Hank responds to viewer questions, and explains what the Higgs boson particle actually IS. Follow SciShow on Twitter: / scishow Like SciShow on Facebook: / scishow
The internet is so great, these videos are so great. If you wanted to learn about things like this before the internet, it was so much more difficult and expensive than it is now. I am so stoked that someone wants to explain something so complicated, so simply, and I can watch it for free. Thank you :)
punkybrewstar83 By the way when are u westerners going to tell the truth that an Indian named S.N. Bose(Satyendranath Bose) discovered this particle.Why do u white people take credit for stuff we did in Science.
+RazerSky no einstein proved E=mc^2 or also M=E/c^2 proves that injecting energy creates mass. and breaking nuclear bonds releases energy.... this is 100+ years old now.... thats how electrons have a measurable mass.
"Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together."
You have come a long way since this video and never lost your charm and charisma in enlightning us. Kudos to you and your fabulous team for a job well done.
Please answer this. So it sounds like the Higgs field is like an invisible 3-D fishing net that is cast throughout the universe waiting to interact with mass that is "caught" within the net. Large things like fish (mass) interact with the net more while small things like krill (electrons) or bacteria (photons) have almost no interaction with the net. And the higgs boson particle is one link in that fishing net. Am I close?
Yeah this makes me wonder as well. Hank states that photons are massless, which they are considering their speed. Yet, they do interact with the Higgs Field with a different type of matter (black hole matter if you will) and it's able to attract photons. Using your analogy, a really dense net to where nothing can escape. For light "doesn't interact with the Higgs Field" but it does interact to a black hole. Which doesn't make sense but that's the way it is I assume
Tate H light actually doesn’t interact with gravity as such, the light is not curving towards the gravity because it is being pulled in, the space-time around the black hole is curved, the light travels a straight line through this curved space, when you straighten out this curved space or rather view it from an outside perspective the line it travels appears quite obviously curved. Any object which has mass would require an effectively infinite amount of energy to move at the speed of light and would also become denser the faster it moved, since photons aren’t essentially infinitely powerful black holes rocketing around at the speed of light it’s pretty safe to say they have no mass and will not interact with the Higgs field regardless of its density Tl;dr gravity doesn’t effect light because photons are massless, but light traveling through curved space time will appear to “curve” without having ever turned(from their perspective) hence why black holes “attract” light
Sit around children its time to talk quantum mechanics. This is the first time I saw Hank sitting down for a regular Sishow. It must be some relay heavy stuff.
Yes i can imagine one scientist exclaiming to the other "WTF was that! and the other goes fuck do if I know! and a third one standing near by, exclaims Jesus Christ! that was unbelievable! and fourth scientist shouts Oh my God! let us get the hell out of here! This is how they discovered Higgs Boson!
So theoretically, if I were separate my entire body from the Higgs Boson, then I will become a mass-less object, which means I can travel at the speed of light or become some kind of wave basically?
You get mass (ie: reason you don't fall apart :P) from the Higgs FIELD. This is because everything is "moving" all the time, or oscillating. This oscillation and it's interaction with the Higgs Field is why you're more or less massive. :) The more a particle is oscillating, the stronger it interacts and the more massive it is. The photon is oscillating very little, hence the speed. Mass is "sluggishness" you could say. x)
is it not throwing anyone else off that hank is sitting in a chair for this video?! he stands in almost literally every single other video, and I can't ignore the chair-sittingness in this one 😅
I've always wanted to understand the particles that make up the standard model. Like what a quark is and what the leptons are and what their purpose is. Can you please do a video on that??
(Stating the obvious, because I can) Speaking to you from the end of 2013, I can tell you that they narrowed down the energy range by July 2012, verified same in March 2013, and awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 10/2013.
Me but the universe has be moved to an alternate reality because of CERNS particle accelerator the world is going into madness everyday and time had gone faster
The Higgs field only 'gives' particles, which contain *rest* mass, only about 1% of their total mass. ~99% of the mass of a proton or neutron actually comes from the gluon field and its energy.
The fast pace and the cuts in this educational video is very counterproductive. I feel like I'm listening to a researcher who reluctantly has to give lectures to its students.
Its not the higgs boson that gives mass, its the field itself. The boson was only important because its evidence of the field. Also the majority of the mass of an atom isn't from the higgs field, only about 1%. Most comes from the binding energy of the strong force inside the nucleus. (E=mc2).
Shivani Mishra Imagine this "Probability field" of "virtual particles" as a... rippling water surface. You have a dynamic pattern of moving spikes and pits. And that is all good. Now imagine a layer of fabric streached several millimeter above this rippling water. And look from above the fabric. If you have enough energy in this ripples, at some point you might get a spike big enought to actually reach the fabric and put a water drop there. You will see this place from above, even if you don't see the ripples. And it changes the propertiea of fabric in the place of contact. That is obout what happens with particles presenting themselves. So the "Field" if your water, and Energy is the intensity of ripples you have you have under the fabric. Spikes not reaching the fabric are virtual particles, and wet spots on the fabric are real particles... Hope that helps your imagination.
I literally spaced out and started thinking about what I have to do tomorrow - maybe watching these vids right before bed as I'm half asleep anyway isn't the most conducive way to learn things with SciShow...
To clarify, the body itself is not getting heavier. It's apparent mass is the one increasing, as you can see by the m=m0.y equation, where y = 1/sqrt [1 -(v²/c²), so, for a body that has a mass value over 0, if v² = c², you're going to end up dividing by 0, and so the body gets and indefinily big amount of mass, which makes it impossible to give in enough energy for such body.
I'm not sure if you read these but I would like to point out that the value of the field at a point cannot be directly interpreted as a number density in the way you propose. An easy way to see that this is true is to note that you can add any constant to the field and still get a theory that you can work with, if a little abstruse. If you want the number density, calculate the expectation value of the number operator. That is a semi complicated expression involving the field and its momentum density. In particular, it is emphatically *not* true that the ground state of the electroweak theory has a constant density of Higgs bosons constantly flying around. Higgs particles (the leftovers from electroweak symmetry breaking that we saw at the LHC) are real (not complex) scalars, which means that their number is not a conserved quantity. The Higgs vacuum is a true vacuum: act on it with an annihilation operator and you get zero. Act on it with a creation operator and you'll create a Higgs boson. . The fact that the field has a nonzero value cannot readily be interpreted as long as one still clings to the notion that fields are just convenient ways of describing particles: fields *are* really the degrees of freedom in nature; quantum mechanics *does* allow for continuousness. Further, it imposes it. Another point which is more of a curiosity since it's incidental to this video: it is not, in fact, electromagnetism that keeps you from falling through your chair. It was shown by Freeman Dyson that the stability of matter is mostly due to Pauli's exclusion principle. It's less important that your electrons are electrically charged than it is that they are fermions which cannot occupy the same quantum state.
electrocat1 It's because this model "unifies" electromagnetism and the weak force. That the W bosons are charged is a consequence of this unification. The "true" symmetries of the theory don't predict photons or W and Z bosons. The forces are carried by particles called the B, W^+, W^-, and W^0, all massless. The B is like a photon, while the Ws are like gluons. Then the Higgs mechanism kicks in and the symmetries of this theory break. As a result, the bosons acquire mass and the W^0 "mixes" with the B. There are two possible ways to do this mixing. One of them results in the photon, which turns out massless, and the other results in the Z^0, which is slightly heavier than the Ws. That's a very rough snapshot. The model itself is complicated and full of moving parts that are hard to keep track of. Surprisingly enough though, all the math you need to have a basic understanding is at the high school level.
electrocat1 The framework everything rests on requires some pretty hefty mathematical machinery to understand, like functional integration and group theory, but to understand it like a mechanic all you need is basic stuff like elementary algebra and matrix multiplication.
I guess I sort of understand the Higgs field. But if the Higgs field is pretty much everywhere in an even distribution which would lead us to believe that our mass is the same everywhere in the universe then my question is why does our mass increase the closer we get to the speed of light. What is happening with the interaction of our particles to the Higgs field that is making us more massive.
I'm going to be rewatching this many times, I think. Because you have made a sort of easy type of explanation for very complicated concept, that I can sort of understand bits of, but not all at once yet. I an no particle physicist and have very early onset of short term memory problems, so I can only learn now from repetition. So repeat it, I will! Thanks SciShow... you are totally brilliant at explaining everything so that non-scientific people can get to grips with just about anything! Keep it up, I love learning new science stuff when I can, it's so fascinating! 11/10 A+
Either this guy explains it really well, or i'm really one of those people who can understand complicated things, but can't understand basic shit because of bad teaching methods in school... I knew how a nuclear reactor worked at the age of 7... now i can't understand 12th grade match...
〈--- Literally FAST food oh so you know how a nuclear reactor works mind telling me the intricate details of it including all the calculations, Let me tell you what you think you understand is just the basic idea anyone with a descent brain can understand that but the problems arise in the fine details when contradictions start piling up.
nishank chaudhary Noooope. The chicago pile worked. I DID NOT SAID "I WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE POWER WITH A NUCLEAR REACTOR I MAKE". I said i knew how it WORKS. What is your problem? What, you say i was stupid as a kid because i did not knew enough or what?
I am just saying that understanding the principle of a nuclear reactor or a video like this which doesn't go into detail is simple enough and you shouldn't blame the education institution for your own fault of not practicing enough or in case you don't understand something taking your right to ask the teacher and clearing your doubts.
nishank chaudhary Dude, i learned atom physics from youtube videos and some people in class who are actually smart can't understand it. I just said we HAVE TO learn the basics too, and these videos do it better. If you build a good base, you can build a tower.
No they didn't. First: It would be no surprise that a law could be broken, they just explain something we can measure. But owaht is happening is that when a particle like that come to existence, a particle of negative mass also comes. That's waht we call black mattter.
TomdeArgentina I think 'black matter particles' and Higgs-Boson particles are the same thing, they just couldn't figure out how to figure it out before.
C Rexxar "A exists in B" is a logical statement that says that the object A has property(ies) defined in set B by virtue of which it is necessarily possible that A changes and/or is able to change the state(s) associated to at least one of the properties(y) of at least one object (other than A) whose property(ies) is(are) defined in B assuming that the other object exists in B. While "A has mass" is a logical statement that says that among other properties A necessarily posseses velocity lesser than c(vel. of light). As evident by what it means to exist, to change any state of anything else that exists something need not have velocities lesser than c. Also to have mass means that A has its own gravitational field which is also not a necessity for affecting any other object. example of something that exists without any mass is photon, although I guess you already know this which makes me wonder why you asked this question in the first place.
So what your saying is,( correct me if I'm wrong), light does have mass since it, well... exists. But within the set rules of our universe, it is so miniscule that it practically doesn't.
C Rexxar Nope. What I meant was: Existence is a conclusion reached for an object based on certain observations conducted on its effects on other objects that exist. It is not necessary that those effects have to be because of mass of that object. Thus having mass is not a necessary criteria for existence. And no, light actually has zero mass. It practically as well as theoritically has zero mass and there is no approximation or negligibly small numbers. It has zero mass. Plain, simple, pure, absolute, exact ZERO MASS.
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." .....Hebrews 11:3
Your particle physics is a bit off, which is understandable, but as someone associated with Fermilab (the US's main particle physics lab) I can assure you that fields DO exist, and in fact all particles are in fact a property of fields. This is why photons behave like particles, because all particles are really waves on fields. So every field has an associated particle (or several) and every particle has an associated field. That is why force carrier particles exist and seem to pop in and out of existence randomly, because they are just a property of the field which is being disturbed there. I hope that clears things up all though I understand that sounds completely insane to normal people, which is why physicists prefer to explain it to mere mortals in terms of particles.
jwi-jma because you just have an explanation and not the actual theory. ever been to school? try to understand economics. everyone knows that supply and demand are correlated and that demand is higher when prices are lower but how exactly it works is a fucking tedious science that I m studying right now and wouldnt recommend you doing :)
Yimin Lu The Higgs DOES have mass. 135 times as much as a Proton or Neutron, to be exact. And they didn't detect it by its interactions with other particles, they detected it by smashing protons together at almost the speed of light and actually creating it (momentarily), then observing that it was there by the debris it left behind. The then did that a million times (or some other huge number) until they knew without a shadow of a doubt that there was in fact a 135 AMU particle in existence and it wasn't just random noise.
DroidFreak36 Maybe you can explain this to me then - he says in the video that he would have the same mass anywhere in the Universe. My understanding is that i.e. on planets with a lower gravity than Earth, he'd weigh less and, on planets with a greater gravity he'd be heavier. Am I right, or is he?
I have some ideas on how Higgs field makes particles have mass. 1) All particles are actually moving at the speed of light all the time. 2) Interacting with Higgs field causes a particle to change it's direction of movement. 3) Intensity of interacting with Higgs field shows how far can a particle travel before Higgs field causes it to change direction again. So basically a particle that has strong interaction with Higgs field (a Mass) is basically wobbling around some place, unable to move far in any direction. (Unless something "forces" this particle to choose one direction often, in which case it can slowly travel in this direction).
That minutephysics video is completely wrong. The interactions of the electroweak theory are such that the particles *really* become massive. It's not just a kinematic illusion. It kindasorta almost sounds reasonable because when you do the actual calculation you see diagrams that look like they're describing this sort of process: there's a line representing a particle moving along, then it interacts with the Higgs field, then it keeps going, then it might interact again, etc. There is, however, no momentum being exchanged in these interactions, which means there's no "bouncing" off in the same way that a tennis ball can be bounced off a wall.
It is not PERFECT as you say because it doesn't explain EVERYTHING. It is perfect for describing what we have now. If there are some things missing it is not perfect. That is why it is our best fit; because it works with what we have, but we don't have everything.
I'm not a physicist, but I'm always interested in learning about this stuff whether it's from Hank or another reliable source. And I think it's fair to say that when you get to this level of physics words and basic language can't really do it justice. On this this level, the concept of "existence" has a much more complex meaning. Metaphors can also be misleading because they can still make sense without data to back them up. I still really appreciate videos like this. Keep it up Hank!!
If we had a more complete version or a different version of the standard model that worked better we would use that. That is why we use the best explanation. Another example would be gravity. The law doesn't exactly fit when it comes t things with great mass such as black holes. We don't know enough about that yet, but since the law works for everything else (as in it has been tested and it works) for everything else, we use it. Eventually we will add to it to better explain the things we can't
tell me am i speaking in tongues or something? it fits every model and when every new particle that fits the model is found it just proves that it is perfect as the previous tests show, if you have a car that WORKS just because you don't have a lightbulb in it doesn't mean it wont work anymore and that it should be pushed aside, as long as it passes all tests that try to make it fail...
So the Higgs field are Higgs particles which are the same density throughout the universe, some thing interact with it like electrons and neurons but other things like fontons do no, when they do this interaction with the Higgs field, it gives them matter.
Carlos duarte... Light is affected by gravity as well. The formula taught to me in high school physics says that gravitational attraction is between things with mass. In actuality, it is between things with energy. In other words, all things that exist, as in order to exist, a thing must have energy. At least that's what I gather from the videos minutephysics made on the subject
What if its not the same density everywhere? How do we know with absolute certainty? How do u know the calculations for, say, distance between us and stars are correct if in some area inside that distance the higgs field is less dense or more dense? Wouldn't it affect the factors we use to calculate such things and if those assumptions can be true, then how can we be sure about anything? How can we be sure if some star is 10 light years away and not 11 or 12? And if a lightyear is what it is? What if the higgs field is not always the same everywhere and changes density through some unkown factor and therefore changes constants like speed of light or gravity strength?
particle accelerators at a fundamental level use magnetic fields to accelerate particles (usually packets of millions of protons) colliding with each other as these packets are moving in opposite directions around the circle. Quarks are the most fundamental particle we know of and have (roughly) a third of the mass of a proton. particles like protons (and neutron, these are called baryons) are made up of three quarks which might have different "flavors" (i.e types, there are six of these). Quarks "stick" together through the strong nuclear force (which is so strong it accounts for most the energy of particles such as protons). All quarks are charged either positively or negatively as -1/3 or 2/3 with antiquarks having the opposite charge but same mass (charge: 1/3 and -2/3). Despite this charge they can combine to make neutrally charged particles, such as the neutron through combining two-1/3 charges and a 2/3. Hope some of that help clarify (if you even read this).
Layman's Terms: All matter, forces, and 'empty' space in the Universe is actually composed of Energy. How we perceive those things and how they interact with those other things, Depends on the density, composition, and organization of that Energy.
This is fascinating. I do understand the way it works, and I hope this is the way the universe works, as we would be one step closer to truly understanding mass and quantum mechanics.
The magnetic field varies with distance by the inverse square law, not exponentially. The virtual particles emitted are photons, they don't travel in the bizarre directionless paths shown. They go straight out. The virtual particles given off at a certain time would form a sphere. The area of the sphere is proportionate to the radius squared, the rise of the inverse square law.
Trouble is Higgs only explains less than 2% of the mass we're familiar with. I mean atoms, electrons and quarks which make all the massive particles in an atom have intrinsic mass of less than 2% of the total atom mass. The rest is apparently the energy locked in the gluons field inside protons & neutrons. Ant that locked energy is equivalent to the missing mass thru Einstein's E=mcc. But so far I haven't seen any explanation of how such locked energy can cause the effects we associate with mass. Inertia, gravitational attraction or curving of spacetime (whichever way you prefer).
So what I got from this explanation is the Higgs Field gives particles mass. Since photons are essentially electrons with out mass, that means they are either able to break past the field or unaffected by it. By that rational, does that mean that the Higgs Field is what causes the "cosmic speedlimit" of the speed of light? If we discovered a way to get a ship and its contents to counteract the Higgs Field we could theoretically surpass the speed of light? This all based on the fact we overcome the probable violent physical side effects of making large amounts of solid matter not have mass while maintaining the ability to return to having mass without changing. I am interested in hearing anything anyone has to weigh in on this.
Wait, so is moving though the Higgs field like walking through water? The less something interacts (e.g. the more aerodynamic it is) the less mass it has, but the more it interacts (e.g. like us trying to walk through a pool) the more resistance it has, and therefore more mass?
yes, things do actually get heavier as the move, especially when getting close to the speed of light (the constant value c) according to Einsteins theory of relativity. How this directly relates to the Higgs Bozon, I do not know exactly (maybe someone better at physics can help me here/correct me if I'm wrong). As an object has more energy applied to increase its velocity, when it begins to reach that speed limit (c) the energy gets converted to mass instead so that it can't go faster than c.
Hank! I totally get it! Explain more stuff to me, because I'm so fired up now I had to google the most recent CERN news and wikipedia the higgs boson for further reading. What I'm saying is this show makes me want to science. a lot.
You know shit is about to get real when Hank is sitting down.
Devansh Bhatnagar wow........thats a hell of a observation.
i believe my good sir that that is a joke. very rare and illusive joke
😆
Lmfao- hilarious Man, but so true
he is not hsnk he is q
this is interesting because the Higgs boson was discovered five months after this video was released!
Just thougt about that
No you are incorrect
Because higs boson was duscovered 9 years ago but thefisrst 5 months and this video released the last 5 months
He created it there
@@facted9848 this video was released 9 years ago are you okay
Obviously not.
The internet is so great, these videos are so great. If you wanted to learn about things like this before the internet, it was so much more difficult and expensive than it is now. I am so stoked that someone wants to explain something so complicated, so simply, and I can watch it for free. Thank you :)
Good thought.
You get free internet at the cost of your identity.
punkybrewstar83 By the way when are u westerners going to tell the truth that an Indian named S.N. Bose(Satyendranath Bose) discovered this particle.Why do u white people take credit for stuff we did in Science.
Your phone or PC wasn't free and neither was internet!
Yet professionals, doctors say you shouldn't get info from the internet
This video is from 2012, the higgsparticle and field is confirmed
Yes, but apparently the mass of electrons doesn't come from them, only protons and neutrons. So there is some mystery left to discover
RazerSky Protons and neutrons or quarks in general? (I'm not very informed in this particle physics stuff)
IVAN3DX where moments from a nuclear winter ... noone cares anymore
+RazerSky no einstein proved E=mc^2 or also M=E/c^2 proves that injecting energy creates mass. and breaking nuclear bonds releases energy.... this is 100+ years old now.... thats how electrons have a measurable mass.
terbokli Where’s that nuclear winter at? I bough all these jackets to prepare for it
Why weren't you a professor Hank. I love listening to you explaining these thingys. Thank you for making my insomnia productive.
Lol. Watching this at 12:32
+People Are weird 1:34 checking in
2:52, Fuck.
3:34
18:12 ... am i weird?
"Well,
the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created
by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the
galaxy together."
That is the only force that I know .
Well ,after all I am a Jedi warrior.
+DoYouEvenMagicBruh higgs-boson does sound like a star wars character
izzad ibrahim It better describes the force and how it works!
+DoYouEvenMagicBruh Sounds like the universal wavefunction in Pilot Wave theory.
Right. Right. And where do midi-chlorians fit in again?
You have come a long way since this video and never lost your charm and charisma in enlightning us. Kudos to you and your fabulous team for a job well done.
Still confused gonna watch it again...
Still confused gonna watch it again...
James Last Still confused gonna watch it again...
James Last ... ... Ohhhh I get it.
^me
wrg
they originally wanted to call it the Goddamn Particle to express its elusiveness.
Hahahahhaha haven’t laughed at something on TH-cam this hard. Love the wit in this!
That sounds strange, but it also kinda charms me
Maybe we should really give some particles names like these *cough* *cough*
Please answer this. So it sounds like the Higgs field is like an invisible 3-D fishing net that is cast throughout the universe waiting to interact with mass that is "caught" within the net. Large things like fish (mass) interact with the net more while small things like krill (electrons) or bacteria (photons) have almost no interaction with the net. And the higgs boson particle is one link in that fishing net. Am I close?
It's a decent analogy, one that I like very much. Thanks for the share.
You are close but what about nuetron stars, which can be 25km wide but weigh 500,000 times the Earth
a rock can be the size of a fish but be much heavier
Yeah this makes me wonder as well. Hank states that photons are massless, which they are considering their speed. Yet, they do interact with the Higgs Field with a different type of matter (black hole matter if you will) and it's able to attract photons. Using your analogy, a really dense net to where nothing can escape. For light "doesn't interact with the Higgs Field" but it does interact to a black hole. Which doesn't make sense but that's the way it is I assume
Tate H light actually doesn’t interact with gravity as such, the light is not curving towards the gravity because it is being pulled in, the space-time around the black hole is curved, the light travels a straight line through this curved space, when you straighten out this curved space or rather view it from an outside perspective the line it travels appears quite obviously curved.
Any object which has mass would require an effectively infinite amount of energy to move at the speed of light and would also become denser the faster it moved, since photons aren’t essentially infinitely powerful black holes rocketing around at the speed of light it’s pretty safe to say they have no mass and will not interact with the Higgs field regardless of its density
Tl;dr gravity doesn’t effect light because photons are massless, but light traveling through curved space time will appear to “curve” without having ever turned(from their perspective) hence why black holes “attract” light
Sit around children its time to talk quantum mechanics.
This is the first time I saw Hank sitting down for a regular Sishow. It must be some relay heavy stuff.
Relay heavy stuff. Yah it's so heavy we have to pass it off to another person.
+John O'Brien He's talking about mass, so of course it's heavy. Duh.
i like to imagine two scientist working on a particle accelerator, then the Higgs Particle is made...
"Shit! look, look, look at that!"
"Woh o-o"
+Michael Plays It's only created for a very short amount of time, and I don't think the particle accelerator is made of glass so yeah
Gauster Van Deventer okay....I did say "Imagine" and i kinda meant it as a joke...
just like Lennon
+Michael Plays Even if the Higgs boson has been observed I find the standard model to be a messy temporary solution.
Yes i can imagine one scientist exclaiming to the other "WTF was that! and the other goes fuck do if I know! and a third one standing near by, exclaims Jesus Christ! that was unbelievable! and fourth scientist shouts Oh my God! let us get the hell out of here! This is how they discovered Higgs Boson!
So theoretically, if I were separate my entire body from the Higgs Boson, then I will become a mass-less object, which means I can travel at the speed of light or become some kind of wave basically?
Yes but that makes no sense. You can't separate your body from the higgs boson, because it's a property of mass. Althought we can dream right?
You get mass (ie: reason you don't fall apart :P) from the Higgs FIELD. This is because everything is "moving" all the time, or oscillating. This oscillation and it's interaction with the Higgs Field is why you're more or less massive. :) The more a particle is oscillating, the stronger it interacts and the more massive it is. The photon is oscillating very little, hence the speed. Mass is "sluggishness" you could say. x)
Knurte Farblekund I see. Excellent explanation! thank you so much! It makes perfect sense as well.
Pedro Martins Thanks. And ikr.
yoosuf29
Thanks! Happy to help! :)
Knurte Farblekund nice one
You should do an update video on this since they say they have now been able to observe the field, hence discovered it.
is it not throwing anyone else off that hank is sitting in a chair for this video?!
he stands in almost literally every single other video, and I can't ignore the chair-sittingness in this one 😅
Edward John Knish III IKR!
It's 2018 (after Higgs era :-)), and as an engineer I still strugle to find a video that better explains the Higgs field. Thank you Hank!
Me at the end..... SO WHAT IS HIGGS BOSONS PLEASE?........
1:37 "WIBBLY" Wobbly Timey Whimey ~The 11th Doctor
David Tenant right!
yeah,first weeping angel episode.then he denies saying that in day of the doctor.Its hilarious,:P
😂😂😋
well, technically correct, since the war doctor could be considered the 9th doctor
Kiva Karmen I
"I have no idea!" I lol'ed! Appreciate the modesty and honesty Hank!
Im taking QM right now thanks Hank(and the Sci Show team) this is making my laborious nights of math seem useful.
Thanks guys. LOVE your channel.
I've always wanted to understand the particles that make up the standard model. Like what a quark is and what the leptons are and what their purpose is. Can you please do a video on that??
(Stating the obvious, because I can)
Speaking to you from the end of 2013, I can tell you that they narrowed down the energy range by July 2012, verified same in March 2013, and awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 10/2013.
Are u still in 2013? Because I am in 2014.
;-)
Not anymore. I was back when I posted this (I think it was november or something), though. 2013 was a good year.
pff I'm already in 2016.
whoa........time travel??
XD
rogerdotlee yeah, I was just joking
Who's listening in 2019
Not me
Seema Varghese gang gang
Me but the universe has be moved to an alternate reality because of CERNS particle accelerator the world is going into madness everyday and time had gone faster
Yep
Me
Wow this is amazing. Thank you for explaining something so complex and actually making sense.
The Higgs field only 'gives' particles, which contain *rest* mass, only about 1% of their total mass. ~99% of the mass of a proton or neutron actually comes from the gluon field and its energy.
djayjp I’ve seen this statement multiple times in this comment section, would you be willing to explain how this works? I’d honestly like to know more
The fast pace and the cuts in this educational video is very counterproductive. I feel like I'm listening to a researcher who reluctantly has to give lectures to its students.
Its not the higgs boson that gives mass, its the field itself. The boson was only important because its evidence of the field. Also the majority of the mass of an atom isn't from the higgs field, only about 1%. Most comes from the binding energy of the strong force inside the nucleus. (E=mc2).
Could it be an interactive process? We put energy in and we get a particle out!
Shivani Mishra Imagine this "Probability field" of "virtual particles" as a... rippling water surface. You have a dynamic pattern of moving spikes and pits. And that is all good.
Now imagine a layer of fabric streached several millimeter above this rippling water. And look from above the fabric.
If you have enough energy in this ripples, at some point you might get a spike big enought to actually reach the fabric and put a water drop there. You will see this place from above, even if you don't see the ripples. And it changes the propertiea of fabric in the place of contact. That is obout what happens with particles presenting themselves.
So the "Field" if your water, and Energy is the intensity of ripples you have you have under the fabric. Spikes not reaching the fabric are virtual particles, and wet spots on the fabric are real particles...
Hope that helps your imagination.
I literally spaced out and started thinking about what I have to do tomorrow - maybe watching these vids right before bed as I'm half asleep anyway isn't the most conducive way to learn things with SciShow...
when he said "understanding those things is really complicated" he sounded like eminem
If we figured out how to turn off a Higgs boson, hello anti gravity boots.
the mass of a proton that made you does not came from the higg field even less from higg's boson.
To clarify, the body itself is not getting heavier. It's apparent mass is the one increasing, as you can see by the m=m0.y equation, where y = 1/sqrt [1 -(v²/c²), so, for a body that has a mass value over 0, if v² = c², you're going to end up dividing by 0, and so the body gets and indefinily big amount of mass, which makes it impossible to give in enough energy for such body.
I'm not sure if you read these but I would like to point out that the value of the field at a point cannot be directly interpreted as a number density in the way you propose. An easy way to see that this is true is to note that you can add any constant to the field and still get a theory that you can work with, if a little abstruse. If you want the number density, calculate the expectation value of the number operator. That is a semi complicated expression involving the field and its momentum density.
In particular, it is emphatically *not* true that the ground state of the electroweak theory has a constant density of Higgs bosons constantly flying around. Higgs particles (the leftovers from electroweak symmetry breaking that we saw at the LHC) are real (not complex) scalars, which means that their number is not a conserved quantity. The Higgs vacuum is a true vacuum: act on it with an annihilation operator and you get zero. Act on it with a creation operator and you'll create a Higgs boson. . The fact that the field has a nonzero value cannot readily be interpreted as long as one still clings to the notion that fields are just convenient ways of describing particles: fields *are* really the degrees of freedom in nature; quantum mechanics *does* allow for continuousness. Further, it imposes it.
Another point which is more of a curiosity since it's incidental to this video: it is not, in fact, electromagnetism that keeps you from falling through your chair. It was shown by Freeman Dyson that the stability of matter is mostly due to Pauli's exclusion principle. It's less important that your electrons are electrically charged than it is that they are fermions which cannot occupy the same quantum state.
I have a question, why is it called electroweak? Is it because of the fact that a W boson can have a positive or negative charge?
electrocat1 It's because this model "unifies" electromagnetism and the weak force. That the W bosons are charged is a consequence of this unification.
The "true" symmetries of the theory don't predict photons or W and Z bosons. The forces are carried by particles called the B, W^+, W^-, and W^0, all massless. The B is like a photon, while the Ws are like gluons.
Then the Higgs mechanism kicks in and the symmetries of this theory break. As a result, the bosons acquire mass and the W^0 "mixes" with the B. There are two possible ways to do this mixing. One of them results in the photon, which turns out massless, and the other results in the Z^0, which is slightly heavier than the Ws.
That's a very rough snapshot. The model itself is complicated and full of moving parts that are hard to keep track of. Surprisingly enough though, all the math you need to have a basic understanding is at the high school level.
Oh wow, thanks! What kind of math are we talking about?
electrocat1 The framework everything rests on requires some pretty hefty mathematical machinery to understand, like functional integration and group theory, but to understand it like a mechanic all you need is basic stuff like elementary algebra and matrix multiplication.
Oh okay, well that's pretty easy. No partial derivatives or things like that?
I refuse to believe that 2012 was 8 years ago
This is quite amazing. There is HD on TH-cam before the Higgs boson is discovered. Wow.
It's crazy to think that around this time the higgs boson was still this new mysterious particle that we were only starting to understand
how could any particle have a perfectly even distribution throughout the universe
possibly because the universe is made out of the stuff.
Well the only thing that has equal distribution (that I know of) throughout the universe is the space time continuum. Its complicated.
Scientifica Kosmos Wow such a good explanation, maybe you'll get hired in a university for that. *Sarcasm*
Fedor Scheglov Спасибо!
Fedor Scheglov I was trying to be helpful.
This channel really IS the only reason I get most of the quantum mechanics stuff I need to know for school.
It happened in 2014 I think.
Nah, 4th of July, 2012.
I learned about higgs field in 1921.....
No you didn't
I just googled it and it's nuts to learn that they did actually discover the particle that year
I guess I sort of understand the Higgs field. But if the Higgs field is pretty much everywhere in an even distribution which would lead us to believe that our mass is the same everywhere in the universe then my question is why does our mass increase the closer we get to the speed of light. What is happening with the interaction of our particles to the Higgs field that is making us more massive.
* decrease
???
Who else is watching it in 2019???
Who is still posting this comment?
I watching this after playing death stranding game
Thanks, while I've seen a number of other videos explaining the Higgs Boson but this kind of helped it all gel together
Sooo... if light has no mass, how is affected by gravity?
Kyle SimonGravity is affected by momentum and energy not mass, and light has momentum and energy thus affected by gravity.
Since light is going so fast, it has energy, which has mass
Hey debunked that. Energy does not have mass.
***** Yep!
***** Also, light has a force when moving. If it did not have a mass, that would mean light does not have a force as f=m/a
Sooo...If we manipulated the Higgs field.....We could have a real version of mass effect?
no
it's very difficult to discern mass for what is not, very well explained sir.
I've got Higgs Bosons in my pocket right now! Like it ain't no big thing. Hardly even impresses the ladies any more.
Some particles masses are bigger than others ..lol
125 GeV/c²
I'm going to be rewatching this many times, I think.
Because you have made a sort of easy type of explanation for very complicated concept, that I can sort of understand bits of, but not all at once yet.
I an no particle physicist and have very early onset of short term memory problems, so I can only learn now from repetition. So repeat it, I will!
Thanks SciShow... you are totally brilliant at explaining everything so that non-scientific people can get to grips with just about anything!
Keep it up, I love learning new science stuff when I can, it's so fascinating! 11/10 A+
Either this guy explains it really well, or i'm really one of those people who can understand complicated things, but can't understand basic shit because of bad teaching methods in school... I knew how a nuclear reactor worked at the age of 7... now i can't understand 12th grade match...
〈--- Literally FAST food oh so you know how a nuclear reactor works mind telling me the intricate details of it including all the calculations, Let me tell you what you think you understand is just the basic idea anyone with a descent brain can understand that but the problems arise in the fine details when contradictions start piling up.
nishank chaudhary Noooope. The chicago pile worked. I DID NOT SAID "I WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE POWER WITH A NUCLEAR REACTOR I MAKE". I said i knew how it WORKS. What is your problem? What, you say i was stupid as a kid because i did not knew enough or what?
I am just saying that understanding the principle of a nuclear reactor or a video like this which doesn't go into detail is simple enough and you shouldn't blame the education institution for your own fault of not practicing enough or in case you don't understand something taking your right to ask the teacher and clearing your doubts.
nishank chaudhary Dude, i learned atom physics from youtube videos and some people in class who are actually smart can't understand it. I just said we HAVE TO learn the basics too, and these videos do it better. If you build a good base, you can build a tower.
+James D Between you and nishank I am incredibly disappointed, rather than commenting with anything constructive you kids just attack his statement.
omg..they did it they broke the first law of thermodynamics..where have I been?
No they didn't. First: It would be no surprise that a law could be broken, they just explain something we can measure. But owaht is happening is that when a particle like that come to existence, a particle of negative mass also comes. That's waht we call black mattter.
oh I see I see
Pedro Martins Excuse me please, did they detect black matter particles?
TomdeArgentina directly, they didn't. And you know that. It's impossible to see, how would they?
TomdeArgentina I think 'black matter particles' and Higgs-Boson particles are the same thing, they just couldn't figure out how to figure it out before.
Where is the update? It's 2016! I subscribed! I need more knowledge! Thank YOU!
how can anything that exists not have mass?
Why can't something exist that does not have mass ?
If it exists, it well.... Exists!! It is a physical thing, so I just wanna know how it can exist, yet not have mass.
C Rexxar "A exists in B" is a logical statement that says that the object A has property(ies) defined in set B by virtue of which it is necessarily possible that A changes and/or is able to change the state(s) associated to at least one of the properties(y) of at least one object (other than A) whose property(ies) is(are) defined in B assuming that the other object exists in B.
While "A has mass" is a logical statement that says that among other properties A necessarily posseses velocity lesser than c(vel. of light). As evident by what it means to exist, to change any state of anything else that exists something need not have velocities lesser than c. Also to have mass means that A has its own gravitational field which is also not a necessity for affecting any other object.
example of something that exists without any mass is photon, although I guess you already know this which makes me wonder why you asked this question in the first place.
So what your saying is,( correct me if I'm wrong), light does have mass since it, well... exists. But within the set rules of our universe, it is so miniscule that it practically doesn't.
C Rexxar Nope. What I meant was:
Existence is a conclusion reached for an object based on certain observations conducted on its effects on other objects that exist. It is not necessary that those effects have to be because of mass of that object. Thus having mass is not a necessary criteria for existence. And no, light actually has zero mass. It practically as well as theoritically has zero mass and there is no approximation or negligibly small numbers. It has zero mass. Plain, simple, pure, absolute, exact ZERO MASS.
You remind me of my Asian friend
underrated comment
For those interested in a deeper explanation I personally like the one on the Fermilab channel, look for the Highs mechanism.
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." .....Hebrews 11:3
ok go to your church and let the grown ups do the science.
Science is governed by evidence, spiritual belief by faith. The foundations of each are mutually exclusive but their meaning to humanity is not
This makes me believe in god more!
Me too. God is very very tiny.
ive been having so much trouble with my astronomy class but you make it so simple for me to understamd. bless u
Damn. Scientists are wizards. Magic is real.
Your particle physics is a bit off, which is understandable, but as someone associated with Fermilab (the US's main particle physics lab) I can assure you that fields DO exist, and in fact all particles are in fact a property of fields. This is why photons behave like particles, because all particles are really waves on fields. So every field has an associated particle (or several) and every particle has an associated field. That is why force carrier particles exist and seem to pop in and out of existence randomly, because they are just a property of the field which is being disturbed there. I hope that clears things up all though I understand that sounds completely insane to normal people, which is why physicists prefer to explain it to mere mortals in terms of particles.
I don't get what is so hard to understand.
jwi-jma because you just have an explanation and not the actual theory. ever been to school? try to understand economics. everyone knows that supply and demand are correlated and that demand is higher when prices are lower but how exactly it works is a fucking tedious science that I m studying right now and wouldnt recommend you doing :)
Ok?
Yimin Lu The Higgs DOES have mass. 135 times as much as a Proton or Neutron, to be exact. And they didn't detect it by its interactions with other particles, they detected it by smashing protons together at almost the speed of light and actually creating it (momentarily), then observing that it was there by the debris it left behind. The then did that a million times (or some other huge number) until they knew without a shadow of a doubt that there was in fact a 135 AMU particle in existence and it wasn't just random noise.
DroidFreak36 Maybe you can explain this to me then - he says in the video that he would have the same mass anywhere in the Universe. My understanding is that i.e. on planets with a lower gravity than Earth, he'd weigh less and, on planets with a greater gravity he'd be heavier. Am I right, or is he?
I have some ideas on how Higgs field makes particles have mass.
1) All particles are actually moving at the speed of light all the time.
2) Interacting with Higgs field causes a particle to change it's direction of movement.
3) Intensity of interacting with Higgs field shows how far can a particle travel before Higgs field causes it to change direction again.
So basically a particle that has strong interaction with Higgs field (a Mass) is basically wobbling around some place, unable to move far in any direction. (Unless something "forces" this particle to choose one direction often, in which case it can slowly travel in this direction).
That minutephysics video is completely wrong. The interactions of the electroweak theory are such that the particles *really* become massive. It's not just a kinematic illusion.
It kindasorta almost sounds reasonable because when you do the actual calculation you see diagrams that look like they're describing this sort of process: there's a line representing a particle moving along, then it interacts with the Higgs field, then it keeps going, then it might interact again, etc. There is, however, no momentum being exchanged in these interactions, which means there's no "bouncing" off in the same way that a tennis ball can be bounced off a wall.
Very concise Hank, other videos described the Higgs field in a way that made it sound much more abstract
Neat way to say we found a real small particle good job
It is not PERFECT as you say because it doesn't explain EVERYTHING. It is perfect for describing what we have now. If there are some things missing it is not perfect. That is why it is our best fit; because it works with what we have, but we don't have everything.
Excellent explanation- Simplified way.
when I first saw him i thought he was John Green, but it was Hank Green, the brother. very nice
Hello sir I am from India excellent explain ❤️❤️
I'm not a physicist, but I'm always interested in learning about this stuff whether it's from Hank or another reliable source. And I think it's fair to say that when you get to this level of physics words and basic language can't really do it justice. On this this level, the concept of "existence" has a much more complex meaning. Metaphors can also be misleading because they can still make sense without data to back them up. I still really appreciate videos like this. Keep it up Hank!!
If we had a more complete version or a different version of the standard model that worked better we would use that. That is why we use the best explanation. Another example would be gravity. The law doesn't exactly fit when it comes t things with great mass such as black holes. We don't know enough about that yet, but since the law works for everything else (as in it has been tested and it works) for everything else, we use it. Eventually we will add to it to better explain the things we can't
mass is not a force its is a property of energy, an interaction
tell me am i speaking in tongues or something? it fits every model and when every new particle that fits the model is found it just proves that it is perfect as the previous tests show, if you have a car that WORKS just because you don't have a lightbulb in it doesn't mean it wont work anymore and that it should be pushed aside, as long as it passes all tests that try to make it fail...
Is this fellow's name Hank ?
I like the way he explains things.
He's smart and charismatic.
So the Higgs field are Higgs particles which are the same density throughout the universe, some thing interact with it like electrons and neurons but other things like fontons do no, when they do this interaction with the Higgs field, it gives them matter.
thanks hank, your series on the fundemental forces saved my ass with my g12 project
It makes sense and also makes other things possible that would have once been considered impossible.
Carlos duarte... Light is affected by gravity as well. The formula taught to me in high school physics says that gravitational attraction is between things with mass. In actuality, it is between things with energy. In other words, all things that exist, as in order to exist, a thing must have energy. At least that's what I gather from the videos minutephysics made on the subject
Thank you for saying you don’t know why any of these things exist. It is a refreshing change from hearing that there is no reason these things exist.
Thus helped so much after watching like 3 other vids on the Higgs field
What if its not the same density everywhere? How do we know with absolute certainty?
How do u know the calculations for, say, distance between us and stars are correct if in some area inside that distance the higgs field is less dense or more dense? Wouldn't it affect the factors we use to calculate such things and if those assumptions can be true, then how can we be sure about anything? How can we be sure if some star is 10 light years away and not 11 or 12? And if a lightyear is what it is?
What if the higgs field is not always the same everywhere and changes density through some unkown factor and therefore changes constants like speed of light or gravity strength?
+Красимир Геджов hmm, dark matter explanation maybe?
Please post videos explaining quantum field theory and m-theory
This is the best video on the Higgs field I've seen so far.
Could you explain the particle accelerator and the quarks? Please!
particle accelerators at a fundamental level use magnetic fields to accelerate particles (usually packets of millions of protons) colliding with each other as these packets are moving in opposite directions around the circle.
Quarks are the most fundamental particle we know of and have (roughly) a third of the mass of a proton.
particles like protons (and neutron, these are called baryons) are made up of three quarks which might have different "flavors" (i.e types, there are six of these). Quarks "stick" together through the strong nuclear force (which is so strong it accounts for most the energy of particles such as protons). All quarks are charged either positively or negatively as -1/3 or 2/3 with antiquarks having the opposite charge but same mass (charge: 1/3 and -2/3). Despite this charge they can combine to make neutrally charged particles, such as the neutron through combining two-1/3 charges and a 2/3.
Hope some of that help clarify (if you even read this).
Layman's Terms: All matter, forces, and 'empty' space in the Universe is actually composed of Energy. How we perceive those things and how they interact with those other things, Depends on the density, composition, and organization of that Energy.
I had to watch this video over several times but I think that I get it now roughly, and it actually seems pretty simple, but hard to explain.
More particle physics and quantum mechanics related videos would be AWESOME!
This is the first time I've ever seen a good introduction to Quantum Field Theory, thank you!!!
Dude, that was awesome. The best explanation that I've heard yet.
This is fascinating. I do understand the way it works, and I hope this is the way the universe works, as we would be one step closer to truly understanding mass and quantum mechanics.
You know shit just got real when Hank is sitting down rather than standing up.
The magnetic field varies with distance by the inverse square law, not exponentially. The virtual particles emitted are photons, they don't travel in the bizarre directionless paths shown. They go straight out. The virtual particles given off at a certain time would form a sphere. The area of the sphere is proportionate to the radius squared, the rise of the inverse square law.
Trouble is Higgs only explains less than 2% of the mass we're familiar with.
I mean atoms, electrons and quarks which make all the massive particles in an atom have intrinsic mass of less than 2% of the total atom mass.
The rest is apparently the energy locked in the gluons field inside protons & neutrons. Ant that locked energy is equivalent to the missing mass thru Einstein's E=mcc.
But so far I haven't seen any explanation of how such locked energy can cause the effects we associate with mass. Inertia, gravitational attraction or curving of spacetime (whichever way you prefer).
So what I got from this explanation is the Higgs Field gives particles mass. Since photons are essentially electrons with out mass, that means they are either able to break past the field or unaffected by it. By that rational, does that mean that the Higgs Field is what causes the "cosmic speedlimit" of the speed of light? If we discovered a way to get a ship and its contents to counteract the Higgs Field we could theoretically surpass the speed of light? This all based on the fact we overcome the probable violent physical side effects of making large amounts of solid matter not have mass while maintaining the ability to return to having mass without changing. I am interested in hearing anything anyone has to weigh in on this.
Wait, so is moving though the Higgs field like walking through water? The less something interacts (e.g. the more aerodynamic it is) the less mass it has, but the more it interacts (e.g. like us trying to walk through a pool) the more resistance it has, and therefore more mass?
Yes, but it's not the same mass that weighs us down or keeps the Earth orbiting around the Sun.
Thx man. I keep hunting and pecking at string theory, and you've shaped more of the puzzle in my minds eye.
yes, things do actually get heavier as the move, especially when getting close to the speed of light (the constant value c) according to Einsteins theory of relativity. How this directly relates to the Higgs Bozon, I do not know exactly (maybe someone better at physics can help me here/correct me if I'm wrong). As an object has more energy applied to increase its velocity, when it begins to reach that speed limit (c) the energy gets converted to mass instead so that it can't go faster than c.
Wow! This video was made in January 2012 and the Higgs Boson was discovered in July of 2012.
I just love this channel!!! Wish it would have been around when I was coming up!?
Hank! I totally get it!
Explain more stuff to me, because I'm so fired up now I had to google the most recent CERN news and wikipedia the higgs boson for further reading.
What I'm saying is this show makes me want to science. a lot.
The 'Organization' has made their move. They're recruiting people by uploading a video on TH-cam and checking the comment section. El Psy Kongroo
El Psy kongroo