I love it that you explain things in a clear way without hours of math formulae, but at the same time, treat us like we can handle these high-level concepts. Your unique style leads to us being able to gain a general overview of concepts that are at the cutting-edge of human knowledge. You go further than about any other person in explaining these in the most comprehensible ways possible.
I'm really happy that you are going deeper into this subject than other channels. I'm just an ordinary guy and I want to understand this stuff better, and you're making it possible 😁👍
i would LOVE to get involve with this particular study of science. I was the grade school geek who read about quarks in one of those early science magazines and argued with science teachers when they graded me WRONG for answering that protons, neutrons weren't the "smallest parts of an atom". I literally had to SHOW her the article before she would change my grade. Her answer was that "i wasn't supposed to know that" but the reality was that SHE did not (yet) know that so she was teaching what everyone taught back in the early 70's. Now that I am nearing retirement I can return to this original thirst for knowledge and constantly watch yours and other science and math videos. While I took calculus, discrete structures, statistics and all those other higher maths, I am not as good at them as I am with physics, QED and such so these fit well with my objectives. I'd much rather watch these videos so THANK YOU for continuing to bring us AWESOME content like this! Could you do a video on "penta" quarks?
I'm glad she changed your grade, but at least she did do so once shown. Also, quarks were something of a novelty in the 70s, viewed then widely as mathematical conjecture, not necessarily physical reality. Indeed, even today no one has actually pulled out a quark as a separate part.
@@Parmenides7 What? Do you mean it is sad that school tells you how to feel/think, or did you think that I was saying you need school in order to think? 😆
If this is what causes mass. And it takes time for it to happen. Then wouldn't more mass take more time. . Wouldn't spacetime stretch to accommodate the interactions required for more mass. Wouldn't objects acelerating through spacetime have more interactions and gain mass. Would the mass at the center of a black hole have a constant connection to the Higgs field and require infinite time. Would that explain gravity.
I'm once again truly humbled by your unparalleled ability to convey these mind blowing theories while continuously taking us closer to the core fundamentals. Thank you so much for these beautiful insights Arvin. What a video, keep up the good fight, kind sir!
Hi Arvin Just a trolling physicist who landed here again by accident and glad I did. As usual, a fabulous job done by you and your expert physics team. I have no reservations recommending you (and PBS Spacetime, etc.) to any of my students for the correct explanations, backed up by good "production values" (as they say), to go further than dry equations.
Thank you Arvin. This topic was always mysterious to me but the veil has been somewhat lifted by your explanation. I look forward to more breakthroughs that will further demystify the universe.
Home run episode right there! Kudos. Side note: The bi-lateral symmetry of the human face can be nearly perfect. Yet, by far, those faces with noticeable minor asymmetries (like in this photo 2:16) consistently score the highest beauty-wise in aggregated results. Though totally subjective, might it be that it's our (lower conscious) way of paying homage to the universe's solid move of breaking symmetry? Pretty sure that needs to be a new Netflix series.
Wow, amazing, though some of it went above my head, it is presented in an as simple as it can get manner. But what a lot to know about the universe, and you are doing a wonderful job communicating these extremely hard concepts in simple terms. I've signed up to you channel already.
Whoaaaat a legend. Explained one of the most complex part in particle physics in just 15 minutes. Science teacher in my school would take 500 years to explain this. 😂😂
Your work is so wonderful. You are a top reference in the first and now the second Volume of my “Our Self Assembling Universe” AWTbook(tm) Series. The second one is in final stages of writing. It’s subtitled “Who is Us? The nanoscale answer to that question is so incredible and you nail so much of it with your beautifully clear answers. Whether my efforts make any difference remains to be seen. But I do think I am onto something with my new, may I say it, literary art form in which you were first featured in OSAU-2, C&I&L&E=mc2.
Your videos should be part of home schooling.👏 I think it would be a great idea to create a home schooling series, for you have an excellent way of explaining advanced concepts in a way that are easy to understand. Thanks
I appreciate the efforts of all scientists over the thousands of years We need more scientists to understand this vast universe We need more scientists like Einstein
This high quality narrative and graphics bring me tantalizingly close to grasping these notions but the maths I encountered in my biochem and medical career weren’t enough for a proper understanding. I wonder if a math course catch-up is a feasible goal in retirement.
This explanation of symmetry breaking has cleared up my understanding of dark matter theories for WIMPs being a likely candidate as the spontaneous field fluctuations cause particles to pop into and out of existence. Thanks for another great video
Hi ARVIN. If you think about it right. A black hole is a good or perfect example of what an atom probably looks like in realty. On an atom, the electron would be compared to the event horizon on a black hole. A certain section or volume is filled with a fluid or gas or an electrical field, on or near the nucleus. So the pulp or the core would be a supermassive black hole made of heavier elements in subatomic particles. SUBCOOLED and LIQUID STATE these volumes break the atom and resemble our smallest interactions. Whilst the MACRO SENSE looks very similar.
After having seen several of your videos on strong nuclear force, I finally understood how a Meson can exists....I always thought " how can a quark and anti quark particle be stable and not annihilate?". Please Arvin, if you have more videos on Meson formation let me know (if not, it should be nice to have a new one!). Thanks again for all you videos!
the way i see it; the 'symmetry' breaking and conversion are because we assembled the model in this way so its not really answering a 'why'. its like trying to explain the why by saying because there is addition done... symmetry is just a more complex addition. if we had a full and complete model of the universe we would have no breaking of symmetry given a similar model to what we have now because everything would be accounted for in the equations.
One of you most important videos. To me it would seem there are keys or paths in this video as to how gravity works that we currently are missing. The big bang potential working time clock machine first law of thermodynamics resulting in the recorded second law of thermodynamics including all resulting paths and consistent symmetries within time space and mass gravity causality pathways or E=mc2. Sort of a algebra puzzle with lot's of pieces.
This is bestest explanation of MASS in RU-vid universe, many alternate universes exist in minds of those 1 percent Scientists.. who actually actually reached these MIND BENDING conclusions.. ie mass comes from energy, the gluon clouds.. whoa.. a BIG WHOA
Lately, I've really been spending some time trying to wrap my head around this stuff. Like, a photon is neutral, yet it contains (apparently) a negative and a positive charge, and magnetic north and south poles which alternate? And at 90 degrees - what's that about? I'm sure someone could refer me to a textbook of fundamentals, but I can already see that bottomless rabbit hole. I know life isn't "simple" but it seems as if there's a basic truth I'm not understanding. And photons can become electron/positron pairs...and I haven't even got to hadrons. It makes my head hurt, in a sort of good way.
As I understand it, a charged particle is a field source and a non-charged particle is a field carrier, but not itself a source. So a photon is an EM field carrier, but not an EM field source. That's why it's not charged. If you want the most basic of analogies or images to imagine, imagine a charged particle like an electron is like a little propeller that induces a vortex motion in the water around it that creates this rotating system, sort of like the electric field in 2D. That's like how a field source works. The photon would be a component of that moving system itself. In the whirlpool image, they are arbitrary points of the rotating water. (The vortex motion is more complex, but this gets the idea across.) A photon is "carrying" the rotating motion of the EM field (it is the motion), but it itself is not a little propeller creating its own vortex with it at the center. So it is not a charged particle. It's a field carrier but not a field source. When two vortex systems like whirlpools approach, which gives a rough analogy for the electric field in 2D, if they're spinning the opposite direction, opposite charge, they'll drag each other into each other where they intersect, if there's enough energy at that place. If they're spinning the same direction, same charge, they'll push each other back where they intersect. We can model where those two field components intersect and push at each other as a "photon exchange", as two photons mediating the electric "force". They're "field carriers" and "force carriers", but again they're not little propellers spinning up the field themselves. They're just carrying that field motion that the charged particle, the electron, created as the field source. Contrast all of this to gluons, which are both field carriers and field sources. A color charged quark is a little propeller inducing a vortex motion in the color field as a source, the carrying components of which we call the gluon field, so it's making gluons. But the difference is each component of that field motion, the gluons, are also little propellers themselves that create their own vortexes with themselves at the center, and the whole thing quickly cascades into these runaway propellers making propellers quickly sucking in the whole system back into the low energy state. I think that's right as a really crude but useful analogy, but anybody can feel free to correct it or make it better as a crude but useful analogy.
Dimensions increases with characteristics. 0D has no characteristics 1D gains length 2D gains width and 3D gains height. But what comes next? What does the 4th dimension gains? Time. The Universe expands and the space expands with it, space expands in the 4th dimension and since the 4th dimension is time it flows forward as the expansion. Gravity affects the flow of time. Why? Because mass slows down the rate of expansion of the 4th dimension. Since we are 3D beings it is hard for us to think about time as a spacial dimension. Think of a hypercube, it is made of two cubes with its corners joined by lines. Those lines represents time and the expansion of that line represents the forward flow of time
@@Vitamin.Z There is no "into" as into implies an already given space. The space expansion happens in the fourth dimension, in time. If you would stop time you would also stop space expansion and if you would turn back the "clock" the existing space would shrink until there is no more time and space. There is an entity called "spacetime" that is hard to grasp. The separation of space and time is our illusion. It is like separating the second dimension from the third dimension or the separation of the first dimension from the second dimension. They are an essential part of each other. Try to see it this way, imagine us living in a universe with only one dimension. If you want to meet me there you need just 1 information like the distance on a ruler, for example the house number if the world would be a street. Now imagine living in a two dimensional world, you would need 2 informations to meet me on a surface (the x- and the y-axes), it would be like living in a town, you also need the street name and house number. Now imagine living in a three dimensional world, like for example a big city with skyscrapers, you would need 3 informations, the street, the house number and the floor number. Is this enough to meet me? No, because we live in a four dimensional world, therefore in order to meet me you need also the time or you would miss me. Therefore to locate me you need 4 informations, time including. This should be proof enough that we live in a four dimensional world.
That explains in my opinion where the energy comes from when the bond is broken by fission !The Gluon binding force AKA Mass of approx 1000 MeV / proton is released via radiation as it is no longer needed reducing the measured mass each time this happens. Does any body agree or is this TBS ?
both the weak force and strong force are invovled in nuclear fission. if the nm,ber of nuetrons and protons is not the same then weak force is also involved. otherwise you could say its just the strong force (ie gluons)
You mentioned that the "Net energy of virtual particle creation/annihilation adds up to zero" Is that the same things as saying the net energy of the Universe is zero?
No, my statement was regarding expectation value. The expectation value of all the fields (except the Higgs field) is zero. This means that the lowest energy state of the fields is zero, meaning that virtual particles that are coming in and out of existence in these fields in totality add up to zero. This video I made might make this virtual particle issue clearer: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UoLglpqmOr0.html
Y axis is potential energy. X axis is the expectation value of the field. I talked about what expectation value is in the video. It has to do with the overall energy of particle/anti-particle creation and annihilation in the field.
I do wonder why we chose 3D-BOWL representation of Higgs field. Higgs field is not even in our 4 dimensional plane, right? also, can we even track down the position of particle in the bowl?
Mass units such as a neutron or proton have, are photons of wavelength 2pi Planck length trapped over their own gravity with the help of a neutrino m=E/c² mass is energy in orbit over a sphere, trapped by its own gravity creating classical inertia c² (v²) creating inertia.
Theory: 1. We did never produce anti matter in the labs. It was something else but no anti matter! 2. We and all galaxys visible to us are in "local" spots of regular matter which we can see and where gravity works attracting. 3. Between this galaxies is anti matter which we can not interact with and which negated gravity forces are pushing the galaxies apart. 4. this was not like this in the early universe, it is a result of the attracting and pushing forces of matter and anti matter it self.
4D & 3D particle ages as Universe contains the 2nd dimension or Higgs Field stores information in 2 dimensions and allows faster than light, left handed neutrinos by mirroring these particles in the 3rd dimension which annihilate giving mass to the particles that pass through ths 2D layer of Universe.
I’m not saying that theoretical physics has moved beyond the scope of spoken / written language, but I am saying that it has moved beyond my ability to understand wtf is going on.
This was a very difficult video without some background. See the links to earlier videos in the description. They will explain the background necessary to understand this video, if you don't have this background, or don't watch my videos regularly.
At 11:59, the proton example showing the actual measured mass (938 MeV) vs the quarks(9.4MeV). That total is due to the interactions of the quarks, bosons and fermions with the difference of the total mass (99%) and individual quarks mass (1%). Energy equals mass. The closer to the speed of light something with mass get the more energy required. Stands to reason the opposite might be true. If something can start out as massless energy traveling the speed light, interacts with something else that also started out as massless energy, the energy from the interaction would force the particles to slow and in turn form mass. 🤔
So the Higgs seems to exist to supply enough particles with starter "mass" so they can bond and create the actual mass via gluon interactions. Fascinating.
Why do people keep insisting that the origin of mass is the Higgs boson? The mass of a visible material object is the manifestation of the energy of the creation and annihilation of quarks and antiquarks (kaons) in the nucleus of an atom. The Higgs field is a velocity-regulation mechanism that Spacetime uses to keep massive visible matter objects from reaching light-speed by using their intrinsic masses to generate a resistance to further increases in velocity.
Arvin - since the making of this video, does the explanation of mass coming from pion condensate drag on the quarks change anything in your video? Thanks!
It would add an added source of to the mass of atoms. I'm not sure how much of a contribution this has to the total mass of the atom. My guess is very little compared to the other sources.
Ignoring the minor asymmetry is the Biggest problem with physics .We do have a satisfying solution as to why Symmetry is broken, however, modern day physics doesn't teach this form of math.
The meaning of mass has been deciphered in the "Novel quantitative push gravity/electricity theory poised for verification". It provides an alternative platform to map out existing experimental data. Hopefully, there may be a correspondence between the outlined ideas in the above video and the ideas on mass, force fields, black holes and much more derived by the proposed novel theory. It is much easier to conceptualize with palpable explanations. The examination of alternatives is always a fruitful exercise. Please give it a try.
Hi Dr. Ash. Thank you for another post that is just smarter than me. I have a fatal flaw, in that I have almost no certified training in physics. But I've come across another flaw that I just can't see past. Since the speed of light is c, does that mean that time moves at a similar speed? If the speed of light were infinite, wouldn't everything "happen at once" as they say?
There would be many issues with an infinite speed. Matter, for one couldn't exist because it would require infinite energy. I explain why in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-392N-IYRepc.html
Well, from the perspective of the photon the things get interesting. If I understood it correctly, it "experiences" the travel as instant. I wonder if that could mean a single photon is in fact able to travel like that infinitly far.
Except that the "Higgs mechanism" DOESN'T give particles their mass and itself registers a mass. It's still the claim that it gives mass, but the evidence has never supported the Higgs as the source of mass at all. It's a major reason why the standard model is in crisis. I don't think the standard model is far off, but the standard regurgitated story about the Higgs boson and field needs to be dropped and a new analysis of the particle, erroneously labled the "Higgs boson", needs to be carefully analyzed to identify what its role actually is (if it is in fact a boson and not just a momentary virtual particle created by the blast of energy), because it is not, in fact, driving the mechanism it was expected to, certainly not in the way that is being pushed in an almost cultic chant-like liturgy.
4:19 Is there a correlation between the number of the symmetry groups and the amount of bosons? In SU1 I notice that there is one boson: the photon. In SU2 there is the W and Z boson, so that seems to give 2 bosons, however there are two W bosons, so why is that? And in SU3 there are three color charges, but I believe there are 8 (?) different gluons? Still 8 is 2³, so is there a correlation between the symmetry group number and the amount of bosons? If so, why?
How coulomb's law apply to quantum particles if there position is uncertain therefore we cannot know "r" the distance between them in the formula f=kq1q2/r^2.
All measurements are approximations and there are fundamental limitations to the exactness of how close you can make a measurement. This doesn't mean the law doesn't apply, it means the measurements are limited. You can measure other things then derive the law.
@@elinope4745 if spacetime also exists in superposition that means we can also get the gravitational force between two particles by approximation no matter where spacetime curvature is for particle in superposition that means we can make theory of quantum gravity
Breaking symmetry creates an attractor (or vice versa)? That is some beauty. Does it make black holes the correctional facilities for symmetry breakers, sentencing the masses to end in hawking radiation?
@TD haha comment from the past, I looked into it, and I'm not buying symmetry. Physicists found their rabbit hole and they might be lost to us forever hahaha
@TD I see modern physics built on shaky foundations. The misuse of math to predict future or past events has led to the current state where things aren't adding up. Symmetry, entanglement, red shift are all in doubt and on the chopping block
Thermal energy is outward force. It expands. Magnetic fields hold Thermal energy in cycling circulation patterns in resistance. Resistance is outside of entanglement. Entanglement is neutralized resistance, by the Thermal energy cycling around it, in mass. Resistance is equal to the pressure pushing outward, outside of mass. Energy and resistance exchanges as forward maximum momentum velocity in resistance. Force is propelled by resistance to thermal energy. Resistance is repulsion to thermal energy. Magnetic fields are formed by resistance. Forced fields of containment of energy vibrating in mass contained as weight. Objects fall at the same rate of equalization of resistance to the energy contained in mass. The greater the mass, resistance equalization is increased. The smaller the mass, resistance is still in equalization to the contained energy of mass. Resistance retains its value. If gravity existed, two massive objects would fall faster. Resistance is equalization to redirected trajectories of maximum momentum velocity in resistance of mass. Force is needed by mass to overcome resistance. Resistance is equal throughout space, in and out of entanglement. Forced fields of cycling circulation patterns are holding mass together. Quantization works the same. Resistance outside of entanglement help to maintain solidity of fluidity flow in all aspects of physical interactions between forces. Alpha and Omega. Everything in between. Thermal energy and cold space don't mix. They are shielded from each other. Opposing forces. Perpetual motion. Resistance repels thermal energy throughput space as space. Entanglement is harmonization of unidirectional forward maximum momentum velocity redirected trajectories of thermal energy as mass. Resistance is equal throughout space as space amplified by mass, which is occupied areas of space, vibrating point to point interactions, between these shielded forces. Magnetic fields of forced shields. Space is vibrating in and out of occupational space. Every aspect of physics is at maximum momentum velocity in resistance. The trajectories of maximum momentum velocity of thermal energy singularity frequencies is redirected into magnetic fields of forced cycling circulation patterns holding mass together. As space itself, mass is replacing the space ahead with its forward momentum. We are vibrating it into our mass as a wave transitioning through space as space amplified by resistance to forward momentum. Mass transitions as space. We move by amplification of space. The same as a rock disturbing the water as waves. The molecules vibrate then settle. The space ahead waves us along, and the space behind settles. We are space itself. Space vibrates as dark energy. And we are part of it. Think of massive frequencies entangled vibrating as a wave transitioning in forward maximum momentum velocity in resistance as space itself amplified by massive amounts of entangled frequencies in resistance forced into momentum by repulsion of thermal energy by cold space. Perpetual motion. Theoretically.
And with the recent discovery of the possible inclusion of a charm quark / anti-quark pair in the proton's structure, this video may have been out of date before it was even published.
I'm no physicist and my understanding of subject matter is superficial at best, but I do have an instinctual inclination towards thinking, that a perfectly symmetrical universe would be cold and dead. Nothing would change, there would be no entropy, no time, no movement, nothing. Maybe at some point god just gave up and said "fuck it, I can't make it perfect. There will have to be some small exceptions in order for the whole thing to work at all" and things just escalated from that.
