The Matter Of Antimatter: Answering The Cosmic Riddle Of Existence
 Published on: 06 June 2018
 You exist. You shouldn’t. Stars and galaxies and planets exist. They shouldn’t. The nascent universe contained equal parts matter and antimatter that should have instantly obliterated each other, turning the Big Bang into the Big Fizzle. And yet, here we are: flesh, blood, stars, moons, sky. Why? Come join us as we dive deep down the rabbit hole of solving the mystery of the missing antimatter.
MODERATOR: Brian Greene
PARTICIPANTS: Marcela Carena, Janet Conrad, Michael Doser, Hitoshi Murayama, Neil Turok
OPENING FILM: Animation by Eoin Duffy of Studio Belly, written by Justin Weinstein and Brian Greene
MORE ABOUT THE PROGRAM AND PARTICIPANTS: https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/matterantimatteransweringcosmicriddleexistence/
This program is part of the Big Ideas Series which is supported in part by the John Templeton Foundation.
SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube Channel for all the latest from WSF
VISIT our Website: http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/
LIKE us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/worldsciencefestival
FOLLOW us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/WorldSciFest
TOPICS:
 The Discovery of Antimatter opening film 00:00
 Brian Greene Introduction 04:00
 Participant Introductions 04:54
 What led Paul Dirac to his thinking? 07:25
 Can we create Antimatter? 22:25
 How does the universe create matter and antimatter and yet there is still matter left around us? 29:42
 Using Neutrinos to detect Antimatter 44:55
 The difference in Neutrinos compared to Antimatter 56:30
 Searching for hints of how to prove the Grand Unified theory 01:10:10
 Drowning in theories 01:22:00
 The applications for Antimatter 01:33:01
Filmed live at the 2018 World Science festival.  Runtime : 1:39:21
 The Matter Of Antimatter Answering The Cosmic Riddle Of Existence Brian Greene Antimatter What is antimatter antiparticle unsolved problems in physics Big Bang solving the mystery of antimatter neutrinos Discovery of Antimatter Paul Dirac Grand Unified theory applications for antimatter CERN proton nuetron quark Fermi Lab Marcela Carena Janet Conrad Michael Doser Hitoshi Murayama Neil Turok world science festival 2018 Big Ideas Series
COMMENTS: 40

Neil Libertine 16 hours ago
There is no pyhtagorean for spherical or cylindrical coordinates. Then how should they use tensor as generalized coordinates, and how should minkowski space is correct. Differential geometry cant replace euclidean geometry which is generalized case and shapes are special. There is no great circle through points on constant latitude. So there is no geodesic for all points on sphere.

Neil Libertine 1 days ago
So how would length of an object is measure. By placing it against standard scale, its one end is marked on scale then other end. The difference in value of two ends is length. One thing is assumed here that an object is at rest with scale which is also called as coordinate or frame. Now if an object have some speed against the scale or frame then does its length could be measured accurately. No, because it's not possible to mark both ends at same time and if object and scale have relative speed then one of end either contract or expand the measured length of object. This is relative measurement and when object is at rest with scale is proper or absolute measurement.Now relativists says that both measurement are correct and more than that if either object or scale is moving then relative measurement is giving actual description of object's physical quantity. So whether length contract or expand that relative measurement define physical state of object as by relativists.Further than that, in most conditions there is no frame moving with light speed and some events happening in it. Observation of planet is not relative because observer with scale like clock and angular scale is on earth. In case of far objects it's not possible to directly measure object so light is used. But relativists says that speed of light is constant whether source or observer have relative speed or not. First thing, general science laws doesnt allow it, second it require that light should have special quality which it has not so. In classical relativity that replaced by theory of relativity which we know now, has no problem with measurement of distant objects because its absolute and relative measurements are same so no problem. All problems start with insistence of relativists that speed of light is constant so they change fundamental quantities like length, time, mass.Suppose some children are playing in ground which is stationary. Now if an observer moving with quarter of light speed measure length of ground as per theory of relativity, found that length of ground is small as compared to what is told. Another observer with half light speed measure length of ground and found that length is contracted and also differ from first observer, then who is right, observer at rest with ground or moving observers. Does measurement of moving observers that differ from rest one, in any way affect or give actual representation, no. Same thing is with time, moving observers says children are slow. Does clock of moving observer change the movement of children on ground, no.Question is why they are doing so inspite of evidences against their theories. Reason is that constancy of speed of light is required for their model of universe, if that is changed then their model collapse.

Neil Libertine 2 days ago
Serpents have fork shape tongue, metaphorically they are human who double talk. Similarly relativists, who profess theory of relativity, have logic of double talk.They says that time moves slower in presence of high gravity or force and speed is slow in high gravity due to curvature of space. At high speed which is far from gravity or force, time should moves fast as gravity is low. But their other part of theory says time goes slower due to high speed. But speed of body is due to curvature of spacetime and which is due to gravity or force. So what is movement of time farther from gravity, is it slow due to high speed or fast due to low gravity.Example is their explaination of time in satellites or they say that GPS and International Space Station. According to them time moves slower in them than earth because they are moving but at same time they are floating in less gravity than Earth so time should be fast. This is the condition of their theory and they keep bragging about it via various documentaries, channels, articles about their understanding and exploration of mysteries of universe.

Neil Libertine 2 days ago
Clock at rest measure proper time, so if your clock is moving then relative. But moving objects like planets and stars dont carry clock, clock is on earth. So why dont they give up their false ideas and come out of day dreaming. They are against Mach's idea of relativity, inertial frames are absolute, geocentric model is handy and practical.Okay time measured in S is t, observed by S' is t'. S' is moving relative to S with speed v'. Now another observer S" moving relative to S with speed v" observe time t" as per theory of relativity. S' and S" both measured time differently relative to S. So relativists claim that time dilation is real then which time is more correct t, t', t". Does measurement from S' and S" affect measurement of S, no. Therefore relative measurement is not real or actual and it has no physical significance.

Casey Ray Waite 3 days ago
Is the force that is out side a black hole. Since we are falling forever in to the sun's black hole, the true matter is out side a black hole.

Neil Libertine 3 days ago
We are not going into how frquency of wave changes without change in its speed. As i know that doppler shift in light according to relativity is toward red spectrum for receeding source and blue for approaching source.But observation says another story like in general relarivity more curvature of space causing close slower orbits than farther faster orbits, so time period remain same but this is not as observed. Also orbits of planets are in same plane which is inexpalinable by curvature of space. Now comes to point that sun at zenith is farther than sun at horizon and light from noon sun is white and from morningevening is red. Sun is nearer at horizon than at zenith could be explained by apparent size of sun measured in angular distance.Relativity is useless beacuse there are no frame that moves close to speed of light so relative measurement of events happening can produce any significant relativistic effect as per theory. While motion of source of light can change the speed of light which discarded by relativists but useful in calculating actual distance of body if possible.

jose delao 3 days ago
How can antimater be created with particle acelerators made out of metals it just dont make sence maybe thats why the antimater I articles get aniliated at the instance of detection due to the metalic soroundings of the acelerator its going to take special elements to create antimater and out of the gravity of the planet?.

Neil Libertine 4 days ago
Origin of relativity lies in no instantaneous action at distance as result of reaction from force or say flux. Most of equations formulated as law are result of reaction. It's like centrifugal force is measurable and not centripetal. Similarly relativity's orgin is against the newtonian concept of fundamental force in which there is no time of interaction, action and reaction are instantaneous. Both relativity and quantum mechanics are similar in concepts, like concept of field and one find that one could arrive at same conclusion from any one of them.So relativists claim that in reality action and reaction are not instantaneous if interacting bodies are far. This doesnt affect the relation of physical quantities as such but put a question on nature of mechanism. So relativists came with old concept with new twist, that there must be communication for interaction and speed of information is speed of light. They thought that contemporary mechanics not give explanation about time and speed of information to acknowledged field by bodies. But they forgot that most of mechanical laws are about steady state and not about transition state.Now look at their claim that time taken by information varies with distance or they are instantaneous from their own calculation. Take an example of light coming from distant star or take sun. Time taken by light to reach us information about sun's position in space of visible sky is about some minutes as per their calculations. But according to relativity, at speed of light distance is contracted to point or no distance. Similarly time taken measured by observer is also zero or instantaneous. If relativity is not used then there maybe some value of time but not with their own calculation. So according to relativity, action from reaction is instantaneous.

Neil Libertine 5 days ago
Is relativity against own foundation from its inception. Relativity is based on realistic view of Mach that there is no absolute motion, all motion are relative. They misinterpret it as inability to find absolute motion outside, thus relative measurement are real or actual measurement. While this is incorrect, because what Mach's principle means is, there is no need for looking absolute motion. Measurement in a frame is absolute and measurement of other frame is relative. So relative measurement is not actual or real even using Lorentz's transformation. We are not discussing here that how incorrect are Lorentz's transformation in relative measurement because they alter result of measurement of fundamental physical quantities. There is no agreement on these quantities if measured in one frame.Relativists are using selfdefeating arguments. Suppose length of moving object is measured in inertial frame. An inertial frame is equivalent to rest frame if observing with in frame. Speed of ball measured in moving coach is same as on ground, one can play with ball in both frames without any difference. Relative measurement is observation of ball in coach by observer on ground or viceversa. Question is, does observation from ground affect event in moving frame, no. Thus relative measurement is not actual if they differ from absolute measurement.Implication of this is that there is no time dilation or length contraction. Observation in an inertial frame is absolute. So there is no advantage of heliocentric model over geocentric, later is more practical. Also Lorentz transformation are useless because they have disagreement in absolute and relative measurement and thus producing difference of frame for observation, while they says that all inertial frames are equal, no preference. This shows that relativists preaching is different from practicing.

Neil Libertine 1 weeks ago
What people generally think of pressure as force per unit area, where area is 2 dimensional having no thickness. This is given by tyre pressure in unit of pounds per square inch, psi. The force exerted on inside surface of tyre by air contained in it.But this is half truth, in reality there can be no pressure on surface without having some thickness. What it means, that unit of pressure is given in 2d but it not applies on surface or area having no thickness. Imagine one having thin sheet of metal, now pressure is applied against thickness of sheet in form of hammering or weight. The metal sheet spreads out and become more thin. But if sheet have no thickness then no deformation.So how spacetime given in 2d deformed by anything. It is other thing that mass is not equivalent to force unless it have some speed so having energy or under influence of some pull due to force or density. Similarly energy cant exert force unless it is contained in form of kinetic energy.If mass exert force then it is similar to Newton's law of gravitation, so what difference theory of relativity made. According to which black holes dont exists, they are against nature of force which is evident in bigbang model. Bigbang is expansion of matter and black hole is contraction of matter under same law.Differential geometry doesnt account for general model as they are for shapes and shapes are specific. Thus differential geometry of tensor not make equations independent of coordinates but opposite of it. It is also evident from model of universe as expansion. Universe expansion is transformation into planar space or euclidean space. While their model is flawed because expansion of a singularity is in first place having euclidean space.So their relation of massenergy tensor to curvature of spacetime is invalid because first tensor is operator and without specifying function it means nothing but numbers. Second thing mass and energy in itself no force so there could be no deformation. Third 2d surface cant have deformation whatever. Fourth there is assumption of surface prior to observation, it is assumed the shape of universe.This model of universe came is biblic in nature, everything comes from nothing. If one look at bigbang, it is culmination of their theory about universe, then how spreading of matter consitutes closed surface as spherical geometry required. Spherical geometry means closed body, having two opposite poles or sources, so no net source. This implies origin of universe from nothing. But two opposite source cancel each other to make region source free and if separated by distance cause directional movement result of gradient. Thus make work done possible. But their model ultimately ended in single point source of one kind when tracing backward in time.

Pugger21 1 weeks ago
Heavier stable elements can produce antimatter. If you can figure out a way to stabilize a certain isotope of element 115  you will be able to get a source of antimatter.

Neil Libertine 1 weeks ago
Vantage point is, time measured of event happened in moving frame S' that was round trip of light in transverse direction of motion is t', c' = 2L/t'  (1),where L is length, and c' is speed of light in S'Relative time measured from rest frame S is t, c = 2L/t  (2)where c is speed of light in SFrom relativity, time is slow in S' measured from S so, t = t'#  (3), # is Lorentz factorFrom (2) and (3), c = 2L/(t'#)  (4),From (1) and (4), c = c'/#  (5)From (5), it is clear that speed of light, c in S is not equal to c' in S' and slower.Thus speed of light not remain invariant in relative motion. There is no constancy of light or either time is not different in relative frames. Time is no more local if speed of light to be remain same in relative motion.Similarly in longitudanal direction of light, relation between c and c' is given by, c = c'/(#^2)  (6)Using above relations in case of MichelsonMorley's experiment's calculation, time measured in frame of interferometer for transverse direction is,t'=2L/c' similarly, t=2L/c=2L#/c'for longitudnal direction,t'=2L/c' and, t=2L×#^2/c'

Neil Libertine 1 weeks ago
Voltage cause current, and current indicates voltage. But without limited resistance or conductance, relation between voltage and current is not establish, and that resistance is medium dependent and inverse of resistance is conductance, which depends upon speed of charge. If resistance becomes zero then v¹ and v² produce same amount of current, there is no causal relationship between voltage and current. Now replace it with electric and magnetic field.This is supplement, there is no such thing as EM wave, all are mechanical in nature. Surprised, okay what is voltage or electric field, amount of charge and magnetic field is instantaneous amount of charge transported. These amount of whatever transported from one point to another is mechanical overall, but the force behind the motion is electromagnetic. Thus it is untrue that EM wave is independent of medium, it depends upon amount of some quality of medium like charge to be disturbed. Mechanical wave like sound is local transportation of matter or density and EM wave is local transportation of charge or charge density.

TT IROAM77 1 weeks ago
Eat the banana, then consider all of the ways our bodies transform the banana. Mystery solved? Or is that too simple a concept.

Neil Libertine 1 weeks ago
Classical distribution of energy known as equipartition is, suppose there are 6 modes of dice and energy to be distributed is 21 units. Then each mode have equal amount 3.5 unit of energy. Divide it by mode or frquency, energy per frequency is 7/2, 7/4, 7/6, 7/8, 7/10, 7/12. Thus energy per frequency is decreasing as shown in black body radiation curve.Now same amount of energy distributed to same modes as per quantum energy distribution given by Planck's law. According to quantum energy distribution, energy is not distributed equally to modes but in linear multiple of fundamental or minimum energy unit to modes. Thus higher modes have more energy and for above 6 dice modes they are like, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 where fundamental unit is 1. Dividing these energy for modes by mode number or frequency they are all same, 1 unit. But this is not evident in black body curve as flat line.

Neil Libertine 1 weeks ago
In general relativity, basis for space is expressed in two oblique base units, like euclidean space is expressed in spherical coordinates and considering surface as sphere having constant radius, thus two base unit is azimuthal angle and planar angle. But thing is that, first there is assumption of sphere like surface and having fixed radial distance. How this is free from coordinate choice when its itself bounded by shape.Second thing as 3d is represented by 2d surface, and area of surface depends upon angle between base units, thus unit vector is not constant which is changing angle. So measurement of space is different for different location in length. For example 1km near pole of earth is different from 1km at equator in terms of longitude and latitude.Third thing, as unit surface area is cross product of two base unit, which is multiple of sine of angle to area of orthogonal base unit. Thus resultant of sum of base is different.Fourth thing, pythogoreous theorem to find resultant is invalid for inside angle. Why, because that gives negative of sine and represent difference of two vectors, not sum.

Abram Badal 1 weeks ago
It has always intrigued me that our physicists assume that what we sceased to see , for example the limit of our present space telescopic vue of galaxies, situated farthest seen in our telescopes, constitute the end of our universe ! maybe they accelerate to come back or go other ways ??? The other contradiction I never understood from them , is that although it is our current knowledge of a supernova or thousands, of big ones , constituting small big bangs , happenning in the known universe every second or more often , and matter and gas is spread in all directions , we fail to see any or small galaxies formations travelling towards our point in the universe and only see galaxies going away ??? Although we have small ones passing our galaxy once in a while and the effect is gas loss or hydrogen loss for us , without gains comming to us , althouggh our galaxy is among largest known , maybe larger than 60 % of other galaxies seen in our space telescopes ?

FootPlaysStuff 2 weeks ago
$500 trillion I don’t have it in my pocket but I can get it tomorrowI have a feeling she can whatta Boss

General Kenobi 2 weeks ago
Great video but don't look at the comment section for too long or you'll lose IQ points

Beverly Scofield 2 weeks ago
I am simply blown away by how someone with no formal science education, who dropped out of high school algebra thinking she would never understand it can, under the tutelage of these marvelous physicists, begin to comprehend these scientific principles. Thank you all. Just know that you are making this old lady delighted and grateful.

Neil Libertine 2 weeks ago
First thing, Planck's law in no way proves quantization of energy and thus no quantum mechanics as such. If one look at curve of black body energy density per frequency against frequency then one see that energy density per frequency tends to zero on higher frequencies. So what does it mean, it means that what Planck propose energy distribution as explanation of his relation is not in accord. He explained that energy distribution is not like classical equipartition, while curve shows it is exactly as per equipartition.Okay, try to understand what Planck means, according to him suppose there is dice having six face as six modes and number represents energy level. So as per Planck's view energy is distributed as 1 has 1 unit, 2 has 2 unit and so on. Distribution is not equally or equipartition of energy, means all modes have equal amount of energy. If one divide energy of mode to its number, all modes have same amount of energy, unit. But curve shows that energy decreases with frequency or mode. Now for mode density for energy, divide energy for mode twice by mode number that is square of mode but Planck gave model of linear harmonic oscillator.Now comes to other issues which are falsely publicised. Like they says Planck law laid foundation of quantum mechanics by quantizing energy, but that was started before him and the very model of cavity oscillator having modes as resonant particular harmonics as stored energy and other dies is in itself quabtization of energy. While they attempt to mimic gas molecules thermodynamic relation of speed and temperature. Even their cavity model is away from atomistic or particle view, as they thought that EM wave dont need medium so they can be stored in hollow space of cavity. But question is they were looking for radiation from hot solid body, so why they chose this cavity model.Finally we look at Planck's view of blackbody radiation but before that we should know that Planck's mulriplication of his average energy to number of modes per as said classical view was unnecessary, there is no need to multiply with numbers of mode if he had not average out the energy.So from his view, total energy of cavity is sum of many oscillators of different modes or frequencies of energy. His energy unit is hf where h is constant and f is fundamental frequency and higher frequencies or modes are integer multiple of this, is it really that or some illusion but before that we must know that in binomial series if a unit is divided into infinite smaller parts then it is equivalent to exponential of some transcdental number. And when some finite is divided into infinite smaller terms then they are not having some integral value and instead of discreteness they are more continuous.So his oscillators are in form of 1+2+3... = N, multiplied by basic energy unit hf. Note that numbers 1, 2, 3.. here represents mode, but in sum of oscillators they are no longer integers but fraction. So, hf(1+2+3..) = hf(1N+2N+...) = hf(NExp(hf/kT)+NExp(2hf/kT)+..) = Nhf(1/(Exp(hf/kT)  1) is total energy sum of oscillators. Multiplying this with number of modes of classical model is renormalization, so why there is renormalization when they calculated sum of oscillators already.There are other bigger issues, like energy of wave is related to wavelength and not frequency, so this whole concept of photon as particle unit of light or quantization of energy is bogus. There is no quantization of any kind in final value or curve of bkackbody. In above Planck's relation, oscillator having higher mode or frequency contribute lesser energy, thus higher frequency doesnt mean higher energy, so energy relation of photon hf is incorrect.

Robert Johnson 3 weeks ago
Let things alone and just accept you existence. All this making sheet is not going to go well. Look at Faucci, he funded something that spread and killed millions people. If he didn't find covid19 we be in a better place. Now you want to find something that annihilate each other and all life. Nothing comes out as well as man plans. Leave a;one/. Just accept our reality.

Nimish Patalia 3 weeks ago
Nothing more to say about the whole discussion as already many comments has done...but the Graphic animation in the beginning with the music and Brian voice.. is just so amazingly Satisfying to watch.

Neil Libertine 3 weeks ago
Suppose there is a container having air as weight or hot air as energy. Now if we divide that box in half, if box is one dimensional then it divided into 2, if 2d then 4 and if 3d then 8. But on dividing the amount of weight or energy is also divided. But if there are moving air particles in container then on dividing their speed remain same but frequency increases twofolds. So increasing frequency doesnt mean increased energy if speed remain fixed. So how we relate energy of photon or wave particle to frequency, while it is related to wavelength which gets halved on dividing size and thus energy.Similarly there is fundamentally difference in wave and particle. Suppose two particles meets at point and by interference they superimpose each other. So the intensity or probability or energy adds or subtracts in unusual way than ordinary particles who first never annihilates each other and never creates something more than ordinary sum. Particles have volume, when they add up, their mass increase but also volume so it makes no difference on intensity of mass at point. While wave add up differently, they meet at point and add up together having same size together thus increasing or decreasing intensity than ordinary sum depending upon how they meet at point.

Neil Libertine 3 weeks ago
Sorry but that multiple in calculating number of modes in hot solid body radiation is 3×8=24 which i mistakenly calculate as 3/4. So now the correct relation of energy density per mode or frequency for black body or hot solid body radiation is given by, dU = 24×f²/c³×kT×Exp(n²w²/kT)where w is wavelength of mode.Now comparing it to Planck's law and see how Planck's law of radiation is incorrect, there are four main reasons. First, energy of wave is related to wavelength and not frequency. Second, as radiation from body is related to temperature and that heat energy is available to body then how oscillator absorb energy in form of frequency, even though only that amount of energy is absorbed but it is thermal energy. It is like saying LC oscillator have frequency to transmit and recieve signal but that signal have some form of electric energy. Third, when number of modes already calculated then why again sum of oscillators multiplied to give average energy. Fourth, multiple of frequency as energy is increasing with increasing modes, then there should be equal energy density per frequency at lower and higher frequencies which is not observed.So Planck's radiation law was given to show that energy is quantized in exchange with matter, which is not the case even modes quantized the stored energy but overall energy is multiple of exponential function which is smooth and can have any value. What they thought that twinkling of stars is due to some pulsating or breathing kind of emission, but that frequency is very low compared to frequency of light. At fixed speed of light higher frequency means lower energy and only way to imcrease energy of light at higher frequency is increase its speed.

Neil Libertine 3 weeks ago
On second note, there was no need for Planck to do sum of all modes as oscillator to gave energy density function of black body emitting radiation. Multiply it with function similar to MaxwellBoltzmann distribution function was sufficient, but he want to consider or to show that considering density of energy different from particle density in MaxwellBoltzmann distribution. Thing is that without particles, energy can't be stored in cavity, storing energy as modes in empty region is incorrect view, energy can only be stored or exchanged with particles, without them there is no meaning of quantization.

Neil Libertine 3 weeks ago
We derived that energy density per frequency is, du/df=dU=3/4×f²/c³□where □ is energy multiplied to modes acquired that energy. Now from equipartition theorem, energy is equally distributed to all energy levels or modes in this case. It means higher modes have less energy per mode or say higher energy level acquired by lesser modes. That is modes multiply with energy is constant, so energy is equally distributed. Suppose there are two energy levels then number of modes having higher energy is less than modes at lower energy, it is natural like density of air is less at high altitude or high gravitational energy.Now the natural function that limits number of modes having higher energy is exponential decreasing function. Therefore number of modes at given energy level (which is represented by multiple of mode and wavelength) is, Exp(nw/kT), where w is wavelength of mode and n is number of modes. Therefore sum of total modes or oscillators is, Exp(1×k) + Exp(2×k) + Exp(3×k) +..=1/(1Exp(nk)), where k = w/kTThus probabilty of any mode to have given energy is, f = Exp(nw/kT)/(1Exp(nw/kT)) = 1/(Exp(nw/kT)  1)Thus average energy per mode is multiple of probability of mode to have that energy and thermal energy available for modes, that is, □ = kT×1/(Exp(nw/kT)  1)So energy density per frequency or mode is, dU = 3/4×f²/c³×kT/(Exp(nw/kT)  1).Question is why energy at higher modes is less while theoretically it should be high. Reason is that higher modes means smaller in size or wavelength, and lower size tends to lose more energy in form of loses, ratio of surface area to volume increases which dissipate more energy in form of loss for energy stored in cavity or hot solid body.

Neil Libertine 3 weeks ago
One may observed that with time, speed of fan slow down. Now what is cause of it and how it is so important to discuss. The cause of slowing down of fan is due to loosening capacity to hold charge of capacitor whose job is to supply constant voltage to motor of fan which otherwise is spooky and not smooth, also motor cause dip in voltage to every change in voltage it counter.Now we know that by replacing capacitor we can have same speed of fan which was earlier. The working of capacitor, its charging and discharging simultaneously to give constant voltage or power is key to understand most basic phenomena which happening everywhere and everytime. That is how energy interact with matter in presence of temperature or how light or any radiation is produced in general.The ratio of discharging of capacitor to its charging is equivalent to how particle absorb energy and gain speed and how it is limited to a certain speed even on constant availability of energy to continuously gain speed. It also relate how any body on absorbing heat and start to glow or radiate light which is characterstic of how hot is body and why its light is not ever increasing on heating at constant temperature. This is basis of quantum mechanics which tells that how energy is quantized on interaction and does this view is correct or not. Does energy is really quantized which gave further way to quantization of fields. In example of capacitor it is clear that its capacity to deliver constant voltage depends upon its capacity to hold charge or electric energy and inversely to separation between two electrode. It has nothing to do with quantization of charge. Similarly light emitted by hot solid body depends upon its ability to store energy, temperature and inversely to wavelength of emitted light.Opposite to conventional view that an electromagnetic wave or any wave having more frequency means more energy, while it is higher wavelength means more energy if speed remain fixed. It is clear from that when we need to hear bass sound, we use amplifier because sound waves of lower frequency needs more power and bigger speaker. So a bigger cavity can store more energy and wave of higher wavelength. Also on heating body gets expand, so it have more energy and less frequency.Again in quantum mechanical term though on foundation which it stands is questionable but here we discuss its description of subject and interpretation, wave function in terms of wavelength of standing wave not describe expectation value of position of particle but its energy. This is evident from that heating body glow more in its centre, reason is same that it have more energy which they describe as more probability of photon, while for what photon stands for, energy. But how they describe wave function of next level in which it splits into two waves. For energy description, its energy splits into two smaller parts. One more thing, law of equipartition of energy holds for black body oscillator which we discussed above as hot solid body, no matter how Planck's law states it by multiplying with average energy as not constant for all modes.Now we derive its relation in simple brief manner. Suppose there is hot solid body having given temperature. There is no need of considering ideal black body because once we find its energy storage, later we multiply it with scaling factor which is less than one. Suppose there are n modes of waves stored, but as radiation emitted from surface and inner space is 3d so possible modes are like n¹n², n²n³. So total permutation or combination is 3 and if it is square then number of modes are 3n². So total no of modes in given volume that multiply with average energy gives total energy density of body or cavity is, 2×3n²×dn = 6n²dn. Multiplication of 2 comes because sum of modes goes into both directions. Therefore total energy of cavity is given by sum of below given energy, dE = 6n²dn = 6/8×L³×f²/c³df×□, where □ is average energy multiplied to every modes of energy.So energy density per frequency is given by, dE/df/L³=du/df=3/4×f²/c³□Now we see that long before quantum mechanics, energy of cavity in terms of modes is quantized but that not means that emitted or absorbed energy is quantized but stored energy is, second thing this quantization is not linear but in form of square, so how does concept of linear harmonic oscillators fit in it. Talking about Planck's factor which is equivalent to equipartition but different as it multiplies with hf similar to kT but different because it is different for different modes. This is wrongly interpreted as quantization of energy because they thought that frequency comes from modes and as modes is quantized so frequency. But first modes is quantized in square and most importantly hf is further multiplied with number of modes having that hf and which is neither integral nor linear but exponential. So in no way there is quantization of energy in linear form even by Planck's law for radiation.

robert proffitt 3 weeks ago
Omg .he says antimatter comes from nothing how so????When the Higgs has b turned on. Ok well i guess the field is just there by nature or did qutum workings play a roll with that function to..Just simply can't give credit to intelligent design & how the laws govern the information threw qutum relm

Neil Libertine 3 weeks ago
This is second part of Entropy, which includes entropy in terms of arrangement and probability.Suppose there are three color balls, r(red), g(green), b(blue) arranged in three places available for them. So they arranged like; rgb, rbg, bgr, brg, grb, gbr. There are six ways in which they can arranged this is permutation. If one more different color ball or place is added, pernutation or number of arrangement increases to twenty four, that is four multiply to six previous arrangements.Now as there is no preference of any arrangement and all are equally likelihood, so probability of any one selection is 1/6. Thus we see that probability of any selection decreases with increase in permutation or arrangements, and which is related to number of particles or participants which is ball in this case. Decrease in probability is increase in uncertainity or randomness or chaos.Now if in above case if two of ball are of same color, suppose there are three balls of two colors r(red) and b(blue). Then above six arrangements reduces to three; rbb, brb, bbr. So when particles becomes indistinguishable, permutation or arrangements decreases and thus probability of any one arrangement is increase. This type of permutation is equivalent to combination of choosing two balls from three balls of different colors.Probability distribution function of maxwellian particles which are considered as distinguishable is given by suppose, 1/X. Where X is permutation of particles. Similarly permutations of fermions and boson are X+1 and X1. Both fermions and bosons are considered as indistinguishable particles but their probability distribution function is higher than maxwellian for boson is okay but lower than maxwellian for fermions shows that fermions are distinguishable particles and that is indicated by their spin half property which is basis for exclusion principle.Does there are three kind of particles, two of them are governed by quantum statics or there is one kind of particle given as classical one and there are three kind of distribution density states.Suppose permutation of particles having given higher energy is X, then its probability density function is given by, 1/X. This is known as MaxwellBoltzmann distribution function where it gives probability of a particle having given energy at temperature. On increasing temperature, probability of particle having given energy increased.Probability of a particle having given energy is 1/X and probability of a particle to not have given energy is, 1  1/X or (X  1)/X. Now ration of a particle having given energy to a particle not having energy is, 1/(X  1). This is known as BoseEinstein distribution function and it tells about probability of a particle to have given energy if there is no particle have that given energy before or say ratio of probability of a particle to have given energy to go higher energy level to release given energy to come back to lower energy level. In textbooks it is interpreted entirely different.Again probability of a particle having given energy is 1/X, and probability of another particle to have that same given energy is, 1 + 1/X or (X + 1)/ X. Now ratio of a particle having given energy and another particle to have same energy is given by, 1/(X + 1). Thus the probability of a particle having same energy as by another particle is decreased to if that energy is not occupied. This is known as FermiDirac distribution.So we see that there are no more two other kinds of particles obeying quantum statics but conditional probability distribution of same kind of particles.

TheHappyAtheist 4 weeks ago
I love how Greene monitors this group of scientists “nerding out” on over antimatter. It’s endearing as well as fascinating.

Bassotronics 4 weeks ago
When matter and antimatter annihilate into energy, what type of energy? Where does it go? Does it just float in space?

Neil Libertine 4 weeks ago
If one look at black body oscillator curve, it consists of two parts. First is about gaining of energy by oscillator and second is losing of energy or emission of light. The maximum point or cusp of two parts, known as Wein's frequency of maximum emission at thermal equilibrium or constant power. Thermal equlilibrium not means that absorption and emission is equal but rate of emission is constant.The black body curve is equivalent to motion of particle we discussed. First part is ideal galilean where speed is increasing and second part is real aristotlean where speed become constant on constant applying force. The consequence of black body curve is that energy of wave is not directly proportional to frequency but inversely. This is big setback for current notion and concepts of energy and frequency relation. So energy of wave having higher wavelength have more energy if relation between speed and product of wavelength and frequency remain constant.About ideal oscillator which is not as curve shown of black body but given by RayleighJeans law. At very very high temperature, an ideal oscillator emits only single frequency, monochromatic source and its energy density is infinite. While real oscillator as described by curve of black body, emits radiation of all frequencies at constant energy density for very very high temperature.

Neil Libertine 1 months ago
Now this is upside down view of Planck's blackbody radiation law. First, it is in no way proves that emission by body is in discrete and not continuous, so there is no quantum mechanics. Second, it is never about black body as ideal oscillator. If it would be that then curve should be exponential and no radiation from higher frequency and at high temperature there is pure monochromatic radiation. See, if thermal energy is available and there is no loss then curve of energy radiated is keep rising. Third, graph is not between energy density per frequency and frequency but energy density and frequency. Fourth, Wein's displacement law is incorrectly stated, frequency is inversely proportional to temperature. So on increasing temperature, maximum energy transfer is toward lower frequency.Now if Planck's law is for solids, how it is used to explain for interaction of energy with matter in terms of gases or isolated atom. Does gas absorb energy for radiation or motion. And does energy levels are equally parted. In solids there is interatomic structure that binds atoms, so absorbed thermal energy dissipated as light can be supposed by. Also solids on heated expands, so frequency is lowered on expansion by high temperature.The only way it act as quantum oscillator if on temperature increase, radiation from inner core comes to surface but that violates other radiation laws, specially StefanBoltzman if i am correct, from which this whole derivation comes.
I'd like to think that there is an equal and opposite universe existing out there somewhere.