Sometimes it is instructive to have things you thought you knew well, explained real slow, by someone who really understands it - especially when you gain a subtle insight you had not known before, that makes a huge difference.
Playback speed 1.5x makes huge difference on wasting time. Mass is the synonym of slowness and locality. Question is how something can move slower than c. Answer is: locality. Something entering X Y Z dimensions (our "space") tries to specify it's (relative) position thus slowing it down, which means giving a mass. If you take away a mass from something, it'd fly away at speed of light, wouldn't be here anymore, and if you follow a moment later, you'd never catch it! It didn't disappear from existence, it still has information/value/energy in electromagnetic dimensions.
Clear and concise. A lecture that even a primary pupil could grasp. All. the concepts are presented in a way that has given me a better understanding of the higgs boson than I have yet had.
Clear and concise, but not very precise! The size of objects do not shrink when they are travelling at high speed. To a stationary observer, it appears as if the size of a fast moving object has been shrunk. Einstein's relativity theories are about measurement discrepancies that led to the failure of the laws of Newtonian physics. The failure was due to measurement of space-time.
Perhaps you could be happier discovering that all these is just nonsense? please see the following video of Stephen Crothers: The Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity | EU2017 ruclips.net/video/6zWy6_Mog70/видео.html
@@ArthurHau I agree. And since they do not shrink, the Higgs Field does not slow them down, it's not like molasses. So, we need to find a better explanation of what's going on. No stationary observer would ever be able to grasp the size of an object moving close to the speed of light, so I don't get that comparison.
@SPARTAMERICUS First of all, you need to define "length". There is a difference between reality and the measurement of reality. Just what is reality? Physicists are totally NAIVE. They don't understand the difference between reality and our perception of reality.
@@ArthurHau I think your distinction would make sense if there was such a thing as an absolute speed. Since this is not the case, and since speed is necessarily defined in relation to a given referential, I don't think it is wrong (although it might be awkward) to say that objects shrink when they are travelling at high speed. Of course, they do not shrink in a referential relative to which they are at rest. But by definition, in that referential, they are not travelling at high speed.
What a wonderful lecture! Jim Baggott has a great sense of humour, and his patience with people like me meant that I was able to understand his lecture, learn a lot, and enjoy it at the same time. Thanks so much!
"I think it’s revolutionary that ANY man with an internet connection has access to this information. Remember, once there was a time not too long ago when information like this was only accessible by the elite and the wealthy". Just to repeat J K from a year ago.
Not true. 70 years ago a 4th grade extremely poor child had access to this information from the Gulbenkian Foundation Bookmobile, where no one had access to TV, and very few to Radio. And read by candle, oil, and kerosine lamps fore there was not yet electricity at his house.
You're so right, I only wish that the consumption of free information would qualify its consumers for the college providers tuition credit: and applicable degree(S).
Maybe I just can't hear it but the audience really didn't help this guy, it's sort of an etiquette to laugh at any humour at these talks, no matter how bad the joke or quip is, and I thought this guy gave a well presented talk and made a number of witty remarks. It's not for comedy purposes but it helps the speaker connect with the audience and can really settle the speaker's nerves. Leaving awkward pauses only puts more pressure on a naturally daunting lecture. We've all done public speaking at some stage I'm sure you can relate.
Personally I think this guy should just ditch the attempts at humor and stick to the topic. His quips were not funny and his comic delivery is weak. If the audience were to have laughed, it would have been obviously fake which is worse than uncomfortable silence. Some people are good at integrating humor with serious presentations (for example see Andrew Pontzen's videos) and some are just not. And yes, I have given presentations, with and without humor, so I know what it is like on stage. This guy is extraordinarily knowledgeable about his topic and his narrative is clear and coherent, if a bit slow-paced. He should stick to his strength.
Your mom was correct . Your choice of word size was correct and now my understanding of mass is finally correct .....it took 77years for this particular pleasure to happen , thank you.
Excellent talk, again a great deal was clarified that was missing from other documentaries.I'm binge watching these lectures at the moment and learning a huge amount or rather my small brain is kindly being fed by these great lecturers.
@@wbiro So, of course, is a pebble-sized bit of depleted uranium, COMPARED with a pebble-sized bit of marshmallow. In reality, Einstein's brain examined had a higher proportion of whit matter - largely necessary oligodendrites - myelin. There is MUCH more to brain communication, monitoring, and function than is apparent - but expect exercised brains to bee ABLE to function in these ways than less-exercised brains (although we ALL run through capacities while sleeping and otherwise resting in Default Mode.)
Brilliant and lucid explanation of where we are at in regards to understanding mass. I particularly appreciated the clarity of the discovery that 95% of the mass of things (such as my body) is due to the energy contained by massless gluons binding quarks together. I feel a little more enlightened, thank you Mr Baggott
@@beascene6998 the mass of an electron also supposedly comes from the Higgs field also, as it does for quarks... it is the mechanism of the 99% of all mass (although somehow is equivalent to the energy of the gluons holding the quarks together) that was not explained.
As I type this, this video has approximately 3,000 likes and 300 dislikes, meaning 10% of the people that cared to weigh in, hated this talk, and I am mystified by that. I have watched a LOT of Christmas Lectures and Evening Discourses via this RUclips channel. Some of them are better than others, but I don't know if I have ever seen a difficult topic presented so clearly, delivered so brilliantly as the material in this lecture was. I am embarrassed to say, I don't really know who Jim Baggott is, but I do know he knows how to give a lecture. Well done, sir. Thank you. And to those who felt the pace was too slow, may I suggest that you tell RUclips to deliver it faster than real-time (a playback setting you can set via the Settings icon). It does this well, without distorting the pitch of the audio. I did this myself, watching this lecture at 1.25 times faster than real time. However, I don't think the pace of the lecture was too slow. I think it was spot on. I watch most RI videos at 1.5x real time. This one was compelling enough to slow down.
Thanks for your kind words, Charlie. We have some good news for you. Jim was recently in the building giving a talk about how space itself is quantum in nature. It should come our on our channel shortly!
Dude sucks as a lecturer. The problem isn't the pace was/is too slow, rather that his humor was kinda naff and his delivery of interesting information was too slow. Unfortunate, and not fixed by speeding up the video (because then we just get faster naff humor attempts).
After listening to Jim’s lecture l feel like someone has turned a light on and everything is clear. I actually understand this in a way l did not before. He has the unique ability to explain things that l find crystal clear and l am not an intellectual but just your average London black cab driver.
I came up with my own theory of massless particle deflection, as an explanation for gravitation of bodies, and mass. This is exactly it, with a few added details about gluons. TY so much.
We live in an age where the line between Science Fiction and Science Fact is becoming blurred evolving into Magic. I am 73 and have always been fascinated by Technology. I have studied Electronics since the first time I saw a Valve Radio operating with its covers off. I want to live forever just to see what happens.
We don't see fiction in anything other than the analogies made. Magic is an undefined trm related to our hormonally generated attention (surprise!) at an event or perception w had not previously experienced of imagined with our limited experience. I enjoy surprise, whenever it ha not resulted in injury or death. We never (hopefully) depart from a sense of magic/unpredicted surprise. Art Clarke made a poetic statement that must not be taken for fact, as it's only an observation of the brain's evolved function - to predict. And prediction, as is implied in the above talk, is only assessment of probabilities. Settle on one, and yu carry it with you until the carrier, that brain, is perturbed by novel sensory event[s].
Absolutely gripping narration around understanding of what mass might be. How gravity gets associated with mass is amazing too. Am looking forward to a similar session for layman .
I enjoyed this lecture and how he would pause for a second or two so I could soak in and understand a point he made. I am an older black guy living in the south suburbs of Chicago with less than two years of college but I’ve always have been curious about the world and am glad I’m living in 2019 and know how to use the smartphone iPhone my daughter taught me how to use. I appreciate I can learn so many different legitimate things I couldn’t learn otherwise without a financial cost I cannot afford and without an unnecessary degree. Thank you for posting all of your videos.
Mr Baggott does not say that one of the properties of mass is that it is conserved (absolutely, in classical metrics): this is an important part of the classical analysis.
I watched the video again and enjoyed it a lot. Historical background and explanations are superb and concise. Simplified scientific descriptions of the complicated physics were also outstanding. Thanks again, Dr. Baggott.
To be frank, the microphone set-up can radically change how much laughter from the audience is picked up. So let's perhaps give it the benefit of the doubt.
I thoroughly enjoyed the humor in this talk! I particularly liked the the line at 17:56 "Just at the time at the beginning of the 20th century when we were starting to get of evidence that atoms really existed, physicists were working out how to split them apart."
That would be like putting a puzzle together. It has constituent parts that make a whole picture. So yeah, you need to look at how it holds together? Take it apart to understand it.
I’ll be honest, the first 10 mins or so was not that engaging, but I realise that was intentional and quite deliberate to set up the rest. Which then kept me glued to the content. Master display of presentation and taking a massively complex subject down to such simplicity was wonderful.
His questions were really bizarre. The answers were obvious, but not knowing where he was going with them, I didn't know what answer he was expecting; even if I did want to play along. I was mostly confused. I wasn't there, but maybe that's the reason.
Brilliant start: "before year zero, before the common era", great way to describe that time without entering beliefs of folklore and religion (bc/ac). Will have to remember to use that.
Jim looks like the kind of guy who embodies the establishment... a real authority figure :D What a great lecture. Seems like he'd make a very patient teacher.
I appreciate. the understanding of science thru the logic used by those who made the discoveries.It creates much easier system to learn by.This method creates a leaning process that appeals to natural intuitive thinking students can relate to.Excellent lecture
I liked one of his opening statements "I know it's not apparent that all authors set out to write something with an intention, but that's what I did here"
The light came on brightly, when you re-arranged Einsteins equation, and I said to myself, YES ! It finally made sense, .... (I'm only 75), beautifully presented, thank you ! Stu xx
the philosophical question is, 'Why Bother?' and if you arrive at the ultimate answer to that, then the next question is 'Now What?' and, if you've decided on a course of action, the next question is, 'How?' If you want skip the mental effort, I've given the answer below (which are the core of my philosophy of universal survival and morality - read it)... "Why Bother?" Because consciousness is a good thing (consider the alternative - no consciousness). "Now What?" Now you pursue the ultimate goal of life, which is to secure the ultimate value of life, which is securing consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe. "How?" By employing the Strategies of Broader Survival, which are comprised of the three Lower Strategies (which all of life uses, right down to microbes): Population Increase, Population Diversity, Population Dispersal, and the three Higher Strategies (which emerged with our higher consciousness): Extended Reason, Proaction, and Higher Technology.
I like Jim's style. It's odd seeing so many people on here commenting about the audience not laughing, the last lecture of his I saw on here, the comments were full of complaints about his humour. To me humour helps as it aids the memory. Good stuff!
Please display his slides always, maybe with a little window in the coerner showing the speaker. As handsom and entertaining as this guy is, I'd also like to understand his talk. Thanks.
So the explanation is that the energy of gluons is the source of most mass. But this is really not much of an explanation. It is almost naming the problem away. The problem that remains, after hearing this talk, is the following: how does concentrating energy in order to form mass create a gravity well, a distortion of space and time, that makes other particles experience a force of attraction? There is nothing that I can see in General Relativity that explains this. This question is at the heart of the concept of mass, since we measure and observe mass according to its inertia or its gravitational force, yet this lecturer did not even attempt to address it.
Actually GR does explain this very simply: there is no "gravitational force". The force you feel is the force the ground exerts on you to prevent you from following a natural straight line motion in curved spacetime, which is the free fall. In some sense you are constantly accelerated in curved spacetime, by the force exerted by the ground. But I agree he should have started by these basic facts about GR.
I’m a layman, but it seems the most obvious & logical explanation for particles acting like polarizable axial or circular, helical waves as they travel is that they’re orbiting something (a dark (or anti) matter particle perhaps). It's not unlike Earth being pulled into a wobble by the moon, or a distant star's wobble evidencing planet orbits making our trajectories as we fly thru space have an apparent axial or circular helical wave (like a packet) as well, depending on the orientation of the orbit. And since we think we know undetectable dark matter exists and should be 5 times as common as matter but don't yet know where it's distributed, it seems a logical possibility that we are in a sea of dark matter, even in otherwise empty space, and every particle (photons, electrons, etc) is paired (entangled) in orbit with one. I think gravitational waves could be dark matter waves and that gravity might be caused by the density of dark matter. This could explain the double slit experiment results, including with a detector with some interaction between the dark matter and the detector (and perhaps dark matter entanglement), it could explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as well as explain the deflection of the axis of the particle's wave motion (orbit orientation) moving thru polarizing filters rotated less than 45 degrees apart, etc.. Perhaps the only reason for photons' max speed limit is caused by the dark matter they're paired in orbit with interacting with other dark matter. This could also explain why the universe is expanding from the central singularity point of the big bang outward in all directions faster than the speed of light into previously completely empty universe space, given that there is no dark matter there yet.
Er, small error at the beginning of the lecture. Not a physics one, but a historical one. There is no year zero on the standard calendar. The year 1 CE was preceded by 1 BCE. This is illogical, mathematically, by it is nevertheless, the case, by international convention. That is why the first year of each century actual ends with a 1, not a zero. The first year of this century was 2001, not 2000.
Thanks for your lecture. It helps me understand more about Higgs boson and mass. It mentions gluons too. Thanks again and keep up with the good work. From HK
I only just realized this is the same guy who wrote the superb book "The Quantum Story: a history in 40 moments" - the best treatment of this fascinating subject I've come across.
I am in 12th standard and I always had a doubt of what mass is ? But today it's all clear to me ..... thanks to this amazing physicist ..... Still I have got a lot questions on quantum physics which I think will be solved as I keep moving forward in learning science ......
very cool. I hated physics in high school. It just seemed do foreign. However, I was able to follow this lecture. It's a great feeling to finally understand something I thought was beyond my understanding. Keep it up!
This man presented each and everything for which i was wondering for 3-4 years and gave me most satisfying and logical answers. He is great explainer and btw audience sucks!!
Would have bever really crossed my mind to think of mass as "just energy" but it's literally written in the formulae such as the one of Einstein. Thank you Jim and thanks for Ri and RUclips for the chance.
One howler, throughout his fascinating talk, is that there was no Year 0. The last year before our common era was 1 BCE, and that was followed by 1CE. In other words, the first year of our calendar would have been 1.
@@pigsbishop99 I bet you literally don't know what AD means. Also, the indoctrination is what has happened to you that makes you so incredibly opposed to religion neutral language that not only doesn't actually change anything and also *doesn't actually change* the Christ-centric placing of year 1. Granted I bet you also think the Crusades were good, if you believed they happened at all.
You are wize...and correct...I could go further, however it would become a book....the elite who run this planet, spend thier time keeping everyone(sheep) in distraction or false theory or outright deception....
One of my favorite lectures. I really appreciate your storytelling and the pace of relevant information Jim. Although, I'm curious why you showed a picture of Niels Bohr but used a quote from de Broglie when introducing quantum mechanics?
Long before Greeks, Indian philosopher Kanad in his treatise called Vaeisheshika had developed the concept of Atom. He also theorised Atoms(parmanu) combined to give Molecule (anu)
The most astounding thing is our lack of even the most basic knowledge. Mass? We know what it does but we don't know what it is. Energy? We know what it does but we don't know what it is. Magnetism? We know what it does but we don't know what it is. Strong/weak force? We know what they do but we don't know what they are. Charge? We know what it does but we don't know what it is. Dark matter? We (kind of) know what it does but we don't know what it is. Consciousness? We know what it does but we don't know what it is. Free will? We know what it feels like but we don't know whether we have it. Anyone who thinks there isn't as much work ahead of absolute basic science and philosophy is kidding themselves. We have done amazing work to find out how the essential parts of the universe fit together. One day we might begin to understand what they actually are.
@@labibbidabibbadum It's an endless fractal. When you know what something is at its' essence relative to your experience of it, you will only find more that you don't know about. That said, we can, if we wanted to, conclude that these elements of reality simply *are*. Science doesn't like that, though, but unfortunately, there's a limit to human perception; there is no limit to reality.
Agreed, I my experience, once you commit to a sequence of detailed powerpoint slides with text, you can no longer play the room.. and if the room is different fro: what you expect, it’s an uphill walk... I did a few lectures that bombed hard that way.. now using images and videos, mostly
You will be amazed who these keyboard warriors are! :) Amongst them, there are kids, but there are also professionals and/or highly intelligent people!
It's good to have people help correct his video's. And yes it's horrible when people are just saying thing's to tare down another person when all he is trying to do is enlighten others. If i was him i would think of ways to be more detailed in giving information. I would not treat people like kids, i would give honest information and not sugarcoat the information. You can make it simple with out making it to simple.
@@ArthurHau Highly intelligent people? How do you know? The comments certainly don't indicate that. Yeah, maybe it is the crafty way they shit all over someone else's work.
For those wanting to skip some history, goto 16:58. What I got out of this is that everything is energy and energy has mass. M=E/C2. And ultimately, this means that the "Big Bang" where "matter comes from nothing" really makes more sense when we see things as energy.
What's warranted is up the the listener and clearly subjective. Also in case you still cling to the "poor crowd" assertion perhaps you are really complaining about the audio engineer or the equipment.
the time before "0" is written as abbreviation "BC" which stands for "Before Christ". Now people are afraid to use the name of Christ just in case it could offend somebody. How ridiculous is that! 10 years ago I studied with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, various Christians and many, many, Atheists and nobody had issues with the fact that the birth of Christ is used as the start date of the modern era calendar. Back in the days Science was a place free from political agendas.
Oh sorry, I don't recall any evidence on the life of the hippie from Galilee. Nothing from Roman record keepers. At ALL!! Right, faith fills all missing gaps in reality. BC is more like the longest standing typo. It's not a PC play, it's stupidity. Wake up.
Tomasz Zajac - What the bloody hell are you on about? You're a nutter. There's a little thing called BCE, "Before Common Era", since there's no reason to believe Jesus ever existed, as there is absolutely no evidence. Also, Jesus wasn't supposedly born until what, 30AD?!?! Religious folks fail at maths.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
Sometimes it is instructive to have things you thought you knew well, explained real slow, by someone who really understands it - especially when you gain a subtle insight you had not known before, that makes a huge difference.
Playback speed 1.5x makes huge difference on wasting time.
Mass is the synonym of slowness and locality.
Question is how something can move slower than c.
Answer is: locality. Something entering X Y Z dimensions (our "space") tries to specify it's (relative) position thus slowing it down, which means giving a mass.
If you take away a mass from something, it'd fly away at speed of light, wouldn't be here anymore, and if you follow a moment later, you'd never catch it! It didn't disappear from existence, it still has information/value/energy in electromagnetic dimensions.
This man has a spectacular way with words and tone.
Clear and concise. A lecture that even a primary pupil could grasp. All. the concepts are presented in a way that has given me a better understanding of the higgs boson than I have yet had.
Clear and concise, but not very precise! The size of objects do not shrink when they are travelling at high speed. To a stationary observer, it appears as if the size of a fast moving object has been shrunk. Einstein's relativity theories are about measurement discrepancies that led to the failure of the laws of Newtonian physics. The failure was due to measurement of space-time.
Perhaps you could be happier discovering that all these is just nonsense? please see the following video of Stephen Crothers: The Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity | EU2017 ruclips.net/video/6zWy6_Mog70/видео.html
@@ArthurHau I agree. And since they do not shrink, the Higgs Field does not slow them down, it's not like molasses. So, we need to find a better explanation of what's going on.
No stationary observer would ever be able to grasp the size of an object moving close to the speed of light, so I don't get that comparison.
@SPARTAMERICUS First of all, you need to define "length". There is a difference between reality and the measurement of reality. Just what is reality? Physicists are totally NAIVE. They don't understand the difference between reality and our perception of reality.
@@ArthurHau I think your distinction would make sense if there was such a thing as an absolute speed. Since this is not the case, and since speed is necessarily defined in relation to a given referential, I don't think it is wrong (although it might be awkward) to say that objects shrink when they are travelling at high speed. Of course, they do not shrink in a referential relative to which they are at rest. But by definition, in that referential, they are not travelling at high speed.
What a wonderful lecture! Jim Baggott has a great sense of humour, and his patience with people like me meant that I was able to understand his lecture, learn a lot, and enjoy it at the same time. Thanks so much!
That audience did not deserve you, good sir
"I think it’s revolutionary that ANY man with an internet connection has access to this information. Remember, once there was a time not too long ago when information like this was only accessible by the elite and the wealthy". Just to repeat J K from a year ago.
Not true. 70 years ago a 4th grade extremely poor child had access to this information from the Gulbenkian Foundation Bookmobile, where no one had access to TV, and very few to Radio. And read by candle, oil, and kerosine lamps fore there was not yet electricity at his house.
You're so right, I only wish that the consumption of free information would qualify its consumers for the college providers tuition credit: and applicable degree(S).
Maybe I just can't hear it but the audience really didn't help this guy, it's sort of an etiquette to laugh at any humour at these talks, no matter how bad the joke or quip is, and I thought this guy gave a well presented talk and made a number of witty remarks. It's not for comedy purposes but it helps the speaker connect with the audience and can really settle the speaker's nerves. Leaving awkward pauses only puts more pressure on a naturally daunting lecture. We've all done public speaking at some stage I'm sure you can relate.
It's interesting how entire classes can have a group personality to them.
With due respect, British reserve. We're not renowned for being over-enthusiastic.
It's probably because the way he talks and acts makes me (and them) feel uncomfortable
Personally I think this guy should just ditch the attempts at humor and stick to the topic. His quips were not funny and his comic delivery is weak. If the audience were to have laughed, it would have been obviously fake which is worse than uncomfortable silence. Some people are good at integrating humor with serious presentations (for example see Andrew Pontzen's videos) and some are just not. And yes, I have given presentations, with and without humor, so I know what it is like on stage.
This guy is extraordinarily knowledgeable about his topic and his narrative is clear and coherent, if a bit slow-paced. He should stick to his strength.
@patrice numarkioan
Typical comments about humour because of a lack of understanding on the subject matter. LOL
Your mom was correct . Your choice of word size was correct and now my understanding of mass is finally correct .....it took 77years for this particular pleasure to happen , thank you.
What an eloquent lecture for which an hour is rightfully spent in the most joyous way possible.
Excellent talk, again a great deal was clarified that was missing from other documentaries.I'm binge watching these lectures at the moment and learning a huge amount or rather my small brain is kindly being fed by these great lecturers.
Einstein's brain was on the small side, volume-wise...
Binge - the attempt to collapse the local region of the HIggs field.
@@wbiro So, of course, is a pebble-sized bit of depleted uranium, COMPARED with a pebble-sized bit of marshmallow.
In reality, Einstein's brain examined had a higher proportion of whit matter - largely necessary oligodendrites - myelin.
There is MUCH more to brain communication, monitoring, and function than is apparent - but expect exercised brains to bee ABLE to function in these ways than less-exercised brains (although we ALL run through capacities while sleeping and otherwise resting in Default Mode.)
I bought his book on the back of this. Love stuff like this, advanced physics explained in a simple manner for the layman.
His book is not so easy, but It is clear enough to make a correct yet deep comprehension.
Did he write a book? Can't remember him mentioning that!!! :-) :-) :-)
@@osstorba1 same as every scientist that comes and speaks at the RI, did they ever write any books ?!?!?
HOW WAS THE BOOK??
Nice. He doesn't talk so exited and fast and overly dramatic. Very good to listen too.
Thank you very much, Mr. Baggott, for your superbly explaining "The Concept Of Mass". You are a phenomenal Physicist.
Amen Ra
well, he explained 1% of it at least :-)
Loved the presentation. Probably also the video I rewinded the most to make sure I didn't miss a point being made!
Brilliant and lucid explanation of where we are at in regards to understanding mass. I particularly appreciated the clarity of the discovery that 95% of the mass of things (such as my body) is due to the energy contained by massless gluons binding quarks together. I feel a little more enlightened, thank you Mr Baggott
But the main question, how do the gluons create inertia and gravity, is not even mentioned.
Not to mention explaining the mass of an electron.
@@beascene6998 personally i think the "mass" comes from an energy density in a global electron field.
@@david203 yes he kind of glossed over that fundamental mystery
@@beascene6998 the mass of an electron also supposedly comes from the Higgs field also, as it does for quarks... it is the mechanism of the 99% of all mass (although somehow is equivalent to the energy of the gluons holding the quarks together) that was not explained.
As I type this, this video has approximately 3,000 likes and 300 dislikes, meaning 10% of the people that cared to weigh in, hated this talk, and I am mystified by that. I have watched a LOT of Christmas Lectures and Evening Discourses via this RUclips channel. Some of them are better than others, but I don't know if I have ever seen a difficult topic presented so clearly, delivered so brilliantly as the material in this lecture was. I am embarrassed to say, I don't really know who Jim Baggott is, but I do know he knows how to give a lecture. Well done, sir. Thank you.
And to those who felt the pace was too slow, may I suggest that you tell RUclips to deliver it faster than real-time (a playback setting you can set via the Settings icon). It does this well, without distorting the pitch of the audio. I did this myself, watching this lecture at 1.25 times faster than real time. However, I don't think the pace of the lecture was too slow. I think it was spot on. I watch most RI videos at 1.5x real time. This one was compelling enough to slow down.
Thanks for your kind words, Charlie. We have some good news for you. Jim was recently in the building giving a talk about how space itself is quantum in nature. It should come our on our channel shortly!
Dude sucks as a lecturer. The problem isn't the pace was/is too slow, rather that his humor was kinda naff and his delivery of interesting information was too slow. Unfortunate, and not fixed by speeding up the video (because then we just get faster naff humor attempts).
After listening to Jim’s lecture l feel like someone has turned a light on and everything is clear. I actually understand this in a way l did not before. He has the unique ability to explain things that l find crystal clear and l am not an intellectual but just your average London black cab driver.
Some complain that this is slow, but this is how good teaching is done.
Actually, no. Good teaching is engaging, and this guy is not a particularly engaging lecturer.
Is actively disengaging, tbh *yawn*
I love how he adds humor, (I did laugh some)
and the crowd is just dead silent
oof
I felt that from here
They're a tough crowd.
Must have been cardboard cutouts lol
I was like "oof, how oblivious he is about his attempts to add humor totally not being funny and not landing"
=D
Sheldon Cooper in the audience and you expect laughter?
There's nothing like a lousy audience !
I came up with my own theory of massless particle deflection, as an explanation for gravitation of bodies, and mass. This is exactly it, with a few added details about gluons. TY so much.
We live in an age where the line between Science Fiction and Science Fact is becoming blurred evolving into Magic. I am 73 and have always been fascinated by Technology. I have studied Electronics since the first time I saw a Valve Radio operating with its covers off. I want to live forever just to see what happens.
We don't see fiction in anything other than the analogies made. Magic is an undefined trm related to our hormonally generated attention (surprise!) at an event or perception w had not previously experienced of imagined with our limited experience.
I enjoy surprise, whenever it ha not resulted in injury or death. We never (hopefully) depart from a sense of magic/unpredicted surprise.
Art Clarke made a poetic statement that must not be taken for fact, as it's only an observation of the brain's evolved function - to predict. And prediction, as is implied in the above talk, is only assessment of probabilities.
Settle on one, and yu carry it with you until the carrier, that brain, is perturbed by novel sensory event[s].
I didn't think such a complex subject could be explained in a clear enough way so that it could be understood by my small brain. Thank you for this!
Absolutely gripping narration around understanding of what mass might be. How gravity gets associated with mass is amazing too. Am looking forward to a similar session for layman .
I enjoyed this lecture and how he would pause for a second or two so I could soak in and understand a point he made. I am an older black guy living in the south suburbs of Chicago with less than two years of college but I’ve always have been curious about the world and am glad I’m living in 2019 and know how to use the smartphone iPhone my daughter taught me how to use. I appreciate I can learn so many different legitimate things I couldn’t learn otherwise without a financial cost I cannot afford and without an unnecessary degree. Thank you for posting all of your videos.
I do standup comedy and that audience would make me have my atoms decomposed !
You could drop Thor's Hammer on your foot and nothing.
Siren goes off.
Mr Baggott does not say that one of the properties of mass is that it is conserved (absolutely, in classical metrics): this is an important part of the classical analysis.
I watched the video again and enjoyed it a lot. Historical background and explanations are superb and concise. Simplified scientific descriptions of the complicated physics were also outstanding. Thanks again, Dr. Baggott.
Learning by telling a story is so powerful. Enjoying this and learning a lot!
One of the best talks I have seen on any of the top channels.
Well done!
Absolutely totally absorbing....better than the lectures in college
To be frank, the microphone set-up can radically change how much laughter from the audience is picked up. So let's perhaps give it the benefit of the doubt.
Thank you Dr Baggot. Thoroughly enjoyed your lecture
I thoroughly enjoyed the humor in this talk! I particularly liked the the line at 17:56 "Just at the time at the beginning of the 20th century when we were starting to get of evidence that atoms really existed, physicists were working out how to split them apart."
That would be like putting a puzzle together. It has constituent parts that make a whole picture. So yeah, you need to look at how it holds together? Take it apart to understand it.
I’ll be honest, the first 10 mins or so was not that engaging, but I realise that was intentional and quite deliberate to set up the rest. Which then kept me glued to the content. Master display of presentation and taking a massively complex subject down to such simplicity was wonderful.
Where did they get the audience from????
The morgue??
Memeophobe: high school
Pretty close...England, apparently
ikr
no responses even after prompting, this is unusual
His questions were really bizarre. The answers were obvious, but not knowing where he was going with them, I didn't know what answer he was expecting; even if I did want to play along. I was mostly confused. I wasn't there, but maybe that's the reason.
Brilliant start: "before year zero, before the common era", great way to describe that time without entering beliefs of folklore and religion (bc/ac). Will have to remember to use that.
Except that there was no year zero. So 'before year zero', when is that?
I honestly think sometimes when I’m so interested in a subject, I’m quiet. I wouldn’t judge the audience for their silence.
They were smiling out loud
So grateful for the most replayed feature. saves a lot of time
Simply fantastic, intriguing, interesting, thought provoking, well delivered presentation.
Jim looks like the kind of guy who embodies the establishment... a real authority figure :D
What a great lecture. Seems like he'd make a very patient teacher.
Magnificient Explanation and analysis for non-physicist. Thank you very much, Dr. Baggott.
I appreciate. the understanding of science thru the logic used by those who made the discoveries.It creates much easier system to learn by.This method creates a leaning process that appeals to natural intuitive thinking students can relate to.Excellent lecture
What a fascinating lucid lecture.. 👏👏👏
I like his witty style of delivery....👍
I agree
I liked one of his opening statements "I know it's not apparent that all authors set out to write something with an intention, but that's what I did here"
I agree. The arrogant don't have the time though, as you can see in the denigrating comments. I'd like to see what their lectures sound like.
I think you must have spilled your drink on the capslock key.
There are GALAXIES that travel faster than the speed of light and they are not flat 2D objects!!! all this is just rubbish!!
The light came on brightly, when you re-arranged Einsteins equation, and I said to myself, YES !
It finally made sense, .... (I'm only 75), beautifully presented, thank you !
Stu xx
Well done sir, very good explanation delivered with style.
I have enjoyed the clear and concise way of expressing.
Great lecture. Filled in many gaps for me.
This gentleman has a decent sense of humour that is just flying right over the sleeping audience. Good lecture and much appreciated Mr Jim Baggott.
Brilliant stuff
Great lecture. An extremely complex subject explained in a way that can be understood by anyone, which is a great achievement.
Wow - What a great lecture.
Interesting and entertaining.
I needed it. It answered a question that's been bothering me for a quite awhile.
But, now I need to know more about Gluons and Higgs Field.
the philosophical question is, 'Why Bother?' and if you arrive at the ultimate answer to that, then the next question is 'Now What?' and, if you've decided on a course of action, the next question is, 'How?' If you want skip the mental effort, I've given the answer below (which are the core of my philosophy of universal survival and morality - read it)...
"Why Bother?" Because consciousness is a good thing (consider the alternative - no consciousness).
"Now What?" Now you pursue the ultimate goal of life, which is to secure the ultimate value of life, which is securing consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe.
"How?" By employing the Strategies of Broader Survival, which are comprised of the three Lower Strategies (which all of life uses, right down to microbes): Population Increase, Population Diversity, Population Dispersal, and the three Higher Strategies (which emerged with our higher consciousness): Extended Reason, Proaction, and Higher Technology.
I like Jim's style. It's odd seeing so many people on here commenting about the audience not laughing, the last lecture of his I saw on here, the comments were full of complaints about his humour. To me humour helps as it aids the memory. Good stuff!
Please display his slides always, maybe with a little window in the coerner showing the speaker. As handsom and entertaining as this guy is, I'd also like to understand his talk. Thanks.
I imagine in 1000 years, quantum physics will be part of the history of physics.
20:00 the modern part starts. If like me, you have studied the dual slit experiment you can skip to minute 30:00 summary at 41:30.
So the explanation is that the energy of gluons is the source of most mass. But this is really not much of an explanation. It is almost naming the problem away. The problem that remains, after hearing this talk, is the following: how does concentrating energy in order to form mass create a gravity well, a distortion of space and time, that makes other particles experience a force of attraction? There is nothing that I can see in General Relativity that explains this. This question is at the heart of the concept of mass, since we measure and observe mass according to its inertia or its gravitational force, yet this lecturer did not even attempt to address it.
Quite right
Actually GR does explain this very simply: there is no "gravitational force". The force you feel is the force the ground exerts on you to prevent you from following a natural straight line motion in curved spacetime, which is the free fall. In some sense you are constantly accelerated in curved spacetime, by the force exerted by the ground. But I agree he should have started by these basic facts about GR.
Fantastic talk. Very smart presentation. Loved so much. Superb.
The history of Physics - 40 min, Physics-Today - 9 minutes. I love the last 10 minutes of this video.
I’m a layman, but it seems the most obvious & logical explanation for particles acting like polarizable axial or circular, helical waves as they travel is that they’re orbiting something (a dark (or anti) matter particle perhaps).
It's not unlike Earth being pulled into a wobble by the moon, or a distant star's wobble evidencing planet orbits making our trajectories as we fly thru space have an apparent axial or circular helical wave (like a packet) as well, depending on the orientation of the orbit.
And since we think we know undetectable dark matter exists and should be 5 times as common as matter but don't yet know where it's distributed, it seems a logical possibility that we are in a sea of dark matter, even in otherwise empty space, and every particle (photons, electrons, etc) is paired (entangled) in orbit with one. I think gravitational waves could be dark matter waves and that gravity might be caused by the density of dark matter.
This could explain the double slit experiment results, including with a detector with some interaction between the dark matter and the detector (and perhaps dark matter entanglement), it could explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as well as explain the deflection of the axis of the particle's wave motion (orbit orientation) moving thru polarizing filters rotated less than 45 degrees apart, etc..
Perhaps the only reason for photons' max speed limit is caused by the dark matter they're paired in orbit with interacting with other dark matter.
This could also explain why the universe is expanding from the central singularity point of the big bang outward in all directions faster than the speed of light into previously completely empty universe space, given that there is no dark matter there yet.
You're right about one thing: you're not a physicist.
Supper excellent explanation, Thank you very much
RI HAS GREAT LECTURES ! THANK YOU VERY MUCH !
Er, small error at the beginning of the lecture. Not a physics one, but a historical one.
There is no year zero on the standard calendar. The year 1 CE was preceded by 1 BCE. This is illogical, mathematically, by it is nevertheless, the case, by international convention. That is why the first year of each century actual ends with a 1, not a zero. The first year of this century was 2001, not 2000.
I'm not buying it. The first year in this century was 2000. You'll just have to accommodate it...
He was just desperately grabbing for a way to avoid saying the word "Christ".
Another way of thinking about it is that the first year wasn’t recorded until it ended
@@wbiro Since year zero never existed, year 1 is the first year, right? Add 100 years and continue. 2001 is the first year of this millenium.
The most enjoyable and interesting lecture I have seen for a long time.
Pretty unresponsive audiences though.
Richard Feynman worked on QED after the war during the 1960s and got the Nobel Prize for his work.
Very interesting and entertaining. Lovely sense of humour. Thank you.
Very interesting! And Jim Baggott, the speaker is :1)very intelligent and 2)very funny! Thanks for putting it up. David
Thanks for your lecture. It helps me understand more about Higgs boson and mass. It mentions gluons too. Thanks again and keep up with the good work. From HK
LHC accelerates protons to 99.999999 % of light speed, not 99 % of light speed.
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for that expansion of my understanding
I absolutely love this lecturer and the content was very interesting. I'd love to see more from him
I only just realized this is the same guy who wrote the superb book "The Quantum Story: a history in 40 moments" - the best treatment of this fascinating subject I've come across.
I agree Josh! He should've gained at least 40kg to give this lecture. Brmp Tsss.
I am in 12th standard and I always had a doubt of what mass is ? But today it's all clear to me ..... thanks to this amazing physicist .....
Still I have got a lot questions on quantum physics which I think will be solved as I keep moving forward in learning science ......
very cool. I hated physics in high school. It just seemed do foreign. However, I was able to follow this lecture. It's a great feeling to finally understand something I thought was beyond my understanding. Keep it up!
I was a million lightyears away from physics in high school (sadly)...
This man presented each and everything for which i was wondering for 3-4 years and gave me most satisfying and logical answers. He is great explainer and btw audience sucks!!
The title was better than the speech
Would have bever really crossed my mind to think of mass as "just energy" but it's literally written in the formulae such as the one of Einstein. Thank you Jim and thanks for Ri and RUclips for the chance.
another great lecture @ the Ri
Amazing lecture even I understood most of it, thank you Jim!
One howler, throughout his fascinating talk, is that there was no Year 0. The last year before our common era was 1 BCE, and that was followed by 1CE. In other words, the first year of our calendar would have been 1.
Use of the expression 'Common era' is a 'howler'. Don't subscribe to the indoctrination everybody.
@@pigsbishop99
I bet you literally don't know what AD means. Also, the indoctrination is what has happened to you that makes you so incredibly opposed to religion neutral language that not only doesn't actually change anything and also *doesn't actually change* the Christ-centric placing of year 1. Granted I bet you also think the Crusades were good, if you believed they happened at all.
You are wize...and correct...I could go further, however it would become a book....the elite who run this planet, spend thier time keeping everyone(sheep) in distraction or false theory or outright deception....
One of my favorite lectures. I really appreciate your storytelling and the pace of relevant information Jim. Although, I'm curious why you showed a picture of Niels Bohr but used a quote from de Broglie when introducing quantum mechanics?
Pro-tip. Menu > playback speed > 1.5x
Derek OKeeffe 1.25 good for me, btw ty
Derek OKeeffe Too slow, I watch at 100 million ×
That is better. Thanks
Derek OKeeffe i did the same
That way you can hear the nose breathing in -1.5 speed.. Couldn't watch because of that.
I’ve always written the equation as m=E/c^2 so it’s good to hear the rationale & history with an appropriate quantum update. Nicely done…
I know ice, especially Ice9.
Long before Greeks, Indian philosopher Kanad in his treatise called Vaeisheshika had developed the concept of Atom. He also theorised Atoms(parmanu) combined to give Molecule (anu)
Thank you RI, but that was a difficult watch
Think they need a new sound engineer to help them out a bit.
Amazing lecture! Thank you so much for the chronological summary of theories.
I'll make it short for you. We dont know what mass is. End.
The most astounding thing is our lack of even the most basic knowledge.
Mass? We know what it does but we don't know what it is.
Energy? We know what it does but we don't know what it is.
Magnetism? We know what it does but we don't know what it is.
Strong/weak force? We know what they do but we don't know what they are.
Charge? We know what it does but we don't know what it is.
Dark matter? We (kind of) know what it does but we don't know what it is.
Consciousness? We know what it does but we don't know what it is.
Free will? We know what it feels like but we don't know whether we have it.
Anyone who thinks there isn't as much work ahead of absolute basic science and philosophy is kidding themselves. We have done amazing work to find out how the essential parts of the universe fit together. One day we might begin to understand what they actually are.
@@labibbidabibbadum It's an endless fractal. When you know what something is at its' essence relative to your experience of it, you will only find more that you don't know about. That said, we can, if we wanted to, conclude that these elements of reality simply *are*. Science doesn't like that, though, but unfortunately, there's a limit to human perception; there is no limit to reality.
@@labibbidabibbadum finally some people I like
Really enjoyed this presentation.
after 46 min. I now know less about "m" than I thought I knew b/4
Bro that's what a learning is how much more you learn that much less you know and it's endless
Awesome explanation. Thank you Prof.
20-minute content stretched into almost full 50 minutes of pain.
?????
are u kidding???
I have to agree. It´s pretty dragging.
I just can't focus on this style of teaching any more. Give me a snappy VSAUCE-type presentation every time. Things, thankfully, have moved on.
education isn't entertainment
JAred it is
For the engrossed ones at least
Hearing this guy talk I have developed a sliver of hope that quantum physics actually may be explained at some point.
2:18 Those symbols for the four elements are from Avatar The Last Airbender. Lol
Overkillius
Where do you think they got it from ?
thank you .for giving me a bit more understanding
tough crowd in the comment section. id like to see half of you keyboard warriors give a lecturer.
Agreed, I my experience, once you commit to a sequence of detailed powerpoint slides with text, you can no longer play the room.. and if the room is different fro: what you expect, it’s an uphill walk... I did a few lectures that bombed hard that way.. now using images and videos, mostly
You will be amazed who these keyboard warriors are! :) Amongst them, there are kids, but there are also professionals and/or highly intelligent people!
It's good to have people help correct his video's. And yes it's horrible when people are just saying thing's to tare down another person when all he is trying to do is enlighten others. If i was him i would think of ways to be more detailed in giving information. I would not treat people like kids, i would give honest information and not sugarcoat the information. You can make it simple with out making it to simple.
@@ArthurHau Highly intelligent people? How do you know? The comments certainly don't indicate that. Yeah, maybe it is the crafty way they shit all over someone else's work.
I have given quite a few lectures and presentations. I was always happy to be told new information / viewpoints. It helps to improve.
For those wanting to skip some history, goto 16:58.
What I got out of this is that everything is energy and energy has mass. M=E/C2. And ultimately, this means that the "Big Bang" where "matter comes from nothing" really makes more sense when we see things as energy.
pro-tip. the lecture starts at 46:53 and ends at 48:15 . the rest is well known history, heavy breathing and unfortunate jokes.
A great mesmerizing lecture. A great scientist.
god that crowd sucks.
I kinda agreed with the crowd. I wished He'd stick to the lecture and can it with the jokes.
jokes??? where did u see jokes? this guy has no emotion AT ALL... its fuckin boring to watch him talk about anything... no passion
What's warranted is up the the listener and clearly subjective. Also in case you still cling to the "poor crowd" assertion perhaps you are really complaining about the audio engineer or the equipment.
Where does that leave the non-general public?
@@FarnhamTheDrunk1 he is a real comedian compared to our uni lectures x,D
the time before "0" is written as abbreviation "BC" which stands for "Before Christ". Now people are afraid to use the name of Christ just in case it could offend somebody. How ridiculous is that! 10 years ago I studied with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, various Christians and many, many, Atheists and nobody had issues with the fact that the birth of Christ is used as the start date of the modern era calendar. Back in the days Science was a place free from political agendas.
Oh sorry, I don't recall any evidence on the life of the hippie from Galilee. Nothing from Roman record keepers. At ALL!! Right, faith fills all missing gaps in reality. BC is more like the longest standing typo. It's not a PC play, it's stupidity. Wake up.
Tomasz Zajac - What the bloody hell are you on about? You're a nutter. There's a little thing called BCE, "Before Common Era", since there's no reason to believe Jesus ever existed, as there is absolutely no evidence. Also, Jesus wasn't supposedly born until what, 30AD?!?! Religious folks fail at maths.
To many of us, it is clear Jesus was a fable.. and a borrowed one at that.
@@planksip The Romans spread Christianity throughout their empire. I suppose you are ignorant of Constantine and much of history.