2:15 For most people, in everyday situations, Newtonian mechanics is the best way to look at mass. If we were all forced to use Einstein's equations there would be... mass confusion.
Well, in newtonian mechanics mass is defined as a multiplier that turns velocity into momentum. Still applies to relativistic mass, but instead of m we wright jm
Its taken me nearly 5 minutes seriously thinking about your comment before I recognised your joke. Well done, though I get really grumpy about folk who make me recognise my own dimness.
Correction: At 6:00 I say "Leptons" when I _should_ have said "Fermions." Spin-half particles are called Fermions. Leptons are a specific kind of Fermion (specifically the 6 on the far left of the chart). Sorry for the mistake. Update: I managed to use the RUclips video editor to remove that 2 seconds from the video. Mistake fixed!
Man, just when I thought I was clear about light's "mass" situation, you brought up that it has Kinetic Energy's mass. I'm confused again. Can you please explain?
@@vijaysinghchauhan7079 It's not. A photon *at rest* would have no mass. But photons are not at rest. They are moving extremely fast. Therefore, they have energy, resulting in mass. That's why light bends around a black hole - it's affected by gravity, due to its mass. Note, it is not moving at the speed of light. It can only move at the speed of light in a vacuum. But there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
You broiled this down to be just a 7+ minute video in which you provided a reasonably clear explanation of what the "stuff" of mass actually is. Very impressive.
I mean, just Awesome. Understood every bit of it and the content was Awesome. Love your creativity and craziness. You surely deserve a million subscribers.
That was a crystal clear explanation on the subject! Your channel is indeed great. I know it already increased quite a bit in popularity but it is not at all as well known as it deserves to be yet...
what makes mass interesting are 3 unique properties: 1. it cam move at speeds other than the speed of light 2. it can accelerate 3. it resists acceleration and all those properties derive from mass being a specific meta-construct over different types of energy. PBS SpaceTIme have a very good (imho) video about this where they illustrate matter to be a perfect mirror box, filled with bouncing photons. at rest, the photons apply equal force to all of the box's walls which cancel each other and cause no motion. but while pushed (accelerated), they push back more on the wall being pushed, and thus apply a negative force resisting acceleration. the more mass --> the more photons --> the more resistance.
@@voszvaivaldtkoszikovokh6418 Sadly, this is also how many people invest their money! Based on missing the point. Get an extremely sensitive weight scale, get a rubber band powered airplane. Weigh the airplane, then wind the prop as tight as reasonable, and lock it in place. Then weigh the airplane again. The WOUND rubber band weighs considerably MORE now, because you have imparted kinetic energy into the band. The locking in place allows you to weigh that difference in ENERGY. Release the prop, and allow the energy to dissipate and weigh the airplane again. It will now weigh LESS than originally! WHY? Because the rubber band has been damaged in the process and has lost mass. It will eventually if twisted over and over, will weaken and break due to internal stresses and the release of the BINDING energy holding the band together.
WOW. I literally just described tried to explain this in a comment section on PBS SpaceTime's videos with my untrained, limited understanding, and I can't believe how on the money I was! Seriously, between this channel's undergrad level explanations and PBS SpaceTime's graduate level explanations, I'm getting my existential fill of knowledge!
Man, you are really good.. This channel is seriously underrated... Keep going man.. It only needs one good viral video to give the necessary boost to the channel... I have almost watched all videos in last one week's time... Thanks for all the research and the explanation...
Finally subbed. Because the kinetic energy/relativistic mass explanation actually got me to a new plateau of understanding relativistic concepts. Thank you!
What I love of your videos is that they allow me to unwind all that flawed knowledge that was fist fed to me as an universal truth when I was in highschool. Hopefully someday kids learn this things from kindergarten. Meanwhile I'm liking your vids a lot!
David Lee what he said was fact, not opinion. Nick was wrong, relative mass is not real. It’s very easy to debunk such a concept, and pretty much all physicists agree on this.
@@canyadigit6274 How about a claim, give some references to scientific papers and maybe statements, from the apperently overwhelming amount of scientists, disagreeing with the concept of relative mass, which is a CONCEPT. Good luck.
The Higgs field does not "hover about a nonzero energy", it hovers about a nonzero _value of the field._ What the energy is at that value is irrelevant -- in particle physics you can add and subtract constants to the energy without changing anything. It is not the energy density of the vacuum that is important, especially since we have a very good measurement of that, and it's zero for all subgalactic purposes. Mass in quantum field theory is nothing more than a quadratic contribution to the field potential energy. It's actually really simple: it just means that if the value of the field at a certain point x is f(x), the energy density has a term that looks like m (f(x))² / 2. The various massive fermions have an interaction with the Higgs that is represented by a contribution to the energy which looks like g H(x) (f(x))² / 2, where g is a coupling strength that depends on the particle. If on average the value of the Higgs field is some number H not zero, this just means the particle gets a mass proportional to gH. Also, there's an inaccuracy in the distribution graph around the 6 minute mark. It says "gluon field energy" for almost the whole bar, but really the brunt of the mass in nuclei is (at this level) best thought of as due to the kinetic energies of the constituent quarks. You can see this clearly, for example, in charmonium or bottomonium states (e.g. the infamous J/psi), which are nonrelativistic and only slightly heavier than the sum of the quark masses would indicate (the J/psi weighs 3.1 GeV, and it's made of two charm quarks, each weighing 1.3 GeV. Because of asymptotic freedom, it's not terrible to think of a proton or a neutron as a hollow sphere in which the quarks are free to move and bounce around. This model isn't perfect, but it's pretty good for how simple it is, even though there's no gluon field energy to speak of!
While it is true that the value of energy can vary by an additive constant without affecting anything (a fact I've mentioned in videos before), that fact is not always useful when trying to explain a concept. When educating, you often have to decide what's important.
I'm not saying you needed to mention that in this video. I just mention that as a simple reason why the vacuum energy density is not the relevant thing in the Higgs mechanism. A vacuum expected value for the field is a very different thing.
I am constantly amazed by Nick. Explaining complex topics in a way that most people can understand is a rare talent. The most massive thing I've seen is Beatleguise.
Went to school for physics and I'm watching all of your videos for fun. Excellent work, very entertaining and I'm stealing your jokes too for future use.
QM is merely the shadow cast by the encompassing theory, QFT. Shadows often make no sense but they work for the purposes of calculations. QFT is more intuitive but still has plenty of strange features.
QM is a simplification of QFT that deals with two-particle interactions (or a minimal number) largely ignoring the background field environment and some of the other things that particles can do. QFT is the full working theory. You are correct that QM is a general framework for particle interactions, but particle interactions are a rather small subset of what QFT is about, which explains many interactions somewhat differently anyway. Without the full QFT context, even with, QM is not very intuitive. QFT is what the Standard Model is derived from. QM leads to belief in odd ideas that aren't true, like wave-particle duality.
"QM is a simplification of QFT that deals with two-particle interactions" No, that is completely wrong. "Quantum mechanics" refers to the framework in which observables are non-commuting objects -- it says nothing about interactions, that's for the person using the framework to supply. Quantum field theory is a quantum mechanical theory. String theory is a quantum mechanical theory. This is because in both cases the relevant objects are non-commuting generalizations of the classical notions of fields and strings.
I doubt very much Mikayla had in mind your very technical definition of QM involving non-commuting objects (that probably don't physically exist outside of math) but instead had in mind the crazy notions that QM leads people to believe in about the physical world, things that are sensibly explained by QFT. I said what I know QM "deals with" in practice, what I've read physicists also say, and I did not dispute your framework definition. You're being excessively pedantic for this channel. Know your audience.
I noticed you mentioned the concept of relativistic mass in the video. While it was initially introduced, we no longer use it in modern physics. Instead, we focus on the notion of rest mass, which is the mass an object has when it's not moving. Rest mass is considered the one true intrinsic mass, and it doesn't change with velocity. It's essential to note that the correct equation for energy is E₀ = mc^2, where E₀ represents the object's rest energy and m signifies the object's rest mass. This equation helps us understand the relationship between energy and rest mass. Additionally, for objects at high velocities, we consider the equation E = √(m₀^2c^4 + p^2c^2), where p is the momentum. By emphasizing rest mass, rest energy, and momentum, we can avoid confusion and gain a clearer understanding of how objects behave at high velocities. I would also suggest avoiding the mention of relativistic mass in the future, as it can lead to confusion and provide an inaccurate understanding of the ideas in modern physics. Hope this clarifies things! Feel free to ask if you have any more questions.
I like the way Nick explains things that are quite difficult to understand. He makes it so interesting and lively. Keep on at it Nick!. I love your videos!
@2:22 In the upper equatiom Nick him self used "rest mass" as just mass. There is in fact no simple way of putting "relativistic mass" there. Also, the punch line of the video shows the uselessness of the term relativistic mass :)
In all fairness, Don would likely perform better in live debate. I'm not very comfortable live... but just because someone is comfortable and confident, it doesn't mean they're correct.
Amazing... Amazing song you did there, lol... No acctually the way u relate things together with this simplicity and clarity is amazing... I wish to know whats your degree
I'm a physicist that can't seem to get a full-time job in academia (too many people, not enough jobs)... so I've invested my time here on RUclips hoping I'd have better luck.
The Science Asylum i sure do wish you best of luck, although we are benefiting from your presence here, its a shame no one hired you to teach upcoming generations. But then again, here you get a wider audience.
I revisited this video to understand 'Rest Mass' again and wow it gets clearer & you understand more of everything related to it as well every time you visit these videos...
BTW @5:25 what the hell is -1/3 Electric Charge in a Down Quark...??? Why is it in a fraction...??? And then +2/3 in the Up Quark...??? I understand both will add up mathematically but there are 3 Quarks in a proton so what the hell is going on...???
Those fractions are just the result of the choice we make for units of charge. We chose the charge of the proton as our unit, so we're stuck with fractions for the quarks.
I never knew that what we call mass is predominantly energy. That makes sense in the field that I am most interested in, consciousness, which I think is the most basic reality. Thanks. Looking forward to more of your energetic lectures.
6:00 - error: Quarks are not leptons. Only electrons, muons, tauons and their neutrinos (and their antiparticles) are called leptons. If you want a general term for quarks and leptons, the most precise one is probably "elementary fermions."
The more massive thing I've ever seen? Various possible answers: 1. Nothing. Because all I can see are photons, and photons have no mass. 2. The Earth. Because is the more massive object nearby. 3. The sun. It's even more massive, but usually I don't look at it. 4. Some star. Sometimes I look at them, but saying which one it the more massive...
PBS Space Time bragged on you. This is the VERY best explanation of mass. I always say "matter is bounded energy". Jackie Whitt That always gets stuff started!
One of your best offerings. I am a contented convert to mass being 'merely' examples of energy. "We are stardust...we are golden..." Joni Mitchell knew it all along......
I would love to see a detailed video about the higgs boson and the higgs field, maybe even about how they discover it at the LHC as long its not too complicated
I learned in university that relativistic mass is not used anymore. It's not very useful, because it's a number that doesn't represent a body, since it can change for each inertial frame of reference.
Most massive thing Ive moved on land is a 600ton transformer for power plant in Clearwater, FL. Shut the interstate down because we couldn't cross the overpass. Most massive on water was we towed a 740ft dead ship from New Orleans to scrap yard.
Thanks, kinda hurts to really understand what's going on. You make it less painful, and way more understandable. Love physics, not so much the math involved. Edit: someone put in their comments - mass confusion, that's the funniest thing I've read today, hey, it's early.
Most of the comments I showed on the screen just before that referenced a specific video on the Fermilab YT channel, which why I used that graphic... but it's not limited to Don Lincoln. Particle physicists are working on a level where the word "mass" is the most confusing, so they've all agreed to only call something "mass" when they're talking about _rest_ mass. Sometimes they don't acknowledge that other types of physics use the word "mass" a little more broadly.
The Science Asylum ... What do u mean, they don't take in account the effects of relativistic mass in subatomic world or take rest mass as standard and proceed with there calculations?
The Science Asylum but wouldn't it be easier to learn if the more confusing relativistic mass is abandoned (at least while teaching) and the term "mass" is used to mean rest mass
I just discovered your channel today and I'm so glad I did! Beyond amazing to watch this as a physics student who ADHD! Kept my attention the entire video! I don't know if you have a video on what I'm about to ask, but I'm asking anyway! Do you think our universe exists within a 4th dimensional singularity? If so, how would it tie in with relativity and quantum mechanics? If you don't believe this, why not? Can't wait to binge watch more videos over the next few weeks!
A singularity is just an input for an equation where the output approached infinity. Inside a black hole or near the beginning of the universe, that was density approaching infinity. The universe doesn't really have that problem at the moment.
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m*gamma of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion." - Albert Einstein You can formulate all physical theories without ever introducing relativistic mass, so I'm not sure if relativistic mass is a "real thing" as you said. But i can confirm that this concept is easy to misunderstand (from my own experience). That's why many physicists are avoiding it. I don't think you are doing people a favour if you still teach them this. See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass
Even I mentioned in this video that relativistic mass can lead to misunderstandings if you're not careful with it. I also agree that relativistic mass isn't a necessary concept to get a full understanding of what's happening... but neither is rest mass. The entire concept of "mass" is unnecessary, which is the final point made in this video.
Thanks for answering. ;) You're right, if you want to take it even one step further, you can also abandon rest mass and just talk about the energy content of things. I still feel that you could have mentioned, that in SRT the inertia of a body orthogonal to its velocity is different than parallel to its velocity, or that in GRT its the stress-energy-momentum tensor that makes gravity. For example you can have two bodys with the same total energy but different momentum (by removing a little bit rest mass from one and adding that energy to its kinetic energy). Since momentum is also present in the tensor, this means that the two objects have different gravity fields (or better to say, they curve spacetime differently), even though they have exactly the same total energy. Just to make clear that there are good reasons many physicists don't think that relativistic mass is a very useful concept. I'm not saying you are really incorrect, but i'm asking: Is it helpful, if your video makes people think about the world in terms of relativistic mass if that concept is incapable of fully describing either inertia or gravity (because in newtonian mechanics thats what mass did)? I like most of your other videos very much, i mean this only as constructive criticism.
Don Lincoln and I don't disagree on any of the math or even what's useful in certain circumstances. We just disagree on what that implies about "realness."
But wait, how can you say that "relativistic mass" is a thing when it only applies to acceleration in the direction it's going at? Even though it has kinetic energy, isn't it still just as easy to accelerate it in an orthogonal direction as when it's at rest? EDIT: no, it isn't. It is, however, a lot harder to accelerate forward than it is to accelerate sideways.
Furthermore, relativistic mass is observer-dependent. An observer moving at the same velocity as another moving object sees the other object as having no relativistic mass. It’s best to stay away from this outdated concept. It just adds more confusion to relativity.
Ted Archer But if you are gonna go to the reference frame of the object, that just removes the concept of relativistic mass altogether. If you're gonna talk about relativistic mass, then you also need to talk about how the mass changes depending on whether you push forward or to the side.
Ted, relativistic mass has a definition and you can use it if you wish. You won’t be wrong. But you will be out of sync with most of modern science if you do, especially particle physicists and cosmologists. The modern way is to say that energy is adjusted by an increasing gamma factor as velocity increases, and that mass is invariant. It makes more sense this way when you get into momentum, length contraction and time dilation, instead of trying to explain things by saying infinite energy is needed, which makes no sense.
2:15 For most people, in everyday situations, Newtonian mechanics is the best way to look at mass. If we were all forced to use Einstein's equations there would be... mass confusion.
Ha!
Don't mass with us
Well, in newtonian mechanics mass is defined as a multiplier that turns velocity into momentum. Still applies to relativistic mass, but instead of m we wright jm
Master Therion
Mass-t you say this?
Its taken me nearly 5 minutes seriously thinking about your comment before I recognised your joke. Well done, though I get really grumpy about folk who make me recognise my own dimness.
As an aging physicist, I applaud your videos. As they say, the half-life of a physicist is 2 years - I’ve forgotten more than I ever knew..
I do my best to keep up with things. Making these videos helps :-)
@@ScienceAsylum And you succeed in it. Well done!
@@ScienceAsylum and you succeeded
Oh my goodness! Is the half life of a physicist really just 2 years?!
I´m with you John.
Correction: At 6:00 I say "Leptons" when I _should_ have said "Fermions." Spin-half particles are called Fermions. Leptons are a specific kind of Fermion (specifically the 6 on the far left of the chart). Sorry for the mistake.
Update: I managed to use the RUclips video editor to remove that 2 seconds from the video. Mistake fixed!
The Science Asylum Ok, that makes more sense.
You were probably thinking of the particles that steal mass, the Kleptons. :)
Man, just when I thought I was clear about light's "mass" situation, you brought up that it has Kinetic Energy's mass. I'm confused again. Can you please explain?
jSoN makkan Using the .clone() function if your name is JSON :)
What is energy???
Finally I understand why speed increases "mass", heard it loads of times, never got why tho, thanx.
WOW! Thanks for the revelation. Your comment just cleared some muddy water for me.
why?
Then why is a photon massless?
@@vijaysinghchauhan7079 because it's not catholic.
@@vijaysinghchauhan7079 It's not.
A photon *at rest* would have no mass.
But photons are not at rest. They are moving extremely fast. Therefore, they have energy, resulting in mass.
That's why light bends around a black hole - it's affected by gravity, due to its mass.
Note, it is not moving at the speed of light. It can only move at the speed of light in a vacuum. But there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Man this guy is a "Physics" saver. Can't appreciate him enough. Thank you so much for clear, easy and non-depressing explanations. Thumbs up sir.
Self-esteem Reducer @ 0:17 ... hahaha!
Excellent video as usual
jajajajajaj I'd missed that
Anyone who's ever read Griffiths before know this
Also, I'm not fat, I'm energetic :)
Etai Vandel
LOL! That's a good one, I'll use that! 😀
Etai Vandel 😀 just a little bit more rest energy, that’s all
Yeah, it will be obvious if you set a fat person and a thin person on fire. A fat person will burn more energetically.
Well... You're not wrong...
You area almost pure gluon field energy, way to go, Superglue!
Simply put, this is one of the best channels on youtube. Thanks for making these videos, mate.
Thanks for watching them :-)
You broiled this down to be just a 7+ minute video in which you provided a reasonably clear explanation of what the "stuff" of mass actually is. Very impressive.
How the heck can you fit so much physics into so little time? Excellent job as always.
Probably with a lot of planning, a lot of re-writing the first explanation that comes to his mind, and a lot of graphic design to convey his point.
you deserve so much more subs
Subscribers are mostly just gluon field energy.
@@tom_something hahahahahahaa
So, based on your ending we are all suffering from ‘mass’ delusions? Interesting...
Ha!
The sun! Does the biggest mass I can see.
@@ScienceAsylum Ha ☝🏻🙂
Well, not all of us...
While some have mass delusions, others mass debate!
I mean, just Awesome. Understood every bit of it and the content was Awesome. Love your creativity and craziness. You surely deserve a million subscribers.
Dude! You just made all that SO CLEAR! THANK YOU!
ya
That was a crystal clear explanation on the subject! Your channel is indeed great. I know it already increased quite a bit in popularity but it is not at all as well known as it deserves to be yet...
I agree with you he is an awesome explainer
This man cured my depression
i totally get you!
He calls me crazy. N im fine with that n thats progress😁
Your last two videos have been incredible.
Last two? All of them are amazing. None of them fails.
Cleiton Oliveira True. 👍🏻
I agree. They were incredible in completely opposite ways.
@0:28 epic Newton rap😂😂
It was perfecttt
I was expecting Rapper Clone, but no. DJ zigzag
@@HutcH68 he is ziggin he's zaggin :D I was waiting for a clone, too.
Full songs plis
my favorite type of mechanics is Lucidian mechanics.... Get it? because Nick Lucid?
Ha! If only that were a real thing...
@@ScienceAsylum let's call it Nick lucidian mechanics 😂😂
Jabrils!! I love your machine learning videos!!
Is that his real last name?
@@guillermoaguilar5738 yes.
what makes mass interesting are 3 unique properties:
1. it cam move at speeds other than the speed of light
2. it can accelerate
3. it resists acceleration
and all those properties derive from mass being a specific meta-construct over different types of energy.
PBS SpaceTIme have a very good (imho) video about this where they illustrate matter to be a perfect mirror box, filled with bouncing photons.
at rest, the photons apply equal force to all of the box's walls which cancel each other and cause no motion. but while pushed (accelerated), they push back more on the wall being pushed, and thus apply a negative force resisting acceleration.
the more mass --> the more photons --> the more resistance.
What?
1%??
I'm gonna sell all my Higgs Field shares and buy all the gluons I can.
That would be stupid since the higgs field aways has a above zero normal its the safest field of investment
@@voszvaivaldtkoszikovokh6418 Sadly, this is also how many people invest their money! Based on missing the point. Get an extremely sensitive weight scale, get a rubber band powered airplane. Weigh the airplane, then wind the prop as tight as reasonable, and lock it in place. Then weigh the airplane again. The WOUND rubber band weighs considerably MORE now, because you have imparted kinetic energy into the band. The locking in place allows you to weigh that difference in ENERGY. Release the prop, and allow the energy to dissipate and weigh the airplane again. It will now weigh LESS than originally! WHY? Because the rubber band has been damaged in the process and has lost mass. It will eventually if twisted over and over, will weaken and break due to internal stresses and the release of the BINDING energy holding the band together.
* Dad jokes clone *
This video had a MASSIVE influence on my knowledge 😬
Ha!
The video transmitted its energy content to me too.
So nicely put into a single video.I see your effort bro.Your videos are getting even better.That bar graph madr sguff so clear.Thanks
You are incredible! This is the best explanation of mass I've seen
Excellent explanation of mass. This needs to be watched by so many confused physics professors so they can stop causing mass confusion.
“Whats the most massive thing youve ever seen?”
* insert fat mama jokes here * 😂😂😂
Hey! You stole my comment.
Well ... that's the price of being late.
Yo mama so fat, she occupies 99% of the Higgs field! 😂😂😂
Yo momma so fat it bends light around her belly!
The best five minutes teacher on the web !! So much good info in such a short time, I defintely raise my thumbs !
Guillaume Seguin uhhhhhh akshully it was 7:39 long u imbecile
The most massive thing I've ever seen is my...
Love for this channel, keep up the good work
Marko Rezic that true
got scared looking at the first part
WOW. I literally just described tried to explain this in a comment section on PBS SpaceTime's videos with my untrained, limited understanding, and I can't believe how on the money I was! Seriously, between this channel's undergrad level explanations and PBS SpaceTime's graduate level explanations, I'm getting my existential fill of knowledge!
Man, you are really good.. This channel is seriously underrated... Keep going man.. It only needs one good viral video to give the necessary boost to the channel... I have almost watched all videos in last one week's time... Thanks for all the research and the explanation...
"Self-esteem reducer" :DDD Set aside the humor, the video is brilliant. Including the humor makes it awesome.
Finally subbed. Because the kinetic energy/relativistic mass explanation actually got me to a new plateau of understanding relativistic concepts. Thank you!
What I love of your videos is that they allow me to unwind all that flawed knowledge that was fist fed to me as an universal truth when I was in highschool. Hopefully someday kids learn this things from kindergarten. Meanwhile I'm liking your vids a lot!
I have watched so many channels of physics but no one explained in depth has you do thanks man really appreciate it
First time I‘ve been shown this breakdown of the enrgy content of a Proton. Very enlightning. Thank you.
You're welcome :-)
Yay! I appear in a video as an "angry commenter"! :D
Way to go ! we knew you will achieve something someday !
David Lee what he said was fact, not opinion. Nick was wrong, relative mass is not real. It’s very easy to debunk such a concept, and pretty much all physicists agree on this.
Lol... You were right though.
@@canyadigit6274 How about a claim, give some references to scientific papers and maybe statements, from the apperently overwhelming amount of scientists, disagreeing with the concept of relative mass, which is a CONCEPT. Good luck.
The Higgs field does not "hover about a nonzero energy", it hovers about a nonzero _value of the field._ What the energy is at that value is irrelevant -- in particle physics you can add and subtract constants to the energy without changing anything. It is not the energy density of the vacuum that is important, especially since we have a very good measurement of that, and it's zero for all subgalactic purposes.
Mass in quantum field theory is nothing more than a quadratic contribution to the field potential energy. It's actually really simple: it just means that if the value of the field at a certain point x is f(x), the energy density has a term that looks like m (f(x))² / 2. The various massive fermions have an interaction with the Higgs that is represented by a contribution to the energy which looks like g H(x) (f(x))² / 2, where g is a coupling strength that depends on the particle. If on average the value of the Higgs field is some number H not zero, this just means the particle gets a mass proportional to gH.
Also, there's an inaccuracy in the distribution graph around the 6 minute mark. It says "gluon field energy" for almost the whole bar, but really the brunt of the mass in nuclei is (at this level) best thought of as due to the kinetic energies of the constituent quarks. You can see this clearly, for example, in charmonium or bottomonium states (e.g. the infamous J/psi), which are nonrelativistic and only slightly heavier than the sum of the quark masses would indicate (the J/psi weighs 3.1 GeV, and it's made of two charm quarks, each weighing 1.3 GeV.
Because of asymptotic freedom, it's not terrible to think of a proton or a neutron as a hollow sphere in which the quarks are free to move and bounce around. This model isn't perfect, but it's pretty good for how simple it is, even though there's no gluon field energy to speak of!
While it is true that the value of energy can vary by an additive constant without affecting anything (a fact I've mentioned in videos before), that fact is not always useful when trying to explain a concept. When educating, you often have to decide what's important.
I'm not saying you needed to mention that in this video. I just mention that as a simple reason why the vacuum energy density is not the relevant thing in the Higgs mechanism. A vacuum expected value for the field is a very different thing.
This video + the spacetime channel video about mass= I finally understand what mass is!!!!
I am constantly amazed by Nick. Explaining complex topics in a way that most people can understand is a rare talent. The most massive thing I've seen is Beatleguise.
Went to school for physics and I'm watching all of your videos for fun. Excellent work, very entertaining and I'm stealing your jokes too for future use.
Whenever someone mentions QM I can't but think how CRAZY but also really cool it is.
QM is merely the shadow cast by the encompassing theory, QFT. Shadows often make no sense but they work for the purposes of calculations. QFT is more intuitive but still has plenty of strange features.
"QM is merely the shadow cast by the encompassing theory, QFT"
No, quantum mechanics is a general framework. QFT is a quantum mechanical theory.
QM is a simplification of QFT that deals with two-particle interactions (or a minimal number) largely ignoring the background field environment and some of the other things that particles can do. QFT is the full working theory. You are correct that QM is a general framework for particle interactions, but particle interactions are a rather small subset of what QFT is about, which explains many interactions somewhat differently anyway. Without the full QFT context, even with, QM is not very intuitive. QFT is what the Standard Model is derived from. QM leads to belief in odd ideas that aren't true, like wave-particle duality.
"QM is a simplification of QFT that deals with two-particle interactions"
No, that is completely wrong. "Quantum mechanics" refers to the framework in which observables are non-commuting objects -- it says nothing about interactions, that's for the person using the framework to supply. Quantum field theory is a quantum mechanical theory. String theory is a quantum mechanical theory. This is because in both cases the relevant objects are non-commuting generalizations of the classical notions of fields and strings.
I doubt very much Mikayla had in mind your very technical definition of QM involving non-commuting objects (that probably don't physically exist outside of math) but instead had in mind the crazy notions that QM leads people to believe in about the physical world, things that are sensibly explained by QFT. I said what I know QM "deals with" in practice, what I've read physicists also say, and I did not dispute your framework definition. You're being excessively pedantic for this channel. Know your audience.
As one of many, many former students who used Griffith's Intro to Electrodynamics text, it truly it a self-esteem reducer!
Why it is self esteem reducer? Any reason?
Richard Feynman is happy.
I noticed you mentioned the concept of relativistic mass in the video. While it was initially introduced, we no longer use it in modern physics. Instead, we focus on the notion of rest mass, which is the mass an object has when it's not moving. Rest mass is considered the one true intrinsic mass, and it doesn't change with velocity. It's essential to note that the correct equation for energy is E₀ = mc^2, where E₀ represents the object's rest energy and m signifies the object's rest mass. This equation helps us understand the relationship between energy and rest mass. Additionally, for objects at high velocities, we consider the equation E = √(m₀^2c^4 + p^2c^2), where p is the momentum. By emphasizing rest mass, rest energy, and momentum, we can avoid confusion and gain a clearer understanding of how objects behave at high velocities. I would also suggest avoiding the mention of relativistic mass in the future, as it can lead to confusion and provide an inaccurate understanding of the ideas in modern physics. Hope this clarifies things! Feel free to ask if you have any more questions.
Wow, you cleared all my questions I didn't expect you to cover Higgs field in this, but I'm SO glad u did.
THANKS!!
That gangsta "whooooo" on the background nearly killed me :-)
Sibusiso Maseko yo he droppin science like galileo dropped the orange
Gluon field energy!!!! Wow.
I like the way Nick explains things that are quite difficult to understand. He makes it so interesting and lively. Keep on at it Nick!. I love your videos!
Every time I think I take the next step
I see so many more!
Thanks for showing me the endless way
I really like your bar graphs showing the kinetic energy part of mass, including the gluon part, too.
Thanks!
You're videos are perfect blend of humor and knowledge !
Lmao that shade thrown at Don Lincoln of Fermi lab
I'd pay to see Nick Lucid and Dr. Don Lincoln debate over relativistic mass.
Don Lincoln for the win!
@2:22 In the upper equatiom Nick him self used "rest mass" as just mass. There is in fact no simple way of putting "relativistic mass" there. Also, the punch line of the video shows the uselessness of the term relativistic mass :)
In all fairness, Don would likely perform better in live debate. I'm not very comfortable live... but just because someone is comfortable and confident, it doesn't mean they're correct.
I won't pay but I would love to see that.
*The most massive thing is my appreciation to this channel!*
I really enjoyed the illustration at 3:42, you wouldn't believe how unbelievably helpful that was, thank you.
Thanks for not using imperial units
Xano Trevisan Kothe 😸 Yes, indeed! My thinking precisely!
No, but americans love to use them anyway
Imperial units? I thought Luke Skywalker defeated them?
Well, relativistic mass is the imerial unit system of theoretycal physics. It is just as annoying and outdated.
For gluon field? Lol
Thanks once again amazing explanation!
Amazing... Amazing song you did there, lol... No acctually the way u relate things together with this simplicity and clarity is amazing...
I wish to know whats your degree
I'm a physicist that can't seem to get a full-time job in academia (too many people, not enough jobs)... so I've invested my time here on RUclips hoping I'd have better luck.
The Science Asylum i sure do wish you best of luck, although we are benefiting from your presence here, its a shame no one hired you to teach upcoming generations. But then again, here you get a wider audience.
I revisited this video to understand 'Rest Mass' again and wow it gets clearer & you understand more of everything related to it as well every time you visit these videos...
BTW @5:25 what the hell is -1/3 Electric Charge in a Down Quark...??? Why is it in a fraction...??? And then +2/3 in the Up Quark...??? I understand both will add up mathematically but there are 3 Quarks in a proton so what the hell is going on...???
Those fractions are just the result of the choice we make for units of charge. We chose the charge of the proton as our unit, so we're stuck with fractions for the quarks.
I never knew that what we call mass is predominantly energy. That makes sense in the field that I am most interested in, consciousness, which I think is the most basic reality. Thanks. Looking forward to more of your energetic lectures.
"we'll start with relativity because it's easier," I guess all things are in fact relative if that's the easy part.
Right. I never said it was "easy" ...just that it was _easier_ than quantum mechanics.
6:00 - error: Quarks are not leptons. Only electrons, muons, tauons and their neutrinos (and their antiparticles) are called leptons. If you want a general term for quarks and leptons, the most precise one is probably "elementary fermions."
Also, saying that relativity is easier than QM is at the very least daring.
Crap! You're right. I meant to say fermions. How did I get that mixed up in my head?!
I will pin a comment about it.
Mistaking is human. And at least in an asylum we can easilly forgive such w minor wordmistake
Sorry to be the slow guy but aren't the W and the Z bosons too get their mass via the Higgs mechanism ?
The more massive thing I've ever seen?
Various possible answers:
1. Nothing. Because all I can see are photons, and photons have no mass.
2. The Earth. Because is the more massive object nearby.
3. The sun. It's even more massive, but usually I don't look at it.
4. Some star. Sometimes I look at them, but saying which one it the more massive...
I guess you're joking because he meant that in a different way 😜
PBS Space Time bragged on you. This is the VERY best explanation of mass.
I always say "matter is bounded energy". Jackie Whitt That always gets stuff started!
One of your best offerings. I am a contented convert to mass being 'merely' examples of energy. "We are stardust...we are golden..." Joni Mitchell knew it all along......
2:45 You must have posted that scene because of the link I sent you of Dr.Don saying how relativistic mass isn’t real 😂.
Legit lol'd with the shade you threw at fermi
I just love your explanation 😍😍
Excellent video. You just filled in a gap for me. Thumbs up.
Damn, did you just diss Dr. Lincoln from Fermilab? YOU SHALL PAY!!! Lol jk. It's a great channel though. I'd love to see you there.
Self-Esteem Reducer LMAO!!!!!
Certainly how I felt when we used that text in my Electricity and Magnetism course.
Sean Reese that's how almost everyone does
i wish i had a physics teacher like you in school...
Now! This is mind numbing! I’ve never heard an explanation this way about this kind of stuff. That’s what makes me coming back for more. Nice SA!
Best channel. Finally I understood why speed of light travel is not possible
I would love to see a detailed video about the higgs boson and the higgs field, maybe even about how they discover it at the LHC as long its not too complicated
xMcSK see PBS space-time
I've heard a hundred explanations of mass. This is my favorite. Well done. Thanks for making me feel like I'm drowning in energy.
I learned in university that relativistic mass is not used anymore. It's not very useful, because it's a number that doesn't represent a body, since it can change for each inertial frame of reference.
Most massive thing Ive moved on land is a 600ton transformer for power plant in Clearwater, FL. Shut the interstate down because we couldn't cross the overpass.
Most massive on water was we towed a 740ft dead ship from New Orleans to scrap yard.
Thanks, kinda hurts to really understand what's going on. You make it less painful, and way more understandable. Love physics, not so much the math involved. Edit: someone put in their comments - mass confusion, that's the funniest thing I've read today, hey, it's early.
btw, you are simply the best, even a 6yo can understand your explanation
that moment when you realize you're dumber than a 6 year old.
rip
apple54345 XD
Come on, that's too much.
"So what's the most massive thing you've ever seen?" *raises eyebrows*
I may be young, but I got that.
Me when The Science Asylum posts
*STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND WATCH!*
My God! It's CanYaDigIt himself! Can you teach me how to get all the fly honies like you do?
@@Sciller4 you just gotta lead them and play it sly dog #gitgud
Dude your explanation was so clear! You definitely nailed it! Bravo!
Keep improving your content; this channel is going to grow a lot faster in the near future, I wager.
I liked this video even before watched it, fast fast!
.... and after 7:10 😂
"When you measure the mass of something, you're measuring it's energy content." Hmmmm - interesting!
Hey Nick at 2:49 did u poked prof.LINCOLN OR WERE U JUST REFFERING TO A PARTICLE PHYSICST'S view on relativistic mass? Either way nice vedio.
Most of the comments I showed on the screen just before that referenced a specific video on the Fermilab YT channel, which why I used that graphic... but it's not limited to Don Lincoln. Particle physicists are working on a level where the word "mass" is the most confusing, so they've all agreed to only call something "mass" when they're talking about _rest_ mass. Sometimes they don't acknowledge that other types of physics use the word "mass" a little more broadly.
The Science Asylum ... What do u mean, they don't take in account the effects of relativistic mass in subatomic world or take rest mass as standard and proceed with there calculations?
The Science Asylum but wouldn't it be easier to learn if the more confusing relativistic mass is abandoned (at least while teaching) and the term "mass" is used to mean rest mass
Obi Wan they do take into account it's effects, like the equation E=mc² becomes E²= (mc²)² + (pc)² and the m here is just the rest mass
Is this bullying to prof Lincoln???
My man is still paying equal attention to the comments as it was uploaded just a few days ago...
A True Man Of Culture
Comments are important.
I just discovered your channel today and I'm so glad I did! Beyond amazing to watch this as a physics student who ADHD! Kept my attention the entire video!
I don't know if you have a video on what I'm about to ask, but I'm asking anyway!
Do you think our universe exists within a 4th dimensional singularity? If so, how would it tie in with relativity and quantum mechanics? If you don't believe this, why not?
Can't wait to binge watch more videos over the next few weeks!
A singularity is just an input for an equation where the output approached infinity. Inside a black hole or near the beginning of the universe, that was density approaching infinity. The universe doesn't really have that problem at the moment.
@0:27 NewTON rap about Mass!!!
Oh boy its my favorite insane scientist.
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m*gamma of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
- Albert Einstein
You can formulate all physical theories without ever introducing relativistic mass, so I'm not sure if relativistic mass is a "real thing" as you said. But i can confirm that this concept is easy to misunderstand (from my own experience). That's why many physicists are avoiding it. I don't think you are doing people a favour if you still teach them this.
See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass
Even I mentioned in this video that relativistic mass can lead to misunderstandings if you're not careful with it. I also agree that relativistic mass isn't a necessary concept to get a full understanding of what's happening... but neither is rest mass. The entire concept of "mass" is unnecessary, which is the final point made in this video.
Thanks for answering. ;)
You're right, if you want to take it even one step further, you can also abandon rest mass and just talk about the energy content of things. I still feel that you could have mentioned, that in SRT the inertia of a body orthogonal to its velocity is different than parallel to its velocity, or that in GRT its the stress-energy-momentum tensor that makes gravity. For example you can have two bodys with the same total energy but different momentum (by removing a little bit rest mass from one and adding that energy to its kinetic energy). Since momentum is also present in the tensor, this means that the two objects have different gravity fields (or better to say, they curve spacetime differently), even though they have exactly the same total energy. Just to make clear that there are good reasons many physicists don't think that relativistic mass is a very useful concept.
I'm not saying you are really incorrect, but i'm asking: Is it helpful, if your video makes people think about the world in terms of relativistic mass if that concept is incapable of fully describing either inertia or gravity (because in newtonian mechanics thats what mass did)?
I like most of your other videos very much, i mean this only as constructive criticism.
Don Lincoln and I don't disagree on any of the math or even what's useful in certain circumstances. We just disagree on what that implies about "realness."
Wow. There's actually an answer to those questions you sometimes ask yourself. And no one else can explain them better !
6:20 NOOO WE WANT THAT VIDEO ASAP
But wait, how can you say that "relativistic mass" is a thing when it only applies to acceleration in the direction it's going at? Even though it has kinetic energy, isn't it still just as easy to accelerate it in an orthogonal direction as when it's at rest?
EDIT: no, it isn't. It is, however, a lot harder to accelerate forward than it is to accelerate sideways.
Furthermore, relativistic mass is observer-dependent. An observer moving at the same velocity as another moving object sees the other object as having no relativistic mass. It’s best to stay away from this outdated concept. It just adds more confusion to relativity.
Eric Vilas from certain point of view. If you are travelling with the same speed as the object, it will be easy to accelerate it in any direction
cloudpoint that is just semantics, what we call mass, m or jm. Both have valid arguments for and against
Ted Archer But if you are gonna go to the reference frame of the object, that just removes the concept of relativistic mass altogether. If you're gonna talk about relativistic mass, then you also need to talk about how the mass changes depending on whether you push forward or to the side.
Ted, relativistic mass has a definition and you can use it if you wish. You won’t be wrong. But you will be out of sync with most of modern science if you do, especially particle physicists and cosmologists. The modern way is to say that energy is adjusted by an increasing gamma factor as velocity increases, and that mass is invariant. It makes more sense this way when you get into momentum, length contraction and time dilation, instead of trying to explain things by saying infinite energy is needed, which makes no sense.
super lucid...
Bhai kaha se ho
The most massive thing I've ever seen, unaided, with my own eyes is the Andromeda Galaxy.
Seriously. I’ve never seen a better video or channel. If interest and learning were energy types, I would have a lot more mass. :)
If you were a bishop, you'd have a lot more Mass😂
I get so much info out of your videos. Love them!
At 6:00, you mean fermions, right?
Yep, just pinned a correction comment to the top of the feed.