This is why I love these videos so much 4:16: ''they don't exist, its like you stuck them together with blue-Tack for half a nanosecond, quick quick quick look take a picture'' ahaha questions that don't come out of a script but push the researchers to explain to us lay people these things
@TheNefari
9 жыл бұрын
Brady please make more videos about quarks. But not just the normal thing (2 ups 1 down ...), but actually something about the specific types of quarks (like strange, charm and so on) and how we should expect them to behave. Just a bit more indepth information please.
@insu_na
9 жыл бұрын
I think it's amazing how fast and well Brady understands what the professors are talking about in his interviews. I would never have been able to come up with the architect analogy on the fly, while talking to the person explaining it to me. To respond to that analogy: The architect builds a complex construction and then very quickly snaps a photo while it's falling apart, because it can't support itself under earths gravity. The architect HAS to do it like this, when he wants to see what his construct would be like if it was not affected by gravity, because we can't simply turn gravity off or take the architect to a place where gravity is small enough to dismiss. What the architect can do however, is build his structure here, while it is affected by gravity and then record everything about his structure before gravity has enough time to destroy it. Same goes for the particles, we can't create a neutron star on earth and look for pentaquarks within it, we also can't travel to neutron stars and look for pentaquarks there, what we can do is extremely briefly simulate neutron star conditions on earth, take a lot of pictures extremely quickly and hope that in one of these pictures the conditions are met and we can see a pentaquark we might expect could be long-lived in a neutron star, before the neutron star conditions which we extremely briefly created decay enough, that a pentaquark can no longer be maintained. Wheter pentaquarks actually do exist in neutron stars is up to discussion, I'm simply making an example here.
@MitchBowman93
9 жыл бұрын
You could also say that whilst the building might not survive here on Earth, building it on another planet with far less gravity would enable it to survive, similarly to pentaquarks possibly being able to stay cohesive in neutron stars. If the environmental factors enable each example to survive then they will!
@CarnelianUK
9 жыл бұрын
d3rrial Another way of responding to the analogy is to have our hypothetical architect say, "Ok, so this one fell apart pretty quickly, but what if I had built it and it *hadn't* collapsed?". It's like when they synthesise super-heavy elements; sure the ones we've found so far are ludicrously unstable, but if the "Island of stability" hypothesis is correct, we might hit element 120+n and suddenly find something that doesn't immediately decay, which could have all manner of interesting and unforeseen uses
@robertw2930
9 жыл бұрын
Ben Kirkby WOULD IT BE UNDER RADON AND OTHER INERT GASES
@IamGrimalkin
9 жыл бұрын
I would reply that engineering research can involve destroying things.
@Astro-X
9 жыл бұрын
Perfectly said answer. The professor kinda ignored Brady's question but at least I'm satisfied that there's a well justified answer.
@InstallaFriend
9 жыл бұрын
Tony rocking the chain like a G
@DeathBringer769
6 жыл бұрын
He's the Big G in my Physics world ;) (Yes, that *was* a reference to "Big G", the Gravitational Constant.) ;)
@vt-8005
5 жыл бұрын
google sv3rige
@EugeneKhutoryansky
9 жыл бұрын
Interesting information. Thanks for the video.
@nicosmind3
8 жыл бұрын
Hey im subscribed to your channel :). Ive just left a comment on this video. Can you read it and tell me what you think? For a complete amature/layman i think its brilliant, but cause of my newness to this all i dont know.
@Triantalex
2 ай бұрын
np
@jaymur001
9 жыл бұрын
Love Brady's questions.
@birdy_coolbeans
9 жыл бұрын
It's not whether or not it's a common thing. If these pentaquarks couldn't exist, then they just... wouldn't. But we know that they can! And that's REALLY NEAT.
@allanstark4219
9 жыл бұрын
Fascinating. I could listen to this guy all day. Most clarity I've heard in an informal lay lecture.
@nifflan
9 жыл бұрын
Tony videos are always great!
@joshuaevans4301
3 жыл бұрын
I actually think the architect analogy is quite apt 🤔 Imagine you had very little understanding of classical physics (just like how we have relatively little understanding of quantum chromodynamics). It could actually quite an informative exercise to randomly build a structure and carefully catalog how it collapses
@MrZerausogaitnas
9 жыл бұрын
It'd be great to get a followup video if there have been any new results on this.
@dancrooks1490
9 жыл бұрын
Very interesting. I love how we can still find out new things even with the knowledge we have gathered.
@6Twisted
9 жыл бұрын
daniel crooks It shows how little we know when we still don't understand the very building blocks of the universe.
@simonenoli4418
9 жыл бұрын
The more you know the more there is to know
@simonenoli4418
9 жыл бұрын
Plenty of blobfishes at C
@AndreRhineDavis
9 жыл бұрын
One thing the interviewer didn't get... When physicists say "this particle exists", they don't mean that that particle is necessarily *found* somewhere out there or anything. They mean that that particle is *capable of existence* in the universe. Even if there may be no instances of it at the moment. That's the difference between "finding" exoplanets and "finding" pentaquarks. The first is looking through outer space until we physically *find* these things. "Oh look, there's one of them around that star. Oh look, there's another!". Whereas with pentaquarks, you're not trying to find ones that are already "out there", you're smashing particles together trying to "create" one, trying to *show that the universe allows such things to exist*. It's more about finding the rules for what the universe allows to be. And even if it only exists for an instant before decaying, *observing* how it decays and what it decays into and the energy it has and stuff allows us to understand more about the strong force and gluons and quarks and just how the universe works.
@IamGrimalkin
9 жыл бұрын
Well, if it's possible to create in the LHC, it probably does exist, albeit rarely.
@tinyw777
9 жыл бұрын
Quark the sound made by a posh duck. I cant remember who said that but its stuck in my head now
@stephenphilbin3919
8 жыл бұрын
+Tiny w Probably anyone with ears and a passing familiarity with ducks.
@secrettangerine
9 жыл бұрын
two things interest me very much, 1: how the pioneers of quantum mechanic and the other physicists that lived before a time they could use computers and other complex apparatus to observe what was going on accomplished all they did just with their minds and a blackboard and 2: I want to know how the machines can detect things like a "pentaquark that lives for only half a nanosecond." Brady, please make a video! about how the machines that are used to study such things can record information about things so small and so brief
@WildBillCox13
8 жыл бұрын
Always interesting, both the interviewer, and the interviewee. Thanks for posting!
@mikestoneadfjgs
9 жыл бұрын
To Brady's question: "whats the point of ,making these exotic weird things that fall apart straight away?" The best analogy I have come across is along the lines of: Imagine trying to build a house for the first time ever, in the dark. The first few houses may not be stable because their structure doesn't allow them to be, (unstable foundation, maybe you didn't store enough potential strain energy in the nails) thus, the natural forces on the houses i.e. gravity, will rip it apart. So your solution is to take a picture with a flash after the house has fallen apart. Now you use that picture/measurement to determine why the house fell apart then discover what conditions need to be met in order to make the structure stable. The house is in the dark because the particles that we are dealing with are not easily visible or measurable to us. And in the same way that we give the blocks of the house potential and kinetic energy as we move them in to position, we give energy to particles via the accelerators. Also i must say charmonium pentaquark is the new name of my band.
@wilfredtyz
9 жыл бұрын
I marvel at how many wrinkles can fit on his forehead
@Callllum
8 жыл бұрын
Most of us marvel at how your mother carried your for nine month to then decided to call you wilfred
@nosuchthing8
4 жыл бұрын
This could be very important research, perhaps there is a form of stable matter that could be created in neutron stars that is very dangerous if released. Like strange matter.
@abstractomissions770
5 жыл бұрын
hi, it would be great if you can provide links of the papers on the subject you cover.
@Nastybeanlady
9 жыл бұрын
QUESTION: I was watching a Veritasium video from 2013 "Your mass is not from the higgs boson" and he was talking about how a quark and antiquark pair can come into existence in a proton so that it has five quarks. What's the difference between that and this newly discovered pentaquark?
@ernststavroblofeld1961
9 жыл бұрын
OK, this pentaquark sounds interesting. You have convinced me. I buy a kilo.
@leodarkangel9694
9 жыл бұрын
thx for the awsome videos, you guys are kinda the best tube channel that talks about modern physics !
@Asbjoorn
9 жыл бұрын
I have waited for this one:D
@FlorianGerlich
9 жыл бұрын
So he's saying that there might be hexa-quarks... Where does it stop? Decaquark? Is there a theoretical limit? Or might this go up and up as we make collisions with more and more energy?
@AdamAcalc79Kucz
9 жыл бұрын
How is this pentaquark different from a proton (which, from what I understand has 3 valence uud quarks and sea quark-antiquark pairs)? In other words, what is the difference between the valence charm quark-antiquark pair in pentaquark and sea quark pairs in the proton?
@NuclearCraftMod
9 жыл бұрын
What is the difference between the pictures of the 5 quarks strongly bonded and the meson and baryon stuck together? Where do you define the 'edge' of a pentaquark, baryon or meson to be?
@xXAnn1h1l4t0rXx
9 жыл бұрын
***** not sure its possible to properly define an 'edge' since it is comprised of point particles
@NuclearCraftMod
9 жыл бұрын
xXxAnn1h1l4t0rxXx Yeh, that's what I thought - just wondering if there would actually be any fundamental difference between a hadron/meson combo and a pentaquark.
@NuclearCraftMod
9 жыл бұрын
Ferroneoboron san Possibly - it could be that pions could hold the meson and baryon together, but I certainly don't know enough about the strong force to make any reasonable, educated guess.
@sagethephoenix7494
5 жыл бұрын
A super-particle made of one of each type of quark....theoretically possible? If not, why? Can the strong force bind quarks together stronger than they can repel each other?
@jooodittt
9 жыл бұрын
First off, I love watching all of Brady's video series surrounding physics & chemistry & how these videos have really started intelligent discussions within the comments! I know this might sound weird & somewhat off topic, but I was wondering how the professors feel about the movie "Ant-Man" & the "science" behind it or what they thought about being able to shrink oneself based on their Hollywood/comic book physics? The fabled "Pym particle", which apparently reduces the relative distance between atoms, enhances the strength of the user (from what I remember about the movie). So essentially, the user would become super dense & use that against his opponents..? Or what about when Ant-Man became subatomic? That fact that he was able to retain any type of consciousness to grab a device to return him to normal size is incredible! I know this is a fictional movie, but what do the professors think about it? It would be fun to know if they would ever take the same risk of shrinking themselves for the sake of science.
@icebluscorpion
9 жыл бұрын
Sixty Symbols Is there actually also a stable grouping of a pentaquarks or hexaquarks? if so then you could produce a heavier periods system with the same elements, only with stronger bonds. ... for example tungsten would be harder and more heat resistant. instead of a melting point of 3695 K (3422 ° C), it would have perhaps a higher temerature until it melts. or would not such a thing go?
@TestMeatDollSteak
9 жыл бұрын
Pluto > pentaquark (just to ruffle the physicists' feathers)
@thatisjustgreat
9 жыл бұрын
TestMeatDollSteak Pluto has like a million quarks in it tho
@BboyHotArab
9 жыл бұрын
thatisjustgreat many magnitudes higher than that
@geniusmp2001
9 жыл бұрын
thatisjustgreat "like a million" The underestimation involved in that number is just making me giggle. The orders of magnitude between a million and the number of quarks that make up Pluto is sufficient to make this hilarious.
@TestMeatDollSteak
9 жыл бұрын
***** woo hoo! :)
@SpartanLama
9 жыл бұрын
"Like a million"... Our body's have like 1.5x10^29 quarks in total so that's a little bit of an understatement lol ;)
@martinkotrec8127
9 жыл бұрын
I find it amusing how this guy didn't give a crap about the new horizons mission saying it's totally useless, but is blown away by a particle that only exists for a millionth of a second.
@contemplatico
5 жыл бұрын
i like the "architect" analogy too... i kinda feel that way about the whole LHC show... these extremely short time-spans involved. The sub-atomic and QM world is so 'strange and mystrious' :D A key difference though - i think - is that the architect "combines" things into a larger whole - whereas the LHC "divides" them - into smaller components (smashes them apart) - the exact opposite... in a sense. The LHC is "dividing"... some of the smallest things we know... What comes out?... "Smaller" things? :D
@BadKnightLv01
9 жыл бұрын
This week in science: Pentaquarks discovered on Pluto's horizon
@garethdean6382
9 жыл бұрын
BadKnightLv01 'Quarks now not particles' says CERN.
@bosernator18
9 жыл бұрын
Gareth Dean Hahahahaha this comment made my day!
@shadowmax889
9 жыл бұрын
Gareth Dean more like now they are dwarf particles
@garethdean6382
9 жыл бұрын
shadowmax889 No no, dwarf particles are like leptons, capable of clearing their local plank volume. Quarks are just Strong Force Object (SFOs.) and probably just string to boot.
@shadowmax889
9 жыл бұрын
LOL
@massive223
9 жыл бұрын
is it theoretically possible that we will at some point find some polyquark configuration greater than 3 that will be stable and possibly be used to create new materials?
@galesx95
9 жыл бұрын
massive223 I can kind of imagine what you say, still, with the matter and materials we have now, we still are not able to fully take advantage of them, because of funding problems I think, and also that not all of them are useful, now imagine on top of that we start to create new materials, how are you going to combine them? at what temperature? etc, etc.... If it possible, it would take more that our lifespans right now to reach there, the amount of time, experiments and money it would take is beyond I can calculate... Sorry if I had any grammar mistakes, I need more practice...
@massive223
9 жыл бұрын
grammar is fine, I'm just curious of whether or not it's possible not if it's feasible.
@galesx95
9 жыл бұрын
If it's possible, then I can die in piece thinking the future would be a lot more advanced rather than a post apocalyptic world.
@spinners9462
9 жыл бұрын
massive223 Why not? I don't know how much has been confidently theorized (i.e. whether anybody has made any mathematically based predictions regarding the stability of hexaquarks or decaquarks for example), but perhaps the possibility of an "island of stability" is in there somewhere. Gaaahhh so exciting!
@CloudOmegaVII
9 жыл бұрын
LHC model are wrong. The measure are wrong. In the future they will found out that Cern is wrong. Everything.
@TomatoBreadOrgasm
9 жыл бұрын
Question! Are the energies at which these particles are stable too high for them to form hadrons (EDIT: I meant "composite particles") of their own? How about molecules? To clarify, I'm not asking about everyday energies, I'm asking if, at the energies these would need to be relatively stable, could they experience strong attractions to form hadron-like (EDIT: I meant "nucleon-like") particles.
@JustinGabriel425
9 жыл бұрын
TomatoBreadOrgasm Well the pentaquark at the LHC ended up forming a meson and a baryon. As for something as big as a molecule I'm not sure.
@Nerrror
9 жыл бұрын
TomatoBreadOrgasm As they said in the video, there might be Pentaquakrs inside a neutron star
@TomatoBreadOrgasm
9 жыл бұрын
***** Thanks very much for the succinct answer! I worded my question poorly, however. I was wondering about composite particles like nucleons. The pentaquarks are themselves hadrons and I mistyped.
@garethdean6382
9 жыл бұрын
TomatoBreadOrgasm The issue is not the creation energies; after being created a particle can loose energy (Or simply be created with little 'leftover' energy.) and bind to other things. It takes red heat to make a glass bottle, but it can hold a soda when it cools down. The problem is time. Both binding and 'cooling down' require time and the particle may decay before this happens. Top quarks are notable for decaying so fast they don't have time to form hadrons.
@garethdean6382
9 жыл бұрын
teekanne15 I personally wouldn't bank on it. Neutron stars might be a place to look if they got close enough to the black hole limit, but there yo wouldn't so much get structures as just a superfluid of hadrons. Any pentaquark structures would involve some radical physics. Which I guess is why everyone's so interested now,
@RealCottonCandyKid
9 жыл бұрын
Question: is a deuterium nucleus a hexaquark? And if not, what's the difference?
@LearningWithRev
9 жыл бұрын
Isn't it just a baryon becasue the charm and anti-charm cancel each other out? Two up quarks and down make a proton, so it's really just a heavy proton. Am I right or am I not understanding this correctly?
@geniusmp2001
9 жыл бұрын
themagicianschanel The quark/anti-quark pair still exists. Mesons are nothing but such a pairing. So you can't treat it like they aren't there, even though their color charges do indeed cancel each other.
@livinlicious
9 жыл бұрын
themagicianschanel Nah, they are connected, but not "touching". Does that make sense? They dont annihilate each other. The Pion, the particle that transmits the strong nuclear force between a proton and a neutron is a meson. Mesons dont "exist" permanently. Mostly mesons are interaction particles that exist only in the timeframe of the interaction of other particles.
@LearningWithRev
9 жыл бұрын
Matthew Prorok Shouldn't an quark-antiquark matching cause the particles to spontaneously turn into energy just when any particle and its antiparticle meet?
@geniusmp2001
9 жыл бұрын
themagicianschanel Yes. That's one reason all mesons are unstable. But for the brief moments before they annihilate, they do exist.
@jtsupersized
9 жыл бұрын
Matthew Prorok Its not just quarks, even leptons can do weird things like Positronium: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium
@FireHax0rd
9 жыл бұрын
I like this. Could you guys do Weyl fermions next?
@Adrian-me4qz
7 жыл бұрын
I love the names given to all these particles!
@jsdsparky
9 жыл бұрын
When he was talking about the decay of the lambda-b baryon (at 6:50), one of the things he said it decays into sounded like "kayon". This must not be the right spelling, because I couldn't find it on google. What is this?
@FerroNeoBoron
9 жыл бұрын
jsdsparky Kaon
@jsdsparky
9 жыл бұрын
Ferroneoboron san Thank you.
@ChrisWalshZX
7 жыл бұрын
30 seconds in... immediate thought is - how can 5 quarks be colourless? Looking to hear the answer!
@sorenlily2280
9 жыл бұрын
What's most exciting about this for me is thinking about what other quark combinations are possible. I mean, baryons and mesons are the bare minimum for achieving a color neutral composite particle, so they're not so surprising. But this pentaquark is excessive in a way. You don't need 5 quarks for a color neutral state, but it's possible to get anyway. This raises the question, what other states are possible? Could you have hexaquarks? Octoquarks (maybe 2 kinds of those)? Decaquarks? Where's the limit?
@carlitto
8 жыл бұрын
Can it do anything though? Like what are they for are they used for anything? I'm new to this lol.
@lohphat
6 жыл бұрын
I thought there were many more quarks in a nucleon, it’s just the familiar three are the “valance quarks” which matter and determines the properties of the particle.
@CapriUni
9 жыл бұрын
Will there be captions on this, someday?
@Hythloday71
9 жыл бұрын
Sounds more like throwing lego up in the air and saying "hey, look at that, we've never seen 5 in a row before"
@sparhopper
9 жыл бұрын
Does the discovery of the Pentaquark bring us any closer to supersymmetry?
@mikeol510
8 жыл бұрын
just because you can make them, does that mean you should? I mean if you have to smash atoms together at the speed of light does it matter if it might be reacting badly to it?
@teekanne15
9 жыл бұрын
what does the 9 sigma thing mean? How probable something is ?
@RisingproMK123
9 жыл бұрын
teekanne15 Google is your friend here, but briefly, Sigma numbers are a level of confidence that a measurement was caused by the experiment. To reword this, a low sigma number means that the measurement could be a coincidence due to random fluctuations, or that the margin of error was too small (1sigma means its a fluke 1 in 3 times, 2sigma is 1 in 22, 3 sigma is 1 in 370, etc) In Physics, for a measurement to be considered a "discovery", it must be confident be at least 5 sigma (~ 1 in 2 million) before it is even worth peer reviewing. In this case, people were nervous because initially they couldn't repeat the 5 sigma result, which usually means that the measurement was unfortunately a ~ 1 in 2 million fluke. Then this 9 sigma measurement popped up. At 9 Sigma, the odds of it being a fluke are ~ 1 in 10^20 (that's 1 with 20 zeros). So yeah, the Pentaquark is now considered a "Discovery"
@RisingproMK123
9 жыл бұрын
DJTripleThreat78 you think 9 sigma is big, the COBE satellite made a measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background as a Black Body spectrum with a confidence of 400 sigma, it was a near-perfect measurement
@k_tell
9 жыл бұрын
DJTripleThreat78 Since we can't be certain of anything in the real universe (including the fact that we can't be certain of anything) knowing how uncertain you are is more important than the result itself. The more common way for sigmas to appear is as a +/- uncertainty in the result: for example 1.453 +/- 0.012 . Unless the paper says otherwise the second number represents the 1st Sigma range and thus there is about a 2 in 3 chance that the real answer lies within that range (provided the experiment has been conducted properly and in particular that all non-random errors have been accounted for). A real world example: the "Anomalous magnetic dipole moment" of the electron is given on wiki as 0.00115965218073(28) the (28) being short hand for the last 2 figures of the result, so the range for 1 sigma uncertainty is +/- 0.00000000000028. If the uncertainty of the measurement has a "normal" distribution then the 2 sigma range is double the 1 sigma range, 3 sigma is triple and so on. Most measurement uncertainty can be treated this way, so typically if you want to know the range of values that the experimenter thinks covers 5 sigma just multiply the uncertainty by 5 and you have the range effectively with only a 1 in a million chance of *not* containing the real value.
@k_tell
9 жыл бұрын
DJTripleThreat78 your welcome.
@TheRealFlenuan
9 жыл бұрын
RisingproMK123 So does the number of sigmas correspond to the number of standard deviations from the median that would yield the margin of error or something?
@laharl2k
9 жыл бұрын
all cool and stuff but in a practical sense, what is this useful for? quarks in general for what matters, what re they useful for? Can you make anything that's stable in anyway with them?
@ShadowRifft
9 жыл бұрын
"Taking a picture and saying ""look what we discovered!"". I've wondered similar and figure, The relevance is in understanding the possible forms matter can take in the right condition*, and Particle interactions. These conditions may be readily* available in the dense environment of a Star. I also suspect the the "decay" of particles may "Create" and reveal how subatomic particles move and are exchanged in the Scale of larger grouped states. One action of decay, in the right environment, may be the constructing* element to it's neighboring particles. Perhaps revealing potential Geometric interactions between "Groups" and "Total States" that are Possible.
@MystMagus
9 жыл бұрын
I was hoping for this since I first heard about it.
@tomknapton1461
9 жыл бұрын
How long do they actually last before decaying?
@let4be
4 жыл бұрын
It would be very interesting to find something that is stable in regular conditions but for some reason is extremely rare in the universe...
@Jake20111
9 жыл бұрын
***** The elements are bound states of various numbers of protons, neutrons, and electrons - and atoms and molecules are bound states of these elements. These particles (and many others which have been known to exist for decades), are too unstable to form bound states - though the pentaquark could possibly itself be a bound state of a baryon + meson as described in the video, it is slightly different than elemental bound states. At everyday-accessible energies, there's no chance of these bound states becoming stable, and even at the high energies of the LHC, the particles decay too quickly. There's currently no way to look at how these particles could perform meaningful interactions similar to the chemistry of normal matter, and thus there's not a chance to create a new periodic table.
@kashmirha
6 жыл бұрын
Thats great!!! So maybe there are different building blocks of matter just like we know different elements/atoms.
@gregorybutcher2647
5 жыл бұрын
Could these create new elements? And what about 4 quarks? No video on that!
@MrKorrazonCold
9 жыл бұрын
Its just Two Spherical Waves multiplying inward +1=0 now -1 dividing outward at right angles from their sources.. . .And where the two waves meet creates the particle effect in 3D space now.
@eddiegaltek
9 жыл бұрын
What about quodquark? I would have thought that they would have been the next up from baryonic matter. Why have they skipped a quark?
@eddiegaltek
9 жыл бұрын
ObeseYeti Just looked up Tetraquark, its a type of Meson - not heard of them - that's Tetraquark not mesons, I've heard of mesons.
@philipthunberg8753
9 жыл бұрын
Iv been waiting for exactly this, thanks! Will now enjoy the video :)
@felixthehuman
9 жыл бұрын
Is this a stamp particle?
@Somerandomdude-ev2uh
9 жыл бұрын
Why do the charm and anti-charm not cancel out???
@TheAbd1233
9 жыл бұрын
Somerandomdude4.2526 they do that why its super unstable
@Kaepsele337
9 жыл бұрын
TheAbd1233 but quark anti-quark pairs always exist inside a proton. We call them sea-quarks. What's the difference between these and the charmonium?
@Kaepsele337
9 жыл бұрын
tobywilson Thank you. But it's two ups one down not top and bottom. I always thought the sea-quarks were not virtual for the following reasons: 1.) They are measured in parton-distibution-functions. 2.) They contribute a lot to the mass of a proton (maybe they don't have to be real for that though, I don't really know)
@tobywilson
9 жыл бұрын
Guest6265+ Oops. sorry about that! You're right, of course, about the top / up thing. They aren't "on-shell" which is the definition of a virtual particle. I would link you somewhere but I can't really think of anything off the top of my head. Maybe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#Sea_quarks has something.
@zolikoff
9 жыл бұрын
Somerandomdude4.2526 There's an "atom" called *positronium*, which is quite in a similar manner. Positronium is a bound system of an electron and positron orbiting each other (them being each other's antiparticle). If forms a system of discrete energy levels quite like a hydrogen atom, though there's no nucleus. It's basically element zero from mass effect, without the magical plot properties. Of course, if the electron and positron "meet", the positronium is annihilated, but they orbit each other due to their attractive property (positive-negative charge) the same way an electron orbits a proton. But due to the quantum mechanical nature of any particle, eventually they do "meet" and annihilate each other, even though they're in a stable orbit (because electron shells work like probability "clouds"). So positronium is pretty unstable.
@loudofrio2325
8 жыл бұрын
my question is, did pentquark exist or could it have been created at the time of the collision ?
@skaduskitai8721
8 жыл бұрын
It was created in the collision, smashing common particles into each other is pretty much how all exotic particles are created.
@PepekBezlepek
9 жыл бұрын
excellent video!
@jtsupersized
9 жыл бұрын
Twist Ending: Pluto is a giant Pentaquark
@NSLikeableHuman
9 жыл бұрын
Dammit! Don't reveal plot twists without "SPOILER ALERT"! :-p
@shruggzdastr8-facedclown
5 жыл бұрын
Constantino Tsarouhas: You beat me to my comment!
@nicosmind3
8 жыл бұрын
Hypothesis: Black holes will no longer be thought of as singularities, but rather will be considered a polyquark. (or multiquark, hyperquark, megaquark, metaquark, superquark, ultraquark) Explanation. 2 reasons. The first is that pentaquarks are developed by crushing protons together at huge speeds, just a few miles off the speed of light. This massive force closely simulates the conditions of a black hole, which has "infinite" gravity. That "infinite" gravity merges all protons so that they are nothing but quarks all lined up beside each other. A polyquark. This process can also be thought of like this. Even light cant escape a black hole. The LHC almost fires protons close to the speed of light. Think of that as a light speed collision being exerted on the protons crushing them together harder than the LHC can. If they're hypothesizing that a hexaquark (6) will be discovered then why not a 7, 8 or even 10 (dexaquark) merged together by this process? Reason 2. If the hypothesis that a neutron star will be made from pentaquarks (due to the huge gravity and forces im guessing) then shouldnt a black hole then be the next logical step upwards? Those forces will essentially make a black hole a continuous stream of merged together quarks. Btw im not even a physics student just a layman with an interest. If theres something fundamental which ive missed forgive me. I may give this video a second watch just to double check myself. It 6 in the morning and ive barely had any sleep :S.
@jasonslade6259
8 жыл бұрын
+nicosmind3 Well ultimately we will never know the answer to that question since you cannot extract any information from a black hole about what it is made out of. So even if your theory is correct there is no way to prove or disprove it, even in a theoretical sense, so it can't really form the basis of a scientific theory.
@Green_Phosphorus
9 жыл бұрын
@jsdsparky it's spelled (rather inappropriately, I feel) "Kaon", which is apparently a rather interesting and important particle, at least in the discovery of later particles.
@rolobotoman
7 жыл бұрын
Useful discovery for the Borges lab of material sciences.
@laurabraga2758
9 жыл бұрын
Is even possible to understand how these kinds of matter would behave in a stable condition through these experiments?
@TheDatolo97
8 жыл бұрын
How can mesons form if they are made of quark- antiquark pair? (I'm referring to those made of the same quark)
@General12th
7 жыл бұрын
They can be two different _flavors_ of quark and antiquark. Take the pi meson (or pion) for example, which is made of an up and an antidown, or a down and an antiup. One particle is a quark and the other is an antiquark, but since they're not both ups or both downs, they don't annihilate right away. Actually, in this regime, the color force is far more important than electromagnetism. So even if the quark-antiquark pair *are both* the same flavor (like in a pi-zero meson), the'll never annihilate -- the color force pushes them apart.
@Curixq
9 жыл бұрын
Oh, can you maybe do some videos about subatomic particles like you did with the elements? Some of them have funny histories like the origin of the name of the J/Psy meson.
@the1exnay
6 жыл бұрын
But why do these things decay? What causes a meson to decay?
@dangi12012
7 жыл бұрын
How I sit in lecture every day 3:18 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@rorygrice5758
9 жыл бұрын
Brady, think about nuclear fusion in the sun. It's not a stable reaction on earth at the moment, but people are working on figuring out how to make it a stable reaction so that it can be harnessed. If they can find the pentaquark and figure out the circumstances that make it stable, like in a neutron star, there might be all sorts of new applications in the future of these particles in much the same way people are working on nuclear fusion.
@NomadUniverse
6 жыл бұрын
What would you see if you could put a gopro on a particle in the LHC?
@parabolicpanorama
3 жыл бұрын
Not a lot. Since it's going so close to the speed of light it would barely experience any time from its perspective
@parabolicpanorama
3 жыл бұрын
And the distance that it travels would also be shortened
@NomadUniverse
3 жыл бұрын
@@parabolicpanorama Ultimate time-lapse shot.
@hermeticsource1824
7 жыл бұрын
Do you think since we can get 1-5 quaks, then we could get almost infinite numbers and combinations in the future.
@winter32842
9 жыл бұрын
Lol Tony throw punch at cosmology again at the end.
@inflivia
9 жыл бұрын
haha. An answer never really comes back about what the point of manufacturing these types of unstable particles is? A good question, I think! I like it when Brady is adversarial.
@arsenalfanrichi
9 жыл бұрын
Do new types of matter mean new elements?
@DanTrue
8 жыл бұрын
Is there an "Island of Stability" for poly-quarks?
if they're so unstable, does that mean they're uninteresting / useless?
@matahari9858
9 жыл бұрын
so how many quarks could you jimmy together into one particle? could you have a particle with ten quarks in it? or is that just stupid?
@kurtilein3
9 жыл бұрын
***** the beauty is that it is unknown, there very well could be bigger ones.
@Astronut128
9 жыл бұрын
I find that QCD visualizes the interactions most clearly, a quark can only exist in 1 of 3 states, red green or blue, and an antiquark, yellow (anti-blue) magenta (anti-green) or cyan (anti-red). the sum of all the quarks in the particle must be white (or grey) in order to exist. for example, a 2-quark particle requires a quark and an anti-quark, while a 3-quark particle requires to be either entirely quarks or entirely antiquarks. in the case of the pentaquark, it has to either be made up of one antiquark, or 4. in the case of a decaquark, you could have 5 quark-antiquark pairs, or 2 sets of 3 (each set individually either all quark or all antiquark) with 2 more pairs of quark-antiquark, but the significant problem is its stability, it would possibly require conditions to create that would also create a black hole.
@Restilia_ch
9 жыл бұрын
Just when I thought I could wrap my head around baryons and mesons, here comes the pentaquark to make my reality fall apart. Thanks subatomic physics for the permanent migrane headache.
@ewdlop1
6 жыл бұрын
more Condense Matter related physcis plz
@RHZME
9 жыл бұрын
Digging the gold chain.
@razean22
9 жыл бұрын
Even though this is based on run 1 data from 2012 and I'm with LHCb just for 3 months it makes me a little proud :) weeeeeeeee
@SuperLoops
8 жыл бұрын
I would like a strange quark and a charmed quark. I have no idea what they actually are but they sound super nice and I would put them in a little box and keep them on my shelf w/ my fossil fish and trilobite and my little piece of meteorite and I could take them out to show ppl
@rafeverao4105
9 жыл бұрын
It's topics like this which make we want time to go faster - I am yet to learn of quarks in their entirety. Well, I suppose a little self-tuition won't do much harm...
@MrGunsgunsgunsguns
9 жыл бұрын
i wonder what the state of matter was when the universe was infinitesimally small? was it even matter? trying to imagine pushing that much energy in one place is crazy. was there even time? could our universe have been a particle from another dimension? could the universe collapse into some type of black hole; seeing as we don't even know if there is matter outside of our universe, could a black hole even form?... i broke my brain... i think this would be an interesting question for brady.
@delwoodbarker
9 жыл бұрын
Q: Why isn't this recent discovery confirmation of the singular pentaquark from the Oughts?
@Smashy360
5 жыл бұрын
These guys are like smashing a pickup truck and a convertible together and getting excited that two quarter panels, two fenders, and a hood are getting stuck together in the aftermath.
@richlawton1995
9 жыл бұрын
So does anyone know what the result from the mid 2000s happened to be?
@Oakleif
9 жыл бұрын
Possible connection to dark matter or dark energy?
@tobywilson
9 жыл бұрын
Jim Rothwell Nope. Dark matter doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force or seem to decay, but this thing will decay and shoot out photons when the charm anti-charm eventually annhilate. Dark energy cannot be made of quarks either because they would still gravitationally coalesce, not repel.
@scott98390
9 жыл бұрын
The LHC: Smashing Stuff Together as Hard as We Can (because you never know what might happen). That we can create particles that only (possibly) exist in the hearts of neutron stars here in the comfort of home (earth) boggles my mind!
@SampleroftheMultiverse
8 жыл бұрын
Is there a limit to how many fields you can bond together?
@thephysicistcuber175
8 жыл бұрын
I don't think so, but if there is it has to be large (think about heavy nuclei with 200+ nucleons, not to mention crystals with 10^23 atoms)
@hjembrentkent6181
7 жыл бұрын
There's no limit, but what will happen is that you will get to a energy level when you start to produce black holes
@shubhangaballal4427
9 жыл бұрын
How come the charm and anticharm don't annihilate?
@geniusmp2001
9 жыл бұрын
Shubhanga Ballal They do. But before they do, apparently they are part of a pentaquark for a very brief amount of time.
@shubhangaballal4427
9 жыл бұрын
Matthew Prorok How are they potentially stable in neutron stars then? Wouldn't they still annihilate each other?
@zolikoff
9 жыл бұрын
Shubhanga Ballal I don't know, but perhaps in neutron stars, the strong force is so "strong" around the quarks that they keep changing flavor faster than the time necessary for the two quarks to "meet" and annihilate each other.
@mage1over137
9 жыл бұрын
Shubhanga Ballal Because of symmetry breaking. Basically it is more energetically more favorable for them to not annihilate on the time scale of it's existences. It's why pions and superconductors exists.
@christophercampbell2618
9 жыл бұрын
Happened to catch this at the right time! Thanks for your work Brady!
@123FireSnake
9 жыл бұрын
2 things: i just gotta say i love the LHC, i'm nowhere near to be associated with anything they do and only live in the same country and don't even study anything closly related but hey, just feels nice to knwo that there are deiscoveries made over there:D Secondly, i'm not fully aware, well i don't have a clue, about how quarks bind in normal matter so me hearing this i think of the insane ammout of permutations you can get with 6 quarks and 5 slot's that's already 6^5 (roughly 8k?) new particles, would be happy to hear how they actually bind.
@DonaldKronos
7 жыл бұрын
Curious. Perhaps it was one particle… but if so, I wonder of what nature.
Пікірлер: 506