Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Stanford" channel.

  1. Dennis Edlund (embarrassed) ... i guess they do it planet-style? but seriously folks. it's the barycenter.
    1
  2.  @Enigmaticatious  If the molasses were a superfluid... it kinda works better i think
    1
  3. Steven676 sure that could happen. i suppose it would be important if the experiment were using a weak field and wasn't shielded from the earth's field.
    1
  4. Frank Sang yes, and how about a negative footprint!
    1
  5. it does
    1
  6. it's a funny determinism though, like many worlds is said to be deterministic. we need a better word for it, like meta-deterministic, since the determinism is in principle not accessible to an observer inside the universe.
    1
  7.  @david203  oh i know they are very different! But considering determinism... Can Bohm predict the timing of a decay of a particular atom of Tungsten 180 held in a vault in Zurich?
    1
  8.  @david203  MW is not deterministic, although it is common to read that it is. Carroll argues that Many Worlds is standard quantum mechanics. I agree, for now. QM is not a deterministic theory, although Carroll himself might say it is. The wave function progresses in a deterministic manner, but what is the wave function? It gives you probabilities! Perhaps there's different levels of determinism, hence the disagreement with some pretty obvious arguments on both sides.
    1
  9. If I recall, zilch = weak hypercharge
    1
  10. blue and red move the same speed. they are different frequency
    1
  11. he didn't say either of those things.
    1
  12.  @annettebertora4434  I'm not saying nutthen. I didn't see anything. I never met them. I didn't do it! That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
    1
  13.  @annettebertora4434  Cats are people too. They are just meowsunderstood. . Susskind is talking there about an imaginary box not a proton. . Later he says The proton mass comes mostly from the kinetic energy of quarks and gluons rattling around in a box. . But it's not the same box,
    1
  14. or is it like a coin, only two sides?
    1
  15. but you matter
    1
  16. you're using it
    1
  17. all particles actually have some mass because they all have some energy, and E=mc2. the term "massless particle" is common but should be "rest-mass-less particle" to be correct.
    1
  18. the higgs field is a field with a mexican hat potential it has two oscillations, naturally one gives mass to fermions the other basically just shows us the field is there, and has the predicted properties
    1
  19.  @dustin741  Yes this is the principle on which a rice cooker works. When the water has become all vapor, the heat rises rapidly and the cooker turns off.
    1
  20. life as we know it would be impossible without a supply of infinite uncertainty
    1
  21. the amount of energy is not intrinsic to the photon, it is relational
    1
  22. for example, the same photon could be viewed with different frequencies by different observers depending on their relative motion
    1
  23. The Higgs field is the condensate, basically.   The Higgs field can oscillate in two ways. One type of oscillation gives particles that trade zilch with electrons, giving them mass. Another type of oscillation is the Higgs Boson, which doesn't give things mass, but is cool because it shows they got the whole idea right.
    1
  24. the whole wall is the observer, minus the slits? then the detector is the next observer for the ones that didn't hit the wall...
    1
  25. I think the professor started early lol man i love this guy
    1
  26. Why does the Born rule lose info? I can't predict the outcome, so I have no information about the outcome. Then the "cosmic dice" roll and I gain information.
    1
  27.  @davidhand9721  Fascinating thanks! That will take some time to upload to the microtubles.
    1
  28. he often omits mere numbers, he's a big picture guy
    1
  29. The Higgs boson just shows that the Higgs field exists. It is a different oscillation of the field than the oscillation that involves mass. It is a circular oscillation, while the mass thingy is a transverse oscillation. If I recall correctly.
    1
  30. that happens if you ignore peculiar motion
    1
  31.  @shellydas1416  they are closely related right?
    1
  32. yes
    1
  33. The math of special relativity says that anything moving at c cannot experience internal changes. It's a stopped clock. Flipping is like a clock ticking.
    1
  34. i think it's an imaginary ruler that is glued to spacetime so it expands with it
    1
  35. because it's not mollasses
    1
  36. no
    1
  37. better call Saul Perlmutter
    1
  38. they don't assume that
    1
  39.  @STONECOLDET944  Ok I can see what you mean. The standard model assumes a spacetime background that exists independent of the fields. What I meant was, physicists know the standard model is not complete, so this assumption is the subject of much research, as you point out in terms of quantum gravity.
    1
  40. yes, only because it has more energy
    1
  41.  @Overwriter  thanks cool explanation of dx
    1
  42. yes, and that distance is the radius of the 'cosmological horizon'
    1
  43. c squared is known, why solve for it?
    1
  44.  @fnln2536  yes I will go with that, anything with mass is a clock! But how does that make time an aspect of space? Why not space is an aspect of time? Or, they are two different aspects of spacetime, the background void of existence?
    1
  45. I would assume yes, both types of mass would disappear. But they would still have mass-energy.
    1
  46. 1. a clock can be attached to any object such as a planet. the clock then reads the proper time for that planet. 2. movement is relative. there is no distinction between moving and not moving objects in a fundamental sense.
    1
  47. it produced pairs
    1
  48. I wonder if that is a myth.
    1
  49. they would be massless in the standard model IF there were no Higgs field.
    1
  50. The Higgs Boson is a fart from the turtle that gives mass to fermions.   Without massive fermions no structure would be possible.   Without structure the universe might exist but nobody could know it.   If it can't be known, does it really exist?
    1