Then stop begin ordinary and learn fool

I appreciate your unique perspective. Thanks.

Maybe his magnet helped lol... I'm still asking why cosmic rays are hacking my phone

... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

Ditto, RubixNinja.

This was the best explanation I have ever heard too, and I'm an idiot 🙄

thats the hallmark of deep understanding, as Richard Feynman famously remarked

Not to be sewn or weird abstractions may loom

... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

@@dn1697 l

Matter of theory not fact

@@inkman6964 "matter of fact explanation" is a phrase describing the style of delivery, not the subject matter.

@@inkman6964 Fact is the evidential data that proves predictions made by a theory. In the case of standard model on particle physics it is now a "matter of fact explanation".

....while watching the famous communicator of science talk about mathematics and physics am struck at the sight of Sean Carroll who is the striking reincarnation of Richard Feynman .....

He is - but sadly what he teaches so excellently is false theory

How's that?

Enter the Braggn' If anything is a false theory, it would be the electric universe stuff

We should use croudfunding to buy his books and send them to crucial parts of the science, development and education system

Me too

And me

Lies

Slightly disappointed that he didn't do the full research and called the fans "jugaloos". I can forgive the error because ICP "culture" is quite alien to most academics.

@@osmium6832 He mispronounced it. Wow. What disrespect. How much research is required to properly quote a couple of idiot creationists rapping about things they know nothing about? "The tide goes in. The tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that!"

@@osmium6832 And countless laymen including those that dont like rap music, gimmicks or clowns.

juggaluggalos!

I did not expect the gender PC talk in here either. The estimated neocortical synapses are 40% less in females. Its science !!!

17,256 BC was the best year. I wish I lived back then.

I am writing from 17,256 CE. How funny you people thought there was a Higgs Boson and shitting in the woods was bad.

Better than the renaissance

some of you appear to have missed the memo about the new numbering system. everything is now dated from the coming of our beneficent lord gravitin, who illuminated the universe....what is this renaissance thing? for that matter, a year? what defines a good one?

@@kidmohair8151 I think you missed your meds today.

Yea if we survive that long and that's a big if.

Uber Genie Larry krauss? You mean Lawrence krauss.

Albert Einstein Yes

Osmosis WLC ?

Homebrew010 Homebrew William Lane Craig

DANG JOS You misspelt Lame. ;)

I have not heard “pwnage” in at least ten years.

@@unreal_taxi Us old people are allowed to use the interwebs too, ya know...bwahahaha

foobargorch Thank you for putting the time in to this. I have no idea why my comment will not allow replies. It seems that I am off by some small fraction.

Doesn't look anything like him and, by the way, the whole "I didn't know Person X did Y" thing? It isn't funny. It isn't smart. It's just you saying 'He looks like James Wood.' Come up with something a bit better than that.

Skindoggiedog You're just a jerk.

... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

That's what's great about this type of presentation on You Tube, (thanks YT). They can be watched (or rewound) over and over until you feel you understand the material. Any presentations done by Dr. Carroll are fantastic and certainly worth watching until you feel some decent level of understanding.

... choice in a world of disorder ???? ... mmm ... must try harder ...

+leon bushnell Yeah, I watched part of a documentary about juggalos and it was clearly a counter culture of "misfit toys". It's more fitting that Mr. Carroll knows who they are and uses a reference to them in his talk than if ICP mentioned him in a "song".

+leon bushnell isn't it true that icp is just trolling and whatever public image they portray is probably the opposite of what they actually believe? Maybe they aren't but I can tell you that I used to claim juggalo and was DEFINITELY trolling. xD

Knowledge in present in his mind probably as the result of a failure to google Trapped Charged Particles properly or something such like.

Sean Carroll's amazing and loves the Jugaloos

8:17

we know nothing. "the electron spins"...ok...why? "i don't know" hehehe

Felhek Lehrian You can always ask 'why?' If you go by your reasoning, we CANNOT know anything.

>electron spins around atom >atom has magnetic moment >atoms are aligned, creating a domain >aligned domains result in a uniform magnetic field 10 points to physics

TheRohBoat your comment does not give credit to Jesus. Therefore invalid.

Andy Doney do you know?

347 scientists from CERN who aren't getting Nobel Prizes? ;-)

But biased. There's a mention of Democritus and his Greek gurus(European white supremacy), there's a mention of inconsequential British scientists, there's a mention of Higgs and some 6 other scientists, there's a mention of Einstein, but there's absolutely NO MENTION OF THE MAN WHO FIRST PREDICTED THESE PARTICLES ANS SENT A LETTER TO EINSTEIN sitting in extreme poverty in the British occupied India after whom this particle is named , S.V.Bose. (Boson). Another example of western appropriation of Science and philosophy. Democritus, Plato and Aristotle's and all Greek philosophers' great guru, Ptolemy, is believed to have travelled through India for 10 years before transferring the knowledge of atoms and philosophical reasoning to the west. Disappointing to see the bias even from scientific community

Thank you for your support. Regardless of whether you're a scientist or whether the children who watch our videos go on to become scientists, we believe that understanding the scientific method and appreciating the wonders and applications of science will make everyone a better, more rounded person. Especially in today's society, it's important to question and critically assess the information that comes at you, and we're very glad if we can play a part in that.

I put Krauss second and Carrol third

You guys are forgetting Carl Sagan, definitely worth mentionning here.

Stephen Perrenod LOL that explains it! Who needs duality when you can play one like that :)

That accounts for your weight, but how do you explain your volume? Do you also strongly interact with pies?

It is just an excited field near me. You shouldn't be fooled by it

I'm so stealing this. :D

No, you've eaten it!! 🤡

Old habits die hard... even in science.

Old habits do die hard, especially when criticising science from a dualist and/or vitalist position which has scarcely changed since Victorian times. Fortunately progress can be made despite the refusal of some to consider the evidence.

***** it has to be a dual "reality" -- unobserved it's all fields, observed it's particles. wave/particle duality, same thing, it's both. Duality is intriguing. In black hole physics there is a dual description of reality where Bob can fall in and hit the singularity in an hour, but Alice sees Bob falling slower and slower and taking an infinite time to reach the event horizon, never reaching the singularity at all. In ADS/CFT duality, quantum field theory in flat space at high energy is dual to string theory in Anti-deSitter Space at low energy in 1 higher dimension. (In this usage, "dual to" means "has the same math as.")

N Marbletoe A recently discovered duality may solve Einstein's dream of unifying Relativity and Quantum physics: quantum entanglement is dual to non-traversable wormholes (EPR = ER). Since entanglement is everywhere (empty space is near maximally entangled with itself), spacetime is apparently full of wormholes (Einstein-Rosen Bridges). This is a very new discovery and begins to give a geometrical description of quantum mechanics.

***** I just found the comment below check it out:Stephen Perrenod 1 month ago It's Fields. And his thesis advisor (and mine) was Prof. George Field

The very word boson means particle.

no. a boson is one of two classes of elementary particles.

"Really like this video, but I don't like the general statement "there are no particles, only fields"....the Higgs and the Standard Model." I think the appropriate response stems from your next section: Carroll is discussing things in terms of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as opposed to Quantum Mechanics (QM). QFT does not define particles, so it is perfectly accurate to say: 'In QFT "there are no particles, only fields".', though it is a bit silly since it is tautological. QFT does discuss sustained field states that correlate to particles in QM. But in QFT, the term "particle" simply has no meaning, and that is what he is trying to convey. The things known as 'particles' in theories that have particles are still represented. It is just that the representations are not inherently differentiated from other field phenomena, but instead an internally artificial and externally relational designation is necessary to translate back and forth. "they key phrase one has to be aware: "As long as Quantum Field Theory is right, we know...". Indeed, we don't know if QFT is right yet..." QFT is right to a point, as it successfully describes some things better (by some definition of 'better') than other theories. Just like Linear Expansion is right to a point. In terms of QFT, we just don't know precisely where that point is yet. And that is where the excitement lies.

It's becoming borderline irresponsible to believe in QFT at this point, as both experimental proof AND theoretically-better theories are making much more sense. If you really take QFT to its limit, it forces a physicist into believing there's no causality and therefore no free choice, so what's the point of life? We're all on autopilot anyway. That just doesn't make any sense, if you start by believing anything, there's nothing to believe. It's circuitous meaningless contradictory drivel. Whereas in Bohm interpretation, it's a start in the right direction, and those pushing even further like Louis Vervoort (for example) are now pushing even Bohm interpreation to the back shelf in favor of more exact and meaningful non-local field theories, or as Vervoort labels it.... "opens the door for local ‘background-based’ theories, describing the interaction of particles and analyzers with a background field, to complete quantum mechanics." Vervoort is likely going in the proper direction here, makes tons of sense, especially when you consider the small sizes of things discussed in string theories. We might be right back to the "aether", albeit not at the size the 1800s Physicists were expecting (they looked at the atomic level). When you combine background-based theories with the fact of estimated sizes for Planck length, it's easy to see that we might be able to account for the aether but without actually ever getting to experimentally SEE it. String theory might be wrong, but the math is probably going in the right directions there to allow someone eventually to push thru some math explaining Bell's Inequality problems within Bohm Interpretation. At long last we might actually "double-jump" to the correct and final interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, discarding the last 100 years of mystical believe that the world is nothing but a mass-less vacuum-ensconced probability equation (field) that only takes shape when you look at it. think about this, it's ridiculous, and now that we have some evidence and theory that makes total sense, there's just no more reason to believe in Briane Greene's and Niels Bohr's wave-equation QFT "boogeyman" anymore. Check this out: link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10701-015-9973-7 Maybe read some of Hiley's papers first, just to understand the Bohm interpretation before getting into 2nd derivatives of the theory like this, but good nonetheless.

TenHanger​ I think you may be failing to differentiate between what theories actually say, and what people say about theories. QFT does not assume causality, nor really discuss things in those terms. You can't really discuss the meaning of the word 'chair' in a dialect/language that doesn't even have that sounds sequence as an existing word. Likewise, QFT. That doesn't make it right or wrong, just a particular way of talking about things.

+Clark Magnuson science & facts always have a liberal bias

+Daniel Baumann Not when Paul J. Steinhardt does it.

+Clark Magnuson You're so far right that anything looks like "liberal bias". There's a reason most educated people are "liberal" -- they use their intelligence and critical thinking skills as apposed to sticking to dogma.

+lohphat Educated? The majority of college graduates vote republican.

+Daniel Baumann Not always. There are facts about race and gender that liberals hate and deny. Also, many political issues do not have a scientific answer. They are conflicts between competing principles and values.

and countless other universes that cannot, the luck of the draw! lol

Well true, but you still come to a problem, why is there space or uncertainty at all. The being need not be powerful either. I had a catholic mom and it would be an insult to her to believe in ufos, ghosts, bigfoot, or anything that can not be proven. God sending you to heaven or hell is just as crazy as the current universe understanding is.

Another thing to consider is that these laws of physics are the only ones that could ever reliably create and control the size of my huge cock.

The Universe wasn't fined tuned for human beings. Human beings were fined tuned for the Universe.

Why is there space? This is a null argument as space is absolute nothingness, These scientists are wrong to assume that fields occupy all space (nothing abyss void) they occupy only the sphere which is the largest 'particle of all - the universe/cosmos. Outside of that sphere is the void absolute which contains abs nothingness which contains nothing; neither particles nor fields. As space is a nothingness or essential ground, it is not a thing therefore it cannot 'exist' - it just 'is' in the negative.

Oh no he doesn’t

Yh the guardian is a leftist propaganda rag

There's also a social norm where the general public is not interested in Physics and Mathematics (due to it being taught poorly), so we have to utilise general interests (celebrities and such) in order to entice the audience into the research.

SkrootNissu Yoctomind Aye!

+SkrootNissu Yoctomind The Higgs Boson is just the flying spaghetti monster of a different religion: like Zeus vs Jupiter.

Interestingly enough that is Larry Krauss's claim of the Higgs in "A Universe from Nothing!" The Higgs serves as uncreated creator in Krauss's work. Not here. Sean, although is pathetic to Krauss's religous view, sticks to the science.

Obviously, But did you know The spaghetti monster is actually just Lizard People bouncing a spaghetti monster hologram from their colony in the Flat Earth's core off their orbiting space station mother ship that we have always been told is the "moon".

Have you heard of the Roots? idiot

Yes I have and btw their drummer, Questlove is totally shit. Don't call me an Idiot.

Dear oh dear. So much anger.

depends on WHO is rapping

well, there is a LOT of stupidity out there on the internetz, it can frustrate and anger the best of us...

Nah.

It's just hard statistics.

If there aren't women in STEM they aren't electing to go into STEM. The women that most often complain about a lack of women in STEM are the reason we don't have women in the field. Because they don't pick to go into the field.

Zayan Watchel The issue goes a little deeper than that. Sean Carroll chose to incorporate that bit for a reason. Considering that women that have made significant strides in hard science but haven’t gotten any recognition until very recently, the statement was necessary as women tend to get brushed under the rug in the scientific community because of institutional sexism (i know, scary word) . This is why many women had to submit their writings under a males name or a anonymously- otherwise, they’d likely be immediately discarded. To reduce this to political correctness shows your own ignorance, honestly. Consider doing your own research and educating yourself, if you all are such intellectual science enthusiasts, rather than making edgy comments because someone who actually cares about hard science making a statement about something he feels is important and relevant to his talk triggers you.

Punctured Juicebox there is no institutional sexism in reality. In fact the very idea of feminism, and women's rights are praised in our society not degraded as they would be in an institutionally sexist society. If they don't get recognition first of all the question is why? Very few scientists become famous, or get recognition and there are few women that CHOSE to go into stem. As such could it just be none have really gotten much recognition. not because of sexism but because they never did anything worth recognizing for any length of time. "Until very recently" and now they have been recognized when they do do something great.