsawyer283 8 місяців тому
I just want to say thank you all for making this content. It’s still highly accessible but goes beyond even some of the more “in-depth” pop science content that basically stops at quarks, let alone a lot of the math (“oh lookie! Dead cat guy made an equation” without going so much further to describe the Hamiltonian and etc”). But seriously, this really helps scratch that itch when wanting higher division physics content but in a similar platform/form as other UKposts content. No, some dry professor just talking with a whiteboard isn’t the same. This guy keeps me turned in as if there was subway surfer in the bottom.
@patrickwumbo8271 8 місяців тому
Please cite the papers you mention/get the information from in the description, thx!
@benruniko 10 місяців тому
This is exactly the kind of use of AI I want to see more of. I bet we will learn some amazing things with models that have no bias to the basic assumptions of physics we all accept as true. Edit: yes all models are bias, this isn’t a solution to find better truths. It shows a multitude of possible solutions to puzzles without throwing some away simply due to preconceptions. This doesn’t research for us, it just gives us a new perspective on the data we have. The research is still up to humans to do, as it should be.
@thetalantonx 10 місяців тому
I agree, the only problem is the black box of the neural net. We know that it does a good job, we can't pop the hood and see *why* it does a good job. So I'd be happy if on things like this that could steer the course of entire fields of study that they have several different AI that all do as well on training data that we then can use to check each other.
@joshuacadebarber8992 10 місяців тому
@@thetalantonxactually this is partially solved with memory modules and decision graphs
@thetalantonx 10 місяців тому
@@joshuacadebarber8992 Thanks for the reply! Do you have any resources you could point me towards?
@joshuacadebarber8992 10 місяців тому
@@thetalantonx sure, Transparent XAI is a very comprehensive field for this, the study called Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior has a section on the memory stream which goes in conjunction with other adjacent transparent approaches to logging the unknowns as well
@ShadeAKAhayate 10 місяців тому
@@thetalantonx Even more important, we can't (without re-checking) tell WHEN it does a good job and when it just imitates it perfectly with a totally straight face. It surely loves to do that as much as anything else. Over-reliance on tools like these can lead to dangerous results if precautions are not taken.
@nelsonibis2915 10 місяців тому
I love how I am not very technical at these things but I somehow understood the topic. Very very nice way of explaining it 👏🏻👌🏼
@JoeMustache321 10 місяців тому
very excited to see machine learning continually applied in experimental physics
@mattc4013 Місяць тому
3:46 "Sometimes, you need to break something to see what it is made of" -PBS Spacetime "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." -Gandalf
@zutaca2825 10 місяців тому
14:44 I'd be wary of saying that AI necessarily removes bias from the equation, since the biases of a machine learning system's creators can often seep if care isn't taken to specifically avoid it
@ramonpizarro 10 місяців тому
The old GIGO at work
@DrWhom 10 місяців тому
there is also bias in the data sets: what was measured and how. this is not a new issue in epistemology: and it is why a confluence of evidences, from groups with different methods and led by people with different temperaments, is so important the same checks and balances can be applied to AI - perhaps even left to be managed by _another_ AI!
@reiteration6273 10 місяців тому
It’s always nice to hear about AI doing some good, rather than the doom & gloom view that seems all too common these days.
@ean_596 10 місяців тому
as with so many tools, it's all about *how* it's used.
@MetalCharlo 10 місяців тому
Cliché to say but people really do fear what they don't understand.
@nielskorpel8860 10 місяців тому
So,... can I trust that AI will not be used for nasty things even once over the coming 3000 years?
@ManyHeavens42 10 місяців тому
your smart we are AI.
@Ebani 10 місяців тому
@@MetalCharlo This
@Soupy_loopy 10 місяців тому
"Sometimes you need to break something to see what it's made of." This is exactly why we can't have nice things around here.
@emergentform1188 13 днів тому
This is definitely the most advanced science "news" on youtube right now. No small feat.
@chipgruver2911 10 місяців тому
This is really cool. We have done one of two things. 1. Found a new way to better discover what the universe has to teach using AI. 2. Found a more efficient way to create even better delusions taking us even further from a theory of everything. Either way, I found this episode brought my hopes up, then let me down. Ultimately, I was just a little charmed. What a strange experience from top to bottom.
@Hailnolah 10 місяців тому
Noice
@DrWhom 10 місяців тому
we have done both, and which is which in any given case is a bit of a headscratcher
@DJ-1986 10 місяців тому
Underrated comment
@zacharywong483 10 місяців тому
Absolutely spectacular video, as always! Fantastic explanations here!
@danielash1704 2 місяці тому
Wonderful and beautiful to see the results
@HMAOO86 10 місяців тому
I loved the "a point beyond Neptune. I was gonna say Pluto but I saw you were sitting here" joke in the StarTalk episode
@stormos25one 10 місяців тому
Lovely video here, as always! Thank you for putting this together, and for producing such rich graphics, and illustrations!
@H1GHdrogen 10 місяців тому
Thank you for confirming that “machine learning” was utilized at the end of the video. Stating ‘AI’ in the title raised my eyebrows.
@hrthrhs 10 місяців тому
Thank God there is someone else out there who knows we do not have A.I. I thought I was the only one.
@piggydabest 10 місяців тому
Bro has to get the clicks somehow
@b130610 10 місяців тому
AI is a term that has had dozens of definitions - both loosely defined, and technical - in computer science over nearly 100 years. Everything from perceptrons, to expert systems, to sci-fi AGI systems has been "the definition" of it over the years depending on who you ask. Just because something doesn't meet arbitrary/moving goalposts for what counts as intelligence doesn't mean its inaccurate to call it AI. Machine learning may be more descriptive of the technology being used, but it's still a massive umbrella term that doesn't say much about the technology. If the term "AI" captures people's imagination, and gets more people to engage with high effort scientific programming like this, I don't see the harm, especially when the "correct" title would have been something unweildly like "Did a neural net use linear regression to prove our proton model WRONG?"
@rakninja 10 місяців тому
@@b130610 if the thing is not actually an intelligence, there's no reason to call it one. and the harm comes when uninformed people lock these concepts into their brain with their preconceived notions. i had an argument with my parents about GPT as they could not accept it was just autocomplete on steroids, spitting out letter combinations based on the probability of those combinations showing up in the data used to train the algorithm. they were and still are convinced GPT has a mind.
@piggydabest 10 місяців тому
@@b130610 ye ik, my guy didnt have to write a whole essay lol
@NemecisGR Місяць тому
I loved this video. Could you do an explanation like this one for the directors in the split experiments??? I always had a problem with them!
@synchro505 8 місяців тому
The quark configuration of the proton shown reminds me of the top of a manual transmission gear shift knob. One up, one down, one up.
@Weerknuffelbeer 10 місяців тому
About the objectivity of AI: An AI is programmed by a subjective human. Therefore, an AI can also have intended or unintended biases towards finding certain results.
@pugofwarbr 10 місяців тому
AI: how many models you want me to analyse? Scientist: yes
@cmmndln 10 місяців тому
Beyond curious to find out. This extends on the information modes i trained a public Ai testground with around 2016 or so. Essentially, the AI is likely to have made an information based model. I don't think it matches physics really but it may serve a purpose to better understand numbers and their relation to physics. Chances are the ML will suggest g to be wrong at a few decimals as well. That's what i came up with myself thinking about an information-energy model. This is, so I learned later, actually under investigation. Sigma 3 aligns with my own impression of information based energy modelling.
@yusufmunir9233 10 місяців тому
Despite the apparent complexity of this video to novices, this is still one of the clearest video this channel has ever produced on a complicated topic. It seems our brilliant Dr Matt O'Dowd has improved at grinding things down for tinier brains lol
@lucascsrs2581 10 місяців тому
I love when they explain experiments in such a simple way. I know understand what scattering means :D
@jeremyholbrook2094 10 місяців тому
I like Star Talk, but I love Space Time. Great work, as always, Space Time team😊
@thepooz7205 10 місяців тому
For the 15 minutes I watched this video, I felt a lot smarter than I usually do. Thanks!
@tyler3201 4 місяці тому
This channel is awesome. So dense with material I feel like I’m kind of taking an advanced class in physics. Not that I’d know, I’ve never taken physics. Still pretty cool though trying to figure out what makes up our universe.
@simongross3122 10 місяців тому
This feels like a sophisticated kind of curve-fitting. Nothing new is revealed, simply more accurate choices between solutions we already have.
@Duiker36 10 місяців тому
That's all AI is.
@MooseBoys42 10 місяців тому
@@Duiker36Yeah but that’s exactly what you *don’t* want when trying to evaluate a theory like this.
@Ostinat0 10 місяців тому
Finding out that an option doesn't fit the data at all is revealing something new. The AI did this for thousands of options in a matter of days and left us with one that DOES fit the data pretty well...not well enough to be shouting "Eureka!" just yet but it's still significant progress that might've taken decades to achieve otherwise. If that best-fit theory ends up being wrong or even if new data comes out that would warrant a complete reexamination of all those discarded theories, it's a trivial task to run the analysis again compared to the time and effort it would've required before.
@simongross3122 10 місяців тому
@@Ostinat0 Yes I guess that's true
@peterp-a-n4743 10 місяців тому
Stellar video! Great explanations. I wish I had those visualizations when I had to learn that at uni.
@lis7742 10 місяців тому
I learned something new. Thank you! Very excited for the future with AI.
@hjfreyer 8 місяців тому
"The algorithm efficiently tried several thousand models, and found one that is so good that there's only a 1:1000 chance that it's wrong!" Wait a minute...
@Kyoderg 10 місяців тому
Last time I was this early, the helium nucleus was just starting to form.
@austinsapp5867 10 місяців тому
Hats off to the people who conduct these studies. This subject matter is so far beyond me. Just doing my best to keep up with the concepts here :)
@ejoman3002 10 місяців тому
Alright 1:21 in and im making a prediction. If there exists a particle that is heavier then the proton itself that could mean there is a negative mass particle. Which in turn would mean FTL is possible if we can tame it because we theoretically can reduce the mass of something to 0.
@PlanetXMysteries-pj9nm 5 місяців тому
The person who okayed this narration deserves to have their eulogy delivered by the same computer voice, in a church full of robots that can't cry.
@BrassSpyglass 10 місяців тому
If Charm-antiCharm collisions do happen inside Protons, it seems like that would allow for Protons to decay if their interaction were to happen unevenly or otherwise linger on fractionally long enough to cause the proton to destabilize.
@rc5989 10 місяців тому
Spontaneous (not in a particle collider) proton decay is a major prediction of several theories in physics, and String Theory IIRC, however every experiment performed to detect it has never found a single proton decay.
@michaelsommers2356 10 місяців тому
What do you think a proton would decay into?
@stevenverrall4527 10 місяців тому
@@rc5989I recently published a peer-reviewed paper explaining why protons may be eternally stable: "Ground State Quantum Vortex Proton Model" in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023
@John-ir4id 10 місяців тому
@@stevenverrall4527 After reading and re-reading your abstract, looking up concepts I had no clue about... can I just ask for a cliff's notes version?
@ApiolJoe 10 місяців тому
A link to the paper using the NN which found a model with 3sigma would have been welcomed. Since they tested so many models, I am interested to check how they corrected for multiple hypothesis testing.
@ApiolJoe 7 місяців тому
@@LorneABrown I think someone forgot to take his meds...
@FredericoKlein 9 місяців тому
I got this weird idea today: vectorial time. So how it would work is that the arrow of time is the statistical average of time vectors, so it only exists macroscopically. Microscopically, the multiple time dimensions become apparent, so you can get particles from other time trajectories when the perform those collisions. This explains dark matter (it's the stuff that is there, but moving in different time directions - maybe it crosses our time direction for a very small time before it disappears, but the net effect generates gravity) and also the probabilistic effects we see with quantum mechanics.
@nicholassimmons9706 7 місяців тому
If you watched this video knowing nothing about physics you would get the impression that light and protons are "particles" while electrons have wave properties. The animation of the light corpuscles bouncing off the phone booth and changing colors at 1:44 almost made me scream.
@stevenverrall4527 10 місяців тому
The proto-virtual neutral pion in the 2023 paper "Ground State Quantum Vortex Proton Model" published in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023 could perhaps occasionally transform into a charm-anticharm pair. Note that the two charge shells have the same charge structure as five quarks.
@gbcb8853 10 місяців тому
Is that one of the Fountations trilogy?
@LVGamerCats 10 місяців тому
55 years of deep inelastic scattering and we still can’t compute a nucleon’s mass, not to mention spin, from its constituents. Is this how it has to be or is there a different way to understand confinement? What does ChatGPT say?
@denysvlasenko1865 10 місяців тому
@@LVGamerCats Well, perturbation methods don't work for IR-divergent Yang-Mills fields, and computers are not yet powerful enough for lattice QCD to run realistic simulations... we need someone to develop better methods (or at least faster computers).
@collemwillst1810 10 місяців тому
I had to google this because as a layman, I wasn't sure if this is a sarcastic comment using techno babble. It's a real thing.
@stevenverrall4527 10 місяців тому
@@denysvlasenko1865 In my opinion, low energy physics is set to become an emerging scientific frontier. I also think that human creative thinking will outperform any supercomputer or AI system. So far, my theoretical low-energy physics research has involved nothing more than imaginative deep thinking, basic algebra, a little calculus, and a spreadsheet. I have been able to do each needed optimization using a spreadsheet. It typically takes less than an hour to optimize out to 10+ significant digits by fine-tuning a carefully selected parameter by hand. The difficult part is determining which parameter is most suitable to tweak. It needs to make sense in a physical 3+1 dimensional geometry, which requires deep careful thought. I usually need to sleep on it... I could fully automate each needed optimization process in software, but it would take me far longer to write and debug the code than to simply do it by hand (with a spreadsheet). Of course, the spreadsheet rapidly recomputes all the parameters for me.
@PhrosstBite 10 місяців тому
Makes me even more excited to be pursuing computer science while renewing my interest in physics. Thank you for inspiring me with your videos!
@justinwatson1510 10 місяців тому
Do yourself a favor, assuming you're still in university. Choose electives in humanities that look like something you would absolutely hate, but go into the class with an open mind. What you learn in those classes will give you perspectives / skills that few others in your field will possess. I'm sure it would be impossible to spit in most CS classes without hitting someone who is also studying extra math or physics. Women in Art History and French Fairy Tales are easily the two most useful classes I had at university, and I did a double major / double degree with applied math and two different branches of "hard" science that are less relevant You will be able to easily get whatever job you want with your CS degree; while it might sound unbelievable now, those humanities classes will make you even better in most any field you choose.
@PhrosstBite 10 місяців тому
Oh thanks I really appreciate the advice and it's good for others who find this. But I'm actually going back for my second BS in CS. I did biotech first time around and ended up hated being in the lab, so here I am. I did end up basically doing a creative writing minor during that first degree, so i completely agree. Humanities are so useful, like I've been consistently praised for communication skills at my job thanks in large part to how much writing I did. That's not even to mention all the ways it's probably just helped me stand out but thinking flexibly, or something, that I just haven't noticed
@robert-zj7ef 3 місяці тому
I did enjoy this presentation. I found it very informative to the lay person. Of course, there is probaably a hundred thousand hours of more and greater indepth information. As a last point, in a different video, you might explain why the weight of a sub particle is measured in electronvolts as opposed to pounds/ounces. I have explained this as the amount of energy contained when using energy to mass conversion. I could be incorrect in my explaination so coming from a physicist would be much better. Thanks for the video.
@smithno13 10 місяців тому
2:45 I know it's just a simple visual to show how the electron microscope works, but it really bothers me that the figure shows the electrons focused on the ant's thorax while the display shows it's head.
@Only1Shadow 10 місяців тому
The best description I've ever heard of quantum physics is learning how a pocket watch is made by smashing two of them together and examining the pieces flying out... I guess if you used cannons as the accelerator finding a cannonball in the shrapnel wouldn't be unheard of.
@JohnSmith-ut5th 10 місяців тому
I'm extremely curious. What is the model they developed? What ML methods did they use? Please do another video on this.
@mortophobegaming6454 10 місяців тому
Somewhere around 1/3 of the video i thought "charm probably exists part of the time, deliver part of the weight". Later on that's exactly what u said. That warm feeling that you 'understand' quantum physics, proving u don't
@Snowwie88 10 місяців тому
The difference between matter and energy is quickly fading the deeper you look inside these particles. And everything is made of this stuff.
@79santa 10 місяців тому
Is there a link to the paper that can be shared in the video description? Would love to know what kind of AI modeling was used here.
@berkertaskiran 10 місяців тому
When you see AI mentioned in a PBS Space Time video, you know we created the aliens we didn't find.
@Moraprecisionreloader 10 місяців тому
Who are the ALIENS 👽 ( MAYBE SOME SPECIAL PEOPLE IN THE SPACE FORCES THAT HAS BEEN UNDERCOVER FROM THE 1940's)
@jakegerstein 8 місяців тому
Love this channel so much! Thank you guys!!!
@trucksgunsandvideogames5307 7 місяців тому
From now on I will refer to my eyes as my “particle detectors.” Thanks PBS Space Time!
@flamencoprof 10 місяців тому
The Extrinsic particle concept sounds like the doubts I have had for over twenty years over what all these "Atom Smashers" could ultimately reveal. I have long wondered if the collider approach is just creating tinier and tinier energy conformations that do not exist otherwise.. All the way down to the Planke length:-)
@drumhed 10 місяців тому
That's the rub, my friend. One day, we're going to get down to the smallest possible pieces, watch them break apart into nothing, and be virtually none the wiser for it.
@AirborneLRRP 10 місяців тому
Fantastically amazingly explained. I'm a physicist and approve this video!
@kjellvb1979 10 місяців тому
Maybe a dumb question... But it's there any possibility there is a link between "spooky action at a distance" and those excess particles that seemingly pop in and out of existence very quickly, or that excess extrinsic stuff he's taking about? I'm just a layman, but maybe it's like the universe's parity check, making sure it has all its bits in pieces in the right place before settling into its stable form? Again, just layman speculation and curiosity. I don't even know if that would make any sense, really, but that's what my primate brain thought when he was explaining this. "Maybe this 'extra stuff' has to do with that spooky action, EPR, stuff to keep their entangled pairs in the right state..." Then I remember I know very little about this stuff, just enough to barely follow these videos, so I'm probably way off base here... I'm just curious, I guess. I'm probably asking a ridiculous question.
@genrideon7341 10 місяців тому
omg this is the 1st time that this guy went into an extremely complicated topic & i came out understanding it a little better. Previously he went over dark hole & alternte reality and halfway through i was so lost. I really liked the guy before this one. Or maybe it was whoever wrote the script who changed and thats who i understand.
@dustynova171 9 місяців тому
It would seem that the charmed particals are necessary for matter to shrink on a snap function, meaning they may be more the fabric of space-time then matter. If time isn't static, and matter is shrinking at the speed of light, yet slight faster than empty space, the expansion of the universe is actually the big crunch. To travel back in time would need space for it to happen, also the future. A shrinking spacetime at a non constant speed of light to the outside observer is he only thing that explains time travel being possible foreads and backwards. The micro world explains the macro world.
@CharlesGriswold 10 місяців тому
It just occurred to me that if someone tried to figure out how a car was made by smashing it into a brick wall and examining the pieces as they were still flying away from the wreck, we would think that person was insane. But that's exactly how we're trying to figure out how subatomic particles are made.
@ZielAmerak 3 місяці тому
only if your question is "How it was made?" but if the Question is "what is made of?" it make much more sense.
@ilikeycoloralot 10 місяців тому
Ai is definitely going to allow us to probe new physics
@Lamster66 10 місяців тому
And then new physics will allow AI will probe us!
@yuriimarshalofficial 8 місяців тому
That’s great new, nucleons consist of different particles in different moments, and number of particles is also various.
@dwmcever 10 місяців тому
This is the best video ever on elementary particles.
Суспільне Чернігів
Переглядів 1,1 млн
PBS Space Time
Переглядів 1,5 млн