The Planck Mass: Not extremely big and not extremely small
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- I’ve looked at most of the Planck units. Planck length which is really tiny, Planck time which is really short and Planck temperature which is really hot, but there is one I’ve been sort of putting off, and that is Planck mass, which is kind of strange, let’s find out more.
Unlike my other Planck unit videos we don’t need to try to use our imaginations to visualise how big or small this is because we can easily imagine how heavy this is. This is about 10 times heavier than a human egg cell or about the same mass as a human eyelash. So how does this compare to the mass of other things. Specifically how does this compare to the masses of particles and the like.
It's worth mentioning, the top quark isn't the largest quark, merely the heaviest. Quarks have the peculiar property of being smaller the heavier they are. So the top quark is actually the smallest quark in terms of size.
Interesting, thank you!
So top quarks are to bottom quarks what alpha particles are to beta particles heh geh joke
Oh my new pickup like is gurrrrl dat thang on u is hotter than the Planck temp… it’s just too bad my thang is smaller than Planck length
@@rickmacdonald5575 now listen i'm not much for jokes, ok?
All particles have a greater spread the less massive they are. That's why protons are more well defined in terms of position than electrons.
If you look at a model of an atom, you have a tiny point surrounded by a large diffuse electron cloud.
There's another Planck unit which is the weight of a small sea creature that whales eat. This is called the Planck Ton.
As opposed to a Planck tonne, or one million planck masses
You could also walk the length of a planck to end up in the sea with the Planck Ton.
😉 😄 😂
*angry upvote*
Fantastic.
i couldn't figure out what the Planck mass really was until you explained how it's the mass of the black hole with size of a Planck length. instantly made sense
Same! I was really confused because the other Planck units are like the smallest, densest, shortest, hottest, but this is neither the heaviest or the lightest so only with that explanation can my dysfunctional brain understand it.
Black holes do not have size as at the Schwartzschild metric, space itself collapses and distance and time no longer have representation.
All this was nonsense then. Jesus, this video should have been a minute long.
I would have led with that.
so the planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible black hole?
Interesting point thats often missed: There arnt just 3 quarks in a proton and neutron, they are something of a soup of quarks and anti-quarks popping in and out. The three valence quarks that are often treated as the only quarks around are the imbalance. I.e. there are two more up quarks and one more down quark than their anti versions.
And it doesn't seem like just those ones, did you see the recent report that looks like there might be some probability of a strange quark too? Fascinating.
Thank you. One day the vile snookerball model of quantum physics will be ousted and it will be a glorious day. Or not. We tried to commune with the spirit of Schrödinger but he was in two minds about it. Puns aside, I wish it was stated more often, so thank you.
Thank you. One day the vile snookerball model of quantum physics will be ousted and it will be a glorious day. Or not. We tried to commune with the spirit of Schrödinger but he was in two minds about it. Puns aside, I wish it was stated more often, so thank you.
That is not true. There are strictly 3 quarks in a proton. Particles do not “pop in and out” of existence.
And that's why a proton has some inherent charm, or so they say down at the bar.
I LOVE that we know this stuff, but have no idea what it means.
*i
I means that the Mass in the Singularity (Strong, Weak & Electromagnetic force) is so great that it produces Gravity. Einstein's Logic.
Me too. 😂
@@hrsmp I know where it's going a millionth of a second before it all started. I am way beyond that.
Like the extinct languages that we've discovered written on slabs and rocks.
Every time I try to move at the speed of light, my body produces so many top quarks that I just don't move ... and end up watching your insightful videos!
Great video, but how disappointingly large is the Planck mass --though that little matter compressed within a Planck length would form a black hole is still kind of impressive
That little? Or that much? How much time would it take on average to radiate it away through Hawking radiation?
@@oisnowy5368 An instant or an infinite time.
Because nothing smaller can exist there are two hypothesis. The first is that he radiates in an instant, disappearing and releasing all of it's mass to energy. The second is that he can't radiate simply because he can't get smaller, so the black hole remain stuck at that size without any change for the eternity. This last hypothesis is what someone think can be what we call "dark matter", a bunch of tiny (primordial) black holes that are all around us and fill all the interstellar space. At that size, they have no gravity to attract anything and are too small to eat anything, so they stay forever at that size, but all that mass adds up and at the galaxy level the total mass can be seen as dark matter.
None of those hypothesis are confirmed.
@@oisnowy5368 I'm guessing it would radiate away in a quadrillionth of a second or something, probably less :)
@@erikrichardgregory Probably evaporate in a Planck second
@@nickluckovitch3288 by God, you’re probably right. The “Plancks” are all sort of tied together, aren’t they? I’ll bet you’re right
Your explanation is pretty solid. Only E=MC^2 is not the whole equation, its simplified so that it can go on a shirt. The full equation is actually:
E^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC)^2
E=energy
M=mass
P=momentum
C=light speed (constant)
Now that I think abt it, even that might be simplified. I’m not old enough to have gone to one of Einsteins lectures so I really can’t say for sure…
E=MC^2 is true for a static mass
The contribution from mC^2 can be ignored at very high velocities since pC grow very fast.
It's E=mc^2 because most things do not go fast enough for it to affect the equation. Light tends to be the only thing to need that half of the equation.
Of course, this is my very vague memory so if might be wrong
He's talking about inertial (rest) mass so E=mc^2 is correct. Momentum by definition doesn't contribute to inertial mass. Otherwise objects would have different masses in different reference frames and all sorts of absurdities would ensue such as some observers seeing a black hole and others seeing a normal star.
Thanks for the video! You always explain these incredibly complex topics in a way that is easy to comprehend. 👍
Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
So..in short then. The Planck mass is the mass of a black hole of one planck length radius.
Awesome video! I really like the format and the simplicity of the videos. Keep growing!
Thank you very much
11:43 Timestamp for the impatient who want the answer.
Thanks for a good satisfying explanation. Describing a black hole of that mass where it's radius is equal to plank length makes a ton of sense, as that's probably the smallest size a black hole can be before it totally evaporates.
I've watched so many videos about particles but never understood the relationship between them, watching your video is the first time it has been clear to me! Thanks for the great explanations
So, in conclusion, a human ovum can never become a black hole. Even squeezed to the Planck volume, will at best make a neutron star
Haha, awesome :D
Thanks for another great video this is fast becoming my go to channel for information and enjoyment.
Thank you very much and I appreciate your kind words.
@@LearningCurveScience No problem, it easy to be kind when your telling the truth...
TL:DR: The Planck Mass is the mass a black hole with a radius of a Planck length would have
Planck Mass is strangley less fundamental than the rest of the series.
I imagine that not only is a swarchild radius of the plank mass black hole, but I expect that such a black hole will evaporate in about planck time, producing a local plack temperature during at that 'time'.
We may not know exactly what happens in the center of a black hole, but it's best kept that way. I can't imagine anything good happening there.
If anything, this just goes to show how ludicrously compressed a black hole really is. Something with a size that makes even a neutrino look like a nebula, with a weight that, for anything else, would be visible to the naked eye.
When any elementary particle reaches the speed of light,its relativisic mass becomes equal to Planck's mass instead of becoming infinite,its size becomes equal to Planck's length instead of becoming zero and its lifetime becomes equal to Planck's time which is the evaporation time of the smallest possible black hole according to Hawking(see papers on "The Principle of Finiteness" in arxiv and JOP by Abraham Sternlieb).This requires certain corrections to Lorentz Transformations and to the Uncertainty Principle which are compatible with string theory and Quantum Gravity.
Your presentation style is really easy to understand! It makes me want to see a collaboration series between you and @ScienceClicEN
I am dumb. I can't follow simple explanations. I am still tapping the thumbs up 👍 button to feed the algorithm monsters. It's not this clip's creator's fault that I can't understand the concepts.
The binding energy is not all of the remaining mass of protons and neutrons. A large majority of the " missing mass " is due to the inertia of the quarks being tugged back and forth like a carnival ride within the internal structure of the hadron. Inertia will always translate to mass.
Thank you so much. That gives me a better, established term for what is really going on.
1. The total energy at every point is a constant. (Planck mass equivalent)
2. There is no such thing as negative energy.
3. Spacetime is a field of potential energy, governing motion.
The binding energy of particles, like an electron in an atom, is often given as a negative number, because it's relative to a free, unbound electron. There can also be things like negative heat given off by a chemical reaction (i.e. it's an endothermic reaction). But if you're just talking about the energy content of a particular patch of space, that's measured relative to the "ground state" which is a minimum, so I guess in a way you could say it's always positive. But it's all relative to something. That ground state might not be zero. See vacuum decay.
If the energy at every point was a constant, there wouldn't be any curvature of spacetime. There wouldn't be much of anything.
@@DFPercush There is no "negative energy" that subtracts from energy to leave... nothing. There are things we arbitrarily label "negative" for convenience, but it's still energy. There are opposites, but there is no "anti" energy.
Spacetime potential energy + every other form of energy = constant. The gradients in each field (especially spacetime) are why acceleration (and motion) exist.
you kicked up my learning curve through the roof
thanks a lot!
Finally a Planck unit I can comprehend
Extremely clear explanation. Thank you!
1) 3x10^-9 is *lighter* than 2.176x10^-8, not heavier. So if your numbers were right; the plank mass is 10x heavier than a human egg cell.
That's what he said
@@annoloki I will rewatch, but I heard it the other way
Maybe we should be talking about planck density, rather than planck mass. I bet that is HUGE.
It is, I've done a video about it.
Nicely explained !
Do we have something called as a plank force?
I.e. the gravitational force between two plank masses 🤣😁
Thank you very much. Interesting. I'm researching some more of the Planck units, so I'll let you know.
Yes, there exists someone like the Planck force.
Force is M*L/t² so we just need to take the Planck mass, multiply it by the Planck length and divide it by Planck time squared
@@anic1716 ...and then what happens?
Physics was a long time ago. >>
@@cceres You get about 1.21 x 10^44 newtons.
@@lancebradshaw4829 I... that is a *lot* of force from some very very small measurements...
This is why the talk about the Planck length being special is bunk. I guess we can’t escape people latching onto something that sounds good.
How to make science weird-add quantum
How to make science weirder -replace quantum with Planck
I mean exactly what i was expecting. The mass engery in a planck length, or rather volume, needed to create a black hole the size of it. But why the schwarzschield radius and not the diameter?
Two or more plank black holes will collide and emerge into one and matters are emitted out.
The Planck momentum is also quite normal. There is nothing physical, which makes the derived units more or less real.
Nicely done. Good pacing, clear explanations, and not too much information despite the fact that the subject matter is highly complex. Good use of maths and I'd only add some explanation of the use of the constants and why they are used to make the determination(s) under review.
Another very enjoyable video.
I will be honest I had no idea what the vast majority of particles were but am better for watching it
An eyelash could be reduced into a Planck length in the black hole.
10:20
Everyone watching this video blinked when you said this.
The Plank stuff has always been so fascinating to me :D
Good to hear, 'cos I'm not finished yet.
@@LearningCurveScience :0
@@LearningCurveScience THERES MORE?! O-o
@@LearningCurveScience How many Planck units are there? I love these videos!
So, the Plank mass is like an eyelash.. 🤔
Weird I know!
When I read the title, I expected the Planck mass to be on the human scale. Kind of sad that it isn't. If it was something between a gram or a ton, it would actually be useful as a unit of measure (while being universal).
We could then do some natural conversions based on water to arrive at several other useful (and practically universal) units of measure.
Me just got trying to understand if it's really light or really heavy
Any one else find themselves humming Hawkwind while listening to this?
Very nice presentation of all the different particles, thanks!
If I run past you fast enough, my plank length looks as long as a meter.
2:45 This isn’t a correction, just a different way to view it.
All things travel the same velocity in spacetime. This means that the faster something moves in space, the slower it moves in time, and the faster something moves in time, the slower it moves in space.
That’s the basis for the Lorentz transformations used for things traveling at relativistic speeds. It is normally describes as that as an Object A moves faster, relative to Object B, Object A’s length in the direction of travel will contract while the time it experiences dilates from the perspective of Object B. From Object A’s perspective, the same happens to Object B. However, each object’s perception of itself remains static.
So, in spacetime, we are all tue fastest person alive…and the slowest…because we all travel the same velocity through spacetime.
7:00 You know how atoms have orbitals that have a maximum capacity of two electrons with opposite spins? And how Electron Shell 1 has a single orbital?
What if nucleons had an Electron Shell 0?
Suppose that Shell 0 also has a single orbital, and the two electrons can orbit one of the three quarks in a nucleon. More specifically, what if a Down Quark was just an Up Quark with an orbiting electron? So, if you have UUU, then you’d have a bison with a +2 charge since each U has a +2/3 charge. That is a lot of repulsive electrostatic force so it probably would not last very long (Delta Baryon) resulting in a decay into a proton: UeUU. If we write a proton as a three Up quarks with an electron occupying the space between the positive and negative particles: UeUU, then a neutron would would be: UeUeU, or three up quarks with two electron orbital filled.
Just a thought.
Your explanation of spacetime and velocity through it is excellent. Thank you
@@LearningCurveScience Thank you for being one of many providers of different perspectives.
Here’s how important DIFFERENT perspectives are: we are 100’ from each other and there’s an object 100’ from both of us (equilateral triangle). You claim that it is a brick because it is red and rectangular. I claim it is a metal ball because it is shiny and round. We can argue all day while calling each other stupid or a liar, and we would both be correct in thinking so because we see what we see.
We are also incorrect because we chose not to see with the other sees… until Nature provides an epiphany for us and blows the object towards us.
As it bounces and rolls, we are given new information we didn’t trust from the other. You see the roundness and shine I claimed there was, just as I see the red and rectangular shape you claimed their was…
… and as we both overcome our perceptual biases, we begin to understand that Corporate America caused us to fight over something we both saw, but we’re only given part of the picture…
Coca-Cola has cans that when viewed from the side are red and rectangular, but when viewed from the top or bottom is shiny and round…
The MOST important thing about different perspectives is NOT “which one is correct.”
The most important thing about different perspectives is the extra information each perspective has to offer to the other.
Isn’t it amazing how humans decide to do the exact opposite of what Nature figured out to do for our stereoscopic vision? 😂
You have a nice voice that's enjoyable to listen to.
The planck length is the distance I meed to turn the knob in my shower for icy cold water or superheated plasma.
😂😂
Ah the name can be misleading. So it isn't the smallest possible mass, but the heavyset possible for a quantum particle, at which point it would create event horizon, which would be funny enough the size of planck length.
Wow that wasn’t as small as I was expecting
"that's what she said"
Ova are pretty dang big. I had no idea, that's 10% of an eyelash for one cell
Roughly, yes. They are about the biggest cells in the human body, they are the only cells that are visible to the naked eye (you have to have good eyes though).
Planck mass and Planck energy are both quite human scale values.
It will actually be 2 times the Planck's length if a particle with Planck mass actually becomes a black hole.
I love the idea of the planck mass being 23 pounds. I just find the idea of a planck mass being defined by the imperial system and the fact that 23 pounds cant really be put into kilos makes it funnier.
> Planck mass
“Yeah, like the Planck length and Planck time, I get it”
> the mass of an egg cell or an eyelash
“Wait what the f﹡ck”
Very interesting video. I learned a lot! Thanks
Brilliant, superbly explained
Neutrinos do interact with us. Very rarely but they do. They are responsible for cell degradation and aging
So would one way to think about it be that this would be the upper bound of mass of a singular particle?
YES.THIS ALSO MEANS THAT PLANCK MASS/ENERGY IS THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF COSMIC RAY/PARTICLE ENERGY.
A particle having plant mass in a size of plank volume should be a black hole with plant density.. right?
Yess finally someone giving attention to this
Thank you. I plan to do as many of the Planck units as I can, and then explain the maths behind them
@@LearningCurveScience maybe do a video on _c_ as well?
Nice video, though, you made an error with the mass of Neutrinos, their combined mass is closer to (rounded) 20MeV/c².
TL;DR : Mass is complicated.
Long answer :
The mass of the Tau neutrino isn't in electronvolt range, but rather in Mega electronvolt.
It is hard to know as measuring the mass of those is really difficult.
You'd find different values, but based on Wikipedia (for ease to find), the Electron Neutrino is at max at 0,0000022 MeV/c² while the Muon Neutrino is around 0,17 MeV/c² and the Tau is at a big 15,5 MeV/c².
And while the electron itself is at (only) 0,511 MeV/c², the Tau reach a huge 1,7GeV/c².
The Wiki's article references point to a 2008 study, but measuring the mass isn't as straightforward as you might think, at those scales and complexity, the interactions between particles play a huge factor, so what virtual particles like Gluons, and other Bosons, but also the Higgs boson responsible for the interaction of mass, do to each others, affect greatly everything.
And how energy and mass are intricately working together make it more complicated.
You have to take into account energy that aren't “seen” usually.
You need at least Quantum Chromodynamic, where we learn that even if the electric charge of a Neutron is 0, it has others energies, and even if things cancel out in a larger scale, inside of it, it is much more complicated (Color Charges).
Neutrons have a neutral electric charge, yet, they interact with matter quite well (too well sometimes), while Neutrino extremely rarely interact, so you quickly understand that electric charge is only the tips of the iceberg.
Basically, an Electron Neutrino is a mirrored Electron, I am not talking about anti-matter or the potential negative matter or Supersymmetry here.
The same way, a Neutron is a mirrored Proton, in fact, despite the Neutrons having no electric charge, they still attract the Protons.
Basically, you know the familiar electric charge, the Proton is positive and attract the oppositely/negatively charged Electron, but there is another charge that attract Neutrons and Protons together that Electrons doesn't feel, and the same way this other force can't be felt by Electrons, Neutrinos are reversed Electrons but whose energy is not felt by anything else.
That's a simplification, but it shows that there are a lot of “hidden” energies, and I am sure the way the Neutrino's energy interact with the Higgs Boson make it have a different “felt” mass despite being an Electron (this is a simplification, as the Higgs Boson that is so much popular actually only gives mass to W(+ or -) and Z Bosons).
A Muon is just a bigger Electron, in fact, it acts quite the same, and if it wasn't for its short lifespan, we could have atoms with Muons rather than Electrons, in fact, it is possible to quickly do it, look up the Hydrogen-4.1 for an example.
In the end, particles are much more complex than small balls, inside Neutrons and Protons, it isn't properly 2+1 Quarks and a stream of Gluons, it is much more complicated than that, it is a soup of particles with highly complex behavior, such as Quarks being able to suddenly turning into their paired one, so an Up can become a Down, which is what happen in a Beta+ radioactive decay.
We can quickly understand how complex this is when we realize that if Beta Decay happen, it is because of either too many Hadrons (Neutrons and Protons) together or a big imbalance between the two (Isotopes).
Let's take example with Magnesium, which have 12 Protons, and its 3 stable Isotops are the Magnesium 24, 25 and 26, meaning with respectively 12, 13 and 14 Neutrons.
The others are unstable, and in Beta+ decay, the unstable isotop Magnesium 23 turn into Sodium 23, meaning it lost one Proton that turned into one Neutron, because one of its Quarks Down flip to a Quark Up.
We can guess that the Strong Force interaction between all of those, when there is unbalance, affect Quarks.
Yet, in both cases of Quarks flipping, particles are emitted and not absorbed, regardless of the mass difference between the two Quarks.
In fact, in both cases, this decay mode emit a W Boson, which, regardless what Quarks turns into which can be either positive or negative, and this W Boson is at a big 80.433GeV/C² with a 0.009 GeV/C² error margin (measured this year, on April 7 2022).
All of this is still super simplification, it deals with Quantum Chromodynamic, Weak Force/Quantum Flavourdynamics, Strong Force, Quantum Field Theory and how different fields interact, and more, all together.
But what one can take out of this, is, the truth is much deeper, it is much more complicated than it seems.
Like how Gluons aren't real particles for example, virtual particles aren't tangible, and I can't even say “physical” as Electrons themselves aren't objects, but rather a wave function.
This idea of gluons instead of wave interaction ia absurd. Nobody takes in account the actual frequency"c2" of the problem. Light can travel faster if confined into a magnetic loop
'I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness'. That also was Max Planck
So the plank mass is basically the mass of a black hole the size of the plank length?
Yes pretty much, there are some other implications too, but that appears to be one of the main considerations
So if the plank mass is 10^-8 kg, what happens if you make a black hole with a mass of 10^-9 kg? It should be a black hole with an event horizon 1/10th the size of a plank length. But that shouldn't be possible, because you can't have anything smaller then a plank length. However it also is possible, because you can make a black hole of any arbitrary mass. So that's where my brain is, seems to be both obviously possible and obviously impossible at the same time.
Planck is always making troubles to us.
Planck length and time are invariably touted as the smallest distances and times possible, as if they were somehow fundamental in some sense. Planck mass, on the other hand, is relatively enormous. What fundamental characteristic resides with a mass as large as a speck of dust?
PLANCK MASS/ENERGY IS THE ENERGY OF ANY ELEMENTARY PARTICLE MOVING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT
AND ALSO TRHE MAXIMUM ENERGY OF A PHOTON,THEREFORE OF COSMIC RAYS OF ANY KIND.
100% click bait safe videos youtuber.. thanks its really worth watching your content
Cool video! Unrelated question: Are you from Yorkshire? I live there currently and that's what they kinda sound like
Actually I'm from the other side of the Pennines, so Lancashire way.
@@LearningCurveScience oh! That's interesting, thanks for the reply!
Great video
Really enjoyed this one !!! 🤗🤗🤗
Speed Of Light === Speed Of Causality , the "C" makes sense now.
What about the mass of a photon, I watched another video and it vaguely said that because it has energy it effectively has mass even if it doesn’t
Not mass, per se. Momentum.
Would you consider doing a video about the Planck Force?
Yes it is on my list, don't worry.
@@LearningCurveScience Where is it? I couldn't find it.
Quarks and all their flavors are so interesting. Great video!
I read somewhere that a Planck mass is about the same mass as a flea egg.
Does everything happen instantly at plank meter per plank time?
"Constantly wearing a panda furry suit and speaking in klingon cured my arachnophobia."
---Albert Einstein
"Something seems to be defying explanations that because it has a half-integer spin, bubble gum is a type of elementary particle and
a fundamental constituent of femto-angstroms. The spectrum of a substance will show characteristic dips and peaks as photons are
sanitized for your protection. It is a fundamental interaction that confines quarks into protons, neutrons, and other hadron
particles of unicorns and lollipops. All scientists agree, when you censor out the one's who don't. I have not yet begun to
procrastinate. So it stands to reason that shopping for groceries is mindblowing. It's extremely practical and real and we all know
it. The common denominator is those who can think for themselves while observing black holes that require the disclosure of
significant amounts of quantum level oscillations. I want to provide a brief update on flying poodles without having any idea what
is happening to infrared spectroscopy. Are you aware of your own defects as electrons transition between orbits? Window glass is
transparent to visible light related to the number of charge states of Thorne-Zytkow objects. In other words, we can see the same
shapes and patterns, but on radically different scales of liquid nitrogen. Everyone knows that liquid nitrogen is the basis of all
life on Earth."
---Albert Einstein
"While we still have the opportunity to chew bubblegum and kick ass, we must reject the ideological underpinnings of iconic roadside
attractions with thunder and lightning. The proof is in the pudding that being fearless with the truth will enable you to shop for
groceries with meticulously precise movements and absolute determination. So it stands to reason that I don’t think anyone who has
studied the evidence would disagree with the conclusion that crocodiles in Spain fall mainly on the plain. It's a fundamental
constituent of a phenomenon known as the color confinement of dandelion extract. This holds the only key to break out and experience
what is real so new ideas can get room to breathe. If you build it, they will come. So, there you have it. A plausible scenario for
an amazing transformation of sunflower seeds into a blue rabbit. And as always, we must remain passionately dedicated to quantum
level iguanas still operational outside of our solar system. Everyone should own a rubber chicken. This is really inspiring. You're
not alone with metabolic chains of neuro-divergent electromagnetic forces stemming from chromodynamic extraterrestrials."
---Albert Einstein
nicely explained, good work sir
Love how you dodge the bullet by adding the words "in a vacuum" to Einstein's theory 😂
Hey bruh if there's black the size of the Planck length does that mean there's something even smaller?
QM classicalized in 2010: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the ‘hidden variables ‘ and constants, and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr,etc. A proton is a collection of @1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
This is exactly what I was wondering, thanks
The physics of QCD surely induces madness in the mind
Sad to say I've watched this twice and I'm still not "getting" this particular Planck. Planck Time? Sure. Distance? Can do. Temperature? Understood. Planck mass? Over my head. I thought perhaps it was just "the least amount of mass something can have before it's particle" but obvious particles have mass. So yah, maybe come back in another day and try a third time.
The way I understood it is this: Planck mass is twice the maximum mass you can put in a Planck length, and the smallest mass a black hole can have.
You made it very fun to watch, thanks.
Glad to hear that!
So it's the mass of the smallest possible black hole.
Hey i heard in some other video that in neutron stars, neutrons are formed when a proton and an electron are smashed together. If that is the case why does a neutron not have an electron as one of its constituents.....🤔
Thank you for another video!
Off the top of my head, one Planck mass equals the weight of one thousand eukaryotic cells, a million prokaryotic cells, and a thousand million viria. I would like to see a more accurate table available.
A number of people have guessed independently that quantum mechanics is different for objects heavier than the Planck mass. I would say myself that for heavier objects, the Compton wavelength is shorter than the Planck length, the Schroedinger or similar equation is meaningless and we can throw it away. The object is still subject to an Uncertainty Principle and we know from experiments on Bell's inequalities that something in quantum mechanics really is random to the extent of being useful for the construction of a reliable Vernam cipher. Let's throw out the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and replace it by the Fuerth Uncertainty Principle based upon classical Brownian motion. Using this rule of thumb, which is all it is, we can distribute computer simulations of quantum mechanics with a random number generator installed, and ask everybody to think of a better use for a RNG.
A single serving of Planck Mass equals how many ounces?
1:40
Extreme pedantry:
Energy and mass are not quite equivalent.
Rather, mass is a form of energy, just as for example kinetic energy is.
To be a bit more needlessly complex, mass is the result of contained energy. A system gets more massive the more energy it has contained within it. But this extra mass is only perceived from outside the system. For an example of what this means:
An object moving relative to you is not any more massive (though may have more inertial mass due to relativity but shhh...) than it would be were it at rest. However, if an object is rolling around inside a sphere - i.e. that kinetic energy is now inside a closed system - then if you put the whole sphere on a (very precise) scale, you will measure that it has more mass than just the sphere and the rolling object combined. This extra mass comes from the kinetic energy confined within the system.
Same thing if you have a lightbulb inside a spherical mirror, and some way of powering it from outside. If you turn the light on the system will get very slightly heavier due to the energy contained in the photons that are now bouncing around inside. If you have a perfect mirror, it will get heavier and heavier the longer you keep the light on. For a 60W bulb, it would get about 21 grams heavier every million years.
Is the Plank mass related to the diffraction limit?
i.e. things with mass up to the Plank mass, can diffract, by lesser amounts until something bigger than the Plank mass won't diffract, or experience much quantum effects?
So... 12 minutes of only briefly mentioning the planks mass, and that it's about an eye lash if mass, and then briefly mentioning how it's defined at the very end.
That last 10 seconds was fastenating, and it left me thinking about the density of singularities and how black holes work and thinking about how many plank masses fit into a blank hole, or a supermassive black hole, and wondering why that's the amount of mass that can fit in a plank cube. Idk, I guess I was hoping for a different video. I hope the rest of the internet enjoyed it even though it felt like a waist of time until the last 10 seconds.
I have an idea (actually 2 ideas): how about planck energy or planck momentum? I've read the planck energy is about what's stored in a tank of gasoline.
And the planck momentum is about that of a 100 mph baseball. These are the 3 planck units that coincide with everyday life (at least that I can find anything about). The rest are either far too large or far too small.
acording to gpt, the mass in E=mc2 is squared too. by algebraic rules, it should look like (m*c)2, if im right.
And yet we don't define the kilogram with speed of light and gravitational constant, but with a block.
I wonder how planck mass diverges with the blocks. E.g. if the Planck mass diverges from all the blocks, if it diverges quickly. In which case you have either speed of light in vacuum is not constant, gravity for a mass is not constant, or the collective particles of a constant block that has not moved or been touched by a finger in 50 years is not constant.
The infinite stops being different relatively nearby.
For those of you with existential dread, this just shows how small we are.