Speaker 1: Hey, Daniel, tell me a good physics story. Oh you
Speaker 1: came to the right place. Okay, but don't tell me
Speaker 1: you said a story about amazing physics. I want something
Speaker 1: with drama, because like the universe isn't dramatic enough for you.
Speaker 1: I mean I want a story with like intrigue and
Speaker 1: sabotage and conflict and you know, people fighting and you know, revolutions. Oh,
Speaker 1: I see you want like Jason Bourne in a lab coat. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, don't you look like Matt Damon or Tom Cruise.
Speaker 1: You can make a movie called Thesis Impossible. All right,
Speaker 1: you asked for it. I have got a juicy story
Speaker 1: for you. Hi, I am more handmad cartoonist and the
Speaker 1: creator of PhD comment. Hi, I'm Daniel Whitson. I'm a
Speaker 1: particle physicist, and I like to imagine that my dramatic
Speaker 1: life would be well adapted to a telenovelt with a
Speaker 1: lot of twists and turns and evil twins. Twin particles.
Speaker 1: I guess there are twin particles and physics, there are
Speaker 1: twin that we don't know which ones are good and
Speaker 1: which ones we could be the evil twins, that's right,
Speaker 1: And lots of dramatic revelations that your advisor has other
Speaker 1: grad students you didn't even know about. Well, Welcome to
Speaker 1: our podcast Daniel and Jorge Explained the Universe, a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio, in which we take you on
Speaker 1: a tour of all the drama in the universe, the
Speaker 1: black holes, the neutron stars, that tiny particles, the discovery
Speaker 1: of those particles, and try to make you understand what
Speaker 1: scientists are thinking about, what people on the very forefront
Speaker 1: of human understanding are puzzling over today. Yeah, because we
Speaker 1: like to talk about all the amazing things out there
Speaker 1: to discover and all the things that we have discovered,
Speaker 1: and sometimes we like to talk about how we discovered
Speaker 1: these things, because you know, sometimes the store is pretty
Speaker 1: dramatic or you know, interesting, or tells us a little
Speaker 1: bit about how signs were. That's right, because you can
Speaker 1: look back at history and say, oh, if I had
Speaker 1: been around, I would have discovered the electron. Or it's
Speaker 1: pretty simple actually to figure out what the photon is,
Speaker 1: and it's a quantum mechanical object. But when you're standing there,
Speaker 1: I think you might be alone there, then yeah, I
Speaker 1: would sit around thinking, you know, I could have discovered
Speaker 1: the electronic Hey, Einstein when the Nobel Prize for interpreting
Speaker 1: other people's experiments that were already published. It's like, you know,
Speaker 1: sit around for an afternoon, read some papers, boom, Nobel Prize,
Speaker 1: Noel change the course of history. So if you know
Speaker 1: how to do it, if you know where to go,
Speaker 1: it's pretty straightforward. But when you're standing at the forefront
Speaker 1: of human ignorance and you don't know what the solution is,
Speaker 1: it's much more complicated. So I think it's really worthwhile
Speaker 1: rewinding our understanding and remembering, like what were people thinking
Speaker 1: at the moment, What were the questions they were asking,
Speaker 1: what was confusing, what was simple? What were the ideas
Speaker 1: of the time. I think what you're saying, Daniel, is
Speaker 1: that there's a fine line between a thought experiment and
Speaker 1: just making stuff that's right. And that's why I prefer
Speaker 1: to do real experiments in the collider and actually ask
Speaker 1: nature questions. All right, Well, today on the program will
Speaker 1: be continuing our series about how particles weren't discovered? You know,
Speaker 1: particles and things that matter and all the things in
Speaker 1: the universe are made out of How did we actually
Speaker 1: discover these things and know that they existed and know
Speaker 1: what they look like, and know how much they weigh
Speaker 1: and what they would like to wear in the morning.
Speaker 1: I don't even know how to respond to did that.
Speaker 1: I'm imagining a photon getting dressed or something. But but
Speaker 1: I think this is really fascinating because currently we have
Speaker 1: fantastic theoretical understanding of all the particles, how they fit together,
Speaker 1: what they are, and of course lots of outstanding questions.
Speaker 1: But there's a wonderful history there. Each particle is like
Speaker 1: a hard fought victory. Each one was like, how do
Speaker 1: we figure out that this particle is also there? And
Speaker 1: you know, in the end, our theory has to describe experiments.
Speaker 1: We've developed a theory in order to describe all the
Speaker 1: crazy experiments that we've seen that review of the existence
Speaker 1: of those partners. So it's a lot of fun to
Speaker 1: to sort of reimagine and understand how each one was discovered,
Speaker 1: because you know, I think that looking at history now
Speaker 1: and looking at it science now, it's kind of hard
Speaker 1: to believe sometimes that there was a time where we
Speaker 1: didn't know anything. We didn't know any of these things.
Speaker 1: We didn't know that electronic existed, or protons existent, or
Speaker 1: protons existed, or what they wore in the morning, and
Speaker 1: so it's it's kind of interesting to kind of put
Speaker 1: yourself in the mindset of the people who didn't know anything,
Speaker 1: but they discovered what actually reality is like absolutely, And
Speaker 1: it gives you another fun exercise, which is to imagine
Speaker 1: somebody in a hundred years, how would they look back
Speaker 1: at what we know now. They will have hopefully a
Speaker 1: grasp of, you know, the shape, the size of the
Speaker 1: universe and why it's accelerating, and maybe what the smallest
Speaker 1: particles are, and they'll look back at us and they'll
Speaker 1: be like, oh my gosh, those guys knew nothing about
Speaker 1: the universe. How did they even go to work? They
Speaker 1: were making stuff off on podcasts? And I like to
Speaker 1: think of, you know, human knowledge is one of these
Speaker 1: exponentially growing graphs, and at every point it seems like,
Speaker 1: why we know a hundred times what we knew fifty
Speaker 1: years ago, and then in fifty years we will again
Speaker 1: dwarf human knowledge. So I'm looking forward to that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to being dwarfed. There are positive exponential graphs,
Speaker 1: not just negative ones. So we've done this podcast episode
Speaker 1: on electrons and positrons and photons and muons, and so
Speaker 1: did they. On the program, we'll be asking the question
Speaker 1: our quarks discovered. Is this a quirky story, Daniel? You know,
Speaker 1: this is one of the most dramatic stories in all
Speaker 1: of particle physics. There really are crazy things in these stories.
Speaker 1: You know. There is sabotage, There are competing public announcements,
Speaker 1: There are arguments about how to name particles. There are
Speaker 1: stories about leaked information being slipped from one experiment to
Speaker 1: the other. Yeah, it's pretty crazy. No, there is real drama.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm waiting for the six episode mini series
Speaker 1: on Netflix about this. Said of the murder explosions, Now
Speaker 1: we didn't get that far. That's right, Tiger Kings becomes
Speaker 1: particle kings. Oh, I see, like the true crime. That
Speaker 1: could be the new genre of Netflix true physics. But
Speaker 1: as usually, we were wondering how many people out there
Speaker 1: know the story of how courts were invented because you know,
Speaker 1: quarks and just a quick recap, there are the mini particles, Dad,
Speaker 1: everything else is kind of made out of most of
Speaker 1: everything else, protons and neutrons are made out of quarks,
Speaker 1: and so these are pretty fundamental particles, right, Daniel. They're
Speaker 1: not just like you know some novelty butts, right, They're
Speaker 1: not just some random thing you pick up in the
Speaker 1: store on the way home and then throw away unused.
Speaker 1: There are the things that make up me and you.
Speaker 1: I am made out of atoms, and those atoms have
Speaker 1: neutrons and protons at the center, and all those neutrons
Speaker 1: and protons are made of quarks. And all the matter
Speaker 1: that you've ever tasted and touched and tripped over or
Speaker 1: thrown at each other is made of quarks and electrons.
Speaker 1: So they're pretty important. So, as Daniel does, he went
Speaker 1: out into the streets and ask people if they knew
Speaker 1: how corks were discovered. Now, as usually, we'll think about
Speaker 1: it for a second, then put yourself a hundred years ago,
Speaker 1: and as yourself if you know how corks were discovered.
Speaker 1: Here's what people had to say. Some scientists in the
Speaker 1: colder found it. Uh. I don't actually don't know how
Speaker 1: they were discovered. You know, I've been learned about that.
Speaker 1: Was it m colectron cloud chamber or something. No, that's
Speaker 1: not the quirks. That's for something else, that's like positrons
Speaker 1: or something using a particle accelerator. I don't know all right,
Speaker 1: that's cool. I don't even know what they are, so
Speaker 1: I just discovered by the inclusion of items. I mean much,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't remember the name of the machine,
Speaker 1: but this clusion of particles, all right. Not a lot
Speaker 1: of deep knowledge of history of physics in the public, No,
Speaker 1: not so much. There's some pretty good answers here, like
Speaker 1: the guy who knows how positive arms were discus were
Speaker 1: in cloud chambers. And you know, people giving credit to
Speaker 1: the Hadron collider, which is, you know, not too far
Speaker 1: off the certainly we're discovered in collisions. Interesting, so you know,
Speaker 1: some knowledges. It seems like some people thought of courts
Speaker 1: were discovered recently, like the LHC. You know, this thing
Speaker 1: is twenty years old, tops and the quarks we've known
Speaker 1: about since the sixties and seventies, so it definitely was
Speaker 1: not the large Hadron Collider responsible for discovering corks. And
Speaker 1: I'm just curious here, how did you get these questions?
Speaker 1: Did you go out into the street before the pandemic
Speaker 1: or or during the pandemic? Do you have now like
Speaker 1: a six foot selfie stick with a microphone? I, shockingly,
Speaker 1: I actually work on these things kind of far in
Speaker 1: advance so that I'm prepared for a PANDAMA. I have
Speaker 1: a stockpile of questions. I have asked people on the street.
Speaker 1: I see you have a federal stockpile, the National Strategic Reserve,
Speaker 1: A random questions. All right, good, So people were still
Speaker 1: feeling optimistic about signs. All right, it seems like not
Speaker 1: a lot of people know the stories, and you're saying
Speaker 1: that it's full of drama and interesting twist and turns.
Speaker 1: So tell us story, Daniel said the scene. What was
Speaker 1: it like back then? And what year are we talking about?
Speaker 1: So let me take you back to seven, A dramatic world,
Speaker 1: A cold winter blew into Chicago. Now you have to
Speaker 1: sort of rewind back to before the clues were found
Speaker 1: for quarks, and back in seven, we actually had a
Speaker 1: pretty clear picture we thought of how the universe looked.
Speaker 1: We felt like we knew things were mandat of Adams
Speaker 1: and Adams were manat of some bits inside. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: knew there were atoms, and we knew those atoms had
Speaker 1: protons and neutrons and electrons. We also knew they were photons.
Speaker 1: And we felt like, hey, that's a pretty good picture
Speaker 1: of the universe. And I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: in physics felt like that might be it, Like maybe
Speaker 1: you know, we're coming up to the last end of
Speaker 1: the road and we're gonna answer all the questions, and
Speaker 1: that's going to give us a sort of last sense
Speaker 1: for what the universe has meant. There can't be anything
Speaker 1: smaller than these particles. These are it. These are the
Speaker 1: basic building blocks of life, the universe and everything in it.
Speaker 1: That's right, But of course there were a few lo threads, right,
Speaker 1: There are a few things which didn't quite fit into
Speaker 1: that picture. And that's a lesson. Right, every time there's
Speaker 1: a little loose thread, one thing that doesn't quite fit
Speaker 1: into the hole you wanted to, you should pull on
Speaker 1: that thread, you should mix that. Metaphor, until you figure
Speaker 1: out the secret of the universe, you should just ignore it,
Speaker 1: repress it. And some of those those threads were things
Speaker 1: like muans. Like remember we talked about how muans were discovered,
Speaker 1: and when they were first found, people were like, what, who,
Speaker 1: what are that? We don't need those muans. They're not
Speaker 1: part of the atoms. They're just particles that seemed to
Speaker 1: have been there, but they weren't part of regular matter exactly.
Speaker 1: That was the kind of clue we're talking about. And
Speaker 1: there were other particles like pions that were found in
Speaker 1: cosmic rays and people are like, hum, what are these
Speaker 1: particles about? We don't need them to build matter. Interesting,
Speaker 1: but they can't exist. Why do they even exist? What's
Speaker 1: the idea? And so you see them, but they're they're
Speaker 1: not part of most of things. So I guess that's
Speaker 1: a weird thing, right, It's a pretty weird thing, but
Speaker 1: it also gives you a clue. It gives you a
Speaker 1: clue for like what kind of particles can be out there?
Speaker 1: And in the end, remember, what you're looking for is
Speaker 1: an answer to the deepest question right to understand, like
Speaker 1: the nature of reality. So you want the full menu.
Speaker 1: And those few little threads then turned into I don't
Speaker 1: know what's the metaphor here, a whole rug, I suppose,
Speaker 1: or a whole pile of yarm, giant haystack, the giant
Speaker 1: haystack because originally we had these weird, unstable particles muans
Speaker 1: and pions just from looking them come down from the
Speaker 1: sky and cosmic rays. But then people built particle accelerators.
Speaker 1: They weren't satisfied just to sort of look at high
Speaker 1: energy particles that we already found in nature. They wanted
Speaker 1: to create their own collisions to explore these things with
Speaker 1: more control. So people build particle accept smash things in
Speaker 1: front of them, not just wait wait till they come
Speaker 1: reigining down. Yeah, you want to do it on your terms.
Speaker 1: You know, you want to have control. I want to say,
Speaker 1: I want to turn up the energy, I want to
Speaker 1: turn down the energy. I want to call this kind
Speaker 1: of particle that kind of particle, right, I want to
Speaker 1: see what it feels like when I stick my hand
Speaker 1: into it. I mean, that's a basic reiosity, right. Um.
Speaker 1: And so what they found when they built these accelerators
Speaker 1: was a whole lot of new particles. They found kaons
Speaker 1: and strange particles and all sorts of stuff. We talked
Speaker 1: a little bit about strange matter on the program recently.
Speaker 1: And this is an era we call the particle zoo
Speaker 1: because basically, every time they turned on the accelerator they
Speaker 1: found some new party. Did you guys have a theme
Speaker 1: song jingle like particles particle zoo ra Welcome to our
Speaker 1: particles Zoo. Yeah, so I guess you didn't have particle accelerators.
Speaker 1: But he thought, hey, let's see what else happened when
Speaker 1: things smashed together, because that's I guess that's what you
Speaker 1: knew was happening in the atmosphere. Yeah, we had a
Speaker 1: sense that these things needed more energy. Right, These unstable
Speaker 1: particles were heavier, meaning that they contained more energy, and
Speaker 1: then they decayed down to lighter particles. To to try
Speaker 1: to create new heavy particles, you want to create localized
Speaker 1: energy density. You want to smash two particles together, so
Speaker 1: you've got a little like blob of energy right there,
Speaker 1: maybe enough to create something new. And so that's what
Speaker 1: these first particle accelerators did was create these high energy
Speaker 1: density situations where you could create these new particles. And
Speaker 1: we found zillions and zillions of these because at this
Speaker 1: point you sort of new about equals mc square and
Speaker 1: then you knew that you know, things can matter can
Speaker 1: come from pure energy. That's right, you can create new matter.
Speaker 1: It's I mean, it's alchemy, right. People have been trying
Speaker 1: to do this for thousands of years, and we actually
Speaker 1: were able to do it. By smashing particles together at
Speaker 1: high energy. You can create new kinds of matter and
Speaker 1: that's exciting, right, like wow, Look, every time you turn
Speaker 1: it on, you create a new particle and then you
Speaker 1: get to name it after your puppy or whatever. But
Speaker 1: it's also continge name it after their puppy. I don't
Speaker 1: have a record of that. No, Back in that day,
Speaker 1: they were mostly naming them after Greek letters, so you
Speaker 1: got lots of you know, sigmas and theatas and upsilons
Speaker 1: and this kind of stuff. But it was also confusing.
Speaker 1: Maybe they named their puppies after it's probably lots of
Speaker 1: puppies named upsilon and data. But you know, once you're
Speaker 1: once you sort of your even satisfied you've created all
Speaker 1: these new particles, then you're looking at it and you're
Speaker 1: looking for patterns. You're like, Okay, why are there these
Speaker 1: particles and not other particles? What does this mean about
Speaker 1: the nature of the universe? Like how are they related? Yeah,
Speaker 1: because we don't want an answer that says, oh, there's
Speaker 1: ninety two different kind of fundamental particles, right, we suspect
Speaker 1: that the answer is a small number of particles. We
Speaker 1: want to explain the whole universe using a small set
Speaker 1: of pieces, right, like the legos. We want to build
Speaker 1: everything out of a small number of basic blocks seventy
Speaker 1: four And we often talk about how we had the
Speaker 1: periodic table of elements, and how that was kind of
Speaker 1: something that told us that when you have a lot
Speaker 1: of these things out there in the universe, there's probably
Speaker 1: some kind of pattern or some kind of underlying building
Speaker 1: block to them. Yeah, every time you see unexplained phenomena,
Speaker 1: weird patterns, trends you don't understand, it's probably an emergent
Speaker 1: phenomenon from the arrangement of smaller bits. Just like in
Speaker 1: the periodic table. You see all these patterns, and that
Speaker 1: tells you that there's something else go going on, And
Speaker 1: you're absolutely right. Every feature of the periodic table comes
Speaker 1: from how the electrons sit in their orbitals around the nucleus,
Speaker 1: and so people suspected They're like, well, maybe all these
Speaker 1: new crazy particles we found are reflective of something smaller,
Speaker 1: something tinier, and all these patterns that masters these particles
Speaker 1: in the way they interact come from how those little
Speaker 1: bits are fit together. That was sort of the nugget
Speaker 1: of the idea. And so they found a pattern, right,
Speaker 1: and all of these particles in the particle zoo, They're like,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, the lions are sort of like smaller
Speaker 1: versions of the elephants, and the zeros are sort of
Speaker 1: have four legs, just like the lines kind of thing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we had a decade of discovering new particles and
Speaker 1: then in nineteen sixty one, a theorist came up with
Speaker 1: an idea. He said, well, I noticed that if I
Speaker 1: categorize the particles in two ways, one by their electric
Speaker 1: charge and the other way by their strangeness. And remember,
Speaker 1: some of these particles are strange in the sense that
Speaker 1: they last a lot longer than you would expect. And
Speaker 1: you can listen to our whole podcast episode about strangeness.
Speaker 1: And so people postulated this new property of particles strangeness,
Speaker 1: and they give particles strangeness zero like the proton and
Speaker 1: the neutron, or strangeness one, or strangeness too, And then
Speaker 1: they just made a table and meaning like, it's strange
Speaker 1: because given how massive it is, how munched ways, it
Speaker 1: shouldn't be around this lng like kNs last a lot
Speaker 1: longer than you would expect, and the reason is that
Speaker 1: they have strangeness. Then the universe likes to preserve strangeness,
Speaker 1: so it tries to find a way for the kon
Speaker 1: to dec to keep the strangeness into the products, and
Speaker 1: that takes longer. It's a weaker interaction. But protons are
Speaker 1: pretty stable, and they're supposed to be stable, so they
Speaker 1: have zero strange protons have no Now we know that
Speaker 1: strangeness actually reflects the strange quarks inside of it, but
Speaker 1: at the time they didn't know. They were just like,
Speaker 1: this is a property, these particles, and a lot of
Speaker 1: particle physics, it's just like writing down properties we observe
Speaker 1: and wondering where they come from, and wondering if we
Speaker 1: can see patterns and then explain those patterns in terms
Speaker 1: of something deeper. And so at the time, you know,
Speaker 1: they knew the charge of these particles, they could measure that,
Speaker 1: and they had sort of invented this idea of strangeness
Speaker 1: just by observing how the particles decayed and labeling them
Speaker 1: strangeness one, strangeness zero. And then they noticed this pattern.
Speaker 1: They called it the eightfold way because they noticed that
Speaker 1: if you arrange the particles according to strangeness versus charge,
Speaker 1: that they formed these octagons, right, and they formed these
Speaker 1: triangles and all these really interesting geometric patterns. All right,
Speaker 1: So they found a bunch of particles and they found
Speaker 1: a pattern maybe a clue to what all these particles. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they found these geometric patterns and that suggested to
Speaker 1: them that, like, you know, maybe there's something going on here,
Speaker 1: maybe there's a reason for all these patterns. And the
Speaker 1: theorist that came up with this eightfold way found a
Speaker 1: hole in those patterns, like there was one triangle that
Speaker 1: was missing a corner and said, okay, well, maybe there's
Speaker 1: a particle there. You would have to have this strangeness
Speaker 1: and this charge to be in that corner, and he
Speaker 1: predicted its existence and then they found it, like, oh,
Speaker 1: you were right, this new particle does exist. So that
Speaker 1: was the first clue that maybe this pattern really reflected
Speaker 1: something because it wasn't just imaginary, like they weren't just
Speaker 1: imagining things. You could actually find particles using these patterns. Yeah,
Speaker 1: just like with the periodic table. We started putting it
Speaker 1: together and we noticed some holes and we're like, where's
Speaker 1: this element number or whatever that we don't see in nature.
Speaker 1: It turns out, you know, it does exist. You can
Speaker 1: create it. It's just very unstable. In the same way,
Speaker 1: they were able to fill out these triangles and these
Speaker 1: octagons of the eightfold way. All right, Well, let's get
Speaker 1: into what this pattern actually meant or means and how
Speaker 1: it helped them make sense of the particle zoo as
Speaker 1: far as let's take a quick break, all right. You know,
Speaker 1: so they found a bunch of particles and they saw
Speaker 1: that there was some kind of pattern to the meaning
Speaker 1: that there is something going on here. Yeah. Yeah. Every
Speaker 1: time you see a pattern, that's your first clue because
Speaker 1: it lets you sort of play games with what's going
Speaker 1: on underneath. Right, you want to find some way to
Speaker 1: explain a very complicated set of things. You've observed ninety
Speaker 1: two different particles with all weird masses and behaviors in
Speaker 1: terms of a smaller set of objects, And so finding
Speaker 1: that pattern gave them a clue as to how to
Speaker 1: put that together. And so they came up with the
Speaker 1: idea that maybe there are even smaller particles that kind
Speaker 1: of put together to make these bigger parties. Yes, exactly,
Speaker 1: And that's sort of the idea that particle physicists are
Speaker 1: always looking to write, like everything is made of smaller bits.
Speaker 1: That's like the oldest idea in particle physics. And so
Speaker 1: they thought, well, we have all these particles, can we
Speaker 1: explain them in terms of smaller bits, right, They're like,
Speaker 1: we're particle physics. You only have particles, right, that's right,
Speaker 1: that's our hands. Like when you have a particle, everything
Speaker 1: looks like a particle. T that's our hammers. So everything's
Speaker 1: the nail exactly. And this idea actually came up independently
Speaker 1: by two different theorists, and they came up with the
Speaker 1: same idea that there could be these three little particles that,
Speaker 1: if you put them together in different combinations, explain all
Speaker 1: the particles that we see, but not all of them, right,
Speaker 1: Like some of them like the muan. Isn't the muon
Speaker 1: kind of like an electron, it can't be split. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they don't explain all those particles, like the muan is
Speaker 1: not made of quarks. But all those particles discovered, the
Speaker 1: particle zoo, the pions, the chons, the sigma particles, all
Speaker 1: those kind of particles. They could explain all these new
Speaker 1: ones in terms of these little basic particles. And so
Speaker 1: Murray Gelman came up with this idea and he called
Speaker 1: them quarks based on a word that he saw in
Speaker 1: a James Joyce novel. And at the same time another
Speaker 1: theorist named Zwag came up with exactly the same idea
Speaker 1: mathematically and published it. But he called them seeming mathematically
Speaker 1: like the mass predicted there would be three of these. Well,
Speaker 1: at the time, all these particles were only made out
Speaker 1: of these three quarks. Now we know that there were
Speaker 1: up quarks, down quirks, and strange corks. Right up and
Speaker 1: down is what you need to make the proton and
Speaker 1: the neutron. You add in strange to make all these
Speaker 1: other strange particles like the kon and the omega and
Speaker 1: the sigma particles. And so at the time they only
Speaker 1: needed three, and the particles they were creating only used
Speaker 1: those three lego pieces I see. But now we know
Speaker 1: there are more. Now we know there are more. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the stories was on and on sort of mathematically to
Speaker 1: explain the ones they had. They thought they were three,
Speaker 1: that's right. And they discovered that if you postulate the
Speaker 1: existence of these three particles, that you could put them
Speaker 1: together in pairs and triplets to explain all the particles
Speaker 1: that they were seeing. So it's like peeling back a
Speaker 1: layer of reality and saying, oh, all these things are
Speaker 1: just different ways to combine these basic building blocks. And
Speaker 1: not only could they explain all the particles that we
Speaker 1: had seen. They could show which particles we hadn't yet seen, Like, oh,
Speaker 1: nobody's tried this combination that would give you this particle
Speaker 1: and predicting it, and then we find it. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly what happened with this omega minus particle that we
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier. That's what they've They've found particles that were
Speaker 1: predicted by these acism quirks. Yeah, exactly, And so that's
Speaker 1: pretty convincing. And you know, if you ask me, I
Speaker 1: would have believed it. Like at that point, I would
Speaker 1: have been sold on this quirk idea. I would have
Speaker 1: been like, well, this, this explains it. It describes all
Speaker 1: the particles we see. It simplifies things and old together.
Speaker 1: But you hadn't seen them. I guess they were just
Speaker 1: sort of like an idea that seems to predict things,
Speaker 1: but you hadn't directly seen them. Yeah, and so most
Speaker 1: physicists were like, all right, that's a cute idea, but
Speaker 1: is it an idea or is it real? Right? Is
Speaker 1: that what's actually happening inside these particles or is it
Speaker 1: just a nice thing you can calculate in your mind.
Speaker 1: And the sort of deep philosophical question there about whether
Speaker 1: any of our theories are more than just ideas we
Speaker 1: calculate in our mind, and whether we actually see anything directly.
Speaker 1: But physicists were skeptical. I guess they're like aces. I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not sure I would call that a name. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I don't know the history of why quarks took
Speaker 1: off instead of aces. Actually like aces better than quarks works.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a weird Quirks sounds like yogurt, you know,
Speaker 1: I think yogurt sounds like quarks. There is a yogurt
Speaker 1: called corks that I guess why would you call them as?
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's it's a positive thing, you know,
Speaker 1: it's celebratory in some way, or it's like, hey, look
Speaker 1: we found a little list bit. It's like the number
Speaker 1: one particle. I don't know, it's it's in a nice
Speaker 1: spot somewhere in my brain, I see. But maybe Gilman
Speaker 1: was barely thinking like, hey, these are weird odd and
Speaker 1: you let's find an award that's kind of weird odd
Speaker 1: And perhaps perhaps and I guess the field liked his
Speaker 1: idea better because quarks is what we call them. Really,
Speaker 1: it was totally just a name popularity. Con I don't
Speaker 1: I've done something really try to figure out, like why
Speaker 1: Quirks took off. It might not just be a name popularity.
Speaker 1: I think Gelmont had a larger personality and was more
Speaker 1: famous and influential, and so, you know, it's a bit
Speaker 1: of a political thing. Doesn't it depend on who published first? Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you know it was just about the same time.
Speaker 1: But sometimes like the second counts, right, the minute counts.
Speaker 1: I think that's ridiculous. But we'll hear a story later
Speaker 1: on in this program about two discoveries announced on the
Speaker 1: same day. All right, so they were theoretical and some
Speaker 1: people didn't believe them. But then what happened? How did
Speaker 1: we say, hey, look, quarts are real. So then we
Speaker 1: got some actual evidence because they did some experiments, and
Speaker 1: experimentalist said, well, if these things are real, we should
Speaker 1: be able to see them, meaning we should be able
Speaker 1: to like take a proton and shoot particles at it
Speaker 1: and see this internal structure. I mean, if protons are
Speaker 1: not just like tiny perfect dots or perfectly smooth, if
Speaker 1: they're actually made of three like hard nuggets bound together,
Speaker 1: we should be able to see them. If we shoot
Speaker 1: electrons adament with high enough internet and what made them
Speaker 1: think that the proton was deconstructible or breakable but not
Speaker 1: the electron. Oh boy, that's a good question. Um, we
Speaker 1: don't know if the electron is deconstructible. We are doing
Speaker 1: experiments to try to figure that. We had a podcast
Speaker 1: episode about whether the electron has stuffed inside it. I
Speaker 1: guess the short answer is, we don't know, and we're
Speaker 1: trying to see if the electron has stuff inside of it.
Speaker 1: We've never seen any evidence. They're just like, hey, let's
Speaker 1: match these two things together and see what happened. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but the theory went that the proton was built out
Speaker 1: of quirks, and so that's what they were testing. The
Speaker 1: suggestion was you could maybe see these things inside protons.
Speaker 1: Nobody suspected that electrons were made out of quirks, And
Speaker 1: we know today that the electron doesn't feel a strong
Speaker 1: force and so it can't be made out of quarks.
Speaker 1: We don't know why and what the difference is not
Speaker 1: the whole other podcast episode, But anyway, they used electrons
Speaker 1: because they're cheap and fast and small to shoot at
Speaker 1: protons to try to see what was inside. Because, like
Speaker 1: I guess, protons are heavier. Protons are much heavier than
Speaker 1: the electrons, and the idea was that maybe they had
Speaker 1: this structure. And so you shoot electrons at a proton,
Speaker 1: it will bounce off. But if you shoot it high
Speaker 1: enough energy, then it can get to break it. They
Speaker 1: have to break it. It can get between those bonds. Right.
Speaker 1: A proton we now know is made it of quarks
Speaker 1: that are held together by really strong bonds. But if
Speaker 1: you shoot at it with electrons that have energy more
Speaker 1: than the energy those bonds, then those bonds are sort
Speaker 1: of irrelevant and you can bounce off the individual corks, right,
Speaker 1: And and so they did that. They shot the proton
Speaker 1: with the revolver in the library, and they found that
Speaker 1: the proton split into three. Yeah, they found not necessarily
Speaker 1: that it's split into three, because remember these corks can't
Speaker 1: be alone, and so if you break up a proton,
Speaker 1: it just the corks inside of it just form a
Speaker 1: new proton and new other particles. But what they found
Speaker 1: was that there were three sort of hard centers in
Speaker 1: the proton, three places where if you hit it just right,
Speaker 1: you would bounce back at a great angle rather than
Speaker 1: passing through. Oh, they were looking at the bounce rate. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they were looking at the bounce rate and the bounce
Speaker 1: angles essentially, And so if the proton is a totally
Speaker 1: solid sphere, then you'll always sort of get the same angles.
Speaker 1: Whereas if the proton is mostly transparent with three hard
Speaker 1: nuggets in it, then often you'll just go your electron
Speaker 1: will go right through it, and sometimes it'll bounce. But
Speaker 1: how did they know there was three of them? Like,
Speaker 1: can you could they actually aim electrons with the You
Speaker 1: can't aim, it's all statistical. You can't aim an individual
Speaker 1: a cork, but you can count how many hard centers
Speaker 1: there are by how often you get a hard bounce back.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is very similar to the way
Speaker 1: the nucleus of the atom was discovered back in the
Speaker 1: day or in the turn of the century, before we
Speaker 1: even knew that the atom had an electron with the
Speaker 1: nucleus in it. Rutherford discovered the nucleus in this exact
Speaker 1: same way. He shot particles at nuclei and found that
Speaker 1: mostly they went through, but occasionally they bounced right back,
Speaker 1: and that's how he discovered the nucleus. Is we're still
Speaker 1: not convinced they saw these hard centers nucod centers and
Speaker 1: physics are still like, yeah, I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: those are Its amazing with me. I don't understand what
Speaker 1: physicists were thinking at the time, Like you had this
Speaker 1: beautiful idea of these tiny particles that explained this big
Speaker 1: mystery that had been going on for twenty years about
Speaker 1: the particle zoo, and then you have this evidence that
Speaker 1: these particles really were made out of smaller particles, and
Speaker 1: still physicists were like, I don't know, And I think
Speaker 1: part of it is that they couldn't see the corks
Speaker 1: on their own, right, They couldn't like create independent, standalone
Speaker 1: corks and study them, like with all the other parts.
Speaker 1: They're only looking at X rays and not at you know,
Speaker 1: holding the bones in their hands. Yeah, and you know, quarks,
Speaker 1: you can't see them by themselves. They can never be
Speaker 1: on their own. They're always tightly bound into these in
Speaker 1: combinations of other corks, into other particles. So maybe that's
Speaker 1: what motivated this skepticism. But you know, I would have
Speaker 1: been I would have been on that train long before this.
Speaker 1: He would have been wearing the cork hat. Yeah, all right,
Speaker 1: So it sounds like it was still sort of an idea,
Speaker 1: maybe a little unproven. People were unconvinced. But then something
Speaker 1: amazing happened, and so let's get into that. But first
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break, all right, Daniel, tell me
Speaker 1: about the November Revolution. It sounds like the October Revolution.
Speaker 1: This happened a month later, or this is a totally
Speaker 1: different thing. I know, it sounds like something that should
Speaker 1: have happened at you know, at the Alamo or some thing.
Speaker 1: But this is a revolution with stars and you know,
Speaker 1: and as far as i'm where, nobody died on this revolution.
Speaker 1: But this is sort of the day that physics changed
Speaker 1: its mind. We went from like, corks are an idea,
Speaker 1: two corks are a real thing, and there's an actual date.
Speaker 1: There's an actual date. Yeah, and that's because that's the
Speaker 1: date of the dueling press conferences that are the end
Speaker 1: of this story. Yeah. And the idea was, if corks
Speaker 1: are real, maybe there are more of them, Like we
Speaker 1: only needed three up, down and strange to explain all
Speaker 1: the particles that we've seen before. But how do we
Speaker 1: know there aren't more corks like a fourth cork? Or
Speaker 1: now we know there are six corks and there are
Speaker 1: actually some theorists that said, you know, it's weird to
Speaker 1: have three because the up and down are sort of
Speaker 1: a pair. They go together. What about the strange cork? Like,
Speaker 1: where is its partner? And you can associate the down
Speaker 1: cork and the strange cork they have the same electric charge.
Speaker 1: Where's the partner of the upcord? Right? Where is the
Speaker 1: version of the upcork that has its electric m You
Speaker 1: mean the Catholics weren't like, three sounds good to me.
Speaker 1: It sounds like a trinity to me. Yeah, there there
Speaker 1: are reasons three seems nice. But also if you have
Speaker 1: corks at pair off, it's weird to have an odd number.
Speaker 1: And so they predicted this fourth cork. They said, well,
Speaker 1: we predicted another cork out there, and they called it Charm,
Speaker 1: and this cork would be a heavy version of the
Speaker 1: up cork. So the way the up and the down
Speaker 1: are a pair, this cork, the Charm and the strange
Speaker 1: would be a pair. So this pair, the Charm and
Speaker 1: Strange are like the heavy version of the up and down.
Speaker 1: There was a fourth beatle missing there, like, yeah, there
Speaker 1: was a fourth needle. And this sold some complicated theoretical problems,
Speaker 1: like people are trying to do some calculations, and the
Speaker 1: calculations didn't work unless you had this other cork also
Speaker 1: in the calculations. So sort of the first clue maybe
Speaker 1: the universe made more sense mad if you had another
Speaker 1: one yes math and so then then people went off
Speaker 1: to look for it. So then November tenth, nineteen four,
Speaker 1: people were like, I didn't know what was coming. And
Speaker 1: then people went off to look for it, and there
Speaker 1: was a guide and my team named Sam Ting. He
Speaker 1: had an idea for how to look for it. It
Speaker 1: was a very nice experiment, very clean. He was shooting
Speaker 1: protons at a target and he was hoping to create
Speaker 1: essentially this cork and its anti cork. He was hoping
Speaker 1: if you smash protons into his target, then occasionally you
Speaker 1: create a charm cork and an anti charm cork into
Speaker 1: this new particle, and then he could see that new party.
Speaker 1: And it was a very nice experiment, except it had
Speaker 1: one weakness, which is that it was sort of slow,
Speaker 1: like it wasn't making a lot of these every day.
Speaker 1: It was going to take him like a year, year
Speaker 1: and a half to get enough of these things where
Speaker 1: he could claim discovery. Because in particle physics you have
Speaker 1: to do things a lot, and then from the sort
Speaker 1: of the statistics, then you say, hey, look that bump
Speaker 1: in the data looks is probably a particle exactly. And
Speaker 1: so he ran his experiment and he was cranking it up,
Speaker 1: and his bump was building up and up and up
Speaker 1: and up. Now, meanwhile, on the other side of the
Speaker 1: country at Stanford, there's a guy named Bert Richter, and
Speaker 1: Bert Richter had access to a much more powerful machine.
Speaker 1: This is a collider that would smash electrons and positrons
Speaker 1: against each other. And this thing was capable of discovering
Speaker 1: a new particle in like an hour. But the problem
Speaker 1: was he'd have to tune it to exactly the right energy.
Speaker 1: Like if you knew exactly the energy you needed to
Speaker 1: create this new particle and you tuned the beams, boom,
Speaker 1: you could produce like a hundred of them in an
Speaker 1: hour and be done. But you had to know how
Speaker 1: to tune the beams. If you didn't know where to look,
Speaker 1: it could be you know, you could be searching forever.
Speaker 1: Like Stanford had a huge microscope, but they just didn't
Speaker 1: know where to look. Yeah, had a huge microscope, but
Speaker 1: they were searching a beach, right and they had to
Speaker 1: like put here, put it here, put it here. If
Speaker 1: they knew where to look for this new particle, they
Speaker 1: could prove it existed right away. Something maybe had a
Speaker 1: giant sifter which was slow, but you know, it would
Speaker 1: cover a wider ring exactly. And so they were racing
Speaker 1: and bert Richter and his team did these scans. They
Speaker 1: started low energies and they scanned up and they didn't
Speaker 1: see anything. And then they scanned down and they scanned
Speaker 1: back up and they didn't see anything. They didn't see anything.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, Sam Ting is accumulating this data and he
Speaker 1: knows exactly where Bert Richter needs to look, but he
Speaker 1: doesn't want to tell him because if bert Richter finds
Speaker 1: out this one piece of information, then he can scoop
Speaker 1: him in just a day. So these two guys across
Speaker 1: the United States, they knew what each of them were
Speaker 1: doing and what they could do. They knew what the
Speaker 1: other one could do. There's a lot of controversy about
Speaker 1: exactly what they knew about each other's experiments and with
Speaker 1: the connections between them. And there's also lots of crazy
Speaker 1: stories here, Like I've heard stories that Sam Ting was
Speaker 1: so desperate to get time to run his experiment, that
Speaker 1: he actually sabotaged other experiments that were using the same word.
Speaker 1: They had to share time with them, and there are
Speaker 1: stories that the other experiments kept having these weird electronics
Speaker 1: problems and every time they would come in after a night,
Speaker 1: their electronics were fried. So finally installed a video camera
Speaker 1: and they're like, what's going on? And the story goes
Speaker 1: that Sam tinge would come in every evening and piss on.
Speaker 1: This is the story. Their story is. There's video evidence.
Speaker 1: I have never seen this video. This is pre internet.
Speaker 1: I do not know if this story is true. What
Speaker 1: do you smell it? Would would they be able to
Speaker 1: tell that somebody was doing this. It's an interesting story
Speaker 1: and it actually reveals something I think about the time
Speaker 1: because at the time field of particle physics was dominated
Speaker 1: by white American dudes mostly, and Sam ting is a
Speaker 1: Chinese guy. He's at M I T, but he's sort
Speaker 1: of an outsider and so this, you know, maybe shades
Speaker 1: of racism in this story. It's not clear whether this
Speaker 1: story is true, but it's a story that exists and
Speaker 1: is out there, and it sort of is the flavor
Speaker 1: of the time. Because Sam ting finally accumulated enough data.
Speaker 1: He's planning to announce his result. He's, you know, calls
Speaker 1: the press conference for the next day, and this is
Speaker 1: like November t right, And meanwhile at slack on November ten,
Speaker 1: they figure out exactly where to look, and they figure
Speaker 1: it out or they figured from Sam. We don't know,
Speaker 1: Like there are stories that maybe there was a leak.
Speaker 1: Sam certainly didn't tell them, but somehow they knew exactly
Speaker 1: where did they look? They turned, They turned the collider there,
Speaker 1: they ran the experiment, they got the plot, they wrote
Speaker 1: the paper the same day. It is all one day.
Speaker 1: Next day. They also call it press currently at the
Speaker 1: same time, now November the same time, So you have
Speaker 1: to press conferences two parts of the country making announcements
Speaker 1: of the same discovery at the same moment. But Sam
Speaker 1: was in Eastern Times and he wins, I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's down to the minute, a
Speaker 1: suspicious you know, like they've been looking for years and
Speaker 1: then suddenly, the day before this guy is about to
Speaker 1: go public, they find the right parameters. And so they
Speaker 1: didn't talk to each other, and so they gave the
Speaker 1: particles different names, like Sam called it the j particle
Speaker 1: and the guys a slack called it the side particle
Speaker 1: is Greek letter. And so we had the same particle
Speaker 1: discovery announced by two different groups on the same day,
Speaker 1: and so and you told me they called the official
Speaker 1: name for this particle is the J side particle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we never resolved this dispute, like people still argue about it.
Speaker 1: There are people in the J camp, people in the
Speaker 1: side camp, but the official name is J slash SI,
Speaker 1: which is like such a cop out. And to this
Speaker 1: day there are people bitter that it's not called the
Speaker 1: SI slash J probably probably, and people who think it
Speaker 1: should just be the J particle, and people who think
Speaker 1: it should just be the side particle. They should just
Speaker 1: call it off and call it something. But they did
Speaker 1: give them the Nobel Prize for this, the nineteen Nobel Prize,
Speaker 1: and they shared it, all right. That's that's a good,
Speaker 1: happy ending for everybody. They were all happy. Probably, No,
Speaker 1: I think there's still a lot of grumpiness in the
Speaker 1: field over this. But the end of the story is
Speaker 1: that this is what really led people to believe that
Speaker 1: corks are real, because we predicted a new one and
Speaker 1: then found it, and that told us that corks are
Speaker 1: not just like an idea for how to explain all
Speaker 1: the particles we've seen so far. They really are sort
Speaker 1: of a more basic fundamental building block of the universe.
Speaker 1: And they saw it on its own, or they saw
Speaker 1: it kind of in the same way of hitting something
Speaker 1: inside of something else. Can't see the charm cork by itself,
Speaker 1: but they were able to create a particle which is
Speaker 1: made of just charm corks. So it's a charm cork
Speaker 1: and an anti charm cork put together. That's the jape
Speaker 1: side park. I see that the should just end the
Speaker 1: controversy and not call it a name. Just call it
Speaker 1: the charm the charm cork particle. Somebody else wanted to
Speaker 1: call it ortho charmonium, like a yeah, seriously, that was
Speaker 1: the technical proposal. Charming, forget it, forget it. Let's not
Speaker 1: leave this up to physicists exactly exactly. That's what happens
Speaker 1: when you leave it up to the physicist, right. But
Speaker 1: I guess that what you're saying is the point is
Speaker 1: that course are real, and that's how they were discovered. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was a sort of slow accumulation of evidence. People
Speaker 1: were not convinced for a while, but then seeing them
Speaker 1: inside the proton discovering that there was a new one,
Speaker 1: and finding it actually out there in reality, like it's real.
Speaker 1: That's really what convinced people. And since then we've thought
Speaker 1: of corks as real and we've gone on to find
Speaker 1: someone that's right. There are now six corks, that's right.
Speaker 1: Just after the charm cork was discovered, just a few
Speaker 1: years later they discovered the bottom cork. That was the
Speaker 1: fifth one. And you know, we don't like odd numbers
Speaker 1: of quirks, and so then people thought, well, there must
Speaker 1: be another one that goes along with the bottom cork,
Speaker 1: and so they called it the top cork. And and
Speaker 1: there was actually competing ames for those two. Also there's
Speaker 1: a whole camp of people who wanted to call them
Speaker 1: the truth and beauty corks instead of top and bottom. Wow,
Speaker 1: even more confusing. But the top cork took a long
Speaker 1: time to discover. We'll do a whole podcast episode about that.
Speaker 1: They were also dueling press conferences for that discovery. Well,
Speaker 1: I guess you know, there's all sort of points to
Speaker 1: how science has made you know, first it starts off
Speaker 1: with just looking at what's out there, and then people
Speaker 1: reading these papers and thinking about what it could be,
Speaker 1: and then it involves then more people than taking those
Speaker 1: ideas and proving them right. Yeah, I think that's ah,
Speaker 1: it's a wonderful process. And I love how you can
Speaker 1: sort of see that happen many times in science. You
Speaker 1: go from like all the stuff around us to the
Speaker 1: periodic table, and then from the periodic table down to protons,
Speaker 1: neutrons and electrons, and then you know, you get an
Speaker 1: idea that there are other particles out there, and then
Speaker 1: you boil that list down to basic quirks and the
Speaker 1: hope is the the the idea is that maybe we
Speaker 1: can do that again. And now we have this new
Speaker 1: list of particles, all these quirks and all these leptons.
Speaker 1: We don't understand what the patterns are there. We don't understand,
Speaker 1: you know, why we have all of them. Were sort
Speaker 1: of at the the new particle Zoo. It's like the
Speaker 1: cork and lepton zoo. We don't understand it, and we're
Speaker 1: looking for that new idea, the one that will maybe
Speaker 1: explain how these particles are made out of even smaller
Speaker 1: ones and they have to subside the mini and farm.
Speaker 1: Maybe acens will come back, right, I guess, but we
Speaker 1: should probably come deuces now smaller. I think that has
Speaker 1: another meaning. Maybe we should avoid I don't think I
Speaker 1: want to drop a douce some particle physics, but you could, Daniel.
Speaker 1: If you're the discoverer, you get to name it. Tell
Speaker 1: me about your deepest scientific goals. Well, I want to
Speaker 1: drop a deuce on the field. I want to call
Speaker 1: it the poop particle that I could finally align my
Speaker 1: research with my wife's research. There you go, alright, family,
Speaker 1: white sand unity, that's what size it's all about. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you know we're far from that. We don't have
Speaker 1: any ideas for what could be underlying the quarks. We
Speaker 1: don't know your question earlier. Our electrons also made out
Speaker 1: of smaller things. We know they're not made out of quarks.
Speaker 1: We don't know why. We don't know any connections are
Speaker 1: The one thing we do know is that there are
Speaker 1: not more quarks out there. Really know that there are six.
Speaker 1: And that's it. That's it, that's it, that's the end
Speaker 1: of the story. We don't know why six. You're for sure,
Speaker 1: for real, for sure, for really because more would violate
Speaker 1: the laws of physics or what Because we have ways
Speaker 1: to tell how many quarks there are, and that's from
Speaker 1: how they talk to the higgs boson. Interesting, the higgs
Speaker 1: boson talks to all the particles that have mass. So
Speaker 1: if there were more quirks and there are no more
Speaker 1: ways to talk to the higgs boson, well, if there
Speaker 1: were more quirks, we would be making the higgs boson
Speaker 1: more often at colliders. So by the rate at which
Speaker 1: we make higgs boson is how often we make one,
Speaker 1: we can tell how many quarks there are out there.
Speaker 1: It's a really powerful, subtle argument. Well, you know, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't put it past nature to still have an ace. Obviously,
Speaker 1: maybe nature will drop a deuce on the field. I mean,
Speaker 1: maill poop all over your theories as usually. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: that was a pretty interesting history, and it's almos exciting
Speaker 1: to put your head in the minds of these scientists
Speaker 1: who were at the forefront, staring at the big unknown
Speaker 1: and trying to make sense of all the weird things
Speaker 1: that we find in nature. That's right, and what seems
Speaker 1: obvious to us now was confusing and bewildering at the time.
Speaker 1: And there were lots of other excellent nations and competing
Speaker 1: ideas that we now no longer recall. And so while
Speaker 1: history seems like a linear story, there are lots of
Speaker 1: twists and turns and false starts, even inside quirks and quarks,
Speaker 1: lots of aces indidios. All right, well, thank you for
Speaker 1: joining us, see you next time. Thanks for tuning in
Speaker 1: before you still have a question after listening to all
Speaker 1: these explanations, please drop us a line. We'd love to
Speaker 1: hear from you. You can find us on Facebook, Twitter,
Speaker 1: and Instagram at Daniel and Jorge That's one word, or
Speaker 1: email us at Feedback at Daniel and Jorge dot com.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, and remember that Daniel and Jorge Explain
Speaker 1: the Universe is a production of I Heart Radio. For
Speaker 1: more podcast from my Heart Radio, visit the i heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.