ooohnoooooo, it's like Michael @vsauce without a beard

Apparently that cat is not alive. The wave function has collapsed, and the mustache is dead:D

@@juzoli Don's mustache is/was a cat. Confirmed.

Maybe this is Don from a parallel universe. Where instead of being evil, he just has no mustache.

@@MuttFitness He was the evil one all along. And we just got the good Don back. Does it mean that his evil plan, to build a huge neutrino gun and shoot the Earth with it is cancelled?

tom select * from table students

@@sasavukelic :)

@@sasavukelic 😂😂😂

Actually the best proof of Tom Selleck’s mustache is its gravitational pull on hot chicks.

Maybe we should invest in a detector to find out? Measure it's waveform and force it through a pair of slits.

For science enthusiasts all around the globe!

@@rael_gc ha ha Let's prove it's a globe first before you get too excited

@@johnkean6852 oh dear. Moving on.

@@johnkean6852 Go touch some grass.

Not only local scientists! Canadian scientists too!

This is another liberal waste of money... The Few trying to run before we can afford to walk properly, as a species.. Wasting so much money, brains and natural resource... PrivateSi's Most Unfortunate Law: The uselessness of a Big State Science Project to 99.999999% of the world's population is proportional to its size and cost... It's a Nazti curve too, with many useless, expensive uber-projects that tax payers don't get to vote on directly.

Then why is privatesi "wasting" its time watching this?

@@benhall2146 .. To make a good point that you cannot refute because it's blatantly true... How will this knowledge (if actually true) help, practically speaking again? As a down to Earth guy? Who funds it? What choice did they have in the matter?

@@benhall2146 because you cant know the validity of a data set until you watch it !

@@PrivateSi people said the same thing about radio astronomy but the only reason Internet is possible is because of the advances in radio astronomy.thanks them instead of rubbish criticism

It would be mundane until he goes off on a tangent explaining how the combined uncertainty of the atoms and their constituent parts mean that the door is open and closed simultaneously. Further extrapolation of which will show how the door is everywhere all the time, including how it becomes a portal to anywhere and anywhen in the multiverse as a result. Someone/something will then knock on the example, free standing door he is using, from the other side, causing him to freeze up, unwilling to answer the phantom knock.

No no, that's top secret. Even American presidents don't know they work!

How about how the s on the end of 'door works' disappeared and all the misinterpretations could change the presentation and any experiments involved. ;-)

It's mundane until you bring statics into the mix.

Yay! Don's back!

It's great to join the university and get a degree 🎓. Like I can't imagine a doctor prescribe therapy for cancer without knowing what a gene or chromosome is.

theoria apophasis has very interesting things for you on his KZfaq channel! I would check it out.

Just find the Quantum Duck for me, that is where all the quarks come from.

This is another liberal waste of money... The Few trying to run before we can afford to walk properly, as a species.. Wasting so much money, brains and natural resource... PrivateSi's Most Unfortunate Law: The uselessness of a Big State Science Project to 99.999999% of the world's population is proportional to its size and cost... It's a Nazti curve too, with many useless, expensive uber-projects that tax payers don't get to vote on directly.

I highly recommend PBS Space Time. They do a great job at explaining complex physics with visual aides and minimal jargon.

Dune has nothing to do with physic !

Tell all your friends and enemies.

Yes, we should be precise in science and say we are 99.7% sure that dark matter exists. There's always some remote possibility we are wrong.

@@cloudpoint0 Where are you getting that number from? It sounds a bit off.

@@benjystrauss2524 If you ask 1000 scientists if they think dark matter exists, 997 will say it does. But you are probably correct. I may be lowballing a bit.

​@@cloudpoint0 What you are thinking of is sigma significance, not what individual scientists think is true, but how confident we can be in the discovery. 99.7% is a very high ball, as it would mean that dark matter has been verified to 3 sigma, which is not the case: this would have been absolutely massive news. Either way though, I really want to see your source.

@@benjystrauss2524 Three represents the few scientific nutcases that think 26.8% of the universe’s energy is not a fact in spite of multiple lines of evidence that can measure and detect it. It doesn’t mean the detail nature of dark matter is known but its group effect and existence is without doubt. This is at least a three sigma conclusion. I’m sure dark matter made lots of headlines when it was discovered by Fritz Zwicky in 1933. I think Dr. Don is just saying an actual particle has not been found to associate with dark matter. He cares about this because he is a particle guy. Dark matter could be something other than a particle although there isn’t really another sensible alternative that hasn’t already been ruled out. But we know dark matter of some kind exists. It isn’t remarkable to think that it is a particle somewhat similar to a neutrino, otherwise known as the ghost particle. Or do you doubt that neutrinos exist too since they can only be detected when moving at near light speed? Cold dark matter moves slowly so detection is not possible in this way. Why are you so opposed to reality? Is dark matter against your religion? i.stack.imgur.com/IhWZK.jpg

👍hope you succeed

@@desiderata8811 thanks for the motivation!!

Best of luck

@@chillychese thanks a lot

Abhijit? What kind of name is that?🤔🤔🤔. You cant be a physicist with that name...🤣🤣

(And it is a good informational video, I just sometimes get stuck on the visual things)

I'm sure Dr. Don will go back to that format at some point.

I miss the moustache :-(

@@Nihilicious83 Never been a big mustache fan, so I can let that go. But the books gave things a more comfortable aesthetic.

@@Nihilicious83 Have you ever heard of Schrodinger's mustache?

nope not really ,you are in closed environment with no way out and with a growing population and a decreasing amount of ressources ! and no matter what you wont break the speed of light making any hope of stellar exploration highly unlikely at least by biological humans !

@@calgar42k Thank you for the parachute. What are you inventing next?

@@nHans me nothing but the fact is at some point people will have to understand you cant sustain an economy by making babies to pay the debts and the bills...

In English the closest spelling might be de Broil or maybe duh Broyle.

Here's the thing about the pronunciation of names: It's not absolute. Names are pronounced according to the language and region of the _speaker,_ not necessarily the native way a person would have pronounced their own name. I've lived and worked in Asia, Western Europe, and North America. I can tell you from my own experience that everybody mangles foreign names, even the French. When I joked to my American colleagues how the Europeans mangled my name, they said I wasn't alone. Their own English names had been mangled as well. My colleague Howard told me that when he visited Paris, the French called him "Owaar," and when he told them it was like the aviator Hughes, they said "Oog" 😂 In general, there's no one "correct" way to pronounce a name. • Two people with the same name may pronounce it differently if they're from different languages, cultures, or regions. • Let alone two different people. The same person might pronounce their own name differently in different regions. For example, a lot of people who emigrated to America Americanized their names, _including Einstein, Von Neumann, Antonin Dvorak, and Vito Corleone!_ 😁 That's the price De Broglie pays for international fame; the price Howard and I pay for the privilege of traveling internationally in this multicultural, multilinguistic world. It's not done maliciously, so I don't get worked up about it. Neither should you. Coming to the way Dr. Lincoln pronounces foreign names. (Foreign to him, that is, non-American names.) In general, if you have to pronounce a name-any name-would you say it like a native, or the way your target audience expects it? From a practical point of view-unless you're specifically teaching them how to pronounce names-I say the latter. You're trying to get across a message, and you don't want them to get side-tracked. So it's not just names-you should also use _their_ units of measurement, sports, and pop-culture references. That's exactly what Dr. Lincoln is doing. As an American working in America and speaking in American English, his primary target is a non-technical American audience. He definitely knows that the American pronunciations of foreign names is different from foreign (native) pronunciations. It's not difficult for him or his research team to dig up the native pronunciation. But he deliberately uses the American pronunciation-it's the reason I've mentioned earlier. _And it's not wrong!_ It's the culturally accepted practice everywhere. His pronunciation would be considered wrong if and only if (1) It was not the commonly accepted pronunciation in his language, region, and target audience, _and_ (2) it was not the native pronunciation either. A broader, international audience is expected to understand that. So, yeah, it's futile to call out speakers because they don't pronounce words the way you do: • If they're confident of the pronunciation, it's because that's how they've heard it being pronounced, and they expect the audience to understand whom they're talking about. Dr. Lincoln falls in this category. Remember, this is not an extemporaneous talk. It's a planned production-it has been scripted, rehearsed, recorded, and edited before being published. If he or his producers were doubtful of the pronunciation, they'd have re-recorded that part and edited it in. Fermi Lab has the resources to do it! • Otherwise they already know that they don't know the "correct" pronunciation. They still need to move on with the rest of the talk, so they do the best they can, hoping that the audience will understand. They may hesitate, they may stumble, they may apologize for their pronunciation-it's really up to the speakers' individual style. For the listeners, the key is to not miss the forest for the trees.

@@nHans I'm certainly not worked up about it. The way it's spelled and the way it's said is so different that there's even actual jokes about it in France. The only purpose of my message was to convey information, just so, for exemple,people know that when they hear someone say "de brogli" said as written or something like "de broyle" it's the same guy. There's no point in blaming someone for there pronounciation of foreign names and that was not my intent in any way.

he looks 20 years younger

Mustachions.

@@JDSleeper Then no moustache ever in any future video.

If these 'scientists' didnt spend their careers building expensive toys they would probably be building weapons of mass destruction. Its safer to have them just doing maths and stuff and publishing BS papers.

@@fivish WMDs are more fun to play with.

I wondered how long a comment on that would take. 29 seconds is the answer.

It's still there in spirit

@@donlincoln1961 man feels so weird seeing him without the moustache

It takes minutes off your age.

I don't think it is appropriate to make dad jokes within this context. I seriously think you don't understand the gravity of the situation.

@@MrElvis1971 Your reply displays much uncertainty. It screams for a response to probe whether it shall collapse all its fringes into a singular point mass or remain beyond the event horizon of the observables.

Speaking of observables, last night I went to look at the sunset. I was looking at the horizon and noticed the king of the birds, a Hawk. It was amazing to see the Hawk King at the horizon. It was eventful.

Good job. People have to stand up against this bullshit.

I only know that i know nothing. So i guess if i try to learn something i end up with negative knowledge , if the more i discover the less i know...

The more we know, the more unknown unknowns become known unknowns.

It's turtles all the way down.

That could mean you're heading in the wrong direction. But you can only speak for yourself.

Has she? A new one because she made a video about dark matter a while ago. She doesn’t think it’s real.

@@pansepot1490 she posted this link on her channels community tab kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nMdnp5qksbTKlqM.html

@@pansepot1490 it’s not real

Read Chae et al, Testing the Strong Equivalence Principle. Dont worry about MOND, it's not needed to understand the basic idea, that the gravitational attraction between galaxies is too large to be ignored.

He sells "smart pills" on Infomercials

:D

You're welcome.