He's so used to people freaking out when he starts explaining quantum electrodynamics that he instinctually tries everyone to stop leaving everytime he explains this stuff.
I'm watching this while knitting a sweater, so I've started thinking about how my sweater is just a sweater-shaped fluctuation in the quantum fields, and now my brain hurts.
Dr. O'Dowd, I am SO happy that you've continued to do this all this time, and that I've been able to follow this journey. It feels like in 2023 we're finally ~3/4ths of the way through you explaining all the fundamental quantum forces.
+Jonathan Pizarro Yeah, vsauce is too infrequent to be top channel for me but Michael is an amazing, crazy dude. Can't forget SciShow if you're talking about frequency. They're great in that respect, and great content - just not the crazy depth that others have. That's what I love about all of the PBS Digital channels, they just go so deep into awesome detail. I love the way Space Time references past videos and dedicate whole series of episodes to topics.
I like the style of your explanation when you never postulate questionable theories to be true, instead, you're saying that something like them has to be true in order to explain an observable phenomena. This subtle detail always catches my attention in a good way and this is something Veritasium does not have.
LOL, that's funny! But to make it true you'd have to say thank you to full-sized Tyrion Lannister. Since Peter Dinklage is from New Jersey and has no British accent. ;)
4:58 If it hadn't been for Weak Hyper Charge Joe, my electrons would've flipped a long time ago, where did you come from, where did you go, where did you come from Weak Hyper Charge Joe
This is probably one of the best science channels on the internet. Its information is easy to digest and understand, but yet it isn't patronising or overly dumbed-down. Loving what you guys are doing, keep up the good work! :)
I've learned more from these 40+ episodes, than I ever did from the years of watching cable science shows with insufferable analogies. I never knew how truly awesome our universe was, until it was explained in these no-nonsense ways. Thanks for making me feel dumb watching these, instead of smart watching those!
Wonderful video. As a physics layman (degree in electronics and now studying law), I can say it was simple enough for me to understand the explanation. So yeah, one does need some basics, but the way it was explained was very educational and accessible. Thank you.
2:34 Note that this glosses over the distinction between chirality and helicity. Helicity is the direction of spin relative to motion, which depends on the motion of the observer relative to the electron. Chirality is a related fundamental property that "spinning" subatomic particles have, but which doesn't make sense in 3D Euclidean space (where only real numbers are concerned), which is part of why it gets glossed over so much. While helicity is fundamentally relative, chirality isn't; however, chirality of electrons does "change constantly" due to interactions with the Higgs field, which more accurately means that electrons are in a superposition of states between the two chiralities, since you can't ever know for sure how many times an electron changed between measurements (assuming you even can measure chirality; I'm no expert).
By far the most concise yet comprehensive explanation of the Higgs Boson that I've come across. Thank you for making quantum field theory accessible to those of us who aren't as scientifically gifted (we know who we are) :)
@@the_sophile If the only way to understand physics is to take a degree in them then either of two things is true: A - the presenter/presentation is bad, B - the science is bad. As for the argument that things sometimes ARE complicated, yes. But ... ... See the Ptolemaic (circles on circles withing circles ...) explanation of the planet motion vs. Copernican (just circles). While not exactly correct (even without the relativistic effects), the Copernican one is not only simpler, it is BETTER because much closer to the current one.
this is SO FUCKING INTERESTING!!!! holy shit, seriously, keep up the great job PBS channel. i swear i could watch these videos for hours on end and keep learning new things, and this is coming from someone who already spent way too much time in physics videos on youtube.
Technically, since he's not YOUR professor, you wouldn't call him professor, and more importantly, even if he were your professor, it'd still be proper to call him Dr. O'Dowd :P at least that's how titles worked at my university.
@@joshyoung1440 Haha, okay. ;P I appreciate the clarification, however, it's pedantic. @pbsspacetime If I've offended the host for using the incorrect title, I apologize. My meaning (which I thought was self-evident), was to praise and compliment you, professor, doctor, or otherwise, O'Dowd.
+Nero Welcome to science. One could argue that academics are a bunch of masochists who love feeling dumb as fuck the majority of the time, all for a short lived euphoric moment of understanding.
+Nero That's exactly how you should feel. I believe Einstein said this (I'm not sure): "If you're the smartest person in the room; you're in the wrong room."
+Nero Oh good... is just not me. I am a computer scientist (and astrophysics aficionado) which is constantly digging up books to follow up on these videos.
@@eliaskaroui5665 ABSOLUTE MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Time DILATION proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. Einstein's equations are NECESSARILY QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, the mathematical unification of Maxwell's equations AND Einstein's equations (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension) proves that ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with time. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is, in fact, CLEARLY proven by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED IN AND OUT of SPACE AND TIME, as this is CLEARLY proven by time DILATION, F=ma, AND E=mc2. This ALSO explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black hole(s)". Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) ACCORDINGLY, FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AND A POINT are all then in BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. GREAT !!! This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, I have demonstrated the true mathematical UNIFICATION of physics/physical experience AS what is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio
WHY AND HOW THE BALANCED, TOP DOWN, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH F=MA AND E=MC2: The following also CLEARLY explains why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. c squared represents a dimension of SPACE on balance WITH the fact that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Indeed, the sky is blue; AND what is THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE (on balance) !! Consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c) (ON BALANCE); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is (CLEARLY AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). General Relativity is directly taken from Special Relativity. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. I have exposed Einstein. Beautiful. Note: Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Think carefully about the black “space” AS WELL. Great. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense, as BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE EYE represents a two dimensional surface OR SPACE (ON BALANCE) that is consistent with F=ma AND E=mc2. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN/ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE SUN. The sky is blue, and THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This explains the fourth dimension AND the term c4 from Einstein's field equations. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. By Frank Martin DiMeglio WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank Martin DiMeglio
To be fair, Newtonian mechanics used to "hang together too well" for it not to be correct... until we found instances where it broke down. It's possible that quantum mechanics as we currently understand it will turn out to be close enough in certain circumstances but not always, such as when Newtonian mechanics failed at extremely large and small scales.
This channel should be compulsory viewing for graphics students. The animations are witty, economical, and communicate superbly. Well done the back room boys and girls.
There's a lot of holes in my knowledge. You filled my holes very nicely. THANK YOU. You can fill my holes any time with knowledge e.g. 1) QFT predicted e- are massless 2) e- have intrinsic quantum spin = chirality = clockwise or counterclockwise relative to the direction of motion = lefthandness or righthandness 3) e- chirality flips back & forth between lefthandness or righthandness. Thus it does evolve, so it does experience time, so it must have mass 4) weak hypercharge lets only lefthanded e- feel the weak nuclear force 5) e- can't flip chirality unless it can ditch it's weak hypercharge or pick some up. It does this via the Higgs mechanism.
Well I'd hope you don't feel like you actually understand any physics concepts if you can't do the math behind them. If you're a person who just watched laymen UA-cam physics videos and think you actually understand it, you need to be humbled and sit in a uni class!
Avoided this channel for to long. Makes my brain hurt. But everytime i google it pops up. And this is the first glimpse of higgs boson and singulairty's that try to explain the interactions i found. I need to keep watching now. Headace is just a sign of brain activity apparently. Who knew 🤔
I remember first hearing about the higgs boson and its relation to mass when I was 12. I though about it a lot and how it could possibly work and I came to was what I though was a radical new idea called a higgs field and than I though about a bunch of ways it could work and that maybe everything works this way. About a year later I heard about QFT and it crushed my spirit to hear that this wasn't a new idea and that no one would believe that I could have come to such a conclusion on my own without knowing about QFT first. It still occasionally hurts to this day.
@@jtestaccount2431 I was a kid when I posted this, chill. But now because of thoughts like that I now have a job researching some of those very thoughts I had as a kid, and maybe if you has replied this back then I would have been discouraged and not pursued my dreams. There’s no need to try to put people down
@@salemi7438 Your post made perfect sense when I first read it. Just as positing a field with certain properties would prompt trained scientists to theorize & then experimentally search for an unknown particle, learning of a particle could prompt a search for an unknown (to the neophyte learner) mechanism, including a field, by which or in which the particle functions. Young music students learning simple scales "invent" long established theory, art students "discover" color harmony, &c. IAs a kid in the early 60s I thought the corner of S America looked like it would fit into that bend in the W coast of Africa. Got some laughs, as plate tectonics was not widely known & accepted.
I watched them fake the Higgs. Then I watched them cover up that evidence. This Higgs "discovery" is going to be the darkest moment in particle physics history.
the last comment in the video is something ive been thinking about. i couldn't care less about anything science while growing up, and now here i am spending my afternoon watching videos on pbs space time 7 years after graduation. says something about how everyone learns differently.
I have searching for months to describe these thing .......but none of any veideo makes my satisfaction........but this veideo clear my 75% of my doubts.....thanks bro........
+neeneko it's essentially the application of Ocam's Razor. "Do we _need_ this? No? Then cut it. Keep it simple, stupid." (For perhaps a bit controversial ideas of "simple")
+Kram1032 Yeah, the fact it gets this bloody complicated WITH such a strong desire to keep it simply really says a lot about how, well, the simple answers really don't work.
neeneko oh but they do. To an extent. For instance, for almost anything you could possibly do in your every-day life, Newton's Gravity, which is fairly simple, is a sufficient and perfectly fine description. As far as I know, outside of usage only _really_ useful to do more science, as of right now only GPS needs corrections from General Relativity to work appropriately. All else can be done with Newton just fine. Of course I'm not saying that all this extra knowledge is worthless: One never knows when these things will have real impact on the general public. (GPS actually is a great example of that: Initially engineers simply didn't think GR would be necessary and they left the correction off. Within _minutes_ the tracked positions were way off but as soon as they turned the corrections on it was fine. Yay for science!) My point simply is that simple descriptions can go a long way. Furthermore, as far as I know, people are actually moving towards more and more general theories which, in some sense, are also simpler and simpler. More specialized theories are "more special" by assuming more stuff. That makes them more useful for solving a particular subset of problems which take nice forms in those special theories. But it can also introduce complications which makes situations on the fringes of these special cases awkward and ones beyond those cases sheer impossible to describe. In some sense (namely in the sense that you need fewer assumptions), those more general theories actually are simpler. (Though we are so used to working _with_ those specialized assumptions, that not relying on them can seem mind-breaking at times)
+neeneko Its actually like this. When we introduced a Mathematical solution to the problem of mass. The least worst solution that was explored(Mathematically); turned out be the way in which Nature actually worked. If that's not Magic, then nothing is... :). Its not the other way around like the way you re thinking. Numbers are The Truth.!!!
This video gave me a breakthrough! Photons have always been so weird for me, I've never understood how there could be a particle without mass, and why it acts in such a strange way. Pairing it with Einsteins' theory of relativity, everything just snapped into place! Like aaaaah that was such an amazing moment, thank you so much!
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. The Earth is ALSO CLEARLY then E=MC2 AS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! GREAT !!! By Frank DiMeglio
The fact that humanity built the Large Hadron Collider will never not blow my mind. I can barely figure out what to eat for lunch let alone even begin to conceive of how much planning went into it.
I love watching stuff like this. I think it's funny the feeling my brain has. It feels like your trying to put the end on a hosepipe while the water is on full.
+Kytes93 It would turn the photon into a short-range force carrier like the W and Z bosons. In fact these guys are pretty close to being just photons with weak hypercharge. This charge let's them couple to the Higgs field, giving them mass and limiting their range, unlike the photon which has infinite range. A short-range photon would mean the electromagnetic force would be a short-range force. Matter would not exist as we know it.
PBS Space Time I have a question(s) related to this. Gluons are massless right? So do they also technically have unlimited range? Why are hadrons so small then? Perhaps because gluons have unlimited range we don't see "free quarks", but rather we always see them in composite strong-force-based particles?
+KohuGaly It's believed that gluons are massless (as in not confined like the weak force carriers), however it's not proven. However they are confined by a different mechanism than the W and Z bosons; gluons are interact with and are confined by each other! The Wikipedia article on gluons discusses this mechanism in a pretty digestible form en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Confinement
The best source info on all things quantum. I'm not highly educated but I've always tried to explain things to myself. The Higgs field just filled a big empty spot in my thought process. Thank You for the education made understandable.
+Angel Gonzalez Easy answer: Because they're not weak charged, same as how magnets don't affect wood. Hard answer: It does, but all those interactions cancel out, like how all the air molecules hitting you in every direction cancel out and don't push you.
Tripcore That's true and the Higgs does affect the photon, but not in a mass-giving fashion. (Specifically it combines elements of the W3 and B boson fields to produce the photon field.)
A couple questions: 1) For an electron traveling close to the speed of light, is the relativistic mass increment higgs mass or intrinsic mass? 2) Is the higgs mass of a particle proportional to the rate of change in chirality?
Hi, a massless photon from the earliest stars that fails to crash into anything during the effects of an expanding universe and the long term consequence on entropy will exist through entire history of the universe without its clock registering any passing of time. Is this statement correct and free of paradox? Love your work, keep it up please. Thank you
The TNG door chime sound you guys keep using has been my text message sound for the last decade and I have to keep checking my phone whenever I hear it in the video! lol
an electron has mass because it interacts with the higgs field and thus it cannot travel at the speed of light. But light also does reduce its speed depending upon the optical density of the medium. so this means inside that medium photons do experience mass and time. right? please explain. And you guyzzz rock. i love your videos . although i don't understand everything but then also these videos explain a lot. planing to be an astrophysicist in future. keep up the good work.
atul gairola What I learned once was, photons (or maybe light? I think there is a difference) has a movement mass, or mass that emerges when in movement. Otherwise it would not bend due to gravitational forces.
So, this reply is super duper belated, but a key detail that should be pointed out is that when physicists say that light "slows down" in a medium, what they're referring to is the *propagation speed* of light. I.E., how fast the light wave as a whole moves through the optical medium. The photons themselves are still massless, and thus still traveling at the speed of light, and thus still not experiencing time, but inside the optical medium, they're bouncing around more, getting absorbed, re-emitted, et cetera. This gives the overall effect of the waveform propagating at sub-c velocities through the optical medium. A consequence of this is the diffraction of light at the boundary interface between two optical media (say, water and air, or the two different types of glass used to make fibre optic cable). An interesting consequence of this effect is that it becomes possible for mass-full particles such as neutrons to travel "faster than light". They're not actually traveling faster than light, but rather they're traveling faster than the propagation speed of light in the medium. When this happens, you get the characteristic blue glow of Cherenkov Radiation. A lightspeed sonic boom. :)
@@calyodelphi124 Wow, the concept of "propagation speed" is really interesting. But I was referring to the two concepts of mass: mass of the object and mass of an object in movement. I.e., light is being "bend" due to gravitational forces, although light "particles" (photons) don't have a mass per se. Why is that? Or am I wrong?
@@andreavitale5269 Mass doesn't change regardless of your frame of reference or velocity or whathaveyou. It is what physicists call an "invariant". :) However, the phenomenon that you refer to doesn't even have to depend upon the mass of the photons (or lack thereof, rather). What's actually happening is that the massive object is quite literally bending spacetime, and that bending of spacetime is what we perceive to be gravity. The photons themselves are still moving in perfectly "straight" lines, relative to the now bent and distorted grid of spacetime. As a result, the photons follow the curved contours of spacetime itself around the massive object, and that's what causes the phenomenon of gravitational lensing. :D
@@calyodelphi124 Thus, gravitational effects are not dependent on an objects mass. It rather affects light regardless of mass. How do we call the things it affects and the things it does not affect? Apparently we cannot call them matter anymore... can we?
Does that mean that every flip of an electeron's spin is like one tick of time? Can you trace the indivisible part of time that way? Can things happen to the electron in between those ticks? Does the flipping take time?
Nice way of explaining Higgs field and the associated Boson in a limited timeframe, thank you there! Still two fundamental questions- 1. How to ensure the anomaly in the debris results of LHC (the energy blip) is attributable to only the Boson from Higgs field and not to a yet another particle from another not yet discovered field? 2. Conversely, as the disintegration is studied, what exact properties or attributes found in the study make the unknown particle the expected H.Boson more likely than any other particle?
Another great vid. I knew that the higgs mechanism worked by being a scalar field which slowed down particles so we say they have mass, but I did not see the obvious that it then has to couple with all those particles. I don't know why I never got that, but I didn't. Thanks to this vid, I do, so now I have a lot to think about. So thanks for that. Questions: what is the coupling constant for the Higgs Field? I would guess it varies per particle, hence why some particles are more massive than other, and if so do each have a separate coupling constant with the Higgs? Knowing about some of the issues with EQD and couplings, do Higgs couplings also require charge or mass renormalization? Lastly, does the Higgs field itself explain the need for mass renormalization for every other particle?
+evilcam 1.) It does vary per particle. (Specifically the massless particles that make up massive ones. The electron is a combination of two massless particles for example.) Do you know what a Yukawa interaction is? 2.) Yes, the renormalization is what gives us the masses we get. 3.) No.
Thanks Gareth. I did not know what a Yukawa potential was when I wrote that, but I found it by looking at the wikipedia page for the weak hypercharge. I sort of understand it...but certainly not well. 2. There is a problem with saying that renormalization gives us the mass. The mass number requires renormalizaition, else you get infinities when you calculate its amplitude average. I thought that the Higgs field coupling with various particles would explain why that mass has to be renormalized, but looking into it I have yet to find why that is, or more accurately how that works. I was also looking for the specific values per coupling constant per particle per higgs field interaction. Everyone knows the QED coupling constant with photons and the electron, 137.03599....(though to be honest I don't know in what units that value is using) but I could not find anything about the values for other couplings. As for your third answer, since it is tied to the second question; do you know why then we have to renormalize the mass number? I read that Dirac thought renormalization was foolish and that we should just accept the infinities, but I really did not understand his reasoning. I read that Bethe developed renormalization just in order to do the calculations, but I don't know if anyone has ever explained where those infinities come from (aside from the obvious answer that they are the solutions to the equations sans infinity). Thanks again for answering and helping not only me, but dozens of other people along. I see you on a bunch of different vids on a bunch of different channels just being awesome, and I wanted to say that I appreciate you immensely for that.
+evilcam " I would guess it varies per particle, hence why some particles are more massive than other, and if so do each have a separate coupling constant with the Higgs?" Yes. Each Yukawa coupling is proportional to the mass of the particle in question. A Yukawa coupling is just the coupling constant in an interaction between a fermion and a scalar like the Higgs. Nothing fancy. "do Higgs couplings also require charge or mass renormalization?" Yes, but a nonzero mass renormalization is incompatible with the symmetries of the theory. You do however get charge renormalization. "Lastly, does the Higgs field itself explain the need for mass renormalization for every other particle?" Well really the only particle that gets mass renomalization is the Higgs itself since it is the only particle for which an explicit mass term is allowed. The mass renormalizations of other particles can be interpreted as a charge renormalization on the couplings with the Higgs.
+evilcam So the fact that it slows downs particles means that obviously has to couples to those particles, because the only way slow down particle is through interactions, which means there has to be a coupling constant. The constants for each field/particle is proportional to mass of that particle(actually you can think of the mass as the coupling constant), for fermions the mass comes through Yukawa coupling. For itself and W and Z bosons when the symmetry breaks, the mass is proportional to the value of the higgs field. Mass and charge renormalization is actually is needed because coupling constants are not actually constant, but rather functions of energy.
Awesome explanation. I was trying to find a video which really explains why some particles have mass while others do not. Great and amazing explanation. Thank you very much.
Does the Higg's field only give mass inducing energy to electrons? As in, does the Higg's field only interact with the electron field? Or does it influence all other quantum fields? If not, what gives the other subatomic particles their respective masses? And If yes, why wouldn't it give mass to photons? Can you clarify? Thanks, I love the show :) May the mass x acceleration be with you.
It does interact with other fields (such quark ones, etc), but not with everyone: the Higgs doesn't interact with the photon field and the gluon field, and that's why the photon and the gluon don't have mass :)
+Jon Van Pelt basically higgs field interacts with any particle that can interact via weak force. Namely quarks, leptons (electrons, neutrinos,...), weak force bosons and higgs boson (and naturally with itself). Naturally it also interacts with any composite particles that contain aforementioned elementary particles. It does not interact with gluons and photons. That was actually the weird part - all particles which can interact via weak force have mass and all that don't are massless. Before Higgs theory it seemed merely like a strange coincidence.
I have got to say, your simple explanation of Quantum Field Theory near the beginning sounds a lot like the simple explanation of strings and/or branes.
Simply put, mass is the sum of the fields interacting. However, this is relative to energy. The higher the energy within any field or all of the fields, the lower the mass. The lower the energy in the fields and the higher the mass. What is actually happening is stability. The atoms retain energy very well, and it can last for trillions of years. However, as mass interacts with each other they begin to calm down. This calming effect has an added bonus feature called gravity which in turn slowly accelerates the loss of energy and the gradual increase in mass and gravity. This causes the atoms to join with each other into molecules and larger structures. When enough matter is gathered, the concentration of atoms forces the atoms to collapse upon themselves and each other producing a black hole. However, black holes release subatomic particles through jets forged in the polar regions which shoot these subatomic particles out at beyond light speed at first, but then as the particles slows in space from impacts and gravity, the subatomic particles reunite into proto atoms and then finally proper atoms. This process is substantive and takes a little bit of time, but that is why the jets escaping from black holes and quasars are so very large. There are several constants in this universe. 1. This universe is a binary universe. Everything is physically based on the concept of polar opposites. 2. This universe is one giant recycling machine, re-inventing itself as much as it destroys itself. This also means our understanding of the age of the universe is way off. These two constants are the only ones I know of. Everything else fluctuates in some degree this way or that. I hope this helps.
hello everyone! i have a small question about black holes.! i dont know whether its the right video to ask! but my question is " when a star explodes in so called Super and Hypernovae in which even the tiniest of the atoms are ripped apart in violent energy bursts, what actually collapses in to the eternity creating massive black holes? whose gravitational field cant be deceived by the most fastest light itself? " i hope my question will be answered. and i once again thank PBS Space Time (whole team) from the bottom of my heart for making such an interesting video on Higgs mechanism.
I don't quite understand your question, so if you could restate it, i might be able to help. A few things: In stars there are no atoms to begin with, it's a plasma. Also there is no such thing as "fastest light", all light travels at the same speed if it's in the same medium.
Question: We know the Higgs field has a baseline energy value at all points in the universe, and we know that it gives intrinsic mass to certain particles by interacting with those other particle fields through the weak hyper charge (based on the particles chirality). But does the Higgs field lose energy to the particle that "gains" intrinsic mass from it in that point in space and as the particle moves through space? What about relativity? Is it the Higgs field imparting more intrinsic mass to particles moving close to light speed?
This guy is an expert at the 'Calm down' gesture.
hahaha
I have to cover the part of the video with his hands... drives me nuts
Underrated xD
He's so used to people freaking out when he starts explaining quantum electrodynamics that he instinctually tries everyone to stop leaving everytime he explains this stuff.
Omg. I died.😂
Now that you've mentioned it I can't stop noticing it.
I love that this guy does not waste any time in intros and disclaimers. He jumps in at the topic at the very first few seconds.
I'm watching this while knitting a sweater, so I've started thinking about how my sweater is just a sweater-shaped fluctuation in the quantum fields, and now my brain hurts.
H2o!!!
You need to do an IQ test. I predict 302.. or at the very least, you're witty. I do appreciate this comment lol.
@@stevelowe2647 pq
Lol, I was watching it while I was crocheting 🧶
Comment of the year people
Dr. O'Dowd, I am SO happy that you've continued to do this all this time, and that I've been able to follow this journey. It feels like in 2023 we're finally ~3/4ths of the way through you explaining all the fundamental quantum forces.
This is seriously the best channel on UA-cam right now.
this and vsauce
+Paul Trinca if only vsauce didn't upload close to once per month (Vsauce1, that is)
+Jonathan Pizarro Yeah, vsauce is too infrequent to be top channel for me but Michael is an amazing, crazy dude. Can't forget SciShow if you're talking about frequency. They're great in that respect, and great content - just not the crazy depth that others have. That's what I love about all of the PBS Digital channels, they just go so deep into awesome detail. I love the way Space Time references past videos and dedicate whole series of episodes to topics.
+noxabellus HEY! You beat me to it.
+Paul Trinca Nah man this and H3H3 papa bless
I like the style of your explanation when you never postulate questionable theories to be true, instead, you're saying that something like them has to be true in order to explain an observable phenomena. This subtle detail always catches my attention in a good way and this is something Veritasium does not have.
This is something that most science-popularizations fail at, and is one of the best things about Space Time.
Spacetime > Veritasium
Great observation. All fields of science are founded upon imperfect models of "reality". There always exists some degree of uncertainty.
That's because journalists usually are bad at conveying the essence of science: uncertainty.
The only 100% certain thing is that we can never be 100% certain about anything.
thanks, full-size Peter Dinklage.
^underappreciated comment
Beauty in all his incarnations.
@@DConner And brilliance too.
You win the internet with this comment. Someone give this guy all the money. All of it.
LOL, that's funny! But to make it true you'd have to say thank you to full-sized Tyrion Lannister.
Since Peter Dinklage is from New Jersey and has no British accent. ;)
4:58 If it hadn't been for Weak Hyper Charge Joe, my electrons would've flipped a long time ago, where did you come from, where did you go, where did you come from Weak Hyper Charge Joe
Phenomenal lmfao
Who's joe?
@@RahulSingh-zo7sm Joe mama
@@RahulSingh-zo7sm Joe mama lmao
😂 i bet not a lot of people will get this 👍
This is probably one of the best science channels on the internet. Its information is easy to digest and understand, but yet it isn't patronising or overly dumbed-down.
Loving what you guys are doing, keep up the good work! :)
"You probably guessed: the Higgs Field."
No, no I did not.
Oh, you hadnt? I feel so sorry for you, it was so obvious!
Noob
Normies 🧐
Hahaha
A normal person would've guessed it from the title :)
I'm not overweight; it's just that my body has a special affinity with the Higgs field.
meow
"mass is bound energy or confined energy"... If only my physics teacher had explained it like this twenty years ago!!
Haven’t you ever heard of E=mc^2!?!?!? Lol jk I wish the same
@@SuperUghe I have but it was never transposed into M=Ec2 at my school. Which would have helped explain the equivalent nature of energy and mass
DingbatToast well that’s because M does not equal Ec^2 lol. If you solved for M it would be E/c^2
@@SuperUghe I think the point is that he just realized that Mass = Energy. They are essentially the same, just different in form.
If your physics teacher had done that, you might have asked, 'So, what is energy?' You end up at the same place.
I've learned more from these 40+ episodes, than I ever did from the years of watching cable science shows with insufferable analogies. I never knew how truly awesome our universe was, until it was explained in these no-nonsense ways.
Thanks for making me feel dumb watching these, instead of smart watching those!
It's quite fitting we're talking about an energy field that surrounds us, penetrates us and binds the galaxy together on this week's Space Time.
+Lutranereis "May the Higgs Field be with you." Hmm. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as that other 'thing', but I'll take it.
+Lutranereis That's no hokey religion... that's a physics theory!
+Lutranereis +James Rodgers I saw the movie 14 hours ago ........ really really good!!! Recommended!
+Capta1nFarrell Better than "May the Higgs Field penetrate you"
+Wyatt Nite That's what happens after dark :)
A: Aw man, i'm sooo sad today and haven't enough energy.
B: Did you try spinning the *right* direction?
B: Did you try to revert your chirality?
Maybe some chocolate could help you to put a different spin on things?
@@JohnAlbertRigali that sounds hurtful lol
This is actually the first popularized description of QFT and the Higgs mechanism I've come across that isn't complete gibberish. Good job!
Wonderful video. As a physics layman (degree in electronics and now studying law), I can say it was simple enough for me to understand the explanation.
So yeah, one does need some basics, but the way it was explained was very educational and accessible.
Thank you.
My heart leaps with joy every time a new Space Time episode has come out.
Edit: Is there a Patreon page or something to support this awesome content?
2:34
Note that this glosses over the distinction between chirality and helicity. Helicity is the direction of spin relative to motion, which depends on the motion of the observer relative to the electron. Chirality is a related fundamental property that "spinning" subatomic particles have, but which doesn't make sense in 3D Euclidean space (where only real numbers are concerned), which is part of why it gets glossed over so much. While helicity is fundamentally relative, chirality isn't; however, chirality of electrons does "change constantly" due to interactions with the Higgs field, which more accurately means that electrons are in a superposition of states between the two chiralities, since you can't ever know for sure how many times an electron changed between measurements (assuming you even can measure chirality; I'm no expert).
"Glad you found us. We saved you a seat." What a lovely thing to say. You're ok.
By far the most concise yet comprehensive explanation of the Higgs Boson that I've come across. Thank you for making quantum field theory accessible to those of us who aren't as scientifically gifted (we know who we are) :)
You are not weak in Physics. You just didn't take a degree in physics
@@the_sophile you're very nice, but you don't even know them. And they didn't say they were weak in physics.
@@the_sophile If the only way to understand physics is to take a degree in them then either of two things is true:
A - the presenter/presentation is bad,
B - the science is bad.
As for the argument that things sometimes ARE complicated, yes. But ...
... See the Ptolemaic (circles on circles withing circles ...) explanation of the planet motion vs. Copernican (just circles).
While not exactly correct (even without the relativistic effects), the Copernican one is not only simpler, it is BETTER because much closer to the current one.
this is SO FUCKING INTERESTING!!!!
holy shit, seriously, keep up the great job PBS channel. i swear i could watch these videos for hours on end and keep learning new things, and this is coming from someone who already spent way too much time in physics videos on youtube.
Go wash your mouth out with soap.
I feel the same
These earlier episodes are great, and Prof. O'Dowd becomes more comfortable as the series continues. Absolutely awesome stuff!
Technically, since he's not YOUR professor, you wouldn't call him professor, and more importantly, even if he were your professor, it'd still be proper to call him Dr. O'Dowd :P at least that's how titles worked at my university.
@@joshyoung1440 Haha, okay. ;P I appreciate the clarification, however, it's pedantic. @pbsspacetime If I've offended the host for using the incorrect title, I apologize. My meaning (which I thought was self-evident), was to praise and compliment you, professor, doctor, or otherwise, O'Dowd.
It is absolutely amazing there are scientists who were able to discover and work out these theories!
When im on this channel i feel dumb as fuck but i still like it xd
+Nero Welcome to science. One could argue that academics are a bunch of masochists who love feeling dumb as fuck the majority of the time, all for a short lived euphoric moment of understanding.
+Nero
That's exactly how you should feel. I believe Einstein said this (I'm not sure): "If you're the smartest person in the room; you're in the wrong room."
+Nero Oh good... is just not me. I am a computer scientist (and astrophysics aficionado) which is constantly digging up books to follow up on these videos.
+Nero "Left handed electrons" My mind = Blown.
+Nero ikr but other channel like scishow space I understand...
Very nice video about the Higgs field. Thanks for making it.
i love you
@@eliaskaroui5665 +!
@@eliaskaroui5665 ABSOLUTE MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Time DILATION proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. Einstein's equations are NECESSARILY QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, the mathematical unification of Maxwell's equations AND Einstein's equations (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension) proves that ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with time. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is, in fact, CLEARLY proven by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED IN AND OUT of SPACE AND TIME, as this is CLEARLY proven by time DILATION, F=ma, AND E=mc2. This ALSO explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black hole(s)". Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) ACCORDINGLY, FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AND A POINT are all then in BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. GREAT !!! This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, I have demonstrated the true mathematical UNIFICATION of physics/physical experience AS what is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 troll
WHY AND HOW THE BALANCED, TOP DOWN, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH F=MA AND E=MC2:
The following also CLEARLY explains why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution.
c squared represents a dimension of SPACE on balance WITH the fact that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Indeed, the sky is blue; AND what is THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE (on balance) !! Consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c) (ON BALANCE); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is (CLEARLY AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
General Relativity is directly taken from Special Relativity. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. I have exposed Einstein. Beautiful.
Note: Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. Think carefully about the black “space” AS WELL. Great. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense, as BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE EYE represents a two dimensional surface OR SPACE (ON BALANCE) that is consistent with F=ma AND E=mc2. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN/ON BALANCE.
Consider what is THE SUN. The sky is blue, and THE EARTH/ground is ALSO BLUE. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT. E=mc2 IS F=ma. This explains the fourth dimension AND the term c4 from Einstein's field equations. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven.
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE.
Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
This is THE best channel on UA-cam!
I hope your videos would be broadcast on TV instead of propaganda
To be fair, Newtonian mechanics used to "hang together too well" for it not to be correct... until we found instances where it broke down. It's possible that quantum mechanics as we currently understand it will turn out to be close enough in certain circumstances but not always, such as when Newtonian mechanics failed at extremely large and small scales.
I don't think wave fields exist.
This channel should be compulsory viewing for graphics students. The animations are witty, economical, and communicate superbly. Well done the back room boys and girls.
Who tf is giving dislikes? How can you! This is so great. Love it :)
Excellent video! I've got a lot of these to catch up on. Talk about binge-worthy!
There's a lot of holes in my knowledge. You filled my holes very nicely. THANK YOU. You can fill my holes any time
with knowledge e.g.
1) QFT predicted e- are massless
2) e- have intrinsic quantum spin = chirality = clockwise or counterclockwise relative to the direction of motion = lefthandness or righthandness
3) e- chirality flips back & forth between lefthandness or righthandness. Thus it does evolve, so it does experience time, so it must have mass
4) weak hypercharge lets only lefthanded e- feel the weak nuclear force
5) e- can't flip chirality unless it can ditch it's weak hypercharge or pick some up. It does this via the Higgs mechanism.
I love this channel ! I've seen plenty of people try to explain the Higgs Boson. You did a better job than any of them.
Every ep I learn something, and I realize how much more that I don't know.
schlesierlid
well said
nextabe i
Well I'd hope you don't feel like you actually understand any physics concepts if you can't do the math behind them. If you're a person who just watched laymen UA-cam physics videos and think you actually understand it, you need to be humbled and sit in a uni class!
Avoided this channel for to long. Makes my brain hurt. But everytime i google it pops up. And this is the first glimpse of higgs boson and singulairty's that try to explain the interactions i found. I need to keep watching now. Headace is just a sign of brain activity apparently. Who knew 🤔
This has got to be one of the best channels on UA-cam.
Best description of Higgs Field I have ever seen/heard.
I LOVE this guy. he does such a great job explaining this stuff.
Because hes AUSTRALIAN:) Very down to earth we are,lol
@@TheZacdes Nope it's down to map ,lol
I know some of these words.
I felt that
Me too. But when he puts them in a sentence containing more than 2 words, my brain explodes.
I remember first hearing about the higgs boson and its relation to mass when I was 12. I though about it a lot and how it could possibly work and I came to was what I though was a radical new idea called a higgs field and than I though about a bunch of ways it could work and that maybe everything works this way. About a year later I heard about QFT and it crushed my spirit to hear that this wasn't a new idea and that no one would believe that I could have come to such a conclusion on my own without knowing about QFT first. It still occasionally hurts to this day.
What an impressive amount of nonsense
@@jtestaccount2431 I was a kid when I posted this, chill. But now because of thoughts like that I now have a job researching some of those very thoughts I had as a kid, and maybe if you has replied this back then I would have been discouraged and not pursued my dreams. There’s no need to try to put people down
@@salemi7438 Your post made perfect sense when I first read it. Just as positing a field with certain properties would prompt trained scientists to theorize & then experimentally search for an unknown particle, learning of a particle could prompt a search for an unknown (to the neophyte learner) mechanism, including a field, by which or in which the particle functions. Young music students learning simple scales "invent" long established theory, art students "discover" color harmony, &c. IAs a kid in the early 60s I thought the corner of S America looked like it would fit into that bend in the W coast of Africa. Got some laughs, as plate tectonics was not widely known & accepted.
This is one of the best channels ever. Such an absolute gold mine of fascinating content.
Bob has 5 apples.
He eats 1.
What is the circumference of the Sun?
I watched them fake the Higgs. Then I watched them cover up that evidence. This Higgs "discovery" is going to be the darkest moment in particle physics history.
The answer is: "there's no bones in ice cream"
King Kirby 😂 .
Val Sarff yeah elaborate please.
@@valsarff6525 elaborate please!!!
PBS Spacetime, please PLEASE do more on quantum field theory, it is absolutely fascinating to me, and many others! Love this channel!
No, you don't want to go deeper into QFT. Really, you don't.
the last comment in the video is something ive been thinking about. i couldn't care less about anything science while growing up, and now here i am spending my afternoon watching videos on pbs space time 7 years after graduation. says something about how everyone learns differently.
I have searching for months to describe these thing .......but none of any veideo makes my satisfaction........but this veideo clear my 75% of my doubts.....thanks bro........
Lets all become physicists, and when they ask us why we just answer "PBS Space Time"
I'm going back to school for physics because of channels like PBS Space Time :-)
Rene Fajardo g
Up until this channel I have had no interest in physics, now I want in places like cern
Yeah let's do this
I love how much of physics is essentially 'least worst solution' ^_^
+neeneko Whatever seems to fit... as weird as it is.
+neeneko it's essentially the application of Ocam's Razor. "Do we _need_ this? No? Then cut it. Keep it simple, stupid." (For perhaps a bit controversial ideas of "simple")
+Kram1032 Yeah, the fact it gets this bloody complicated WITH such a strong desire to keep it simply really says a lot about how, well, the simple answers really don't work.
neeneko oh but they do. To an extent. For instance, for almost anything you could possibly do in your every-day life, Newton's Gravity, which is fairly simple, is a sufficient and perfectly fine description.
As far as I know, outside of usage only _really_ useful to do more science, as of right now only GPS needs corrections from General Relativity to work appropriately. All else can be done with Newton just fine.
Of course I'm not saying that all this extra knowledge is worthless: One never knows when these things will have real impact on the general public. (GPS actually is a great example of that: Initially engineers simply didn't think GR would be necessary and they left the correction off. Within _minutes_ the tracked positions were way off but as soon as they turned the corrections on it was fine. Yay for science!) My point simply is that simple descriptions can go a long way.
Furthermore, as far as I know, people are actually moving towards more and more general theories which, in some sense, are also simpler and simpler. More specialized theories are "more special" by assuming more stuff. That makes them more useful for solving a particular subset of problems which take nice forms in those special theories. But it can also introduce complications which makes situations on the fringes of these special cases awkward and ones beyond those cases sheer impossible to describe. In some sense (namely in the sense that you need fewer assumptions), those more general theories actually are simpler. (Though we are so used to working _with_ those specialized assumptions, that not relying on them can seem mind-breaking at times)
+neeneko Its actually like this. When we introduced a Mathematical solution to the problem of mass. The least worst solution that was explored(Mathematically); turned out be the way in which Nature actually worked. If that's not Magic, then nothing is... :). Its not the other way around like the way you re thinking. Numbers are The Truth.!!!
That would make a great T-shirt "QFT is the least silly option".
This video gave me a breakthrough! Photons have always been so weird for me, I've never understood how there could be a particle without mass, and why it acts in such a strange way. Pairing it with Einsteins' theory of relativity, everything just snapped into place! Like aaaaah that was such an amazing moment, thank you so much!
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. The Earth is ALSO CLEARLY then E=MC2 AS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! GREAT !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
It's hard to keep up sometimes. But, I really love watching these videos. Science!
i find this stuff fascinating and this guy explains things very well.
The fact that humanity built the Large Hadron Collider will never not blow my mind. I can barely figure out what to eat for lunch let alone even begin to conceive of how much planning went into it.
I have read a lot of the technical documentation in the past... it is a very long read and it talks about a lot of compromises.
@@schmetterling4477 haha I’m a programmer, I know all about compromises 😎
Best Physics channel on UA-cam in terms of authenticity ...
I just love to watch your channel! It's one of the main reasons i gained interest in physics, or science in general. Keep it up this way!:)
It's impressive how much crazy maths is visualised here.
One of the best episodes so far, if not the best IMO....
Matt, your onscreen presence has really improved. 👍🏻
This is wonderful, you guys are great.
I love this fucking channel!
+Robert Armstrong I think you meant "I fucking love this channel!" lol
Sleepydog That, too.
+Robert Armstrong I love F**KING this channel!! O_O
Like my bedroom.
I turned on Arabic captions, tried to say 'em out loud and my furniture started floating
LMFAO!!!!!🤣😂🤣😂🤣
I love watching stuff like this. I think it's funny the feeling my brain has. It feels like your trying to put the end on a hosepipe while the water is on full.
Good analogy. By the way... you must be southern. You wrote “hose pipe.”
What will happen if we add a little bit of mass to a photon?
+Kytes93 very VERY weird things. It would imply that photon can interact via weak force, so it would be very similar to neutrino.
+Kytes93 It would turn the photon into a short-range force carrier like the W and Z bosons. In fact these guys are pretty close to being just photons with weak hypercharge. This charge let's them couple to the Higgs field, giving them mass and limiting their range, unlike the photon which has infinite range. A short-range photon would mean the electromagnetic force would be a short-range force. Matter would not exist as we know it.
PBS Space Time I have a question(s) related to this. Gluons are massless right? So do they also technically have unlimited range? Why are hadrons so small then? Perhaps because gluons have unlimited range we don't see "free quarks", but rather we always see them in composite strong-force-based particles?
+KohuGaly It's believed that gluons are massless (as in not confined like the weak force carriers), however it's not proven. However they are confined by a different mechanism than the W and Z bosons; gluons are interact with and are confined by each other! The Wikipedia article on gluons discusses this mechanism in a pretty digestible form en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Confinement
PBS Space Time thanks, that reminded me a video by Veritasium (I think?) where they've talked about this...
Thank you, for making these. It makes it so interesting to learn new stuff.
What an awesome channel. This one is the best because you actually answer questions in the next video! Incredible!
THIS VIDEO ABOUT THE HIGGS BOSON IS REALLY INFORMATIVE
The best source info on all things quantum.
I'm not highly educated but I've always tried to explain things to myself. The Higgs field just filled a big empty spot in my thought process.
Thank You for the education made understandable.
That's crazy how unstable it is considering its so stable in a sense all the way across the universe!
Exactly what I was wondering.
This is a great video, thanks for not skipping over a lot of the details like other short youtube videos on this topic.
Homework time for the next episode :) thanks for the playlist
Love how he looks like he's ready to take you down, haha. Physics in the morning, wrestling in the evening.
now, why doesnt the higgs field interact with photons?
+Angel Gonzalez Easy answer: Because they're not weak charged, same as how magnets don't affect wood.
Hard answer: It does, but all those interactions cancel out, like how all the air molecules hitting you in every direction cancel out and don't push you.
Interesting, sort of an innert mass then.
+Gareth Dean A magnet does affect wood, just not in a magnetic fashion.
Tripcore
That's true and the Higgs does affect the photon, but not in a mass-giving fashion.
(Specifically it combines elements of the W3 and B boson fields to produce the photon field.)
Gareth Dean This is why I can't wrap my mind around the idea that photons are mass-less.
Your channel is fantastic man! I am enormously grateful
explained brilliantly, as usual. Thank you
So what you're saying essentially is that electrons are like farmers or famous scientists: out standing in their fields...
Jack Wright That is a nice way of interpreting it, yes. That does sound accurate.
Wow
Notice that peppered through talks on QM and QFT are the words "essentially", "basically" and "more or less",lol
Now this episode was really ineresting!
I love this speaker. Non pretential and clear
I like that Star Trek comms sound you put in there.
6:20 neat way to apply occam's razor: "the best, least silly way of..." (y)
A couple questions:
1) For an electron traveling close to the speed of light, is the relativistic mass increment higgs mass or intrinsic mass?
2) Is the higgs mass of a particle proportional to the rate of change in chirality?
Hi, a massless photon from the earliest stars that fails to crash into anything during the effects of an expanding universe and the long term consequence on entropy will exist through entire history of the universe without its clock registering any passing of time. Is this statement correct and free of paradox?
Love your work, keep it up please.
Thank you
The TNG door chime sound you guys keep using has been my text message sound for the last decade and I have to keep checking my phone whenever I hear it in the video! lol
Loved this one. I’ve just started quantum mechanics in chem and this stuff is so interesting
God !! I am having a crush on you or whoever your content writer is.awesome job !
an electron has mass because it interacts with the higgs field and thus it cannot travel at the speed of light. But light also does reduce its speed depending upon the optical density of the medium. so this means inside that medium photons do experience mass and time. right? please explain.
And you guyzzz rock. i love your videos . although i don't understand everything but then also these videos explain a lot.
planing to be an astrophysicist in future.
keep up the good work.
atul gairola What I learned once was, photons (or maybe light? I think there is a difference) has a movement mass, or mass that emerges when in movement. Otherwise it would not bend due to gravitational forces.
So, this reply is super duper belated, but a key detail that should be pointed out is that when physicists say that light "slows down" in a medium, what they're referring to is the *propagation speed* of light. I.E., how fast the light wave as a whole moves through the optical medium. The photons themselves are still massless, and thus still traveling at the speed of light, and thus still not experiencing time, but inside the optical medium, they're bouncing around more, getting absorbed, re-emitted, et cetera. This gives the overall effect of the waveform propagating at sub-c velocities through the optical medium. A consequence of this is the diffraction of light at the boundary interface between two optical media (say, water and air, or the two different types of glass used to make fibre optic cable).
An interesting consequence of this effect is that it becomes possible for mass-full particles such as neutrons to travel "faster than light". They're not actually traveling faster than light, but rather they're traveling faster than the propagation speed of light in the medium. When this happens, you get the characteristic blue glow of Cherenkov Radiation. A lightspeed sonic boom. :)
@@calyodelphi124 Wow, the concept of "propagation speed" is really interesting. But I was referring to the two concepts of mass: mass of the object and mass of an object in movement. I.e., light is being "bend" due to gravitational forces, although light "particles" (photons) don't have a mass per se. Why is that? Or am I wrong?
@@andreavitale5269 Mass doesn't change regardless of your frame of reference or velocity or whathaveyou. It is what physicists call an "invariant". :)
However, the phenomenon that you refer to doesn't even have to depend upon the mass of the photons (or lack thereof, rather). What's actually happening is that the massive object is quite literally bending spacetime, and that bending of spacetime is what we perceive to be gravity.
The photons themselves are still moving in perfectly "straight" lines, relative to the now bent and distorted grid of spacetime. As a result, the photons follow the curved contours of spacetime itself around the massive object, and that's what causes the phenomenon of gravitational lensing. :D
@@calyodelphi124 Thus, gravitational effects are not dependent on an objects mass. It rather affects light regardless of mass. How do we call the things it affects and the things it does not affect? Apparently we cannot call them matter anymore... can we?
I am currently at a loss of words. Hopefully one day I will become as good in my field as you are in yours. Most admirable.
Just found this in 2020!! ❤️
I envy you. So many awesome videos to watch!
Does that mean that every flip of an electeron's spin is like one tick of time? Can you trace the indivisible part of time that way? Can things happen to the electron in between those ticks? Does the flipping take time?
Great choice for your band name. Shame I never saw a show. 😅 great video btw.
Pbs spacetime still going strong 6 years later
Nice way of explaining Higgs field and the associated Boson in a limited timeframe, thank you there!
Still two fundamental questions-
1. How to ensure the anomaly in the debris results of LHC (the energy blip) is attributable to only the Boson from Higgs field and not to a yet another particle from another not yet discovered field?
2. Conversely, as the disintegration is studied, what exact properties or attributes found in the study make the unknown particle the expected H.Boson more likely than any other particle?
I LOVE quantum mechanics....
Another great vid. I knew that the higgs mechanism worked by being a scalar field which slowed down particles so we say they have mass, but I did not see the obvious that it then has to couple with all those particles. I don't know why I never got that, but I didn't. Thanks to this vid, I do, so now I have a lot to think about. So thanks for that.
Questions: what is the coupling constant for the Higgs Field? I would guess it varies per particle, hence why some particles are more massive than other, and if so do each have a separate coupling constant with the Higgs? Knowing about some of the issues with EQD and couplings, do Higgs couplings also require charge or mass renormalization? Lastly, does the Higgs field itself explain the need for mass renormalization for every other particle?
+evilcam 1.) It does vary per particle. (Specifically the massless particles that make up massive ones. The electron is a combination of two massless particles for example.) Do you know what a Yukawa interaction is?
2.) Yes, the renormalization is what gives us the masses we get.
3.) No.
Thanks Gareth.
I did not know what a Yukawa potential was when I wrote that, but I found it by looking at the wikipedia page for the weak hypercharge. I sort of understand it...but certainly not well.
2. There is a problem with saying that renormalization gives us the mass. The mass number requires renormalizaition, else you get infinities when you calculate its amplitude average. I thought that the Higgs field coupling with various particles would explain why that mass has to be renormalized, but looking into it I have yet to find why that is, or more accurately how that works. I was also looking for the specific values per coupling constant per particle per higgs field interaction. Everyone knows the QED coupling constant with photons and the electron, 137.03599....(though to be honest I don't know in what units that value is using) but I could not find anything about the values for other couplings.
As for your third answer, since it is tied to the second question; do you know why then we have to renormalize the mass number? I read that Dirac thought renormalization was foolish and that we should just accept the infinities, but I really did not understand his reasoning. I read that Bethe developed renormalization just in order to do the calculations, but I don't know if anyone has ever explained where those infinities come from (aside from the obvious answer that they are the solutions to the equations sans infinity).
Thanks again for answering and helping not only me, but dozens of other people along. I see you on a bunch of different vids on a bunch of different channels just being awesome, and I wanted to say that I appreciate you immensely for that.
transylvanian
Well said sir.
+evilcam " I would guess it varies per particle, hence why some particles are more massive than other, and if so do each have a separate coupling constant with the Higgs?"
Yes. Each Yukawa coupling is proportional to the mass of the particle in question.
A Yukawa coupling is just the coupling constant in an interaction between a fermion and a scalar like the Higgs. Nothing fancy.
"do Higgs couplings also require charge or mass renormalization?"
Yes, but a nonzero mass renormalization is incompatible with the symmetries of the theory. You do however get charge renormalization.
"Lastly, does the Higgs field itself explain the need for mass renormalization for every other particle?"
Well really the only particle that gets mass renomalization is the Higgs itself since it is the only particle for which an explicit mass term is allowed. The mass renormalizations of other particles can be interpreted as a charge renormalization on the couplings with the Higgs.
+evilcam So the fact that it slows downs particles means that obviously has to couples to those particles, because the only way slow down particle is through interactions, which means there has to be a coupling constant. The constants for each field/particle is proportional to mass of that particle(actually you can think of the mass as the coupling constant), for fermions the mass comes through Yukawa coupling. For itself and W and Z bosons when the symmetry breaks, the mass is proportional to the value of the higgs field. Mass and charge renormalization is actually is needed because coupling constants are not actually constant, but rather functions of energy.
Awesome explanation. I was trying to find a video which really explains why some particles have mass while others do not. Great and amazing explanation. Thank you very much.
I binge watch this channel man
Do a video about Multiverse theory please ! ;)
Does the Higg's field only give mass inducing energy to electrons? As in, does the Higg's field only interact with the electron field? Or does it influence all other quantum fields? If not, what gives the other subatomic particles their respective masses? And If yes, why wouldn't it give mass to photons?
Can you clarify?
Thanks, I love the show :)
May the mass x acceleration be with you.
It does give mass to all particles but it should be noted that 99% of the mass from a nucleus come from the energys of the gluons interactions.
It does interact with other fields (such quark ones, etc), but not with everyone: the Higgs doesn't interact with the photon field and the gluon field, and that's why the photon and the gluon don't have mass :)
+Jon Van Pelt Very nice question! Thank you, hope they will answer it.
+Jon Van Pelt basically higgs field interacts with any particle that can interact via weak force. Namely quarks, leptons (electrons, neutrinos,...), weak force bosons and higgs boson (and naturally with itself). Naturally it also interacts with any composite particles that contain aforementioned elementary particles. It does not interact with gluons and photons.
That was actually the weird part - all particles which can interact via weak force have mass and all that don't are massless. Before Higgs theory it seemed merely like a strange coincidence.
I love the animations and it helps grasp the concept and is also well explained.
I have got to say, your simple explanation of Quantum Field Theory near the beginning sounds a lot like the simple explanation of strings and/or branes.
Simply put, mass is the sum of the fields interacting. However, this is relative to energy. The higher the energy within any field or all of the fields, the lower the mass. The lower the energy in the fields and the higher the mass. What is actually happening is stability. The atoms retain energy very well, and it can last for trillions of years. However, as mass interacts with each other they begin to calm down. This calming effect has an added bonus feature called gravity which in turn slowly accelerates the loss of energy and the gradual increase in mass and gravity. This causes the atoms to join with each other into molecules and larger structures. When enough matter is gathered, the concentration of atoms forces the atoms to collapse upon themselves and each other producing a black hole. However, black holes release subatomic particles through jets forged in the polar regions which shoot these subatomic particles out at beyond light speed at first, but then as the particles slows in space from impacts and gravity, the subatomic particles reunite into proto atoms and then finally proper atoms. This process is substantive and takes a little bit of time, but that is why the jets escaping from black holes and quasars are so very large. There are several constants in this universe.
1. This universe is a binary universe. Everything is physically based on the concept of polar opposites.
2. This universe is one giant recycling machine, re-inventing itself as much as it destroys itself. This also means our understanding of the age of the universe is way off.
These two constants are the only ones I know of. Everything else fluctuates in some degree this way or that.
I hope this helps.
So, what you're saying is that if I figured out a way to desynchronize myself from the higgs field I could travel at light speed?
yes and you wouldn't experience time either
hello everyone!
i have a small question about black holes.! i dont know whether its the right video to ask!
but my question is " when a star explodes in so called Super and Hypernovae in which even the tiniest of the atoms are ripped apart in violent energy bursts, what actually collapses in to the eternity creating massive black holes? whose gravitational field cant be deceived by the most fastest light itself? " i hope my question will be answered.
and i once again thank PBS Space Time (whole team) from the bottom of my heart for making such an interesting video on Higgs mechanism.
I don't quite understand your question, so if you could restate it, i might be able to help.
A few things: In stars there are no atoms to begin with, it's a plasma. Also there is no such thing as "fastest light", all light travels at the same speed if it's in the same medium.
Question: We know the Higgs field has a baseline energy value at all points in the universe, and we know that it gives intrinsic mass to certain particles by interacting with those other particle fields through the weak hyper charge (based on the particles chirality). But does the Higgs field lose energy to the particle that "gains" intrinsic mass from it in that point in space and as the particle moves through space? What about relativity? Is it the Higgs field imparting more intrinsic mass to particles moving close to light speed?