I have watched tons of RI lectures online but... Jim. You made me subscribe in hope of getting more content produced by you. Thanks Jim for your efforts to make the world more clear for use mortals.
I am with Niels Bohr. that physics is a way to describe and predict what happens, not what nature 'is'. that way you remain open to the idea that there is more to it, than what you perceive. and that some of the beauty, wonder and mystery remains .
It's like meeting an old PHD math and physics friend of old all over again! My friend, PJ, has been dead for over a decade now. Great command of well articulated English . Loved the presentation. Would love to point out to Jim, some day over coffee, where he walked right past a huge insight within his talk.
What I take from all this is that matter is actually just a form of frozen or condensed energy and that mass arises as a result of this concentration of energy. The Higgs Field is essentially a modern version of the old æther idea from the past.
Your half right Mke, The Higgs field is an area, an imaginary concept. the aether is a plenum of neutrinos in space, actual particles. Google "vacuum catastrophe". it will explain much better than I can.
The real question--the next question--is not, what is mass, but rather, what is energy? That is, what is energy apart from the circular definitions and measurements we impose upon it? If energy is ultimately understood as movement, or motion, whether potential or kenetic, the real question is, the movement or motion of what? The quantum fields? What comprises the quantum fields? What is it really which is vibrating or moving in terms of these fields?
Some years back I recall a magazine article which talked about "valence" quarks in protons and neutrons. That the missing mass of a proton, for example, is because we see only the uud quarks which are in the outer most shell similar to electron shells, and there are more quarks in some inner shells of the proton. And thus explaining how the proton has more mass than what the three uud quarks can account for. Is this a rival theory, or has this changed?
I know its older, but I agree with some of the questions; It is just a description to sate ourselves. We are stuck on this idea of mass, I would almost be given to toss mass out all together. However, we need it now (Like the cat). Its also funny how 'the simplest answer is often the correct one'; Where we had early debates on whether the 'Ether' existed or not, and now we surprisingly (Or not) now have many fields to explain quantum interactions. I get the math/physic of current ideas, but there is a simpler way. Both to explain gravity, electro-magnetism, and light. Mass and massless alike.
@ The Royal Institution, @ Jim Baggott: The question I want to ask is, "Are (1) the 'intrinsic' masses of the elementary particles themselves, (2) the masses acquired from, say, the energy due to gluon-gluon and gluon-quark interactions, and (3) the mass acquired from the velocity of an accelerated particle, the same thing? I mean, do we call these three observable properties 'mass' (giving them the same name) because they are indistinguishable? They seem to be distinct concepts, so I think it's remarkable that they all lead to the same thing. Can you enlighten me?" I don't wish to bombard Jim with mail; he probably gets too much of that already. If you could consider passing on my question to Jim so that, should he think it a worthy one, he might reply here, I would appreciate it greatly.
I believe that if you attempt to measure those masses, they will respond identically. Also, we could consider that they are all made of energy in one way or another. Are (1) sound, (2) light, and (3) heat all the same thing? We call them all "energy"
Massless particles would be better called restmassless particles. A rest mass is what it would have IF it were not moving relative to the measuring observer. However, we do know that a photon carries a certain quantity of energy, and is moving very fast (not at rest!). Indeed a solar sail works due to momentum transfer from photons colliding on the sail; momentum is a consequence of mass in motion (from a "massless" particle at that!). The photon's energy imbues it with a small amount of mass, and thus a small amount of interaction with the Higgs field. And that means gravity can act on photons!! This allows for gravitational lens, black holes with event horizons that are pitch black etc.
That is not a silly questions at all. It is a hard questions with several possible answers. Here is what I think is the most general answer... Recall that he said even particles with mass are massless without an interaction (with the Higgs field). It is only those interactions that result in mass. Further it is only interactions that give mass to the proton and the neutron (interactions of confined quarks and gluons). In the famous thought experiment of a box of photons (massless by themselves) together give rise to mass. If you leave the box alone all photons bounce off of all sides producing an even pressure. If you move the box in one direction you will start hitting the photons more with the 'back wall' of the box. More hits means more pressure in the opposite direction you are trying to move the box. This is resistance to change in motion = inertia = mass. So really in all cases mass arises from massless things interacting. Massless particles are just any particle that is free from interactions.
"The sun is a deadly laser.", this seemed like a good place to insert this nugget. Inertia as a coherent movement of gluon fields and other interesting stuff
Linear motion is at 'c' in free space. Gyration fixes the position. Deflection dextro or levo from this point attains or amasses. Did you know that in free space, all forces converge into a point via lumens? To get to vacuum, let a laser pass through diamond, gems, glass, water, air, and into free space until it's speed is 'c'. That's vacuum in free space. In a physics lab, all vacuum pumps create a region of low pressure called vacuum in the earth atmosphere..
Mass(in kilograms) = Charges squared (in Coulombs squared )x 10 to the power minus 7 divided by distance (between two charges in meters). That's how Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is equivalent to Coulomb's Law, and so works for NASA.
Totally empty space like room to place things seems to be a product of our imagination, but apparently there is no such a thing. To me space itself is like a medium that doesn't lay down in an empty vacuum, but it is what we see as space itself. This space doesn't have euclidean properties but can only be approximated to that. Whereas euclidean space can be separated from time and explained separately, the real space seem to need time to be described, as spacetime . There is even a more weirder fact about spacetime. Everything that is part of spacetime travel as waves that propagate amplitudes. Thus nothing really moves, in the sense we know. When I look at my hand, moving, if we "zoom in" there are only amplitudes going lower or higher. All the particle it is made are excitations of fields that fill the entire universe. At some point a particle field collapse may be triggered from an arbitrarily long distance. It is a question of time. But the probability may be so low, that it would take like billions of billions of years. The only thing is when my eyes detect the reflections of light coming from it, there is an almost certain probability that it will see it where it does. But it is literally spread out through the entire universe, as the excitations of fields we are made of, are distributed through the whole universe.
If mass is a manifestation of the Higgs field and gravity is a curvature of spacetime in the presence of mass, could there be a mathematical relationship between the Higgs field and the gravitational field or maybe between the Higgs boson and hypothetical graviton bison?
I wonder if sometime in the future we would be able to generate and negate the various individual quantum fields on demand using some kind of apparatus, much like we can generate and cancel out electromagnetic fields. I guess the technology would need to use the field that we are trying to create or negate.... Higgs bomb anyone?
Yes; but, no it isn't what you suggested; which I'm sure got some intelligence Operative and IBM Watson, all excited and wondering whether you are planning something nefarious. Don't use the b word. Pretend it doesn't exist. Otherwise it isn't worth talking to you.
the energy of the gluons, is it more like kinetic energy or potential energy? Are the quarks in ernergy wells like electrons bound to hydrogen nucleii are in energy wells?
If a "thing" can be on a H ori Z on , either side, how much energy does it take to move a near vacuum from one side to another? - 1/12 is the place I find in contrast between the sides of (3/3+1/3) : (3/4+1/4) . Can a true vacuum be the othersides almost vacuum across a ERB.
Mass seems to be simply a different form of energy. This comes from the particle structure. For such a particle at rest there is no momentum pointing in a particular direction because the local momentum vectors cancel out , therefore the superposition of waves that make up the particles have a center of momentum at rest. But there are waves propagating that carry energy. Any wave propagation carries energy and momentum. This kind of energy is mass. This hypothesis of mine is explained by the mass of protons that is 123 times higher that the mass constituent quarks. When a proton is at rest, its quarks aren't. Mass is an intrinsic energy and I think it is generated by interference. The Higgs boson seem to explain it in some similar way.
The mass of the gluon (which it gives to the quarks when it passes its energy to them) is, literally, its energy per square light speed, since none of them have mass as such. So expecting inertia from a molecule would be something analogous to being refreshed by a glass filled with gaseous hydrogen and oxygen. Something's lacking.
Instant wavefunction collapse or field (which is more convenient to imagine as it is physical) collapse can be taken as is, but I think it is still problematic. Only waves that carry energy always must propagate below c. A field of a particle is spreadout in the entire universe, so when two particles interact their fields can interact everywhere at the same time. However this still doesn't explain non-locality.
1. What EM wave that carries energy propagates below c? 2. A field is the area of influence of a force. Common sense tells me a single particle cannot exert force 27 billion light years away, or 162 sextillion miles (approx) the diameter of the visible universe.
imnewtothistuff not EM waves, but matter waves. Actually waves that carry energy propagate at c(for light or other massless particles) or below c (for massive particle waves). The problem is exceeding c. Field doesn't necessarily mean the area of influence of a force. It can refer to other things. The field associated to a particle can be represented by all the values of the field type (for example electromagnetic) that each point in space has. That particle represents a quantum of the EM field and it is a photon. At long distances from the maximum amplitude, the field will be infinitesimally small. Even in newtonian mechanics, the gravity force exerted by an object has a non zero value at any point in space, no matter how far it is.
1. I have never heard of a "matter wave" other than what a boat or a pebble in a pond makes. Unless your talking about the hypothetical massless particle. 2. Mass is a property of matter, if there is no mass there is no matter, ie no such thing as a "massless particle" It is an ad hoc explanation to prop up a failed hypotheses. Light is a transverse electromagnetic wave. "massless particle" defies common sense. 3. Exceeding c? The force of gravity propagates virtually instantaneously. It is not a wave or particle. 4. Yes, a field can be represented geometrically, infinite with infinite points and values, I learned that in freshman year. But geometry and math are not science. in order to have a non zero value to infinity that force must propagate at infinite speed, which is the problem you mentioned. Example: You are in my field of view but 100 feet away. I assign my fist the value of 1, your face has a value of zero.(Don't take it personal!) Only when I move (propagate) to where you are can I change your value to non zero. I can't hit you if I can't reach you. It's ironic that you used gravity as an example because it's the only force (not particle, massless or otherwise) that comes close to infinite speed. I hope i clarified my position.
imnewtothistuff what you are talking about is classical physics and newtonian mechanics that can describe reality up to a limited level. For very high velocity physics Relativity seems to be able to predict what happens in certain situations, and it explains gravity. Whereas gravity in newtonian mechanics acts instantaneously, in relativity and according to observations, gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light. There are other aspect of particle physics that cannot be explained classically. That is why we have Quantum Mechanics. But QM is a tool for statistical predictions. It doesn't explain clearly what is behind it the math. Quantum field theory is based on QM and has some postulated that can enable such explanation. According to experimental research light propagates like a wave but apparently it deliver the energy only in precise quanta that depend on frequency. The quantum of light named photon was proposed by Einstein as an explanation for the photoelectric effect. A photon is not just the shortest pulse of light possible. It has properties that cannot be described classically. All particles in fact have these properties. Later DeBroglie discovered that matter can also propagate like waves. That is why we can call them matter waves. Electrons beams for example have a much higher frequency than light beams and that is why electron microscopes have a much better resolution being able to magnify much more. You can try to watch some videos about the double slit experiment or quantum entanglement to see why classical theories don't work for all situations.
inox1ck I'm glad we found common ground (Newtonian G) but that's where it ends. Everything you stated after that was contradictory. I'm familiar with the double slit experiment, it raised more questions than it answered. OK, I'm about to make a statement that's going to blow your mind. This is where the rubber meets the road: < Space and time are concepts of the human mind. They are not actual physical things that can be warped, bent, folded, torn, twisted, poked holes in, or manipulated in any way shape or form like they try to make you believe. You cannot travel in time in any direction. The "fabric" of "space-time" is nothing more than pure, utter fantasy. A geometric representation* of pure math created by Minkowski for which Einstein took credit but later conceded. Einstein's hypothesis was falsified half a century or more ago and yet we have quantum this and quantum that. *The same goes for magnetic lines of force. I'm tired of the videos showing them bend, snap, twist and reconnect as if they were actual physical lines. If it were true I'd see lines of latitude running down my street, which I clearly do not. it's all bull crap.> So now you can understand my trepidation for theoretical physicists and modern cosmology. A singularity (whatever that means) only exist in an false equation. r=0? nope, you can't divide by zero. I learned that in 8th grade algebra. Yet it persists. That means no black holes at the center of galaxies, no black holes anywhere, the big bang never happened, the universe is not expanding, neutron stars don't exist, and the Grand Poobah of them all, you guessed it, no Higgs bosson. Decades of looking, billions of taxpayer dollars spent and nothing to show for it but a high power death ray machine. What they said they found was nothing more than a minuscule blip in the background noise. Ockham is probably rolling over in his grave. It's time to look elsewhere. I'm done, If you would like references as to where I contrived my cockamamie ideas I will gladly supply them only at your request. I wish you much success in your endeavors.
"I'm curious to hear from someone who isn't a white man like me." - good lord, this ideology infects everything, doesn't it? :( Thankfully, Mr. Baggott is very good at answering these questions and is fascinating to listen to.
I'm a white male from eastern Europe. I'm mored disadvantaged than black women it UK -- I'm the more oppressed here... So i would like to have safe spaces where i can do my slav squats, eat semki and other slav things...
This is a plea, a search for future wisdom. "White men" who have a particular cultural context but hopefully a scientific objectivity, have carried 90% of the burden for the scientific progress of the last several centuries. However, since these "white men of science" recognize both their own cultural framework of exploration and that this framework would have been greatly improved by the contributions of others, they reach out to encourage those who are not of their demographic. In current times, there is this incredible sense of loss that this tiny minority have had the opportunity to contribute, and they lament the many many people who (for whatever socio-politio-religious reasons) have not been able to fully contribute. In the end, it's about encouraging the full engagement of ALL of the potentials of humanity, a way of saying, "Most of the Einsteins have gone unheard in every field in every generation!" As a result, they continue their pursuits, but they also hope for a world where that genius girl in India or China or the Bible Belt of the USA will have equal opportunity to develop their skills and become the next Mdm Curie. If the effort for educational parity brings forth even one more Einstein-like mind to change the world, it is worth the effort to encourage this in various regions and among all genders. Genius is unpredictable. It appears where it may and does what it does. However, it is limited in its likely applications by social conditions. This affects men and women, rich and poor, each according to local attitudes. We would like to have a world where socio-economic status and religious prejudices do not stand in the way, but reality is that such barriers do exist. To remove these barriers would serve science well, and so good scientists also try to scratch down those walls in whatever way they can. In Britain, where the RI lectures are held, they are particularly aware of the university-system bias against women and foreigners in the past, and so they are also particularly aware of the need to recruit these demographics to further to total cause of humanity. If they make a point of pursuing this now, it is because they recognize how much their ancestors failed to do this in the past. It may be driven partly by a sense of ancestral guilt, but it is also in perceiving the hope for the future.
Why do people like Michael Kreitzer get so defensive about the idea of including a broad spectrum of people? I don't know what "meritocracy" you think it's damaging in selecting audience questions (which was otherwise being done randomly or based on whomever was waving their hand the hardest)
Mass is a photon of 2pi Planck wavelength trapped over its own gravity well m=E/c^2. Mass is energy in orbit at c over a sphere giving angular momentum c^2 = inertia
@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 Every action that is done by a force withina distance is work. it can be moving a body, making a explosing, lifting a weight, catalise a chemical reaction... Basic, everyting that happens in the world is work
Me Thinker, I suggest you look up Sabine Hossenfelder. She's as an expert physicist that very clearly explains difficult topics. She also has one on Energy :)
Great question. Because the gluons carry color charge! Thus, they can interact with each other, unlike photons. This makes them into stretchy strings instead of free flying particles.
I have had a way of thinking about mass in all Matter in the following way.. there is a little mass in the nucleous of all atoms but the bulk of the mass is an illution. its not really there. I recon the mass we feel is actually the gyroscopic effect that the electrons have on the hole atom. So plutonium is one of the heavier atoms and has a shit load more electrons going round and round in turn creating resistance to movement in all directions. freeze the electrons and the mass nilly all but disapears. It may be very wrong but it seems to be natural way of visulising what may be happening. the reason atoms seem to be perpetually powerd is because they are always swiming in the Zero point feild, getting the energy they need directly from this endless supply of energy. if you can sheild the matter of something with the right combination of counter rotateing feilds, electric and magnetic, you can starve out the speed and motion of the electrons in pritty quick order like 30 min or less and the mass within the shielded area starts to disapear as the electrons slow down, right down but the atom remains stable just with almost no mass. This is also a good one when pictureing a ship trying to attain light speed. as we get closer to light speed the amount of zero point energy slaming into the matter inturn gets the little electons, gyrocopes going crazy and inturn adding a lot more mass and why it is imposable to push that matter past light speed. makes perfect sense and is understandable why anything with mass cant exceed light speed.... but what do i know...lol
Gyroscopic effects only manifest towards rotation, not linear movement. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I'm afraid your view lacks any power to describe or explain the observable reality.
Defining energy through work is so 17 century. Such definition does not make any sense at all in quantum mechanics. Much better approach to understanding energy comes through Noether's theorem that gives clear understanding of energy, momentum and many other conserved quantities. This understanding remains true in quantum field theory.
"I'm curious to hear from someone who isn't a white man like me." - I cringed so badly. How condescending could he have been. I'm sorry buddy but I don't think that non-white men need reinforcement from you in order to gather the confidence to ask a question. What I saw here, was a lot of great fathers bonding with their kids by bringing them to this great historical theater to hear a lecture on modern physics and ask some questions.
18:07 do we need to artificially manufacture that into this great discussion...like conjuring a particle from nothingness that was discussed just prior to that statement
It's disingenuous to say that we have no definition of mass. If we have a detector, then that detector embodies a definition, and even though we may not be able to put that definition into words, we can find out more about the definition (that is embodied in the detectorI by studying the detector and the method of detection.
Hey, anyone out there remember tripping on lsd? Thinking back, maybe those "trails" that were seen at first...light, ha, ha, ha, maybe we were seeing individual photons of light traveling, in super low motion. We were seeing faster than the light was traveling, and not merely seeing a hallucination, like we thought?
Makes sense that the 'abstract concept' of zero, 'absolute nothingness' (a creation of the human mind?), "The big 0", the 'magical' non-number of mathematics - does not exist in nature. "Nothing can come from the non-existent"... makes sense... kinda... the 'infinite' part is tough to grasp though. It MUST have a 'beginning'... an 'end' of sorts? no? - a 'loop'? ... some kind of 'pattern' at least? - a 'shape'? So difficult to make sense - of things we cannot see or sense :D
Nothing doesn't exist because it it did, it would be something. Everything comes from 1. If there ever was a state where absolutely no thing existed, there never would be anything and no one to consider the condition. If there ever was nothing there wouldn't even be the impetus for anything to come about. It's just logic. 0 is just a symbol to indicate the concept of not any thing. It is a contrast to all the things that are. If you start with 1, you can conceive of "not one" and "one and one", etc. You can't start with 0, because there is no such thing.
Great Q&A session. However the announcer's request for questions from "someone who isn't a white man" was really uncalled for. Feel free to virtue signal in your own presentation but not during Mr Baggott's presentation.
Let’s brush off stuff we don’t understand and keep pushing our beliefs about what we do know, that’s no scientific or logical, at best we have SOME beliefs, that could change, when other beliefs come to the centre. Whilst I’m extremely interested in science I’m also repelled by the negative beliefs that ‘it’s true, we’ve proved it’ ultimately we will never know everything but stick to what we know.... great that we have scientific intelligent amazing individuals, we also need those who ask, Why, or prove it. Theories are just that, truths are factual provable replies to theories.
The anti-particles generally have the same mass as their “normal” counterpart, they only differ in that they have opposite electrical charge. They obtain their mass in the same way the “normal” particles do. There is some argument about why the universe is full of “normal” matter, and not half “normal” matter and half anti-matter. It seems the universe has a bias against anti-matter, I’m not sure anyone knows why that is, I don’t think that affects the answer to your question but I thought I would mention it.
His answers were rather simplistic especially about the heating of ice. He either didn't grasp question fully or thought his audience were high school students.
On "Dark Matter" (5:27-5:33): "It doesn't interact with anything […] but we know it has gravitational effect". Having gravitational effect _means_ that it actually interacts with all accountable matter… otherwise there would not be any gravitational effect! Gravitational effect IS an interaction with much more than "[not] anything"... The thing you are trying to say is "Dark Matter doesn't exist, but we need this explanation to save our gravitational model of the cosmos, as we don't want to abandon it even in light of observational evidence that our model doesn't sum up to the observations i.e. is wrong. Thinking up a new model that builds on all the forces which we actually _can_ measure and account for is too difficult and/or admitting we have been wrong that gravity - the weakest force we know, and now understand is not a force at all if we accept Einsteins GR - is the only force that controls the motions of the celestial bodies of the cosmos is too embarrassing".
It does not interact with known particles (of our universe). It's all abstraction. And as long as we do not have better explanation we just call it dark matter - which means it might not be matter at all...... It might be something else (field) we do not know yet or we do not consider in our abstractions. All physical theories are just simplifications formulated mathematically and as along as they predict well behaviour - so you can build internet, computer etc..... it is proven to be correct. That does not mean that theory is perfect..... For prediction of the movement of planets we do not need quantum theory, for GPS we need it (and use it and it works). So all physics is about iterative process - once we have another mathematically formulated equations which will include and PREDICT!! behaviour of the world around us - we can use them. The biggest and real difference between religion and science is that science can do predictions, which work while religion or any other new-age religion cannot predict anything......
"The biggest and real difference between religion and science is that science can do predictions, which work while religion or any other new-age religion cannot predict anything……" I have no idea about what you want to show as response to my comment, when you mention science, internet, computers, GPS, etc, which I have no complaint about and have not mentioned nor argued religion nor indicated nor mention religion at all. I am not religious, but an absolute non-believer in anything: show me evidence and I will accept. Claim things without evidence and I will call that religion. So most of your comment is not just mute but unintelligible in the context. Sorry, but my reply has NOTHING to do with religion, but ALL to do with science. "It does not interact with known particles" Well, if it does affect e.g. the outer arms of a rotating galaxy, it DOES interact with particles. This is the foundation of the idea of Dark Matter: something which we can't see or detect - according to our gravitational model - MUST affect the objects (fundamentally the particles) of the outer ends of our spiral galaxy based on our model vs our observations of rotational speed. I repeat (which you have not actually addressed) that having gravitational effect means that it actually interacts with _all_ accountable matter… otherwise there would not be any gravitational effect! Gravitational effect IS an interaction with matter which is (surprise surprise) particles... My question is: when is it time to reevaluate ones model? When observational evidence shows 2% off the model/hypothesis/theory? 20% off? Or when - as now - a whopping c:a 1900% off? When is the observational evidence that the gravitational model is not up to snuff enough to reevaluate it and come up with a model that only uses the mass and energy we actually CAN observe? Dark Matter and Dark Energy is really pushing the limits of what the scientific method allows by a loooooong shot. I call that religion: "We believe in our model regardless our observations and will invent ANY undetectable shit to keep our model true". Oh… to make it clear in view of your comment: the scientific gravitation model makes predictions which are contradicted by the observations, which is the sole reason for the invention of "dark matter". Sorry to rain on your parade.
They hoped to find "dark matter" but they failed, now they can't abandon their model because this will make them look like fools, so they will stick with the model until the working one, who seems to be the model of the electric universe, will be widespread and understood. It will take some time, but not to long I guess, I'm only surprised that nobody in the audience asked about the electric discharges between mass objects and how those objects accumulate this energy and if that discharges effects their mass or not, how a discharge between atoms looks like and if that's possible or observable without a chain reaction and what if the energy that we see it's a electric discharge between celestial bodies and we do not need the "dark energy" explanation anymore ? How the force field and the electricity works in their model ? I am curios about the answers.
Most if the standard model came from a mathematical deduction that some hitherto unidentified quantum field effect/particle should "exist"... the classic example is the Neutrino, which was identified as necessary to explain the energy balance of some nuclear events. Neutrinos were almost undetectable and yet mathematically should exist in billions everywhere. Now the exact predicted particles have been detected. Same with the Higgs field (by discovering the Higgs particle several decades after it was mathematically deduced). "Dark matter" particles are predicted according to observed behaviour and the process is analogous... Something is changing the bahaviour of matter at large scales and a mathematical description of the effect has been defined, for which a "physical" manifestation is now being sought should you believe this is necessary for validation of the (working and predictive) mathematics of the model..
brilliant lecture, very understandable, the best science lesson in my 20 years of studying, thank you for a very inspiring demonstration. wish you were my drinking partner i would certainly buy you a couple of pints.
i'm curious to hear from someone, anyone regardless of accent, who isn't you as well. The Royal Institute appears to be a tedious fossil for tedious fossils intent on reducing science to tedium as opposed to raising it to te deum.
I may sound pretentious, but don't hate the messenger, we all know this, we simply have forgotten it momentarily, but you've got it backwards Jim, the Big Bang did not originate consciousness, consciousness originated the Big Bang. The universe is consciousness and consciousness is energy and it is through division of energy that we arrive at our current state of existence, which in itself is proof of it's own existence, I think, therefore i am, it is an existence of individual consciousness experiencing a biological quest of introspective awareness. The universe is experiencing itself through all possible perspectives, through individual egos. In truth, we are all one. To understand the universe think in terms of energy, vibration and Ying and Yang. Two forces, one attracts, the other repulses. Look at a frequency, it has "ups and downs" , highs and lows in the aether, in the Higgs field as you call it. Now who is creating these interactions? Consciousness Jim, consciousness, it is space-time itself. May the Force be with you.
Do elementary particles have mass? Uh, yes. Particles occupy space. They have mass. You mean weight, right. Well, depends. On Earth they weigh. In space they don't. Now, you say gluons weigh nothing. I know why. Care to find out or like usual the " Who the hell are you, leave us alone" scenario, as if we the public know nothing, scientific. Hey, sometimes ideas pop up, oops here, oops there. Take a chance.
I really hate the way this guy wants to be funny all the time. It betrays the miracle. It ridicules the urge to understand. It is pedantic, like I could explain but only over multiple beers. I prefer listening to Germans over the innuendo-rich smart cracking we-understand-each-other-but-you-really-don’t-get-it-so-just-laugh-about-my-jokes attitude. Be serious, be humble, do the best you can and don’t hold back. Stop making bloody jokes.
Well - This Q & A beats every record in good answers.
I could listen to this for hours.
Zeedijk Mike Oh yes. For example virtual particles. Explained simply. Very impressive.
I have watched tons of RI lectures online but... Jim. You made me subscribe in hope of getting more content produced by you. Thanks Jim for your efforts to make the world more clear for use mortals.
I am with Niels Bohr. that physics is a way to describe and predict what happens, not what nature 'is'. that way you remain open to the idea that there is more to it, than what you perceive. and that some of the beauty, wonder and mystery remains .
I agree, at least for equations. They are merely descriptions of physics; not physics itself.
(Descriptions improve and change; physics doesn't).
Bravo! The answer to every question is “I don’t know” which is preferable to a bunch of opinion and jargon!
Brilliant presentation and it’s enjoyable to experience such a well educated audience who asked great questions.
It's like meeting an old PHD math and physics friend of old all over again! My friend, PJ, has been dead for over a decade now. Great command of well articulated English . Loved the presentation. Would love to point out to Jim, some day over coffee, where he walked right past a huge insight within his talk.
Since his is a public comment you should perhaps point out the insight to everyone. He seems to drink beer not coffee anyway!
What I take from all this is that matter is actually just a form of frozen or condensed energy and that mass arises as a result of this concentration of energy. The Higgs Field is essentially a modern version of the old æther idea from the past.
Your half right Mke, The Higgs field is an area, an imaginary concept. the aether is a plenum of neutrinos in space, actual particles. Google "vacuum catastrophe". it will explain much better than I can.
The real question--the next question--is not, what is mass, but rather, what is energy? That is, what is energy apart from the circular definitions and measurements we impose upon it? If energy is ultimately understood as movement, or motion, whether potential or kenetic, the real question is, the movement or motion of what? The quantum fields? What comprises the quantum fields? What is it really which is vibrating or moving in terms of these fields?
Some years back I recall a magazine article which talked about "valence" quarks in protons and neutrons. That the missing mass of a proton, for example, is because we see only the uud quarks which are in the outer most shell similar to electron shells, and there are more quarks in some inner shells of the proton. And thus explaining how the proton has more mass than what the three uud quarks can account for. Is this a rival theory, or has this changed?
This guy is a genius!!
Thinking is not a piece of cake and when people,thinks in a brilliant manner,then they gets much ahead of common person! Thats why he is genius,
Great presentation. Excellent speaker.
Awesome. Watching this lecture and it's Q&A is just amazingly well spended time.
I know its older, but I agree with some of the questions; It is just a description to sate ourselves. We are stuck on this idea of mass, I would almost be given to toss mass out all together. However, we need it now (Like the cat). Its also funny how 'the simplest answer is often the correct one'; Where we had early debates on whether the 'Ether' existed or not, and now we surprisingly (Or not) now have many fields to explain quantum interactions. I get the math/physic of current ideas, but there is a simpler way. Both to explain gravity, electro-magnetism, and light. Mass and massless alike.
@ The Royal Institution, @ Jim Baggott: The question I want to ask is, "Are (1) the 'intrinsic' masses of the elementary particles themselves, (2) the masses acquired from, say, the energy due to gluon-gluon and gluon-quark interactions, and (3) the mass acquired from the velocity of an accelerated particle, the same thing? I mean, do we call these three observable properties 'mass' (giving them the same name) because they are indistinguishable? They seem to be distinct concepts, so I think it's remarkable that they all lead to the same thing. Can you enlighten me?"
I don't wish to bombard Jim with mail; he probably gets too much of that already. If you could consider passing on my question to Jim so that, should he think it a worthy one, he might reply here, I would appreciate it greatly.
I believe that if you attempt to measure those masses, they will respond identically. Also, we could consider that they are all made of energy in one way or another.
Are (1) sound, (2) light, and (3) heat all the same thing? We call them all "energy"
@@rodschmidt8952 Thanks for replying Rod. I suspect you are right, and take your point with the energy analogy.
@@rodschmidt8952, they're not energy. they're different phenomenons that _carry_ energy in different forms.
Thank you! You are polite, kind and informative.
Beautifully well done!
Hope this is not a silly question. But if mass is a measure of of the energy content, how could we say there are massless particels?
maybe it doesnt interact with higgs field? im still trying to wrap my head around these new ideas ( to me)
Massless particles would be better called restmassless particles. A rest mass is what it would have IF it were not moving relative to the measuring observer. However, we do know that a photon carries a certain quantity of energy, and is moving very fast (not at rest!). Indeed a solar sail works due to momentum transfer from photons colliding on the sail; momentum is a consequence of mass in motion (from a "massless" particle at that!). The photon's energy imbues it with a small amount of mass, and thus a small amount of interaction with the Higgs field. And that means gravity can act on photons!! This allows for gravitational lens, black holes with event horizons that are pitch black etc.
That is not a silly questions at all. It is a hard questions with several possible answers. Here is what I think is the most general answer...
Recall that he said even particles with mass are massless without an interaction (with the Higgs field). It is only those interactions that result in mass. Further it is only interactions that give mass to the proton and the neutron (interactions of confined quarks and gluons). In the famous thought experiment of a box of photons (massless by themselves) together give rise to mass. If you leave the box alone all photons bounce off of all sides producing an even pressure. If you move the box in one direction you will start hitting the photons more with the 'back wall' of the box. More hits means more pressure in the opposite direction you are trying to move the box. This is resistance to change in motion = inertia = mass.
So really in all cases mass arises from massless things interacting. Massless particles are just any particle that is free from interactions.
Mass is like 'frozen energy'. The photon has energy because it moves around and hence follows curved spacetime.
How about this: mass is a measure of *confined* energy content.
"The sun is a deadly laser.", this seemed like a good place to insert this nugget. Inertia as a coherent movement of gluon fields and other interesting stuff
Linear motion is at 'c' in free space. Gyration fixes the position. Deflection dextro or levo from this point attains or amasses. Did you know that in free space, all forces converge into a point via lumens?
To get to vacuum, let a laser pass through diamond, gems, glass, water, air, and into free space until it's speed is 'c'. That's vacuum in free space.
In a physics lab, all vacuum pumps create a region of low pressure called vacuum in the earth atmosphere..
Mass(in kilograms) = Charges squared (in Coulombs squared )x 10 to the power minus 7 divided by distance (between two charges in meters). That's how Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is equivalent to Coulomb's Law, and so works for NASA.
Totally empty space like room to place things seems to be a product of our imagination, but apparently there is no such a thing. To me space itself is like a medium that doesn't lay down in an empty vacuum, but it is what we see as space itself. This space doesn't have euclidean properties but can only be approximated to that. Whereas euclidean space can be separated from time and explained separately, the real space seem to need time to be described, as spacetime . There is even a more weirder fact about spacetime. Everything that is part of spacetime travel as waves that propagate amplitudes. Thus nothing really moves, in the sense we know. When I look at my hand, moving, if we "zoom in" there are only amplitudes going lower or higher. All the particle it is made are excitations of fields that fill the entire universe. At some point a particle field collapse may be triggered from an arbitrarily long distance. It is a question of time. But the probability may be so low, that it would take like billions of billions of years. The only thing is when my eyes detect the reflections of light coming from it, there is an almost certain probability that it will see it where it does. But it is literally spread out through the entire universe, as the excitations of fields we are made of, are distributed through the whole universe.
Well Inox, what you said there, seems to explain the entanglement theory pretty well.
To sum up what you just said: We are living in a very complex simulation.
"who knows, I don't" And now you know. And knowing is half the battle.
If only we could find this 'who', we could ask them what they know!
What is negative mass ? Is negative mass exsist ?
It would essentially be the amount of energy you'd need to feed into a body with negative mass in order to reduce its velocity to zero.
If mass is a manifestation of the Higgs field and gravity is a curvature of spacetime in the presence of mass, could there be a mathematical relationship between the Higgs field and the gravitational field or maybe between the Higgs boson and hypothetical graviton bison?
I wonder if sometime in the future we would be able to generate and negate the various individual quantum fields on demand using some kind of apparatus, much like we can generate and cancel out electromagnetic fields. I guess the technology would need to use the field that we are trying to create or negate.... Higgs bomb anyone?
Yes; but, no it isn't what you suggested; which I'm sure got some intelligence Operative and IBM Watson, all excited and wondering whether you are planning something nefarious. Don't use the b word. Pretend it doesn't exist. Otherwise it isn't worth talking to you.
the energy of the gluons, is it more like kinetic energy or potential energy? Are the quarks in ernergy wells like electrons bound to hydrogen nucleii are in energy wells?
If a "thing" can be on a H ori Z on , either side, how much energy does it take to move a near vacuum from one side to another? - 1/12 is the place I find in contrast between the sides of (3/3+1/3) : (3/4+1/4) . Can a true vacuum be the othersides almost vacuum across a ERB.
Mass seems to be simply a different form of energy. This comes from the particle structure. For such a particle at rest there is no momentum pointing in a particular direction because the local momentum vectors cancel out , therefore the superposition of waves that make up the particles have a center of momentum at rest. But there are waves propagating that carry energy. Any wave propagation carries energy and momentum. This kind of energy is mass. This hypothesis of mine is explained by the mass of protons that is 123 times higher that the mass constituent quarks. When a proton is at rest, its quarks aren't. Mass is an intrinsic energy and I think it is generated by interference.
The Higgs boson seem to explain it in some similar way.
So inox; the God particle is just a thing that slows energy down from traveling at the speed of light and thus creates mass.
@@presa609 Wholly inaccurate
The mass of the gluon (which it gives to the quarks when it passes its energy to them) is, literally, its energy per square light speed, since none of them have mass as such. So expecting inertia from a molecule would be something analogous to being refreshed by a glass filled with gaseous hydrogen and oxygen. Something's lacking.
Instant wavefunction collapse or field (which is more convenient to imagine as it is physical) collapse can be taken as is, but I think it is still problematic. Only waves that carry energy always must propagate below c. A field of a particle is spreadout in the entire universe, so when two particles interact their fields can interact everywhere at the same time. However this still doesn't explain non-locality.
1. What EM wave that carries energy propagates below c? 2. A field is the area of influence of a force. Common sense tells me a single particle cannot exert force 27 billion light years away, or 162 sextillion miles (approx) the diameter of the visible universe.
imnewtothistuff not EM waves, but matter waves. Actually waves that carry energy propagate at c(for light or other massless particles) or below c (for massive particle waves). The problem is exceeding c.
Field doesn't necessarily mean the area of influence of a force. It can refer to other things. The field associated to a particle can be represented by all the values of the field type (for example electromagnetic) that each point in space has. That particle represents a quantum of the EM field and it is a photon. At long distances from the maximum amplitude, the field will be infinitesimally small. Even in newtonian mechanics, the gravity force exerted by an object has a non zero value at any point in space, no matter how far it is.
1. I have never heard of a "matter wave" other than what a boat or a pebble in a pond makes. Unless your talking about the hypothetical massless particle.
2. Mass is a property of matter, if there is no mass there is no matter, ie no such thing as a "massless particle" It is an ad hoc explanation to prop up a failed hypotheses. Light is a transverse electromagnetic wave. "massless particle" defies common sense.
3. Exceeding c? The force of gravity propagates virtually instantaneously. It is not a wave or particle.
4. Yes, a field can be represented geometrically, infinite with infinite points and values, I learned that in freshman year. But geometry and math are not science. in order to have a non zero value to infinity that force must propagate at infinite speed, which is the problem you mentioned. Example: You are in my field of view but 100 feet away. I assign my fist the value of 1, your face has a value of zero.(Don't take it personal!) Only when I move (propagate) to where you are can I change your value to non zero. I can't hit you if I can't reach you. It's ironic that you used gravity as an example because it's the only force (not particle, massless or otherwise) that comes close to infinite speed.
I hope i clarified my position.
imnewtothistuff what you are talking about is classical physics and newtonian mechanics that can describe reality up to a limited level. For very high velocity physics Relativity seems to be able to predict what happens in certain situations, and it explains gravity. Whereas gravity in newtonian mechanics acts instantaneously, in relativity and according to observations, gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light. There are other aspect of particle physics that cannot be explained classically. That is why we have Quantum Mechanics. But QM is a tool for statistical predictions. It doesn't explain clearly what is behind it the math. Quantum field theory is based on QM and has some postulated that can enable such explanation.
According to experimental research light propagates like a wave but apparently it deliver the energy only in precise quanta that depend on frequency. The quantum of light named photon was proposed by Einstein as an explanation for the photoelectric effect. A photon is not just the shortest pulse of light possible. It has properties that cannot be described classically. All particles in fact have these properties. Later DeBroglie discovered that matter can also propagate like waves. That is why we can call them matter waves. Electrons beams for example have a much higher frequency than light beams and that is why electron microscopes have a much better resolution being able to magnify much more.
You can try to watch some videos about the double slit experiment or quantum entanglement to see why classical theories don't work for all situations.
inox1ck I'm glad we found common ground (Newtonian G) but that's where it ends. Everything you stated after that was contradictory. I'm familiar with the double slit experiment, it raised more questions than it answered. OK, I'm about to make a statement that's going to blow your mind. This is where the rubber meets the road:
< Space and time are concepts of the human mind. They are not actual physical things that can be warped, bent, folded, torn, twisted, poked holes in, or manipulated in any way shape or form like they try to make you believe. You cannot travel in time in any direction. The "fabric" of "space-time" is nothing more than pure, utter fantasy. A geometric representation* of pure math created by Minkowski for which Einstein took credit but later conceded. Einstein's hypothesis was falsified half a century or more ago and yet we have quantum this and quantum that. *The same goes for magnetic lines of force. I'm tired of the videos showing them bend, snap, twist and reconnect as if they were actual physical lines. If it were true I'd see lines of latitude running down my street, which I clearly do not. it's all bull crap.>
So now you can understand my trepidation for theoretical physicists and modern cosmology. A singularity (whatever that means) only exist in an false equation. r=0? nope, you can't divide by zero. I learned that in 8th grade algebra. Yet it persists. That means no black holes at the center of galaxies, no black holes anywhere, the big bang never happened, the universe is not expanding, neutron stars don't exist, and the Grand Poobah of them all, you guessed it, no Higgs bosson. Decades of looking, billions of taxpayer dollars spent and nothing to show for it but a high power death ray machine. What they said they found was nothing more than a minuscule blip in the background noise. Ockham is probably rolling over in his grave. It's time to look elsewhere.
I'm done, If you would like references as to where I contrived my cockamamie ideas I will gladly supply them only at your request. I wish you much success in your endeavors.
"I'm curious to hear from someone who isn't a white man like me." - good lord, this ideology infects everything, doesn't it? :( Thankfully, Mr. Baggott is very good at answering these questions and is fascinating to listen to.
I was listening to this while reading and had to go back to see if I heard it right.
I'm a white male from eastern Europe. I'm mored disadvantaged than black women it UK -- I'm the more oppressed here... So i would like to have safe spaces where i can do my slav squats, eat semki and other slav things...
Truth has a way of Blurting.
This is a plea, a search for future wisdom. "White men" who have a particular cultural context but hopefully a scientific objectivity, have carried 90% of the burden for the scientific progress of the last several centuries. However, since these "white men of science" recognize both their own cultural framework of exploration and that this framework would have been greatly improved by the contributions of others, they reach out to encourage those who are not of their demographic. In current times, there is this incredible sense of loss that this tiny minority have had the opportunity to contribute, and they lament the many many people who (for whatever socio-politio-religious reasons) have not been able to fully contribute.
In the end, it's about encouraging the full engagement of ALL of the potentials of humanity, a way of saying, "Most of the Einsteins have gone unheard in every field in every generation!" As a result, they continue their pursuits, but they also hope for a world where that genius girl in India or China or the Bible Belt of the USA will have equal opportunity to develop their skills and become the next Mdm Curie. If the effort for educational parity brings forth even one more Einstein-like mind to change the world, it is worth the effort to encourage this in various regions and among all genders.
Genius is unpredictable. It appears where it may and does what it does. However, it is limited in its likely applications by social conditions. This affects men and women, rich and poor, each according to local attitudes. We would like to have a world where socio-economic status and religious prejudices do not stand in the way, but reality is that such barriers do exist. To remove these barriers would serve science well, and so good scientists also try to scratch down those walls in whatever way they can.
In Britain, where the RI lectures are held, they are particularly aware of the university-system bias against women and foreigners in the past, and so they are also particularly aware of the need to recruit these demographics to further to total cause of humanity. If they make a point of pursuing this now, it is because they recognize how much their ancestors failed to do this in the past. It may be driven partly by a sense of ancestral guilt, but it is also in perceiving the hope for the future.
Why do people like Michael Kreitzer get so defensive about the idea of including a broad spectrum of people? I don't know what "meritocracy" you think it's damaging in selecting audience questions (which was otherwise being done randomly or based on whomever was waving their hand the hardest)
Mass is a photon of 2pi Planck wavelength trapped over its own gravity well
m=E/c^2. Mass is energy in orbit at c over a sphere giving angular momentum c^2 = inertia
Have the wavelengths of the photons carrying the strong nuclear force been measured? I would imagine it’s very high.
Gluons carry the strong nuclear force. Not photons.
E=mC**2, so can dark energy be converted to dark mass and vice versa?
Explaining mass by reference to energy. Great, now would somebody please explain energy.
It's the capacity of ANY single body to do work.
Simply that.
@@DavidAndrewsPEC Fantastic! What's work?
@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 Consuming energy in the completion of a task.
@@rightwingsafetysquad9872 Every action that is done by a force withina distance is work. it can be moving a body, making a explosing, lifting a weight, catalise a chemical reaction... Basic, everyting that happens in the world is work
Me Thinker, I suggest you look up Sabine Hossenfelder. She's as an expert physicist that very clearly explains difficult topics. She also has one on Energy :)
How come no one ever asks how to think of spin in the fields (as opposed to the particle) paradigm?
you asked...
Especially since changing the isospin of an electron gives it mass...
The electromagnetic force declines as it does because we live in three-dimensional space. How can the strong force be different?
maybe the strong force is 2-dimensional, like massless particles are?
Great question. Because the gluons carry color charge! Thus, they can interact with each other, unlike photons. This makes them into stretchy strings instead of free flying particles.
I have had a way of thinking about mass in all Matter in the following way.. there is a little mass in the nucleous of all atoms but the bulk of the mass is an illution. its not really there. I recon the mass we feel is actually the gyroscopic effect that the electrons have on the hole atom. So plutonium is one of the heavier atoms and has a shit load more electrons going round and round in turn creating resistance to movement in all directions. freeze the electrons and the mass nilly all but disapears. It may be very wrong but it seems to be natural way of visulising what may be happening. the reason atoms seem to be perpetually powerd is because they are always swiming in the Zero point feild, getting the energy they need directly from this endless supply of energy. if you can sheild the matter of something with the right combination of counter rotateing feilds, electric and magnetic, you can starve out the speed and motion of the electrons in pritty quick order like 30 min or less and the mass within the shielded area starts to disapear as the electrons slow down, right down but the atom remains stable just with almost no mass. This is also a good one when pictureing a ship trying to attain light speed. as we get closer to light speed the amount of zero point energy slaming into the matter inturn gets the little electons, gyrocopes going crazy and inturn adding a lot more mass and why it is imposable to push that matter past light speed. makes perfect sense and is understandable why anything with mass cant exceed light speed.... but what do i know...lol
Gyroscopic effects only manifest towards rotation, not linear movement. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I'm afraid your view lacks any power to describe or explain the observable reality.
Why everybody is confortable with the concept of energy? no one has asked "if mass is equivalent to energy: what's energy?"... What is energy?
Energy is matter in motion.
Ya, I was not referring to "work energy" per say, just being simplistic.
I'm not wrong, and neither are you. we are way off topic.
Goodby William... Abraham Vivas what say you?
Defining energy through work is so 17 century. Such definition does not make any sense at all in quantum mechanics. Much better approach to understanding energy comes through Noether's theorem that gives clear understanding of energy, momentum and many other conserved quantities. This understanding remains true in quantum field theory.
"I'm curious to hear from someone who isn't a white man like me." - I cringed so badly. How condescending could he have been. I'm sorry buddy but I don't think that non-white men need reinforcement from you in order to gather the confidence to ask a question. What I saw here, was a lot of great fathers bonding with their kids by bringing them to this great historical theater to hear a lecture on modern physics and ask some questions.
He was being nasty about it but it is true in many ways. It's not a truth that people like to accept but there's a lot of science to back it up.
18:07 do we need to artificially manufacture that into this great discussion...like conjuring a particle from nothingness that was discussed just prior to that statement
That statement was "I'm curious to hear from anyone who isn't a white man like me."
It's disingenuous to say that we have no definition of mass. If we have a detector, then that detector embodies a definition, and even though we may not be able to put that definition into words, we can find out more about the definition (that is embodied in the detectorI by studying the detector and the method of detection.
No. We don't have a _satisfactory_ definition of mass.
No. You have "an observation of what it does", but this has nothing to do with knowing "what it is".
Hey, anyone out there remember tripping on lsd? Thinking back, maybe those "trails" that were seen at first...light, ha, ha, ha, maybe we were seeing individual photons of light traveling, in super low motion. We were seeing faster than the light was traveling, and not merely seeing a hallucination, like we thought?
Makes sense that the 'abstract concept' of zero, 'absolute nothingness' (a creation of the human mind?), "The big 0", the 'magical' non-number of mathematics - does not exist in nature. "Nothing can come from the non-existent"... makes sense... kinda... the 'infinite' part is tough to grasp though.
It MUST have a 'beginning'... an 'end' of sorts? no? - a 'loop'? ... some kind of 'pattern' at least? - a 'shape'? So difficult to make sense - of things we cannot see or sense :D
Nothing doesn't exist because it it did, it would be something. Everything comes from 1. If there ever was a state where absolutely no thing existed, there never would be anything and no one to consider the condition. If there ever was nothing there wouldn't even be the impetus for anything to come about. It's just logic. 0 is just a symbol to indicate the concept of not any thing. It is a contrast to all the things that are. If you start with 1, you can conceive of "not one" and "one and one", etc. You can't start with 0, because there is no such thing.
Great Q&A session. However the announcer's request for questions from "someone who isn't a white man" was really uncalled for. Feel free to virtue signal in your own presentation but not during Mr Baggott's presentation.
Let’s brush off stuff we don’t understand and keep pushing our beliefs about what we do know, that’s no scientific or logical, at best we have SOME beliefs, that could change, when other beliefs come to the centre. Whilst I’m extremely interested in science I’m also repelled by the negative beliefs that ‘it’s true, we’ve proved it’ ultimately we will never know everything but stick to what we know.... great that we have scientific intelligent amazing individuals, we also need those who ask, Why, or prove it. Theories are just that, truths are factual provable replies to theories.
wait a second... tell me please what is the mass of antimatter?
or give me a link where i may find an answer. thanks
The anti-particles generally have the same mass as their “normal” counterpart, they only differ in that they have opposite electrical charge. They obtain their mass in the same way the “normal” particles do. There is some argument about why the universe is full of “normal” matter, and not half “normal” matter and half anti-matter. It seems the universe has a bias against anti-matter, I’m not sure anyone knows why that is, I don’t think that affects the answer to your question but I thought I would mention it.
@@noxnc thanks a lot!
His answers were rather simplistic especially about the heating of ice. He either didn't grasp question fully or thought his audience were high school students.
what was with the no white men asking questions thing...
Some people will explode if they don't virtue-signal in every opportunity they get. That's why.
🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🙏
PERHAPS THE HIGGS FIELD IN SPACE INTERACTS WITH DARK ENERGY TO CREATE THE DARK MASS OF THE UNIVERSE
On "Dark Matter" (5:27-5:33): "It doesn't interact with anything […] but we know it has gravitational effect".
Having gravitational effect _means_ that it actually interacts with all accountable matter… otherwise there would not be any gravitational effect! Gravitational effect IS an interaction with much more than "[not] anything"...
The thing you are trying to say is "Dark Matter doesn't exist, but we need this explanation to save our gravitational model of the cosmos, as we don't want to abandon it even in light of observational evidence that our model doesn't sum up to the observations i.e. is wrong. Thinking up a new model that builds on all the forces which we actually _can_ measure and account for is too difficult and/or admitting we have been wrong that gravity - the weakest force we know, and now understand is not a force at all if we accept Einsteins GR - is the only force that controls the motions of the celestial bodies of the cosmos is too embarrassing".
It does not interact with known particles (of our universe). It's all abstraction. And as long as we do not have better explanation we just call it dark matter - which means it might not be matter at all...... It might be something else (field) we do not know yet or we do not consider in our abstractions. All physical theories are just simplifications formulated mathematically and as along as they predict well behaviour - so you can build internet, computer etc..... it is proven to be correct. That does not mean that theory is perfect..... For prediction of the movement of planets we do not need quantum theory, for GPS we need it (and use it and it works). So all physics is about iterative process - once we have another mathematically formulated equations which will include and PREDICT!! behaviour of the world around us - we can use them. The biggest and real difference between religion and science is that science can do predictions, which work while religion or any other new-age religion cannot predict anything......
"The biggest and real difference between religion and science is that science can do predictions, which work while religion or any other new-age religion cannot predict anything……"
I have no idea about what you want to show as response to my comment, when you mention science, internet, computers, GPS, etc, which I have no complaint about and have not mentioned nor argued religion nor indicated nor mention religion at all. I am not religious, but an absolute non-believer in anything: show me evidence and I will accept. Claim things without evidence and I will call that religion. So most of your comment is not just mute but unintelligible in the context.
Sorry, but my reply has NOTHING to do with religion, but ALL to do with science.
"It does not interact with known particles" Well, if it does affect e.g. the outer arms of a rotating galaxy, it DOES interact with particles. This is the foundation of the idea of Dark Matter: something which we can't see or detect - according to our gravitational model - MUST affect the objects (fundamentally the particles) of the outer ends of our spiral galaxy based on our model vs our observations of rotational speed. I repeat (which you have not actually addressed) that having gravitational effect means that it actually interacts with _all_ accountable matter… otherwise there would not be any gravitational effect! Gravitational effect IS an interaction with matter which is (surprise surprise) particles...
My question is: when is it time to reevaluate ones model? When observational evidence shows 2% off the model/hypothesis/theory? 20% off? Or when - as now - a whopping c:a 1900% off? When is the observational evidence that the gravitational model is not up to snuff enough to reevaluate it and come up with a model that only uses the mass and energy we actually CAN observe?
Dark Matter and Dark Energy is really pushing the limits of what the scientific method allows by a loooooong shot. I call that religion: "We believe in our model regardless our observations and will invent ANY undetectable shit to keep our model true".
Oh… to make it clear in view of your comment: the scientific gravitation model makes predictions which are contradicted by the observations, which is the sole reason for the invention of "dark matter".
Sorry to rain on your parade.
They hoped to find "dark matter" but they failed, now they can't abandon their model because this will make them look like fools, so they will stick with the model until the working one, who seems to be the model of the electric universe, will be widespread and understood. It will take some time, but not to long I guess, I'm only surprised that nobody in the audience asked about the electric discharges between mass objects and how those objects accumulate this energy and if that discharges effects their mass or not, how a discharge between atoms looks like and if that's possible or observable without a chain reaction and what if the energy that we see it's a electric discharge between celestial bodies and we do not need the "dark energy" explanation anymore ? How the force field and the electricity works in their model ? I am curios about the answers.
Most if the standard model came from a mathematical deduction that some hitherto unidentified quantum field effect/particle should "exist"... the classic example is the Neutrino, which was identified as necessary to explain the energy balance of some nuclear events. Neutrinos were almost undetectable and yet mathematically should exist in billions everywhere. Now the exact predicted particles have been detected.
Same with the Higgs field (by discovering the Higgs particle several decades after it was mathematically deduced). "Dark matter" particles are predicted according to observed behaviour and the process is analogous... Something is changing the bahaviour of matter at large scales and a mathematical description of the effect has been defined, for which a "physical" manifestation is now being sought should you believe this is necessary for validation of the (working and predictive) mathematics of the model..
brilliant lecture, very understandable, the best science lesson in my 20 years of studying, thank you for a very inspiring demonstration. wish you were my drinking partner i would certainly buy you a couple of pints.
I clicked on this video thinking it was an explanation of the catholic mass 🤷♀️
i'm curious to hear from someone, anyone regardless of accent, who isn't you as well. The Royal Institute appears to be a tedious fossil for tedious fossils intent on reducing science to tedium as opposed to raising it to te deum.
What did you find tedious about the video?
I may sound pretentious, but don't hate the messenger, we all know this, we simply have forgotten it momentarily, but you've got it backwards Jim, the Big Bang did not originate consciousness, consciousness originated the Big Bang. The universe is consciousness and consciousness is energy and it is through division of energy that we arrive at our current state of existence, which in itself is proof of it's own existence, I think, therefore i am, it is an existence of individual consciousness experiencing a biological quest of introspective awareness. The universe is experiencing itself through all possible perspectives, through individual egos. In truth, we are all one. To understand the universe think in terms of energy, vibration and Ying and Yang. Two forces, one attracts, the other repulses. Look at a frequency, it has "ups and downs" , highs and lows in the aether, in the Higgs field as you call it. Now who is creating these interactions? Consciousness Jim, consciousness, it is space-time itself. May the Force be with you.
Where's the Pope? Thought he was the "go to" guy for this kind of stuff..
Do elementary particles have mass? Uh, yes. Particles occupy space. They have mass. You mean weight, right. Well, depends. On Earth they weigh. In space they don't. Now, you say gluons weigh nothing. I know why. Care to find out or like usual the " Who the hell are you, leave us alone" scenario, as if we the public know nothing, scientific. Hey, sometimes ideas pop up, oops here, oops there. Take a chance.
"scalar particle" = a particle with no length, no width, no height, no volume, no anything beyond baseless imagination
energy in the field
this is like a religious tent meeting, right? is it sunday? amen brother, halejujah, numbers, mass, rela . . . whatever!
I really hate the way this guy wants to be funny all the time. It betrays the miracle. It ridicules the urge to understand. It is pedantic, like I could explain but only over multiple beers. I prefer listening to Germans over the innuendo-rich smart cracking we-understand-each-other-but-you-really-don’t-get-it-so-just-laugh-about-my-jokes attitude. Be serious, be humble, do the best you can and don’t hold back. Stop making bloody jokes.
Are you just salty about your own lack of sense of humor?