#science #physics #ideas The Biggest Ideas in the Universe | 12. Scale

#science #physics #ideas The Biggest Ideas in the Universe | 12. Scale 75,544 viewsJun 9, 2020 Sean Carroll 154K subscribers The Biggest Ideas in the Universe is a series of videos where I talk informally about some of the fundamental concepts that help us understand our natural world. Exceedingly casual, not overly polished, and meant for absolutely everybody. This is Idea #12, "Scale." For something more down-to-Earth than the last couple of lectures, we think about why things have the size they do. This is a rich topic so we don't get very far into it, we'll have to return later! My web page: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/ My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/seancarroll Mindscape podcast: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/p... The Biggest Ideas playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Blog posts for the series: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/b... Background image: https://www.wallpaperflare.com/blue-a... #science #physics #ideas #universe #learning #cosmology #philosophy #quantum #scaling 188 Comments rongmaw lin Add a comment... v0lrath1985 v0lrath1985 1 year ago (edited) I have never followed a video series so passionately as this. Not even the Mindscape podcasts (the one on the meaning of life was awesome though). This is what I had been looking for years, sporadically finding pieces here and there, but never as comprehensively explained from the concepts point of view. Hopefully this will continue on for more episodes. Thank you to Prof Carroll so much for taking the time to do this. 62 John Broadhead John Broadhead 1 year ago Thank you Sean Carroll for your amazing series of videos. I grew up a child of the Apollo rockets and was 11 when "we" first stepped on the moon. I have been an avid watcher of science and rocketry since. You make these topics accessible and I find your dedication extremely admirable. Makes me feel like a slug! Thank you again. Your volume of quality output is extremely impressive as well! 15 Pseudo Nym Pseudo Nym 1 year ago I love this series. These videos are going to be staple for a long, long time 46 ObsoleteBoomerMobile Obsolete ObsoleteBoomerMobile Obsolete 1 year ago My favorite thing about Sean Carrol is his objective viewpoints, and his understanding of philosophy that goes in tandem with his scientific knowledge 16 Tommy Eden Tommy Eden 1 year ago I literally watch these videos 2 or 3 times before moving on to the Q&A and then watching those twice. Consequently I am still on interactions lol, this stuff is gold. Maybe my favorite series of anything ever. 3 Quantumpencil Quantumpencil 1 year ago (edited) Professor Carroll, I really love what you're doing with this series and for physics education more generally. I ended up giving up on physics in undergrad (in favor of math) due to a combination of personal issues and poor preparedness (poor rural background, went to ivy league school, was arrogant and sabotaged myself basically) but ended up approaching physics again later in life and finding joy in it. These videos have been invaluable to me, and helped me clarify so much conceptual confusion I carried from undergrad/that common books on the relevant subjects often ignore in favor of mathematical formalism. You're an incredible teacher and your students are quite lucky. I for one am eagerly awaiting your upcoming Quantum Mechanics text, thankfully I have Spactime & Geometry's new printing to keep me occupied until then. 6 Sandra sandra Sandra sandra 1 year ago Thank you so much for all these great videos, I didn't miss one, although the math part is so hard to me! I loved everyone of them and, please, continue on with more big ideas! Too Crash Too Crash 1 year ago Sean, thank you! The depiction of the energy used in a clap versus the LHC, a surprise, the impact energy of a loaded train, lures me towards the processes smaler then the Planck scale.. At the end I'm wondering about the energies needed for concentration, fantasy and unanswered thoughts. This was, although not a breather to me, a delight. protoword protoword 1 year ago Thank you sir! Very eloquent teaching! On top of your scientific knowledge, you are naturally born teacher! Rare combination and because of it, every university would like to have you as their professor... 1 R C R C 1 year ago Really enjoyed this change of pace in the series. I had no idea how much there is to learn about scaling. Thank you Sean Carroll! Herbert Kilian Herbert Kilian 1 year ago What a fantastic lecture. Learned so much about the impact scale has on the 'real world' and on quantum considerations all the way to the Planck scale. Malcolm Dean Malcolm Dean 1 year ago (edited) Thanks Sean. Have watched most of the series - in a non-linear order. Hoping there is more. apper cumstock apper cumstock 1 year ago Request: would it be usefull to make a video "explaining" one of your physics research paper after this series is finished?! 13 Scot Close Scot Close 1 year ago For a preview of scale as it relates to biology, see Sean's interview with Geoffrey West. Very good episode! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq63fsp9o1o 2 Ken Bennett Ken Bennett 1 year ago This is the most mind-blowing edition yet in this series! nosirrbro nosirrbro 1 year ago I for one really enjoyed the deeper ideas of qft in the past few videos, I did sometimes have to pause or back up and think on what you had said to catch up (forgetting what the lagrangian was certainly made the last video harder to follow until I was able to put it back together in my head) but its been a great experience, you don't tend to see ideas of that depth and detail on youtube for any kind of general audience, certainly not in this much quantity! And I'll be honest, nothing so far has made me question my major as much as this. Thank you for making this series, I'll sure miss it when its over, hopefully not too soon though! Jeff Bass Jeff Bass 1 year ago Wow! I wasn't expecting it but I think this was the best episode yet. So many ideas all coming together. If there is this "minimum size" for particles, then why do people talk about elementary particles as point particles? Also, what is the relationship between Compton wavelength and de Broglie wavelength? 6 Soul DFS Soul DFS 1 year ago Awesome episode! One of my favorites so far! A A A A 1 year ago Love the videos. Keep them coming 🥰 Lucy Calder Lucy Calder 1 year ago Great overview - I'm going to teach this to my A-level students :-) tony sales tony sales 1 year ago Loving the uploads sean. yea it takes some thinking , but thats a good thing. i have understood everything you have said so far. i put that down to your careful way of teaching which is great. Joao Joao 1 year ago A new video from this series! Thanks a lot! Stopping everything else and starting to watch! =) 7 Stephen Brown Stephen Brown 1 year ago You have given me the Title of my BOOK, I have been trying to write a simple book that may help someone/anyone to question. The scale of "life the universe and everything"is both amazing and disturbing. As soon as a child starts to read, scale and measurements are needed to form an accurate internal frame of reference. Thank You for the Help. Go Away Go Away 1 year ago I think emergent phenomenon would be a great topic. I was looking at comments on the recent Mindscape episode about the meaning of life, and noticing a lot of people wanting to reduce the meaning of life down to simple thinks like entropy or a chemical process as the goal. But its useful to see emergent patterns that reveal themselves at a higher level as real phenomenon. People act like its not real just because its not the lowest level possible. Even with humans, real statistically significant patterns emerge at higher levels when you consider how entire groups behave together as one. Big Data wouldnt be "Big Data" if there wasnt real value in all the patterns that emerge at higher levels we just dont see. It always makes me wonder about galactic superclusters and what emergent patterns exist on scales that large (and time scales that long)... we just can't see it from down here. Even though we're right in the middle of it. pizzacrusher pizzacrusher 1 year ago Thank goodness it’s returning back to something understandable in our realm of experience. Next time I am in an airplane I am going to fixedly observe the propeller, lest it become just some weird compound vorticity in the wave function of the universe, instead of an actual solid body made up of molecules of stuff. 😇😇 TheEyez187 TheEyez187 1 year ago (edited) Am really enjoying this series. Some elemnts of it I already know and understand, others I'm learning and picking up and yet others that I'm not currently or may ever grasp, but still; interesting. Plus the informations within the grey matter now, so you never know! I sort of have a question/idea with regards to dark matter and its gravitational effects. When thinking about gravity I often think of the demonstration of balls/marbles rolled around a weighted trampoline simulating orbits etc. I often wonder if, that instead of or as well as dark matter, the motion and gravitation could be effected by something else. If you thought of the fabric of space-time as an actual fabric. The passage of something massively dense over it could cause folds or valleys which other matter, planets, marbles galaxies may encounter and run along. Even if this process was not a permanaent one, any following interactions with it would obviously affect everything around it within it's gravitational field, causing a sort of domino effect which in turn gives the appearance of missing matter!?? I know its probably been considered before and/or its utterly wrong or implausible. But I'd properly kick my self if I'd not posed it and it later on became right or relevant!! If you ask the average person who Alfred Wallace is, they likely won't know, because Darwin beat him to the punch on the idea of natural selection. Saying I thought of that after the fact's never going to get you anywhere or anything! Obviosuly there's matter-energy equivalence. I take it there's no dark matter energy equivalence!! It's dark so maybe just E=m? ;) jk, unless again it strangely led to something! I do have other thoughts/ideas (some outside the box thinking, at least to me anyway), but I don't want to overburden the comments section; unless interested. Either way, thanks for the video series! - Ewan edit: you answered one of them in this video. Re: existence at atomic scales. Can also infer another answer from that. i.e the universe is definitely expanding, not just us shrinking FirstRisingSouI FirstRisingSouI 1 year ago "You can smash airplanes together all you want." –Sean Carroll, 2020 19 TheGoldennach TheGoldennach 4 months ago I like this video the best out of the whole series XD It's the most fun and relatable one :) Pavlos Papageorgiou Pavlos Papageorgiou 1 year ago 44:36 Haha. My childhood fantasy magical power was to make things smaller or bigger, but I was clear it was by magically adding or removing atoms close to similar atoms. That wouldn't work for biology etc. but the magical power was only supposed to make things like toys and model cars bigger or smaller. It's important to be scientifically precise about your imaginary magical powers. Konsam Tambradhwaja Konsam Tambradhwaja 1 year ago Thank you so much Prof.Sean Carroll for such successful excellent video.Best of more videos. Convicted not Convinced Convicted not Convinced 1 year ago Thanks for explaining this to us. You certainly have your work cut out for you. Earth Society Earth Society 1 year ago Big fan! Please keep posting your inspirational views!! And I liked your book very much by the way. KJ Runia KJ Runia 1 year ago 29:25 'Chemists – bless their hearts – care about the real world (...)' That properly cracked me up. 6 Paul C. Paul C. 1 year ago I am sorry to say Prof. Carroll - but YES, they ARE intrinsically hard !! I still enjoy every minute though, so many thanks again, for this amazing series. 1 Jeff Bass Jeff Bass 1 year ago Thanks for giving us a breather! I'll never stop watching these as long as you are making them. 2 Álvaro Rodríguez Álvaro Rodríguez 1 year ago (edited) You could measure energy in foot-stone. It’s approximately the energy you need to break a toe. 9 polkad3vtab polkad3vtab 1 year ago After these covid lockdowns, we are going to have a lot more people coming out the other end with their curiosity switched on due to vids like these, I love it. Sean Carroll Sean Carroll 1 year ago Erratum: around 33:00 I misread "70" in my notes as "76." The mass of the Milky Way is about 10^70 times the mass of the proton. 27 dalriada dalriada 1 year ago (edited) I really enjoy this series. I just thought I should mention around 9:30 you say "one second of time corresponds to a much tinier amount of energy than 1 cm does" when I think you meant the exact opposite. Valdagast Valdagast 1 year ago (edited) So we can define 1 Caliban to be 10^36 eV? Minor Point: In The Fantastic Voyage they alter Planck's Constant as they shrink (and alter the speed of light as well; the two are said to be inversely correlated). 1 Scientia et Veritas Scientia et Veritas 1 year ago Sean, here's what I tell my students.: a cheeseburger weighs about 1 Newton. So 1 Joule is amount of work done lifting the burger by 1 meter. Hopefully it helps students gain a feel for what a Joule is. So I tell them a Joule isn't really a whole lot of energy. Then I tell them that if we ground the burger up and spread the cheeseburger powder evenly over 1 square meter that would be a pressure of 1 Pascal to let them know a Pascal isn't much pressure. 1 MrKalowski MrKalowski 1 year ago Great Videos, please keep it going! Travis Fitzwater Travis Fitzwater 1 year ago What would happen if the Cellular Automata were to awaken and start digging around? I don't know, I am guess Sean just gets the created constructs flowing. Álvaro Rodríguez Álvaro Rodríguez 1 year ago How come there are unknown particles with very low energies? Shouldn’t they already have been observed at particle accelerators? Thanks! 2 Pavlos Papageorgiou Pavlos Papageorgiou 1 year ago (edited) If you had particles in the desert, say 10^18 eV, and you didn't know anything else about them, would you expect them to be weakly interacting with regular matter just because the energy scale is different? If there was a whole family or particles up there with fermions and bosons interacting with each other all at these high energies, would they still pass through regular matter undetected? Does it work like transparent glass where the photons don't interact because the energy states are too high? Yoda Jimmy Yoda Jimmy 1 year ago How would you define a space-time density? And from them getting number of particles in a 4-volume. Sidney Jacobs Audio Sidney Jacobs Audio 1 year ago Thanks for this, really interesting stuff Matt Jansen Matt Jansen 1 year ago You might have answered this in a previous video, but related to the 'scale' of the electro-weak interaction being some point where the electromagnetic field 'combine' in some way with the weak force. A rephrasing of that is as the scale at which the weak force and the electromagnetic force 'separate'. Is there a similar point where the electric force and magnetic force 'separate'? 1 Gilbert ENGLER Gilbert ENGLER 1 year ago Absolutely excellent! Thanks Robert Shirley Robert Shirley 1 year ago (edited) According to this scaling, the speed of light is constant and equal to one, because roughly one second is equal to 10^15 ev ^-1, and the distance of 300,000,000 meter that it covers in one second is roughly equal to 10^15 ev^-1, therefore c=1 and constant, since c=distance/seconds. this means, in terms of their ev value, the time unit and distance unit(if we think of 300,000,000 as one unit of distance) change simultaniously for the light and therefore light does not feel passage of time!(light is stuck in time because it moves exactly with time’s speed and time’s speed is one second per second! 1 99 bits 99 bits 1 year ago feel like this should be #1 episode in the series Jenry Jenry 1 year ago Best videos on the internet. You are a verrry good teacher. Sebastian Dierks Sebastian Dierks 1 year ago I have a question concerning the vacuum energy of quantum fields and the cosmological constant. In my understanding, a positive cosmological constant makes the universe expand, i.e. acts as a kind of negative energy field causing anti-gravitation. The vacuum energy of the quantum fields from the zero point energy of the Fourier modes is positive, so it should make the universe contract due to additional gravitation. Therefore, the vacuum energy should contribute negatively to the cosmological constant, not positively, right? When you explained the "worst prediction in physics", i.e. the deviation of 120 orders of magnitude between vacuum energy and cosmological constant, how does this make any sense of they have opposite effect anyway? How are they comparable? Sorry as this would have better fitted into the Q&A of one of the last three episodes but I came up with the question just now. Would be nice if you could answer it anyway in a later Q&A when you go back to QFTs. Thanks a lot for this series! Narf Whals Narf Whals 1 year ago How do i get the same results for scale when my energy cutoff gave me a different value for alpha? Is my compton wavelength also different? 3 Stewart Hayne Stewart Hayne 1 year ago QUESTION: in an earlier episode you described moving from the very low entropy Big Bang to a higher entropy state now. Can you explain this? It seems to me that the primordial stew of particles immediate post Big Bang is high entropy, higher than organized stars and planets. Like evenly distributed gas in a box versus the gas being clumped together in parts of the box. Help! 1 Rick Harold Rick Harold 1 year ago Awesome series of videos. Love them, super juicy !! Thx for making them!! Alex Madeira Alex Madeira 1 year ago It’s very rare that someone with such seemingly ineffable range and scope is combined with the ability to communicate so clearly and cogently. There’s nothing like this series available anywhere else - I look forward to each episode. I suspect people will be watching this series for decades to come and it might just inspire a new generation. Feynman and Sagan did this through their medium of the day. This is up there in my opinion. 1 Mark G Mark G 1 year ago Could you step by step solve the Schrodinger Equation for something simple. Perhaps show what it would be for a hydrogen atom in a box? 2 Bradley Worley Bradley Worley 9 months ago Sean: writes Avogadro's number to one significant figure, rounds to 1e24 Me: dies internally Sean: "Chemists, bless their hearts" Me: dies externally 😅 George Komarov George Komarov 1 year ago (edited) Before Prof Caroll physics for a non-physicist looked like "well, that's a spherical Schrodinger cat on a moving train - whoosh - and now solve these ten PDEs with weirdest boundary conditions just because". Now it all finally starts to make sense, thank you so much! And yet I have a question for Q&A: isn't "the size" of a nucleus (and nuclons) determined by nuclear forces constants the same way as Bohr's radius is determined by fine structure constant? Or are there complicating factors? Aus Blob Aus Blob 1 year ago Hello sir I am a nurse but physics has always been my top hobby and interest idk if i made a correct career choice for sure haha but I was wondering if you have any reccomendations for getting more involved in the physics community and possibly returning to school? I appreciate any input if you have the time thank you 1 Cooldrums777 Cooldrums777 1 year ago OK. Since the fine structure constant is obviously a critical component of many "Biggest Ideas", I think it's time Prof. Carroll gives us at least an arm waving back of the envelope explanation as to how Alpha was discovered and or calculated. Álvaro Rodríguez Álvaro Rodríguez 1 year ago What about gravitons? Would a satellite orbiting the earth in a zero gravity orbit be able to measure them? Because I am starting to have weird suspicions about what we mean by particles in different frames of reference... Maybe the word particle has been stretched too far in order to respect the laymen intuitions. J. Lo. J. Lo. 1 year ago (edited) Christof Wetterich's describes a Scale Relativity as "Only dimensionless ratios as the distance between galaxies divided by the atom radius are observable." An expanding universe would be equivilant to a static universe with shrinking all rulers. Leading to a simplification: "Is the universe expanding or are we shrinking?" yohell yohell 1 year ago Would an Ant-Man the size of an atom but made of a large number of smaller and heavier atoms collapse into a black hole? Boris Petrov Boris Petrov 1 year ago A masterpiece -- by a Grand Master ;-)) markweitzman's wannabe a theoretical physicist school markweitzman's wannabe a theoretical physicist school 1 year ago I realize that I am not the target audience for these wonderful informal talks. And I have enjoyed them all quite a bit, except for this particular lecture, much too boring especially at the beginning. J Cowan J Cowan 1 year ago So when we encounter alien life it's likely that they will be sized similar to us, within an order of magnitude. chris tinley chris tinley 1 year ago Hells yeah..keep these goin!!! Best series ever!!!!!!!!:) Skorj Olafsen Skorj Olafsen 1 year ago Any idea why the mass in a given volume seems to scale with surface area: from a proton to a liter of water to our solar system to our galaxy to the observable universe the pattern holds (give or take an order of magnitude). It's very strange, and I have no idea why. (Obviously, the pattern breaks below the scale of a proton, for the reasons you described.) At a diameter of 10^x m, you tend to find 10^2x kg of stuff. 1 Jesse Farnham Jesse Farnham 2 months ago So...I'm 24 videos into this series. I'm with you 100% until "Antman isn't real" Dave Muller Dave Muller 1 year ago (edited) If you take the scale of all things, from 10^-3 to the size of the universe, what is right in the middle? If from a human's perspective the world is much smaller than it is large, there's a certain existential dread that comes from realising that we're utterly enormous giants in the universe who wield devastating energy in our clapping hands. RedDoorYoga RedDoorYoga 1 year ago No need to look it up to see if the Milky Way is 10^70 or 10^76 proton masses. If the observable universe is 10^82, then at 10^76 per galaxy, you'd only have 100 million galaxies. There are something like 1 trillion galaxies, but while we may not remember that number exactly, most of us probably know that there are at least billions, so Milky Way should be 10^70. This is one of my favorite videos in the series, by the way. Thanks a lot for doing this Sean! Zoolooman Zoolooman 1 year ago Is the large macroscopic scale of astronomical objects in some sense a result of gravity's weakness? Sandip Chitale Sandip Chitale 1 year ago What is strange to me is that E = h*frequency - only frequency matters, amplitude does not. How does that work? vinm300 vinm300 4 months ago Milky Way must be 10^70, NOT 10^76. Because roughly there are 100 billion stars in the Galaxy (actually 86 billion) and 100 billion galaxies in the Universe. (actually 125 billion) So protons in the Universe must be 10^11 larger than in a galaxy. (roughly) Therefore :- Miky Way 10^70 and Universe 10^82 , would make more sense. Neomadra Neomadra 1 year ago If a particle cannot be smaller than its Compton wave length, how can the electron be considered to be point-like? Pillio Zoltan Pillio Zoltan 1 year ago "Who does in everyday life? Moving electrons across 1 V batteries?" Well, not exactly 1 V, but we do all the time ... :D Mixel Kiemen Mixel Kiemen 1 year ago At 22:00 the desert concept emerges. Can some one give references to learn more about this energy gap ? Raphael Santore Raphael Santore 1 year ago Thank you Doctor Carroll. John Walker John Walker 1 year ago Cool lecture❗ Thanks³³ stridedeck stridedeck 1 year ago (edited) What creates the underlying reason that heavier a particle is, the shorter is the wavelength? What is the cause that 1/M works out (Compton wavelength to be the limit of smallest size possible) as it seems that heavier an object is, the slower (longer wavelength) it is. This assumes an uniform speed of force for each particle. 2 Robert Shirley Robert Shirley 1 year ago (edited) λ*m=1. This is the right and exact response for the mystery of dark mass and energy! Basically the equation implies “If the whole mass of the universe were to put in some box, therefore one over the wavelength for the mass of that universe would be some number equal to the mass( if we take the whole mass of the universe as 1). I am having hard time to gather my thoughts to explain it but nevertheless what I mean is that the observable universe has certain amount of mass in it but the wavelength goes beyond that because if the universe is literally infinite but the mass is in certain huge number therefore the wavelength literally goes to infinity in order for lambda to become 1 for the mass of 1. So what about the rest of wave for the observable mass of the universe? Let me clarify it by an example; if the mass of observable universe is 5 kg, therefore it’s wavelength in an infinity beyond that observe would be 1/5, but what we normally do is that we calculate the wave for that observable universe which whiteout a doubt the universe is greater than the observable part of it. Therefore when we say the mass of universe is 5 kg, the lambda of universe that we normally calculate as 1/5 , is not for observable universe and it is for an infinite space much greater than observable part of it. For the sake of argument let’s say The mass of observable universe is 5kg for some finite distance we observe the universe, the lambda of that mass would be 1/5 but for a much greater space than the observed one. Now, if we get the 1/lambda for that observable universe, it should be much lesser than the one for literally infinite universe, let’s say something like lambda=2 and 1/lambda=.5 And therefore, our mass for that equation would be m=1/ λ, 5kg=!1/2 since we assumed m=5 and λ is any number considerably less than 5 for example λ=2. Well, m= 1/2= .5 kg, where does the rest of 5 kg go? That 4.5 kg is the dark mass! The reason is that wave is much far distributed than mass for the mass we talk about! What I mean is that dark matter does not come from some unseen matter but it is because what we measure as mass for any single particle is not actually its true mass! Because the absolute mass of a particle is distributed all over the infinite space although the greatest amount of mass is in the closest perimeter of the particle and we measure its mass only in its vicinity! Dark mass= absolute mass of a given particle(absolute mass of a wave for particle) - detectable mass of that particle at its vicinity(detectable wave by quantum equations) . Here we go, there is the lost mass called dark mass. The same goes for dark energy! I believe! Believe me I am right but I have hard time to explain it. I know this sounds crazy but indeed what is crazy is that to consider mass and energy as fundamental things in the universe.what is fundamental is space itself, the distortions and stretch of it plus the distance. What ever exist in physics as mass, energy, time,... are simply depiction of them to us! Kind of personification of space with and without distortion makes the reality we know of but indeed the reality has to be the space itself and its distortions! Eventhough I screwed up by Things explanation :) Stumpy Mason Stumpy Mason 1 year ago What about X17 particle? Is that on this scale? CERN seems interested in it. BZ BZ 1 year ago Is the vacuum energy potentially the combination of all the field energies from the surrounding space? Not sure if this makes sense how I said it. Brandon Lewis Brandon Lewis 1 year ago This has been the hardest one so far to pay attention to. It's not because I'm not interested, but I just can't seem to concentrate on it. I think because it's kindof largely "background knowledge" that you need to have, with a few "big ideas" sprinkled here and there. I just keep getting distracted :( Ralph Ulrich Ralph Ulrich 1 year ago Why the eV is so mini in scale: It is like I'd say a litre of water is 10^6 milli grams (just thinking in the 13. minute of the video) Nerdy Rodent Nerdy Rodent 1 year ago I think the scale in my mind just broke... 4 Wafikiri Wafikiri 1 year ago Obviously, when Dr. Sean Carrol says that Ant-man is not real, which everyone knows, he means that Ant-man is not plausible. Agastya Chaturvedi Agastya Chaturvedi 1 year ago Repeating another request that you break down one of your research papers after this series is over Damir Ribič Damir Ribič 1 year ago So, in natural units, energy and mass are interchangeable and same goes for length and time? As in, you cannot have mass without energy or move around without a clock ticking? pb6283 pb6283 1 year ago If a photon has an energy, shouldn't it have a mass? Rajen Shah Rajen Shah 1 year ago 12 hours of physics lectures to find out why Ant-Man is not real Martin Norbäck Olivers Martin Norbäck Olivers 1 year ago The most used unit for energy is probably kcal. Froggie Froggie 1 year ago i always asked myself how much i can half something, is there a limit??! Ross Fraser Ross Fraser 1 year ago I'm enjoying this series immensely, but as someone trained in mathematics, this discussion of dimensional analysis has me banging my head! [D] has dimensions ℏc/eV [T] has dimensions ℏ/eV. They aren't the same! Just because c is set to a value of 1 doesn't mean it has lost its dimensions. Take some distance measured in ℏc/eV: to convert it to time you need to divide it by c, just as you would if the distance were measured in light-seconds. A distance measured in light-seconds divided by the speed of light measured in light-seconds per second will give you a quantity measured in seconds -- a unit of time. [D] is NOT equal to [T]. [D/c] = [T]. Sigh. Physicists. Whadda ya gonna do, eh? With this in mind, I nominate Sean Carroll for the Paul Dirac Prize -- a (Lebesgue) measure of excellence in the productive misuse of mathematics. :) Pseudo Nym Pseudo Nym 1 year ago @38:00 delta p in the uncertainty principle is change in momentum, not “position” ; that was delta x ;) Christian Medley Christian Medley 4 days ago These videos gems💎 Praetor2000 Praetor2000 1 year ago Watched 3:20 to 3:50 five times and something is still amiss. (Hint, it's my brain). Anyone want to take a crack at explaining what "velocities being dimensionless" means. Thank you!! Sean Vinsick Sean Vinsick 1 year ago Unless I misheard, I believe 10^1 is 10 electron volts not 1, right? 1 adizmal adizmal 1 year ago I believe (not gonna say think cuz I dunno shit) that scale is pretty much the fundamental theme throughout the whole damn everything. Zaki Alherz Zaki Alherz 1 year ago eV as unit of energy, how did make the leap as units of mass, length and time? Nice Y Nice Y 1 year ago Takeaway: Electron is a sci-fi killer. dk6024 dk6024 1 year ago I reckon calories is the most intuitive unit of energy. 2 Olivier de Bellefonds Olivier de Bellefonds 1 year ago One energy unit people are familiar with: (kilo)calories! stridedeck stridedeck 1 year ago Ant man can be possible! If Ant man, a size of one atom, and is one atom, can only be possible if this one-atom size is not a n one-to-one ratio reduction to number of atoms in a body, or a reduction in the physical size of each atom, but a hologram projection, similar to a simulation. When one watches a movie on a screen, the actors are not actually reduced and are physically on my screen, but is a projection. 1 Yoda Jimmy Yoda Jimmy 1 year ago Musn't there be an upper layer of uncertainity too. We can't tell the difference between two far objects and their momemtum if their sizes or distances tend to infinity. So it depends only of our relative sizes. It might not be fundamental till a finite point, but at the edge of observable universe, believe it or not, it simply is reality. We can't keep evolving our equations to predict the size of an object which is in and out of that event horizon of universe. Well there might not be a formal uncertainity in measurements, but it sets a limit to what we can know about the Hamiltonian which could be a more generalised equation. In farther distances, objects may not act as a wave, but they are more spread out. They don't just collapse to a particle they become a collection of collapses, where probability of finding them is one everywhere. Here i've written about two kinds of largeness, real largeness and distance. Why don't anyone worry about some particles which can be larger than a travelled distance in light-times, which are indivisible and themselves? An example is a black hole, it isn't made of tiny particles. It is in theory the infinte curvature of space-time, which in reality is finite, but that is when it forms. After it's made, you can't tell if it's just another curvature, it is a particle right at center of most galaxies, shaping the universe. It's impossible to tell a black hole feom an indivisible particle. I don't know how many things I've mixed here. But wondering about scales while writing tends to take on to trajectories of such random thoughts. I would love to see, black holes being the first particles to add up in standard model which don't follow schrödinger's equation. Well now I think, they shall be better considered an operator, than fundamental, as they change, consume and vomit. bmoneybby bmoneybby 1 year ago My favorite floating half torso on the internet. Yee! 10 Alan Garland Alan Garland 1 year ago "Ten is an awkward number." True dat. Netbf Neverevertobeforgot Netbf Neverevertobeforgot 1 year ago Great Video. 1 Max Maximus Max Maximus 1 year ago I love the series... Sean desperately needs a hair cut 😂 you are soul you are soul 1 year ago prettay, prettay, prettay...good stuff Sean. Jay-Beats Jay-Beats 1 year ago Super nice.!!!👍🏻👍🏽🌞🌿 Travis Travis 1 year ago What about the other desert betwern 1eV and 10⁵eV? 1 Lemon Party Lemon Party 1 year ago Only a million milky ways in the universe? Sounds too small. D L D L 1 year ago ⚖ 😊 1 Joye Colbeck Joye Colbeck 1 year ago Thanks for that. kokokokoko88 kokokokoko88 1 year ago Ty Sean <3 Binayak Banerjee Binayak Banerjee 1 year ago you said delta p as position and not momentum David Sardarov David Sardarov 8 months ago super! James Simon James Simon 1 year ago Wait, no mini verse for our car batteries? Tony D'Arcy Tony D'Arcy 1 year ago Do pirates use the Walking the Planck scale ? Daniel Boquist Daniel Boquist 1 year ago Big Brain Sean! 1 Mark Conrad Mark Conrad 1 year ago But Sean, Antman has a compton wavelength modulator built into his suit! Also Pym particles...hello? Maybe you should do more research before you discredit Dr. Henry Pym...smh 5 Daniel Jaeger Daniel Jaeger 1 year ago Always dig you J. Lo. J. Lo. 1 year ago (edited) Antman? Maybe he localy changes h-bar? Renaud Kener Renaud Kener 1 year ago I keep going back and forth, between Dr. Sean Caroll videos, and Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder videos ( and book ). 1 CoinStudio Crosstec CoinStudio Crosstec 1 year ago The Biggest Ideas in the Universe | 13. Cane's sauce musicalcacti musicalcacti 1 year ago Lehman coming in hard 1 cambron iddings cambron iddings 1 year ago You are so funny. Bernard Whipps Bernard Whipps 1 year ago (edited) The bell is disabled on my iPad? Any ideas why? Only on this series Mauro Cruz Mauro Cruz 3 months ago (edited) 3:55 24:17 D K D K 1 year ago this is all bunk, jesus made everything gxulien gxulien 1 year ago Billions and billions... 1 Johnny Charisma Johnny Charisma 1 year ago Not a Scooby doo what he’s on about. schel sullivan schel sullivan 1 year ago sup hair. (a greeting of endearment used with my long haired hippie buddies) Mr Flaccid Mr Flaccid 1 year ago Many world thoery is wrong because i said so. Just trust Jerome Larson Jerome Larson 1 year ago Sometimes I like the way my finger smells after I put it in my belly button. #science #physics #ideas The Biggest Ideas in the Universe | Q&A 12 - Scale 30,954 viewsJun 14, 2020 649 DISLIKE SHARE DOWNLOAD CLIP SAVE Sean Carroll 154K subscribers The Biggest Ideas in the Universe is a series of videos where I talk informally about some of the fundamental concepts that help us understand our natural world. Exceedingly casual, not overly polished, and meant for absolutely everybody. This is the Q&A video for Idea #12, "Scale." A handful of interesting questions about different kinds of elementary particles. Some known to exist, some completely hypothetical. My web page: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/ My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/seancarroll Mindscape podcast: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/p... The Biggest Ideas playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... Blog posts for the series: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/b... Background image: https://www.wallpaperflare.com/blue-a... #science #physics #ideas #universe #learning #cosmology #philosophy #quantum #scaling 58 Comments rongmaw lin Add a comment... protoword protoword 1 year ago I’m avid chess player and I enjoy your lectures with such pleasure as I play chess! Your charismatic appearance and very interesting lessons makes me listen you for hours without boring! Thank you! 5 Joao Joao 1 year ago Hi doctor Sean! Your videos are really amazing! I cant believe that now I have a good notion about the most profound advances in the deeper nature of the universe! I never dreamed that I would know this much! Thanks a lot! I didnt even heard the name "quantum" back in my high school in the end of the 1990's! Thanks again! =) 2 Yoda Jimmy Yoda Jimmy 1 year ago We know Sean doesn't have to do this series for long. But he does, people are people whoever they are. 4 Dano JC Dano JC 1 year ago I've been neglecting this channel lately, wish I could focus more on this stuff, the stuff that I truly desire to know. I will catch up. Thanks Sean. 3 F. Baleeiro F. Baleeiro 1 year ago Are we ready to have a class about the quark and gluonic fields and strong nuclear force interactions? YES 11 Robert Shirley Robert Shirley 1 year ago I think in case of light, if you increase the amplitude large enough you’ll get gravitational wave instead of gamma or anything resembles light 1 Umbranic Umbranic 1 year ago Professor, will be great if you explain in a video your paper of Dynamical compactification from de Sitter space, thank you!! Arthur Castonguay Arthur Castonguay 1 year ago (edited) Milliseconds are 10^-3 not 10^-6 (mentioned around 27:20 in the video). I know you know... first time I noticed a “mistake” so had to comment. Great series. Hope it keeps going for a long while. 1 Ron Ray Ron Ray 1 year ago (edited) Is it possible to create a particle with a coupling constant of zero, such that once it is created it cannot be detected? Would that violate conservation of information if the particle still exists but we cannot prove it through measurement? exm exm 1 year ago Since quarks are "stuck" in other particles, would that mean that a neutron star with a quark core (this was proposed a couple of days ago) MUST have a core with protons which HOLD quarks? Or can there be a system where quarks by itself can 'live' long enough to be part of (or even create) a larger structure, without immediate collapse? Don McLeod Don McLeod 1 year ago A topic suggestion, not a question. I have heard scientists reference to how the universe appears to be fined tuned. None of them appeared to question the idea. Yet the late Dr Victor J Stenger wrote a book in 2011 titled "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning", where he argued against the idea. Please devote a lecture addressing how accepted or not the idea is that the universe is fine tuned. 1 Robert Shirley Robert Shirley 1 year ago Another question. What if we are the one breaking protons? I mean what if proton is one particle with no subparticle, and we break it down to smaller particles in Colliders?! Soul DFS Soul DFS 1 year ago Nice modern description of light 💡!!! Robert Shirley Robert Shirley 1 year ago Hi Professor . I have a question. If we approach the milky way from its outskirts out of the disk , naturally the gravity of galaxy must be stronger than the time we approach the galaxy from either above or below the disk. Because the mass of galaxy distributed in disk like( approximately). The same is true for every solar system and its planets. The question is ‘is this the reason the two voyager have different acceleration or speed? Valdagast Valdagast 1 year ago 13:30 hence why we use red light in darkrooms. red light is not enough to excite the silver in silver nitrate. 16 Gilbert Anderson Gilbert Anderson 1 year ago Great "Stuff" Sean, keep it coming. I was not watching YouTube when you began this series and just got caught up. Unfortunate, because I had tons of questions on space and time. ( When cosmologists try to construct a universe from unit tetrahedral volumes it is a disaster. If they use unit areas connected by edges and vertices it works fine, with the consequence that volume is an emergent property. Don't we live in a 2space ? ) ( If our spacetime is embedded in a higher dimensional space couldn't there be an additional spacetime embedded that is orthogonal to ours but "colocated"/"overlapping" whose matter is the source of our missing gravitation/dark matter and whose net back-reaction is the imaginary portion of the complex maths? ) ( I never liked the handwaved "matter attracts matter". It seems clear that a bare color charge is anathema to spacetime given the lengths the universe will go to so that it never occurs. (unlimited gluon production to insure confinement) Couldn't matter also be an assault on spacetime with the consequence that dark energy decouples? i.e. It's not Earth's " gravitational well ", it's Earth's " dark energy dampening 'bloom' " which creates a local gradient in the pressure of spacetime that has the same consequence as "gravity". ) ( Space can get larger in two ways. Unit expansion or foliation. They are not at all the same. I gather that you believe in foliation, yet all physists can talk about is the expansion of space ! All astrophysics can talk about is how the galaxies are moving away from us, even though there is no motion involved ! ) ( Time is an illusion. Everything does happen "at once" from the point of view of a photon or an orthogonal time dimension. There is some kind of periodic signal that propagates at one second per second which the CNS perceives. Consciousness = Perception of time. Everything we experience after that first perception just results in internal world-building. De-sync = Catatonia/Coma. ) ( Many scientists speak as if there are two kinds of photons, the usual kind which is emitted and later absorbed and another kind which can be just emitted into an everexpanding space never to be absorbed. I call bullshit. If time does not pass at lightspeed then the photon is absorbed at the same time it is emitted. The photon "knows it will be absorbed when it is emitted", therefore it will not emit until it has an absorbance point. Isn't the ability to shine a laser anywhere we like in space proof that we are in a bouncing cosmology? ) ( Few. Sorry, I know you can't respond, but I had to get those out. ) Re: The Feynman diagram e- -> e + gamma that you say is an acceptable building block but never happens in the real world; what about Chenyenkov radiation and Synchrotron radiation? Aren't these examples of an electron emitting a photon to lower it's momentum? Finally, I request a future talk on gluons, the most dissed particle of the Std. Model. I constantly see "news articles" report the number of basic particles as 17 or often fewer. I count 26 because I believe in the sterile neutrino. 7leptons+6quarks+1EMboson+3WFbosons+8SFbosons+1Higgsboson Why are there 8 gluons rather than 9? Wikipedia talks about a forbidden singlet with no good explanation. Red+Blue+Green = color-neutral Great, that gives us hadrons Red+antiRed Blue+antiBlue Green+antiGreen all color neutral Great, that gives us mesons. antiRed+antiBlue+antiGreen = color-neutral Great, now we've got antihadrons. Red+antiRed+Blue+antiBlue+Green+antiGreen = color neutral Oh No! Now we've lost a gluon? Huh??? I thought I read long ago that theorists claimed EW symmetry breaking destroyed a gluon color D.O.F. so that 9 gluons shared 8 D.O.F. and hence were 8/9ths real and 1/9 virtual. ( or at any one time 8 were real and 1 was the "disfavored flavor of the moment".) TELL US SEAN, WHAT'S THE REAL STORY. 2 Michael Sommers Michael Sommers 1 year ago Regarding the ring of death around a muon collider, isn't that what grad students are for? 5 David Jordan David Jordan 1 year ago thanks.repetition. repetition. Something is sinking in! Also hilarious. You, Barry Harris, Richard Feynman, George Russell. Ni999 Ni999 1 year ago 10^-6 sec is a microsecond, not a millisecond. Minor misspeak there, no big deal, comment left for those new to the engineering scale. 1 Dean Batha Dean Batha 1 year ago Fun fact: every time I get heavier, I get bigger. 3 Om Om 1 year ago You are genius 😉 I luv your please keep posting ❤️🙏 5 observeUS observeUS observeUS observeUS 1 year ago "Most of the earth is neutrons not protons" Can you explain? Thanks 1 David Koedel David Koedel 1 year ago Is it possible that a wave could be arbitrary in 3 dimensions instead of viewing it on a graph that's 2 d what if it was on a 3d graph would it be rotating along another axis. Giving out a 3d look, like a helix. Idk something weird to think about. I know it's nonsense but F it 1 Tony D'Arcy Tony D'Arcy 1 year ago So the boson lepton a gluon and it quarked like a duck ? 3 Rick Harold Rick Harold 1 year ago Awesome video Thx David David 1 year ago Axions, magnetic monopoles, yay. Buckey Ball Buckey Ball 1 year ago All the stars the size of the sun, wil become black holes. All black holes together will become the big bang. A Loren Emmerich production was here. pauldhoff pauldhoff 1 year ago Antman's suit can increase and decrease his mass, gezzzzzzzzzz. Emily Lowrance Emily Lowrance 1 year ago horizon like event horizon? thecleeds thecleeds 3 weeks ago The Ring of Death Muon Collider😂☠😱 Max Flashheart Max Flashheart 1 year ago Proton straight outta Compton 3 Soul DFS Soul DFS 1 year ago In the City. 🎼 City of Compton... 1 Frrrmph poo Frrrmph poo 1 year ago First 3