An amazingly clear explanation! I remember learning how to do calculations in quantum field theory without having any idea what it all means. I wish you'd been around then, it'd have been much easier to make sense of the maths.
Sabine has entered the chat! I want to sincerely thank you and Arvin for your fantastic efforts to explain such deep physics to us. You guys are making a difference!
I once used this phrase to explain physics to my nephew, who studies philosophy, and he replied, "Stop anthropomorphizing the universe." He has a point. I cringed when Arvin used that phrase. I don't think it's an intelligent phrase to use.
I wish I had a teacher like this growing up. Enthusiastic, to the point and very matter of fact about these complex topics. In the same breath he acknowledges common doubts and questions with a positive and non confrontational ease. I'm just some regular dude pushing 40 with a wife and family but these videos make my brain tingle in a way that just feels great and brings me back to a time where I was excited to learn but never was afforded during my time in the educational system.
One of THE best videos on particle physics I have ever seen. Like many others, when I struggled through my Physics degree we had a backboard and, usually, very badly hand written OHP's (don't worry if you don't know what these are - dreadful things!) to deal with. Not only does AA explain things extremely well, the animations add a new dimension which helps the text tremendously. I envy the new generations of students and hope they appreciate just how valuable these productions are. Thanks Alvin!
The animations are crucial to visually connect abstract concepts and add layers of meaning that help crystalize those ideas into deep solid notions... But the script is just an absolute jewel - a pure perfectly polished multi-faceted transparent diamond, forged into existence from the slag of every-day language. Seems almost impossible a feat. A legend of literary alchemy. And it makes the rest of us writing our little clumsy comments here seem like toddlers playing with sticks. #GiveArvinAshTheWebby
Arvin, this is amazing. Thank you for doing this video as I think a lot of people forget that we don't necessarily have to see something directly to know it's there. This is becoming so much more important as there is so much now in physics we can't directly see, but need to find a way to indeed conclude something is there. I hope the science community keeps going with ways to find things that we can't directly see and each of these discoveries is huge. We will always question things and that's good, but we have to learn to make sure we follow the science that's already been concluded. If something is 5 or 6 sigma we can't dismiss it and say it doesn't exist and do some totally different stuff. The only way we make progress is by following what we have found and building on that. As hard as it is. You can find a billion ways to not find something, but the hardest part is finding the one way to find something. This is where I don't agree with experimentalist that all tests are good as they say the result is progress regardless. But it is not now a days as science has become very difficult and very expensive. A.k.a.......... ITER
Great vid! A bit off topic but can you list all the songs you use in the descriptions of your videos? I would also like to know what song is playing at 9:57, love this style of music.
So now you know that guns are a religion. Now you know that capitalism is a religion. Now you know that anti-wokeness is a religion. Now you know that conservatism is a religion. Now you know that eating meat is a religion. Now you know that fossil fuel addiction is a religion. Now you know that the WAR AGAINST CYCLISTS & PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION is a religion. See? I can make stuff up too. But at least MINE, unlike yours, is correct, AND original.@@dongshengdi773
I love your videos. I have learnt so much from you. I have honestly contemplated quitting my comfortable job to pursue particle physics just because of your videos.
Great explanation. I was fortunate to tour CERN prior to the official announcement and could read between lines to see that they had made the discovery and were in the process of collecting the statistically significant quantity before making it official. Data processing was impressive in terms of the quantity and that it was processed overnight.
I appreciate how you are honest about what we don't know about physics. Many people teach these subjects as immutable fact, when in actuality there is still so much unknown that could upend everything we currently know. It makes you more relatable as a regular person seeking knowledge rather than just another know it all scientist. (Still acknowledging that you are in fact very informed and knowledgeable and a great teacher)
The more I learn about the Higgs "discovery" back in 2012 and how it dictates the mass of particles within it's field, the more I think it was a discovery of justification. It justified the huge cost of the LHC and then managed to justifiy further billions for upgrades.
Another great video! The number one confusing thing for people in my experience that I get asked the most when they watch videos like this is the heavy use of phrases like "10 times 3 to the power of negative 6". People that don't deal with numbers written like that, have no idea if that's a big number, a small number, and everything said after that is lost because they can't follow along anymore. Just a quick explanation of that, even though it might seem silly, would go a long way of helping even more people follow along in these videos.
The media back then caused a lot of facepalms when they went with the "God" particle. Every scientist I know *hated* it with a passion 😁 Famed physicist Leon Lederman wrote a book about the Higgs, and titled the book "The goddamn particle" referencing how expensive, frustrating and difficult it was to find. His publicists however didn't like the idea and at the last minute changed it to "The God Particle", before Lederman had a chance to say anything about it.
అన్నయ్య మీ వీడియోలకు నేను పెద్ద ఆదటిని. ఈ విశ్వం పై మీకు ఆసక్తికరమైన కనురోకు ఉంది. చాలా వీడియోలు చూసాను మీవి. ముఖ్యంగా సాపేక్ష సిద్ధాంతం పై చేసిన వీడియో అయితే చాలా బాగుంది.
Great stuff! Yea we always need to remember that we aren't seeing reality directly but rather our interpretation of reality through the lens of our senses and our own mind. Could be that there are alien civilizations out there that have a while differently model, every bit as valid as our own, completely depending on how they are measuring and interpreting the results of their inquires. The mental map is not the territory, but rather only a representation of it with varying/unknown degrees of accuracy.
The Higgs boson would decay into matter and antimatter higgs objects first before they become Bottom quarks with a photon. Therefore, the Higgs boson can be the symmetry of those matter and antimatter objects, and they would share a virtual photon to be symmetric.
@@zwigoma2 While there's abundant evidence suggesting aliens are already here, I guess we'd need hard evidence independently verified by multiple agencies, but even then, they could be lying. A living breathing alien see in person would do it I guess.
That's super interesting - I love these detailed explanations. To put the numbers into perspective (like you did for the ratio from Higgs to electron), I suggest adding a human-relatable reference. For example, for the 10^-22 lifespan of a Higgs particle, the age of the universe is 10^17 in seconds, so the Higgs would experience 10^5 universe lifetimes (in seconds) compared to 1 human second - it degrades that fast, which is still mind-boggling 10^22 times more than the plank time. It would also be interesting to know the frequency of the emitted photons from the Higgs decay vs the frequency of the gamma rays from supernova or antimatter/matter collusion. It would also be interesting to understand the energy multiples between the various particle flavours (ie electrons) and how they are manifested in the quantum fields; or why we think specific fields interact with only other fields - and how.
Frequency of one of those decay photons (about 1.5*10^25Hz) is higher than the most energetic gamma ray photon ever recorded (GRB 970508) which had roughly a frequency of 10^24 Hz. So you wouldn't expect to see a lot of those around. What you describe in your last sentence is a very hard problem in particle physics, namely how to explain the mass-ratios of the fundmental particles. Afaik, these masses are free parameters in the standard model, which means they cannot be derived from theory but must be measured.
Could also add, even if the created Higgs boson wasn't stationary, but was actually travelling at light speed, in 10^-22 sec it would only travel 10^-14m - ie, way less than a nanometer- and could never hope to reach a detector directly. Its existence NEEDS to be inferred from its decay products.
@@95ravHiggs bosons do actually have momentum (they gain momentum from the collision which is moving at near light speed after all) and measuring it (the transverse, or perpendicular, momentum of its decay products) helps physicists determine its properties.
I was at CERN in 2017 in a masterclass setting and learned this first hand. Blew my mind, as the discovery of the Higgs is both mathematically sound while being 100% unsatisfying. I too had to quiet the "bullshit" bandit that kept making its presence known. Luckily my host is one of the greatest at ATLAS so I was ultimately able to take in the science. The key is..., No, particles. Only excitations. @ArvinAshn, you are Brilliant as always. @SabineHossenfelder is correct..., Where were you back then?!?! Well, thankfully we have you now. Liked and Subscribed!
The graphics and the explanation on this video was truly amazing. Thank you for the video. I have one question, is there a reason that particles exist at just specific amounts of energy ( like 125, and etc) and if we call these amounts of energy, particles, then the energy in-between these numbers should be particles as well even though they might not last long and are there infinite particle fields that we can only detect some of them because of the available particles (like photon) we are using to detect them? And how do they shoot particles like protons and make sure they will collide?
The reason for those specific numbers is that those are the fundamental excitation energies of the underlying quantum fields. If you hit the electron field with 511 keV it will resonate and "spit out" an electron. If you give it more than that, the resulting electron will just be faster until you hit the field with 2 * 511keV, at which point it will "spit out" 2 electrons. One of the biggest problems in particlephysics is why the ratios between the masses of the fundamental particles are the way they are, which cannot be derived from theory but must be measured.
Yeah after I learned more about physics, and science in general, I realized what does "seeing" something even mean. But, of course, we're human and it's natural. Like the JWST, we can't "see" anything it's seeing, although I wish we could 😃 Another excellent one Arvin, thanks!
Well, both eyes and LHC are kinda doing the "same" thing. Let me explain... When animals (including us) see an object, what's happening is that the quantum particles of light (i.e. photons) coming from the object hit the quantum particles that make up our eyes. The energy transfer from these collisions kicks off a chemical chain-reaction, starting from the retina, through the optic nerves, and to the brain. We experience this chemical process as sight i.e. we see the object from which the photons came. In other words, sight of an object is caused by the interaction/detection of photons coming from that object. The LHC discovered the Higgs-Boson by the interaction/detection of photons coming from Higgs-Boson. So, in a way, the LHC did see the Higgs-Boson.
With "seeing" we have a big problem when we go to microsizes. In order to see we have to light the object. But light is also a particle - photon. In other words, we make the object interact with another particle and "see" the result of this interaction and not the initial object. Another big problem: the huge difference in sizes of visible light photons and, for instance, an electron. The electron is much much smaller. So in no way we can't see the electron.
It was the first I heard the Higgs remains essentially stationary and never moves toward the detector with ~0 momentum. That was interesting. I had always heard the usual that near-instant decay was the process why Higgs wasn't detected directly, but the lack of momentum was indeed interesting to me.
The Higgs boson does have momentum, it is produced by particles moving very quickly. It doesn't move very far before it decays but it still has quite a large momentum.
1:43 Quantum Field Theory: According to this theory, a particle is nothing but an excitation, or a kind of wave in a quantum field that permeates all of the spacetime. Each particle is an excitation or a quanta of energy in its own field. 4:28 ... now the issue is that since there are many particles of the standard model that are lighter than the Higgs particle, there are many energy paths that lead to more stable particles if you start out with the Higgs particle. Consider for example the electron. ... 13:20 This Higgs particle of course, as I stated earlier, almost instantly decays. So, what does it decay into? A very interesting fact about the Higgs decay that led to its initial discovery is that it came from the detection of photons. Now this might seem really confusing to you, because I said earlier that the Higgs doesn't 13:38 interact directly with massless particles like photons. The key word there is "direclty." The Higgs decays to form very heavy botton /anti-bottom quarks, 13:52 which are strongly coupled with the Higgs. And these quarks do interact with photons because they are electrically charged. So what you get as a result, is a Bottom/anti-Bottom loop which annihilates into two high energy photons. And the energy of these photons adds up to the mass of the Higgs. The photon is what we actaully detect, not the Higgs. 14:15 ... Today, it has been found bia many decay processes precisely as the standard model predicts. Now, you might say, wait a minute, this is all bullshit, we need to see a particle to conclude that it actually exists. ❤To this I can't completely disagree with you. But I think you should keep in mind that physics is does not guarantee the truth, but only the most reasonable explanation for the observations we make. The hard truth is that evidence for the nature of reality is really nothing more than a statistically significant result. 👍💛 Thank you Arvin a lot!!! 💙
I'm with you on that, except neutrinos are also massless, but the electron neutrino also has energy. I'm a novice, so please correct me if I'm mistaken. If light is a particle, does that help explain the photon's energetic property?
This man gives the best and digestible explanation of theses complicated subjects, And I can say that with a gazzillion sigma of statistical significance.
Great video, as usual! But, I am a little confused. How did we find the heavier Top quark before the Higgs? I thought the reason for not finding the Higgs previously was that previous colliders weren't powerful enough. But, the already known Top quark decays into it.
Good question! The top quark is charged, ie, it has a color charge via QCD, and an electromagnetic charge, so it is much easier to detect. It has something called the leptonic decay mode where it decays into a bottom quark, a muon or electron and a neutrino. This is relatively very easy to detect. The Higgs on the other hand has no charge, so its creation is much more rare.
The details of the decay process at the end was quite awesome... I was still having just a little nagging doubt about the 5,6 sigma results ( a little part of me was still saying this could be a fluke), but the ending explanation tells quite clearly how it happens and thus how awesome the discovery really is and it cleared all the doubts as well. Thank you sir for this great video💪. Hope you keep adding such technical details in more videos in the future
What literally blows your mind in the decay process: we can predict with what rate the substance decays and with a really huge precision. But absolutely in no way we can predict when decays one chosen particle. It can decay now or at the end of the universe! No way of predicting. And at the same time there is no such notion as "age" for a particle. Every particle of a chosen type is absolutely the same as any other particle of this type.
Imagine if gravity somehow worked like this: Big masses like sun and Earth would repel/stretch the Higgs Field. And by doing that, it would make the particles moving toward the big object, lose mass, and move faster. You know, without the Higgs Field, particles do not have mass, and move to speed of light.
Photons and other massless particles don't interact with Higgs field, but still follow curvature of spacetime which is gravity in GR (see "gravitational lensing"). So spacetime curvature must be a different thing than Higgs field.
@@thedeemon not having mass and not interacting with spacetime are two different things. Photons still have to follow the curvature of spacetime, which is caused by mass. So, yes, spacetime curvature isnt the higgs field
what i can imagine is the higgs field gives mass to particles the same way as a scale gives you 100kg when u stand on it. if the scale was suddenly removed u would lose mass. which would make u speed up and hit the ground.
I’ve seen countless other videos with some of the smartest people in the world attempting to explain what the Higgs is, how it gives particles mass, and how we used the LHC to find it. I think these people have gotten used to dumbing down their answers for documentaries and interviews. I feel kind of disrespected. This video does such a better job of explaining this subject why still being easy to understand and entertaining I know this barely scratches the surface of the complexity of what is taking place, but it’s better than 99% of other physicists watered down explanations to suit the masses
Nice one. "Physics does not guarantee the truth, only the most reasonable explanation...". And when a more reasonable explanation is found, the truth follows suit.
Sabine sent me to this channel, happy to have one more source now, to become smarter and smarter. Nothing is more fascinating like the foundation of science.Very good layperson explanation 😊
The experiment could have been done without knowing the theory at all. Probably 99% of all science progresses by conducting experiments and observing new and unexpected results, rather than having theories and then building experiments to test the theories. Not every scientist is an Einstein, who came up with correct theories before any test existed. But even Einstein sometimes came up with theories after experiments, such as when he uncovered the photoelectric effect when he was expecting a completely different result.
@@TheNameOfJesus That is the case when the theory is incomplete (e.g. quantum gravity), however, for this experiment, the rest mass of the Higgs had to be known theoretically to know where the spike in data should be. I guess sometimes theory comes first and sometimes experiments reveal new ideas to help complete a theory.
@@surajvkothari I don't consider "quantum gravity" to be a theory, because there are no formulas for it, or data suggesting it... it's just two words: "quantum gravity." For something to be a theory it needs more than a title. The "multiverse theory" should also not be called a theory, because there's neither data supporting it nor a formula describing it. I suppose you could call "alien life" a theory because at least there are some unidentified aerial phenomena. It's still a weak theory, but there is a small amount of data pointing in its direction. Even if they didn't have the Higgs theory, they still would have noticed the spike and then probably would have come up with the theory. They didn't need the theory to observe the spike. But sure, they had to have the theory in advance to "know where the spike should be." The theory predicting the spike was great, and adds credibility to the theory, but they didn't need the theory to observe the data that now supports it.
@@TheNameOfJesus It could have been done, but not practically. In reality we often need a theory to guide the search for something. My professor said "You can count all the rocks in a quarry and not learn anything"
This entire framework/paradigm is retarded. Flat earthers are traumatized by the stupidity so they assume everything is wrong. If you understand this stuff, you can’t blame Flat earthers for jumping ship
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
Would you do a simulation, not with diagrams, but as it we think it happens, adjusting of course the speed of animation conveniently. I would love to see two protons smashing, then see the Higgs particle living for a while, then decaying, etc. Thanks!! Fan of your work, always wonderful
Anyway, we don't need hard unequivocal Humean "evidence for reality", which is flawed as a standard, but rather we can all agree we exist from the weight of subjective evidence similarly aligning with the experience of others. We exist, people. Get over that skepticism that ye only have because of the incredible evolution of our thinking power.
This video made a whole lot of sense to me, and think I understand it a bit better. Not like I doubted the discovery, but now I have a better sense of how it works.
Thank you for this video and thank you for being a person instead of AI to do the narration - unless you have me fooled and this is the best AI I have heard. If the trend to use AI for TY videos gets much worse I am going to find it hard to watch anything.
Wonderful explanation😄. Perhaps someone here could help clarify a question I have... 13:46 when the electrically neutral Higgs decays into a Bottom / anti-Bottom quark pair that have electric charge, where does the charge come from (same with all charged particles)🤔. These charged particles are excitations of their own field but I don't grasp how the charge appears (my level of physics is that of a keenly-interested layperson I'm afraid so this mechanism is deeper than my knowledge in this area).
Charge is conserved so when a neutral Higgs Boson decays, it can create a negatively charged bottom and positively charged anti-bottom quark. The charges are inherent properties of the bottom and antibottom quarks.
8:00 I guess that what you marked here is actually spin not charge - I mean it's still 0, but third number eg. for electron is 1/2, and second is -1 - so it's (from top down) mass, charge, spin.
I just wanted to express my excitement and anticipation for your upcoming video on attophysics, especially considering the recent Nobel Prize-winning breakthroughs in the field, particularly the fascinating topic of attosecond pulses of light (Electrons in pulses of light). Your insights are always insightful and engaging, and I can't wait to learn more about these cutting-edge developments.
What is going on inside an electron that makes the stuff we call negative electric charge? And what is the mirror image of the same thing (presumably) interacting amongst quarks that makes what we call positive electric charge? How does antimatter do it backward so an antimatter electron is a positive positron? Is electric charge the clockwise or counterclockwise motion of gluons? A photon's plane of electricity we can call sine-wave down half at a certain part of space, and the accompanying magnetic half of a sine-wave is to the right. For the next 180 degrees, the electric sine wave is up and the magnetic field is perpendicularly to the left (if you follow along in the direction the photon is going). This is an asymmetry that could instead be with the magnetic bulge first to the left and then to the right making just as much sense. Why the way it is and not the alternative? Since light is asymmetric with this bias, is that perhaps (light interacting with the early universe right after the Big Bang) the reason why there is so much matter surviving, but so little antimatter because the bias of light dissected the early antimatter apart? Or maybe there is such a thing as anti-light, where the perpendicular magnetic field of a photon is 180 degrees out of phase with what we are used to.
Very good explanation Arvin. If awards were given for best presenter at clearly explaining complex physics topics on RUclips, you would win hands down! 👍🏻👍🏻🏆
Great Video. At 6:36 you say that the LHC uses protons because it requires less kinetic energy because the proton is heavier. That is not entirely correct. The reason for using protons is synchrotron radiation, which scales with gamma to the fourth power. When the total energy of the particle is dominated by kinetic energy (E = gamma * m * c^2), gamma ends up being inversely proportional to the mass. For a proton vs an electron at 1TeV, the electron's gamma will be 2000x higher because of the smaller mass, and thus lose 16 trillion times more energy to synchrotron radiation. That places an effective limit on the energy of electron syncrhotrons. While using protons allows higher energy in a synchrotron, it has the disadvantage that the collisions are 3 quarks vs 3 quarks, with the energy split unevenly/unpredictably between them, giving the collisions a much larger energy spread. That is why the ILC was designed as an electron/positron collider. Being linear, it doesn't have to deal with synchrotron radiation and thus can use electrons to get a might narrower energy spread.
I learned something, and pressed Like. But pressing Subscribe would annihilate my previous subscription, so I didn't press that button. Thank you Arvin + all people behind you!
This channel is amazing. Should have discovered it a long time ago! I always was skeptical about using the word "discovery" when it came to the Higgs boson, but finally, I understand what was going on to produce the experimental evidence. Without the excellent illustrations, I would still be confused.
I've been following all of this for years. I watched CERNs announcement in 2012 about the Higgs. I watch Arvin, Sabine, PBS Spacetime, etc. weekly. And yet I just realized I never really understood how we used particle colliders and the equivalency principle to do these collisions and get these results Arvin has SUCH a way of explaining difficult ideas so people can understand them better. You are the GOAT
You cannot possibly understand this unless you understand the mass; everything else is just superficial understanding via you just blindly believing what the presenter is telling you. It is literally impossible to understand anything this way, just as if I remember 5*7=35 doesn't mean I understand what the operation of multiplication actually is.
@@pyropulseIXXI Interesting that 19th century physics mostly dismissed the intrinsic nature of mass. The Maxwell equations do not include mass. Einstein admired Maxwell tremendously, and originally sought to produce his equations without mass as a fundamental entity, which later resulted in an equation that equated mass to energy.
Being able to say it out loud, "Is this bullshit?" That is so refreshing to hear. I know that we must accept what the evidence is telling us but with statistics any odds leave room to be wrong. I really appreciate the candid descriptions of the state of our scientific discoveries.
The hardest thing for me to grasp about the Higgs mechanism is that it exists in a tachyonic field, a field with "imaginary mass" that is unstable and spontaneously decays. Then there is a part of my mind that says the crazier an explanation sounds, the closer it probably is to the truth.
Last line is really the core of how fundamental science works ....we should not really bother about the absolute truth or an absolute theory for anything. We observe something, we create a model to explain that phenomenon, try to make predictions ,sometime we find outliers, then we correct the model to be more accurate. And that's the summary of whole science.
Thanks, the video led me to learn of a fascinating phenomena call Dynamical mass generation. Basically, the periodic table alone cannot be used to infer the mass of large objects due to the Binding Energy of the larger object. So, when calculating the mass and weight of a large object, like a mountain, it’s important to take into account not just the masses of the individual particles, but also the binding energy that holds them together. You have to weight the object to be able to infer it's Binding Energy. You can't just take the atomic weight sum of the individual particles.
The overwhelming majoriyt of an object's binding energy is between the quarks and some residual nucleon interactions. Chemical bonds are millions or billions of times smaller, they can be safely ignored. But the atomic weight of elements in the periodic table is that of all protons, neutrons and elecrons of that type of atom combined. In other words, a scale already takes all of the significant binding energy into account when it measures the weight of the mountain, so you don't need to worry about the small scale interactions at all.
@@quitchiboo And at what point can they "be safely ignored?" Even the smallest things can make a big difference in large enough proportions. What if I want to per say,.. make nuclear energy generator that splits molecules and harvests binding energy?
As usual Arvin, brilliant video and the visuals are amazing to condense all this heavy physics knowledge down to a level where people like me who aren't in the field can understand. I am struggling with something though, if we've never seen the higgs particle and we've never measured it, how do we know that the particle decay we see is exactly the higgs particle instead of some other particle we don't know of yet ? Couldn't we argue that this could be a particle with very close similarities to the higgs that we don't yet understand ?
Seem to have given me some answers to questions I've wondered But we'll have to watch It again too help me understand whats ment by the Higgs interaction
Great video, I have a question regarding vitual particles. Can they react withbeach other or does their really short lifespans deny any reactions between them? If they do react, would the effects be felt physically?
Perfectly explained to me. Thankyou so much. Now I know what all the fuss was about at Cern and why it was built. It is amazing to think of the shape of these 'things' being detectable like the way dinosaur species are detectable thru dinosaur bones, yet that is what makes sense to the layman. The thing I need to understand now is how the detectable values were arrived at; i.e. 125Gev for the Higgs and so on.
There are several problems with the Standard Model. The first one comes from the picture that the electron is an excitation of a state of the electron field. The other particle is an excitation of another field. Did you get it? It is frugality. The Standard Model of Particle Physics is not PARSIMONIOUS. For each particle, one creates a new field (something one cannot observe). This model is not fundamental and should be dropped if another model can explain all particles with just two states (my theory does just that). The second problem is the alternation of interpretation of results. Scattering results (resonances) are interpreted as "internal structure" and particle formation (excited state). The particle formation interpretation is consistent with the Transition State Theory, where the collision state is thought to be the top of the barrier, and the different decaying channels (particles) are considered to be the projection of the collision state wavefunction onto the excited states. That is what my theory uses. In contrast, one arbitrarily decides that some of those channels contain structural information (quarks, gluons). That is the problem. It is a bad model that is not parsimonious. The third problem is the assignment of properties for bosons. That is a postulate. It is postulated that a boson is a force carrier. Of course, that should be dropped if there is a model where no particles are required to carry a force. That eliminates this argument: The Higgs Boson is a bump in the scattering cross-section (versus energy), but that doesn't mean it gives particles mass. That is a nonsensical jump. In other words, that is too much to ask from gullible readers.
03:15 _...most heavy particles ... are not stable._ Of course. The more massive a particle is, the more unstable it gets since it contains enough energy for creating lighter particles.
How were the specifics of the Higgs calculated out to a quantified prediction when the masses of the quarks and their ratios are not predicted but are instead experimentally observed? How is it as a particle existing distinct from a phenomenon between systems occuring?
“Evidence for the nature of reality is really nothing more than a statistically significant result”-Arvin Good video, I find this quote very interesting. I’ve heard intriguing stats around the probabilities of protein formations purely by chance from a soup of amino acids akin to the hypothetical infant state of the earth being astronomically minuscule. Maybe it’s a topic you might think about covering at some point?
Hi Arvin, with attosecond laser beam whether its possible to see these standard model particles? Please make video about attosecond and its application for future! all your videos are above our understanding but we watch it as our universe as always above our understanding!
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
An amazingly clear explanation! I remember learning how to do calculations in quantum field theory without having any idea what it all means. I wish you'd been around then, it'd have been much easier to make sense of the maths.
As a non-physicist I always enjoy Arvins' explanations because they are clear and they keep me interested in the field.
Hello Sabine! I appreciate your clarity as well ❤
Hey it's Sabine! You and Arvin are great, thanks for what you guys do.
Sabine has entered the chat! I want to sincerely thank you and Arvin for your fantastic efforts to explain such deep physics to us. You guys are making a difference!
I found this video and channel thanks to your shout-out... Thank you for helping me find more avenues to increase my knowledge and understanding. ✌️
It was wonderful to hear you say that the universe is inherintly lazy. I fit into this model of existance.
It's true and you even see in humans as well
I tell everyone all the time, through the principle of least action, I am a hero of the universe by extending its functional lifespan.
Me too
I once used this phrase to explain physics to my nephew, who studies philosophy, and he replied, "Stop anthropomorphizing the universe." He has a point. I cringed when Arvin used that phrase. I don't think it's an intelligent phrase to use.
My hydrogeology professor always told us “Mother Nature is lazy” :)
I wish I had a teacher like this growing up. Enthusiastic, to the point and very matter of fact about these complex topics. In the same breath he acknowledges common doubts and questions with a positive and non confrontational ease. I'm just some regular dude pushing 40 with a wife and family but these videos make my brain tingle in a way that just feels great and brings me back to a time where I was excited to learn but never was afforded during my time in the educational system.
Thanks for the kind words. Glad you enjoyed it!
well, the question is whether you would have been interested in topics and math like this while growing up 😁
One of THE best videos on particle physics I have ever seen. Like many others, when I struggled through my Physics degree we had a backboard and, usually, very badly hand written OHP's (don't worry if you don't know what these are - dreadful things!) to deal with. Not only does AA explain things extremely well, the animations add a new dimension which helps the text tremendously. I envy the new generations of students and hope they appreciate just how valuable these productions are.
Thanks Alvin!
The animations are crucial to visually connect abstract concepts and add layers of meaning that help crystalize those ideas into deep solid notions...
But the script is just an absolute jewel - a pure perfectly polished multi-faceted transparent diamond, forged into existence from the slag of every-day language. Seems almost impossible a feat. A legend of literary alchemy. And it makes the rest of us writing our little clumsy comments here seem like toddlers playing with sticks. #GiveArvinAshTheWebby
Arvin, this is amazing. Thank you for doing this video as I think a lot of people forget that we don't necessarily have to see something directly to know it's there. This is becoming so much more important as there is so much now in physics we can't directly see, but need to find a way to indeed conclude something is there. I hope the science community keeps going with ways to find things that we can't directly see and each of these discoveries is huge. We will always question things and that's good, but we have to learn to make sure we follow the science that's already been concluded. If something is 5 or 6 sigma we can't dismiss it and say it doesn't exist and do some totally different stuff. The only way we make progress is by following what we have found and building on that. As hard as it is. You can find a billion ways to not find something, but the hardest part is finding the one way to find something. This is where I don't agree with experimentalist that all tests are good as they say the result is progress regardless. But it is not now a days as science has become very difficult and very expensive. A.k.a.......... ITER
Great vid! A bit off topic but can you list all the songs you use in the descriptions of your videos? I would also like to know what song is playing at 9:57, love this style of music.
Thanks so much!
Arvin, you are simply brilliant, thank you so much for giving us your time and enthusiasm.
Really loved the Feynman Diagram explanation and animation at the end, good stuff!
I had never run across these particular Feynman diagrams before. They were a huge help! I've never run across such an excellent educator in physics.
Outstanding animations as usual, Professor Ash. After watching your videos, I feel like Neo when he learned jiu jitsu.
I like this analogy, Professor Ash is indeed very enlightening! LOL
@@dipling.pitzler7650Yep.
So now you know that science is a religion. Get over it
dawg!
Well said!
So now you know that guns are a religion. Now you know that capitalism is a religion.
Now you know that anti-wokeness is a religion. Now you know that conservatism is a religion.
Now you know that eating meat is a religion. Now you know that fossil fuel addiction is a religion.
Now you know that the WAR AGAINST CYCLISTS & PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION is a religion.
See? I can make stuff up too. But at least MINE, unlike yours, is correct, AND original.@@dongshengdi773
Thanks
I love your videos. I have learnt so much from you. I have honestly contemplated quitting my comfortable job to pursue particle physics just because of your videos.
Great explanation. I was fortunate to tour CERN prior to the official announcement and could read between lines to see that they had made the discovery and were in the process of collecting the statistically significant quantity before making it official. Data processing was impressive in terms of the quantity and that it was processed overnight.
I have no idea how I bumped onto this channel, but it is a blessing
Seriously...u r BRILLIANT and ur graphics r 2 !!!
How you simplified this very complex concept is amazing. Thank you.
I genuinely look forward to these videos every week, thanks Arvin :)
Happy to hear that!
I appreciate how you are honest about what we don't know about physics. Many people teach these subjects as immutable fact, when in actuality there is still so much unknown that could upend everything we currently know. It makes you more relatable as a regular person seeking knowledge rather than just another know it all scientist. (Still acknowledging that you are in fact very informed and knowledgeable and a great teacher)
The more I learn about the Higgs "discovery" back in 2012 and how it dictates the mass of particles within it's field, the more I think it was a discovery of justification. It justified the huge cost of the LHC and then managed to justifiy further billions for upgrades.
yep!!!
You are not the only person who believes that….
Another great video!
The number one confusing thing for people in my experience that I get asked the most when they watch videos like this is the heavy use of phrases like "10 times 3 to the power of negative 6".
People that don't deal with numbers written like that, have no idea if that's a big number, a small number, and everything said after that is lost because they can't follow along anymore.
Just a quick explanation of that, even though it might seem silly, would go a long way of helping even more people follow along in these videos.
Finally, a detailed explanation of the 'actual' discovery!
The media back then caused a lot of facepalms when they went with the "God" particle. Every scientist I know *hated* it with a passion 😁
Famed physicist Leon Lederman wrote a book about the Higgs, and titled the book "The goddamn particle" referencing how expensive, frustrating and difficult it was to find.
His publicists however didn't like the idea and at the last minute changed it to "The God Particle", before Lederman had a chance to say anything about it.
@@VikingTeddy no, i like it . they discovered god. all thats left for us to do is believe they did. money well spent
అన్నయ్య మీ వీడియోలకు నేను పెద్ద ఆదటిని. ఈ విశ్వం పై మీకు ఆసక్తికరమైన కనురోకు ఉంది. చాలా వీడియోలు చూసాను మీవి.
ముఖ్యంగా సాపేక్ష సిద్ధాంతం పై చేసిన వీడియో అయితే చాలా బాగుంది.
Great stuff! Yea we always need to remember that we aren't seeing reality directly but rather our interpretation of reality through the lens of our senses and our own mind. Could be that there are alien civilizations out there that have a while differently model, every bit as valid as our own, completely depending on how they are measuring and interpreting the results of their inquires. The mental map is not the territory, but rather only a representation of it with varying/unknown degrees of accuracy.
The Higgs boson would decay into matter and antimatter higgs objects first before they become Bottom quarks with a photon. Therefore, the Higgs boson can be the symmetry of those matter and antimatter objects, and they would share a virtual photon to be symmetric.
What would it take to have assurance that aliens existed ? [ to make a possibility ] a craft unlike anything we have ?
@@zwigoma2 While there's abundant evidence suggesting aliens are already here, I guess we'd need hard evidence independently verified by multiple agencies, but even then, they could be lying. A living breathing alien see in person would do it I guess.
Great format and presentation style on a pretty complex topic, good job Arvin!
That's super interesting - I love these detailed explanations. To put the numbers into perspective (like you did for the ratio from Higgs to electron), I suggest adding a human-relatable reference. For example, for the 10^-22 lifespan of a Higgs particle, the age of the universe is 10^17 in seconds, so the Higgs would experience 10^5 universe lifetimes (in seconds) compared to 1 human second - it degrades that fast, which is still mind-boggling 10^22 times more than the plank time.
It would also be interesting to know the frequency of the emitted photons from the Higgs decay vs the frequency of the gamma rays from supernova or antimatter/matter collusion.
It would also be interesting to understand the energy multiples between the various particle flavours (ie electrons) and how they are manifested in the quantum fields; or why we think specific fields interact with only other fields - and how.
Frequency of one of those decay photons (about 1.5*10^25Hz) is higher than the most energetic gamma ray photon ever recorded (GRB 970508) which had roughly a frequency of 10^24 Hz. So you wouldn't expect to see a lot of those around.
What you describe in your last sentence is a very hard problem in particle physics, namely how to explain the mass-ratios of the fundmental particles. Afaik, these masses are free parameters in the standard model, which means they cannot be derived from theory but must be measured.
Could also add, even if the created Higgs boson wasn't stationary, but was actually travelling at light speed, in 10^-22 sec it would only travel 10^-14m - ie, way less than a nanometer- and could never hope to reach a detector directly.
Its existence NEEDS to be inferred from its decay products.
@@95ravHiggs bosons do actually have momentum (they gain momentum from the collision which is moving at near light speed after all) and measuring it (the transverse, or perpendicular, momentum of its decay products) helps physicists determine its properties.
Wonderful information, Mr Arvin Ash.
I am much indebted to you.
I was at CERN in 2017 in a masterclass setting and learned this first hand. Blew my mind, as the discovery of the Higgs is both mathematically sound while being 100% unsatisfying. I too had to quiet the "bullshit" bandit that kept making its presence known. Luckily my host is one of the greatest at ATLAS so I was ultimately able to take in the science.
The key is..., No, particles. Only excitations. @ArvinAshn, you are Brilliant as always. @SabineHossenfelder is correct..., Where were you back then?!?! Well, thankfully we have you now.
Liked and Subscribed!
Absolutely fantastic description - so clear and with brilliant graphics. Now to watch it again for things I missed. hank you for your programme.
Physics is does not guarantee the truth, but only the most reasonable explanation for the observations we make .
yep!!!
Excellent content about quantum science. I read a couple of books about this amazing subject and I found this video very illustrative. Thank u
The graphics and the explanation on this video was truly amazing. Thank you for the video. I have one question, is there a reason that particles exist at just specific amounts of energy ( like 125, and etc) and if we call these amounts of energy, particles, then the energy in-between these numbers should be particles as well even though they might not last long and are there infinite particle fields that we can only detect some of them because of the available particles (like photon) we are using to detect them? And how do they shoot particles like protons and make sure they will collide?
The reason for those specific numbers is that those are the fundamental excitation energies of the underlying quantum fields. If you hit the electron field with 511 keV it will resonate and "spit out" an electron. If you give it more than that, the resulting electron will just be faster until you hit the field with 2 * 511keV, at which point it will "spit out" 2 electrons.
One of the biggest problems in particlephysics is why the ratios between the masses of the fundamental particles are the way they are, which cannot be derived from theory but must be measured.
@@quitchibooInteresting, thank you for the reply.
Arvin, this one's great pretty, like all others. Keep 'em coming please!! Can you also make a video about how the 173 GeV particle was discovered?
Yeah after I learned more about physics, and science in general, I realized what does "seeing" something even mean. But, of course, we're human and it's natural. Like the JWST, we can't "see" anything it's seeing, although I wish we could 😃 Another excellent one Arvin, thanks!
Well, both eyes and LHC are kinda doing the "same" thing.
Let me explain...
When animals (including us) see an object, what's happening is that the quantum particles of light (i.e. photons) coming from the object hit the quantum particles that make up our eyes. The energy transfer from these collisions kicks off a chemical chain-reaction, starting from the retina, through the optic nerves, and to the brain. We experience this chemical process as sight i.e. we see the object from which the photons came.
In other words, sight of an object is caused by the interaction/detection of photons coming from that object.
The LHC discovered the Higgs-Boson by the interaction/detection of photons coming from Higgs-Boson.
So, in a way, the LHC did see the Higgs-Boson.
With "seeing" we have a big problem when we go to microsizes. In order to see we have to light the object. But light is also a particle - photon. In other words, we make the object interact with another particle and "see" the result of this interaction and not the initial object. Another big problem: the huge difference in sizes of visible light photons and, for instance, an electron. The electron is much much smaller. So in no way we can't see the electron.
the channel that keeps on giving, great video, keep it up!
It was the first I heard the Higgs remains essentially stationary and never moves toward the detector with ~0 momentum. That was interesting.
I had always heard the usual that near-instant decay was the process why Higgs wasn't detected directly, but the lack of momentum was indeed interesting to me.
The Higgs boson does have momentum, it is produced by particles moving very quickly. It doesn't move very far before it decays but it still has quite a large momentum.
1:43 Quantum Field Theory: According to this theory, a particle is nothing but an excitation, or a kind of wave in a quantum field that permeates all of the spacetime. Each particle is an excitation or a quanta of energy in its own field. 4:28 ... now the issue is that since there are many particles of the standard model that are lighter than the Higgs particle, there are many energy paths that lead to more stable particles if you start out with the Higgs particle. Consider for example the electron. ... 13:20 This Higgs particle of course, as I stated earlier, almost instantly decays. So, what does it decay into? A very interesting fact about the Higgs decay that led to its initial discovery is that it came from the detection of photons. Now this might seem really confusing to you, because I said earlier that the Higgs doesn't 13:38 interact directly with massless particles like photons. The key word there is "direclty." The Higgs decays to form very heavy botton /anti-bottom quarks, 13:52 which are strongly coupled with the Higgs. And these quarks do interact with photons because they are electrically charged. So what you get as a result, is a Bottom/anti-Bottom loop which annihilates into two high energy photons. And the energy of these photons adds up to the mass of the Higgs. The photon is what we actaully detect, not the Higgs. 14:15 ... Today, it has been found bia many decay processes precisely as the standard model predicts. Now, you might say, wait a minute, this is all bullshit, we need to see a particle to conclude that it actually exists. ❤To this I can't completely disagree with you. But I think you should keep in mind that physics is does not guarantee the truth, but only the most reasonable explanation for the observations we make. The hard truth is that evidence for the nature of reality is really nothing more than a statistically significant result. 👍💛 Thank you Arvin a lot!!! 💙
Thank you for another great video Arvin! Is it fair to say that the only field that we can actually measure is the electromagnetic field?
This channel is getting better and better... my compliments 😊.
I’ll never be able to wrap my head around the concept of photons having energy because of the fact they are massless. 🤯
Yes, massless objects can exist. They just have energy. All forms of electromagnetic radiation is composed of this, heat, radio waves, light, etc.
@@ArvinAshphotons, in the right state and circumstance, can become a particle with mass, correct?
@@hogg4229 yes, into a matter/antimatter pair.
When they become matter do they have temporary mass ?
I'm with you on that, except neutrinos are also massless, but the electron neutrino also has energy. I'm a novice, so please correct me if I'm mistaken. If light is a particle, does that help explain the photon's energetic property?
I guess this is the best channel on youtube with simplest-but-not-simpler-than-necessary explanation of complex stuff...
This man gives the best and digestible explanation of theses complicated subjects, And I can say that with a gazzillion sigma of statistical significance.
Thanks!
❤ Jesus power
Great video, as usual! But, I am a little confused. How did we find the heavier Top quark before the Higgs? I thought the reason for not finding the Higgs previously was that previous colliders weren't powerful enough. But, the already known Top quark decays into it.
Good question! The top quark is charged, ie, it has a color charge via QCD, and an electromagnetic charge, so it is much easier to detect. It has something called the leptonic decay mode where it decays into a bottom quark, a muon or electron and a neutrino. This is relatively very easy to detect. The Higgs on the other hand has no charge, so its creation is much more rare.
Great question and an equally great response!
Thank you for your effort to make us to understand completely from bottom of subject .
God bless you
The details of the decay process at the end was quite awesome... I was still having just a little nagging doubt about the 5,6 sigma results ( a little part of me was still saying this could be a fluke), but the ending explanation tells quite clearly how it happens and thus how awesome the discovery really is and it cleared all the doubts as well. Thank you sir for this great video💪. Hope you keep adding such technical details in more videos in the future
What literally blows your mind in the decay process: we can predict with what rate the substance decays and with a really huge precision. But absolutely in no way we can predict when decays one chosen particle. It can decay now or at the end of the universe! No way of predicting. And at the same time there is no such notion as "age" for a particle. Every particle of a chosen type is absolutely the same as any other particle of this type.
"Evidence for the nature of reality is really nothing more than a statistically significant result" :)
Subscribed !
"Wait a minute, this is all bullshit!" Made me laugh out loud! Wonder video, thank you!
Very pleasant and easy to follow explanation.
Imagine if gravity somehow worked like this: Big masses like sun and Earth would repel/stretch the Higgs Field. And by doing that, it would make the particles moving toward the big object, lose mass, and move faster.
You know, without the Higgs Field, particles do not have mass, and move to speed of light.
Photons and other massless particles don't interact with Higgs field, but still follow curvature of spacetime which is gravity in GR (see "gravitational lensing"). So spacetime curvature must be a different thing than Higgs field.
@@thedeemon not having mass and not interacting with spacetime are two different things. Photons still have to follow the curvature of spacetime, which is caused by mass.
So, yes, spacetime curvature isnt the higgs field
what i can imagine is the higgs field gives mass to particles the same way as a scale gives you 100kg when u stand on it.
if the scale was suddenly removed u would lose mass. which would make u speed up and hit the ground.
I really appreciate your content and the way your able to explain things
I’ve seen countless other videos with some of the smartest people in the world attempting to explain what the Higgs is, how it gives particles mass, and how we used the LHC to find it. I think these people have gotten used to dumbing down their answers for documentaries and interviews. I feel kind of disrespected. This video does such a better job of explaining this subject why still being easy to understand and entertaining
I know this barely scratches the surface of the complexity of what is taking place, but it’s better than 99% of other physicists watered down explanations to suit the masses
This is the definition of profound..great video👍🏼
Nice one. "Physics does not guarantee the truth, only the most reasonable explanation...". And when a more reasonable explanation is found, the truth follows suit.
Sabine sent me to this channel, happy to have one more source now, to become smarter and smarter. Nothing is more fascinating like the foundation of science.Very good layperson explanation 😊
The experiment couldn't have been done without the theory being solid. Great work by the theorists.
The experiment could have been done without knowing the theory at all. Probably 99% of all science progresses by conducting experiments and observing new and unexpected results, rather than having theories and then building experiments to test the theories. Not every scientist is an Einstein, who came up with correct theories before any test existed. But even Einstein sometimes came up with theories after experiments, such as when he uncovered the photoelectric effect when he was expecting a completely different result.
@@TheNameOfJesus That is the case when the theory is incomplete (e.g. quantum gravity), however, for this experiment, the rest mass of the Higgs had to be known theoretically to know where the spike in data should be.
I guess sometimes theory comes first and sometimes experiments reveal new ideas to help complete a theory.
@@surajvkothari I don't consider "quantum gravity" to be a theory, because there are no formulas for it, or data suggesting it... it's just two words: "quantum gravity." For something to be a theory it needs more than a title. The "multiverse theory" should also not be called a theory, because there's neither data supporting it nor a formula describing it. I suppose you could call "alien life" a theory because at least there are some unidentified aerial phenomena. It's still a weak theory, but there is a small amount of data pointing in its direction. Even if they didn't have the Higgs theory, they still would have noticed the spike and then probably would have come up with the theory. They didn't need the theory to observe the spike. But sure, they had to have the theory in advance to "know where the spike should be." The theory predicting the spike was great, and adds credibility to the theory, but they didn't need the theory to observe the data that now supports it.
@@TheNameOfJesus It could have been done, but not practically. In reality we often need a theory to guide the search for something.
My professor said "You can count all the rocks in a quarry and not learn anything"
You showed me something I thought I'd never understand. Brilliant!
All dislikes are flat earthers who only trust their eyes for answers.
This entire framework/paradigm is retarded. Flat earthers are traumatized by the stupidity so they assume everything is wrong. If you understand this stuff, you can’t blame Flat earthers for jumping ship
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
Not even wrong
@@chrismattek The idea above is not "String Theory". Instead, it consists of a twisted soliton which uses only one extra spatial dimension.
Would you do a simulation, not with diagrams, but as it we think it happens, adjusting of course the speed of animation conveniently. I would love to see two protons smashing, then see the Higgs particle living for a while, then decaying, etc. Thanks!! Fan of your work, always wonderful
Gosh, the amazing facts of scientific study keep coming. Thanks Arvin Ash.
Anyway, we don't need hard unequivocal Humean "evidence for reality", which is flawed as a standard, but rather we can all agree we exist from the weight of subjective evidence similarly aligning with the experience of others. We exist, people. Get over that skepticism that ye only have because of the incredible evolution of our thinking power.
Cogito ergo sum
Get over it
isn't there something ye think _about_@@dongshengdi773
what do ye think _about_ ?@augustodelerme7233
n o n s e n s e@@dongshengdi773
Brilliant Video, thanks Arvin :)
This video made a whole lot of sense to me, and think I understand it a bit better. Not like I doubted the discovery, but now I have a better sense of how it works.
Thank you for your amazing content! My confidence in yt always goes up when I come across videos like this.
Thank you for this video and thank you for being a person instead of AI to do the narration - unless you have me fooled and this is the best AI I have heard. If the trend to use AI for TY videos gets much worse I am going to find it hard to watch anything.
I agree with you. All my videos are my own, NOT AI. Old school...because I'm old.
Wonderful explanation😄.
Perhaps someone here could help clarify a question I have... 13:46 when the electrically neutral Higgs decays into a Bottom / anti-Bottom quark pair that have electric charge, where does the charge come from (same with all charged particles)🤔. These charged particles are excitations of their own field but I don't grasp how the charge appears (my level of physics is that of a keenly-interested layperson I'm afraid so this mechanism is deeper than my knowledge in this area).
Charge is conserved so when a neutral Higgs Boson decays, it can create a negatively charged bottom and positively charged anti-bottom quark. The charges are inherent properties of the bottom and antibottom quarks.
@@ArvinAsh Thankyou for clarifying that Sir
8:00 I guess that what you marked here is actually spin not charge - I mean it's still 0, but third number eg. for electron is 1/2, and second is -1 - so it's (from top down) mass, charge, spin.
I just wanted to express my excitement and anticipation for your upcoming video on attophysics, especially considering the recent Nobel Prize-winning breakthroughs in the field, particularly the fascinating topic of attosecond pulses of light (Electrons in pulses of light). Your insights are always insightful and engaging, and I can't wait to learn more about these cutting-edge developments.
What is going on inside an electron that makes the stuff we call negative electric charge? And what is the mirror image of the same thing (presumably) interacting amongst quarks that makes what we call positive electric charge? How does antimatter do it backward so an antimatter electron is a positive positron? Is electric charge the clockwise or counterclockwise motion of gluons?
A photon's plane of electricity we can call sine-wave down half at a certain part of space, and the accompanying magnetic half of a sine-wave is to the right. For the next 180 degrees, the electric sine wave is up and the magnetic field is perpendicularly to the left (if you follow along in the direction the photon is going). This is an asymmetry that could instead be with the magnetic bulge first to the left and then to the right making just as much sense. Why the way it is and not the alternative? Since light is asymmetric with this bias, is that perhaps (light interacting with the early universe right after the Big Bang) the reason why there is so much matter surviving, but so little antimatter because the bias of light dissected the early antimatter apart? Or maybe there is such a thing as anti-light, where the perpendicular magnetic field of a photon is 180 degrees out of phase with what we are used to.
That was a very clear explanation thank you.
Very good explanation Arvin. If awards were given for best presenter at clearly explaining complex physics topics on RUclips, you would win hands down! 👍🏻👍🏻🏆
Great Video.
At 6:36 you say that the LHC uses protons because it requires less kinetic energy because the proton is heavier. That is not entirely correct. The reason for using protons is synchrotron radiation, which scales with gamma to the fourth power. When the total energy of the particle is dominated by kinetic energy (E = gamma * m * c^2), gamma ends up being inversely proportional to the mass. For a proton vs an electron at 1TeV, the electron's gamma will be 2000x higher because of the smaller mass, and thus lose 16 trillion times more energy to synchrotron radiation. That places an effective limit on the energy of electron syncrhotrons.
While using protons allows higher energy in a synchrotron, it has the disadvantage that the collisions are 3 quarks vs 3 quarks, with the energy split unevenly/unpredictably between them, giving the collisions a much larger energy spread. That is why the ILC was designed as an electron/positron collider. Being linear, it doesn't have to deal with synchrotron radiation and thus can use electrons to get a might narrower energy spread.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Well done!
very interesting!
Wonderful! Thank you!
Excellent video as usual! I have been wondering about this ☺️
Sir, you are producing some incredible content. It reeks of sincerity. Thank you.
I learned something, and pressed Like. But pressing Subscribe would annihilate my previous subscription, so I didn't press that button. Thank you Arvin + all people behind you!
i liked this vdeo so much that i pressed like 2 times,
Excellent explanation Sir. Thanks 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
This channel is amazing. Should have discovered it a long time ago! I always was skeptical about using the word "discovery" when it came to the Higgs boson, but finally, I understand what was going on to produce the experimental evidence. Without the excellent illustrations, I would still be confused.
I've been following all of this for years. I watched CERNs announcement in 2012 about the Higgs. I watch Arvin, Sabine, PBS Spacetime, etc. weekly. And yet I just realized I never really understood how we used particle colliders and the equivalency principle to do these collisions and get these results
Arvin has SUCH a way of explaining difficult ideas so people can understand them better. You are the GOAT
You cannot possibly understand this unless you understand the mass; everything else is just superficial understanding via you just blindly believing what the presenter is telling you. It is literally impossible to understand anything this way, just as if I remember 5*7=35 doesn't mean I understand what the operation of multiplication actually is.
@@pyropulseIXXI Interesting that 19th century physics mostly dismissed the intrinsic nature of mass. The Maxwell equations do not include mass. Einstein admired Maxwell tremendously, and originally sought to produce his equations without mass as a fundamental entity, which later resulted in an equation that equated mass to energy.
Being able to say it out loud, "Is this bullshit?" That is so refreshing to hear. I know that we must accept what the evidence is telling us but with statistics any odds leave room to be wrong. I really appreciate the candid descriptions of the state of our scientific discoveries.
The hardest thing for me to grasp about the Higgs mechanism is that it exists in a tachyonic field, a field with "imaginary mass" that is unstable and spontaneously decays. Then there is a part of my mind that says the crazier an explanation sounds, the closer it probably is to the truth.
@1:33 The math seems to be a piece of cake.
Last line is really the core of how fundamental science works ....we should not really bother about the absolute truth or an absolute theory for anything. We observe something, we create a model to explain that phenomenon, try to make predictions ,sometime we find outliers, then we correct the model to be more accurate. And that's the summary of whole science.
Thanks, the video led me to learn of a fascinating phenomena call Dynamical mass generation. Basically, the periodic table alone cannot be used to infer the mass of large objects due to the Binding Energy of the larger object. So, when calculating the mass and weight of a large object, like a mountain, it’s important to take into account not just the masses of the individual particles, but also the binding energy that holds them together. You have to weight the object to be able to infer it's Binding Energy. You can't just take the atomic weight sum of the individual particles.
The overwhelming majoriyt of an object's binding energy is between the quarks and some residual nucleon interactions. Chemical bonds are millions or billions of times smaller, they can be safely ignored. But the atomic weight of elements in the periodic table is that of all protons, neutrons and elecrons of that type of atom combined. In other words, a scale already takes all of the significant binding energy into account when it measures the weight of the mountain, so you don't need to worry about the small scale interactions at all.
@@quitchiboo And at what point can they "be safely ignored?" Even the smallest things can make a big difference in large enough proportions. What if I want to per say,.. make nuclear energy generator that splits molecules and harvests binding energy?
As usual Arvin, brilliant video and the visuals are amazing to condense all this heavy physics knowledge down to a level where people like me who aren't in the field can understand. I am struggling with something though, if we've never seen the higgs particle and we've never measured it, how do we know that the particle decay we see is exactly the higgs particle instead of some other particle we don't know of yet ? Couldn't we argue that this could be a particle with very close similarities to the higgs that we don't yet understand ?
We predicted this particle, only named it after it was finally discovered, the person who predicted it was none other then Higs himself
Thanks! I didn't know much about Higgs and would love to learn even more.
I just love your videos, the way you explain stuff.... tomorrow is my exam still watching your videos.... 😊
Keep up the great work
😼
This was so clearly explained. Love to learn physics this way.
Seem to have given me some answers to questions I've wondered But we'll have to watch It again too help me understand whats ment by the Higgs interaction
"We smash things together and get a result."
Proof that we're all just big kids at heart. 😊
Great video, I have a question regarding vitual particles. Can they react withbeach other or does their really short lifespans deny any reactions between them? If they do react, would the effects be felt physically?
Look up Casimir effect. I think that will answer your question.
Avinash, you are amazing. Tell us about the animations you are using, how are they generated.
Love the visuals brother.
Perfectly explained to me. Thankyou so much. Now I know what all the fuss was about at Cern and why it was built. It is amazing to think of the shape of these 'things' being detectable like the way dinosaur species are detectable thru dinosaur bones, yet that is what makes sense to the layman. The thing I need to understand now is how the detectable values were arrived at; i.e. 125Gev for the Higgs and so on.
There are several problems with the Standard Model. The first one comes from the picture that the electron is an excitation of a state of the electron field. The other particle is an excitation of another field. Did you get it? It is frugality. The Standard Model of Particle Physics is not PARSIMONIOUS. For each particle, one creates a new field (something one cannot observe). This model is not fundamental and should be dropped if another model can explain all particles with just two states (my theory does just that).
The second problem is the alternation of interpretation of results. Scattering results (resonances) are interpreted as "internal structure" and particle formation (excited state). The particle formation interpretation is consistent with the Transition State Theory, where the collision state is thought to be the top of the barrier, and the different decaying channels (particles) are considered to be the projection of the collision state wavefunction onto the excited states. That is what my theory uses.
In contrast, one arbitrarily decides that some of those channels contain structural information (quarks, gluons).
That is the problem. It is a bad model that is not parsimonious.
The third problem is the assignment of properties for bosons. That is a postulate. It is postulated that a boson is a force carrier.
Of course, that should be dropped if there is a model where no particles are required to carry a force.
That eliminates this argument: The Higgs Boson is a bump in the scattering cross-section (versus energy), but that doesn't mean it gives particles mass. That is a nonsensical jump.
In other words, that is too much to ask from gullible readers.
03:15
_...most heavy particles ... are not stable._
Of course. The more massive a particle is, the more unstable it gets since it contains enough energy for creating lighter particles.
I've watched a tun of other videos on quantum physics over the years and this was one of the most explanatory.
Thank you🌹for the very clear explanation.
How were the specifics of the Higgs calculated out to a quantified prediction when the masses of the quarks and their ratios are not predicted but are instead experimentally observed?
How is it as a particle existing distinct from a phenomenon between systems occuring?
“Evidence for the nature of reality is really nothing more than a statistically significant result”-Arvin
Good video, I find this quote very interesting. I’ve heard intriguing stats around the probabilities of protein formations purely by chance from a soup of amino acids akin to the hypothetical infant state of the earth being astronomically minuscule. Maybe it’s a topic you might think about covering at some point?
I’m sure that watching your video is a ‘statistically significant result’, great, clear explanations, thank you, Arvin.
Hi Arvin, with attosecond laser beam whether its possible to see these standard model particles? Please make video about attosecond and its application for future! all your videos are above our understanding but we watch it as our universe as always above our understanding!
Light only directly interacts with electrically charged particles, so you can't see uncharged ones with lasers.