How Can MASS and ENERGY be the Same Thing? What, Where and Why is it?

Рет қаралды 182,947

Күн бұрын

🔒Remove your personal information from the web at JoinDeleteMe.com/ARVINASH20 and use code ARVINASH20 for 20% off 🙌 DeleteMe international Plans: international.joindeleteme.com
TALK TO ME on Patreon:
/ arvinash
REFERENCES
Stron Nuclear Force explained: • Why Don't Protons Fly ...
Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD): • QCD: Visualizing the S...
General Relativity: • General Relativity Exp...
Higgs field explained: • The Crazy Mass-Giving ...
CHAPTERS
0:00 Things not moving have energy
1:56 What and where is mass?
2:45 Higgs Field a source of mass
4:01 Strong force a source of mass
5:23 DeleteMe
6:32 Where 99% of the mass of the universe is located
7:55 How color charges work (Quantum chromodynamics)
8:23 Confinement
10:31 How does Strong Force create mass?
13:34 Strong NUCLEAR force also a source of mass
SUMMARY
How is mass and energy the same thing? What is mass really? If you weigh 80kg and are in a car moving 100km/hr, your energy is equal to about 30000 joules. But did you know that the energy you have standing still, not moving at all, is more than a hundred trillion times that, over 6*10^18 joules?
This comes from E=mc^2. But what is the nature of that energy? Is it due to movement at the quantum level? It is due to forces? How is it that mass can be the same as this energy. If it’s all energy, then is mass even a real thing?
What we call mass is made up of all the atoms in the rock. 99.99% of the mass of an atom is located in its tiny nucleus in the center, which makes up less than 0.01% of its volume. The rest is in the electrons that surround the atom.
There are two sources of mass. The known mass of fundamental particles comes from their interaction with the Higgs Field. This is like an energy grid. Different particles take different amounts of energy from it. But this makes up less than 1% of the mass of an atom. The other 99% of the mass is due to the strong force which keeps quarks bound within the nucleus of an atom.
A fundamental force of nature called the strong force that keeps these quarks bound together to form the proton nucleus. This force is mediated by gluons. But gluons are massless, so how are they responsible for so much mass? Gluons bind quarks together. And both have something called the color charge. This charge is how the strong force operates.
It’s somewhat analogous to an electrical charge where negatively charged electrons surrounding positively charged protons making the atom neutral. With quarks however, we deal with red, blue and green color charges that combine to form a neutral color. These are not optical colors, but metaphorically speaking, works similarly to the way red, blue and green optical colors can combine to form a neutral or white color.
Quarks exchange colors between themselves which is mediated by gluons. And it is this exchange which results in the strong force keeping them glued together. Why does color exchange keep them bound. This is due to confinement. What this means is that a color charged particle cannot exist on its own. Quarks and Gluons are color charged particles. Why? Because color charges exist can only exist in a combination of colors that is always neutral. This need for the combination of charges to exist as neutral, attracts red, blue and green color charged particles to each other.
This is quantum chromodynamics. It’s the science of the way the strong force works to keep the quarks inside the nuclei of atoms tightly bound together. This is the strong force. But how is this strong force creating mass? Mass is really just bound energy. The rest mass of an object is its intrinsic energy-content. It’s a type of potential energy. Any form of energy contributes to the mass of a body, potential or kinetic. The nature of this energy doesn’t matter. So for example, a compressed spring is a little bit heavier than the same spring without the potential energy stored in its compression. You don’t notice this mass difference because at our scales, these energies contribute very little to the mass.
Any kind of energy bends spacetime. it creates gravity. And so bounded energy, which is what the strong force results in creates is where most of the mass comes from. 99% of the mass of objects comes from the energy of the gluons confining quarks inside the nuclei of atoms.
#strongforce
#whatismass
#quantumchromodynamics
Another concept related to the strong force is the force that keeps Protons and neutrons glued together inside the nucleus of larger atoms. This is called strong NUCLEAR force, distinct from the Strong force which keeps quarks glued together. This is also a form of potential energy, and also contributes to the mass of an atom. This force is mediated by mesons which are formed when energy stretches quarks such that a new quark/anti-quark pair are stretched. This pair is called a meson. The exchange of mesons creates a strong attraction between protons and neutrons.

Пікірлер: 1 000

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

(ERRATA) Note that there is mistake in the formula at 0:35-0:40 - it should be 1/2 MV^2 - the MV^2 should be in the numerator not the denominator. Sorry, we did not pick this up in editing.

@user-uu2cd4wl3i Ай бұрын

Basically an electron is made up of really condensed pieces of its fields smoke liquid energy and these are probably little round piece's of energy.... 😂😂 that are inside the electron and they're just condensed enough to combine to make one piece of energy or one particle... So the collide and push one another and this is why... We see vibrates so they collide in the center and push away from the center of the electron and the center pieces pull the on the other little pieces that are traveling away from the collision in the center..... And gravitational pull from the pieces in the center pulls the other little pieces that are being pushed away from center of the electron... back towards the center of the electron because of the other little pieces in the center...... Good enough my name is Dylan ray Stone Okay so the field that makes up gravity is in all fields.... Accept space which is also its own field.... Or you could say time acts like a smoke and some pieces of the smoke are more condensed than others and whenever they collide in to the same condensity pieces they pull in on other and be come one condensed piece and then they pull in on their own field creating a gravitational pull... Or it's another field inside the second field... Doing the same thing as time and then basically one of those pieces becomes condensed enough it pulls on the second field. Then the particle from the first field also pulls on its little uncondensed pieces in it's field to create what we call gravitational pull😂

@keiths.taylor5293 Ай бұрын

So energy and energy are the same thing and are caused by energy and is caused by mass and mass is energy ok I got it.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

@@keiths.taylor5293 Lol. Well, this video could have been condensed to your single sentence!

@rafaelgonzalez4175 Ай бұрын

It is false either way. As you stated the vehicle standing still is still moving with exponential velocity. Which is the same exact velocity the Earth spins around the sun as it spins around. The same exact velocity the Galaxy is spinning, the solar system is spinning, and the Earth is spinning. The same exact velocity the universe is spinning, the galaxy is spinning, as the solar system spins at that velocity while the planets spin with the solar system. Observe it for yourself. If you can see another galaxy in the sky. We are moving as fast as that galaxy is, to observe it. Mass and energy are one in the same. Quantum physics will prove it when education allows it. Apparently, we have not made it that deep yet. Electrons must have mass. Electrons fuse atoms. Dictate spectrum. Determine magnetism. Electrons are the communicating device to all elements. Electrons are the visual and invisible spectrums of photons. X-ray, incandescent, Florescent, ultraviolet. With every atom and photon, there is an electron.

@user-uu2cd4wl3i Ай бұрын

So basically if a man should lay with a man as man lay with women he's going to burn in hell.. and I'm not gay but I bet some of you are so good luck

@daytonanderson2804 Ай бұрын

The explanation differentiating the "Strong" force from the "Strong Nuclear" force was the answer to something I've wondered about for a long time. Thanks Arvin!

@stevenjones8575 Ай бұрын

This is just the kind of topic I love when you cover, really digging down into the endless "why"s until we finally reach the "we don't know." Thanks, Arvin, you're awesome!

@alwaysdisputin9930 Ай бұрын

yeah exactly

@zualapips1638 Ай бұрын

I'm equally shocked at how much we know as I am about how much we don't know. It's not that we're making things up. It's just that we can't probe any deeper, so we just have to take what we see at face value and go with it. It's crazy how we don't really know the mechanisms that bind these particles and quarks together. Like we know enough to understand a bit of how it works, but we have no idea what's truly happening. We just know it happens and roll with it.

@lyndalexfactor6282 Ай бұрын

This has got to be one of the most readily understandable videos I've seen about QCD ... and the only one I've seen differentiating how the strong force operates vs. the strong nuclear force

@James-ll3jb Ай бұрын

"QCD"???

@ronjon7942 Ай бұрын

@@James-ll3jb10:15 Quantum Chromodynamics. Never heard of it either.

@cyclonasaurusrex1525 Ай бұрын

Agree. I knew each of those concepts individually, but putting them into a broader framework really helped me to understand.

@iridium1911 Ай бұрын

Chromo = color, in reference to colorforce

@ramrod0209 Ай бұрын

Yeah descriptively. But the number of times he says "We don't know why." is frightening. He might as well say: "It's because God planned it that way." WE don't know any "WHY".

@OneAmongBillions Ай бұрын

This is an astoundingly clear presentation that this half-wit greatly appreciates. Honestly, I've been watching particle physic videos for years and could explain almost none of it. But after viewing this video I think I am many steps closer. THANKS!

@SRMoore1178 Ай бұрын

You're still a whole half ahead of me. This is a video I'll need to watch about ten more times. Or probably a hundred.

@ronjon7942 Ай бұрын

I was thinking of commenting something similar, but am happy to tag along on yours. Same. I mean, it was even a eureka moment at 7:15 when he described the rationale of using color to denote quark charges!

@ashleyobrien4937 Ай бұрын

don't feel too bad about it, there are still, as this guy points out, lots of explanations as to how things are, but literally NOTHING on WHAT they are, we simply do not yet know...we may never know.

@edinfific2576 Ай бұрын

Arvin, you're someone I could probably spend time talking with to no end, but with continuous insights and revelations, i.e. useful and productive talk. You ask all the question I myself would ask, so we think alike. It is very hard to find such minds where I live, unfortunately. Best wishes from Bosnia.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Thank you. And Welcome.

@robhappier Ай бұрын

Hi @@ArvinAsh! Great Channel, my friend!!! :) Gravity = The Spaceless and Timeless Vacuum Energy State of Matter!!! :)

@billant2 Ай бұрын

@@ArvinAsh- So in a nuclear explosion when bombarding the nucleus with neutrons, is that creating Mesons and consequently the large amounts of energy released as the nuclei is being torn apart?

@localverse Ай бұрын

Hi Edin, same here. We could talk if you want to. And we could gather more people to talk. And we could visually bring to life the ideas that emerge. Let's start.

@isaacdebrah3963 Ай бұрын

@@localverse woah woah i wanna join this party.

@RandomNooby 22 күн бұрын

The brilliance of this guy in explaining these theories, is on a par with the brilliance of Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, etc in developing these theories...

@zyntolaz Ай бұрын

Nice synopsis of the basics of how QED works. However, you need to point out that, unlike photons and electrodynamics, the color force carriers ALSO carry the color charge. It is BECAUSE the gluons carry charge they have so much energy that manifests as mass. Contrast to photons which carry no charge of the force they mediate.

@ronjon7942 Ай бұрын

Huh. K, that helps, thnx.

@charlesdrury9712 Ай бұрын

Well it’s nice to see an opinion that is Based on facts you must do a lot of studying like I do yes I find quantum mechanics in general very interesting specially the Higgs bozon quantum field

@DB-ho8cc Ай бұрын

After studying physics in school for years, I appreciate the simple things we don't know more than how all those simple things interact.

@Johnny-bm7ry Ай бұрын

The more I learn about how the universe works on a fundamental level the more I realize how little we actually know.

@theklaus7436 Ай бұрын

I don’t agree! Get 400 years back and see what we have achieved! A lot of unknowns- yes! But we are still infants in physics

@chamajid Ай бұрын

No it's just that the layers keep going deeper and deeper. Never ending.

@jasonwiley798 19 күн бұрын

Does He-2 exist? This would be useful to study, as it would show the strength or the nuclear binding force relative to the em repulsive force. Perhaps this is known already.

@ARdave311 19 күн бұрын

Yea man Iv always been a believer but when you ponder the universe it’s about as close as you can get to proving a god to me, it’s incredible

@jasonwiley798 17 күн бұрын

@@ARdave311 in other words, you believe in magical beings. I believe in facts.

@Kaffeesuchti1985 Ай бұрын

Arvin, just another GREAT Video by you and your team!!! Thank you for this comprehendable explanation of the strong force(s)! Keep the great content up! 👍👍👍

@tonipejic2645 17 күн бұрын

Amazing video, can't believe I didn't find this channel earlier. I love that you go to the "we don't know yet why" part, it's really important for understanding, it's something that schools don't do

@joshualee3059 Ай бұрын

Thanks Arvin! You've the clearest and frankly best quality science videos Ive seen on the web!

@matt_w Ай бұрын

The photon box thought experiment is the clearest explanation I've heard for why bound energy acts like mass. That is, oscillating force carriers can transfer momentum even though they're massless, and they resist an aggregate change in momentum because it creates a gradient for momentum transfer at the boundary, kind of like how a spring attached across the inside of a box makes it harder to move the box parallel to the spring's action.

@Turbulence1976 Ай бұрын

This was one of your best so far! The part where mentioning mass being a fraction heavier when they have more energy was very informative and something I had wondered about. Also explains the difference between the strong force and the strong nuclear force. Great work!

@chrisdickens4862 Ай бұрын

This was a very good video. I’m going to watch it a few more times. This is the best I’ve heard QCD explained. Thanks so much!

@Horribilus Ай бұрын

Arvin always makes me say “eureka!”

@andycopeland7051 Ай бұрын

Youre one of the best on YT. Thanks for the video keep it up

@roycefruciano5418 Ай бұрын

Another wonderful video. Arvin, you're indispensable to anyone with a thirst and curiosity for the fundamental. Always loved this channel dearly.

@sridharsrinivasan400 Ай бұрын

Arvin - as always, you do an amazing job of explaining the profoundly complex into something very intuitive and easy to comprehend - many thanks! It will be great if every high school physics student (or for that matter, any student) gets to see your videos as part of their curriculum. Makes learning so much more fun when explained the way you do!!

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Great to hear! thank you.

@markzambelli Ай бұрын

12:00 as a layman, this seems to imply that, on the surface, unifying Gravity and Quantum Mechanics shouldn't be anywhere near as difficult as it really is proving to be. Very nice to see yet another clear explanation to such a mind-bending topic as you've outlined here, thankyou.

@i_booba Ай бұрын

From what I understand, the problem with quantum gravity is that it’s only really relevant at very small length scales, or at extremely high energies. Unless you’re at the center of a black hole or at the beginning of time, gravity seems to behave quite classically, and General Relativity + some quantum mechanics here and there depending on the situation (i.e. Hawking Radiation) seems to be adequate. If only we had a particle accelerator with the radius of Neptune’s orbit…. Which, who knows, might happen in a few thousand years. I truly hope we figure it out before then though. That would be cool.

@FireStormOOO_ Ай бұрын

We could probably build such an accelerator much sooner than that, considering we wouldn't need the vacuum equipment and maybe not even the cryo-coolers in space. You only need a handful of space stations to bend the beam, and in micro-gravity, they can be rather spindly, lightly built, unmanned affairs.@@i_booba

@DrDeuteron Ай бұрын

QFT and GR are mathematically incompatible with or without experimental data.

@ISK_VAGR Ай бұрын

Arvin, you're one of the best physics educators on KZfaq, and I appreciate how politely you've responded to my comments amidst the sea of inquiries. I liken the mass of an atomic nucleus to the dynamics of a fidget spinner. The mass seems to arise from the interactions and rotational inertia of the three spinning parts, similar to the weights in a fidget spinner. Does this analogy correctly apply to the concept of atomic weight in physics?

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

There is a kinetic energy component due to the movement of quarks that contributes to the mass, but it is minor. The majority comes from the force keeping quarks glued to each other - you can think of this like a strong compressed spring.

@seanmostert4213 Ай бұрын

Wow 🤯 Arvin that was so well explained and simple. Best explanation I've seen... ever, love your work.

@emergentform1188 Ай бұрын

Brilliant, love it, hooray Arvin!

@jonathancunningham4159 Ай бұрын

The way you explain these concepts makes them click even more! Thank you!

@tnt5320 Ай бұрын

Holy crap legit 10 mins ago I was thinking about this and just got a notification for this topic wow that's insane

@Deletirium Ай бұрын

Please reinstall your Neuralink firmware and reset. KZfaq values your privacy, and will only share your brainwaves with select third-party advertising partners to enhance your online experience.

@johnhamilton7762 Ай бұрын

Is that what's called spooky action at a distance?

@ilya4759 Ай бұрын

Actually, it's called Synchronicity....but who knows, maybe it's rooted in entanglement 🤷‍♂️

@yinyang2385 Ай бұрын

Or maybe your presence in "this" moment of having experienced the topic had an influence on you and your timeline from 10 minutes ago.

@Rationalific Ай бұрын

Fascinating as always!

@SmogandBlack Ай бұрын

Fantastic video, as always 😊.

@moopius Ай бұрын

I find it amazing that E=MC squared... not some fraction but exactly the speed of light squared x whatever the mass is.

@icaleinns6233 Ай бұрын

nature really seems to hate fractions, it only seems to like integers.

@FireStormOOO_ Ай бұрын

I think that's another facet of both E=mc^2 and the classical definition of energy being special cases of the same equation. Cool in any case, especially in that it's true of any system of units that defines Energy in a similar way.

@DrDeuteron Ай бұрын

Joules are kilograms time (meters per second) squared ..so two Ftw.

@DEMOKRATEN-DEUTSCHLANDS 24 күн бұрын

Me too. Take a look at: E = Mc² E/c = M*c E*T/L = M*L/T and think about the last one. Energy for a Time per Length is equal to Mass for a Length per Time.

@avinut Ай бұрын

Best explanation I have heard yet. Thanks!

@musicman9023 Ай бұрын

As usual GREAT video, your ability to summarize complex physics topics is second to none these days!

@andreyassa7638 Ай бұрын

This video is the best about QCD I've ever seen so far. Thanks a lot!

@Qrexx1 Ай бұрын

The last part of the video omg thank you! Finally someone explains this. I was always confused about what keeps protons/neutrons together vs vs what keeps quarks together. Great video!

@Pangolier Ай бұрын

I got the part where they guy is driving a car, but need to catch up on the rest.

@kevinbenitez42 Ай бұрын

All you gotta know is that it is classic Elon musk driving the car

@ronjon7942 Ай бұрын

Chuckle

@peterflynn9123 Ай бұрын

Glad I'm not the only one😂

@sarass1234 Ай бұрын

Arvin...❤❤❤❤❤thank you for this wonderful video

@andoletube Ай бұрын

You have an extraordinary gift for teaching advanced ideas in a very accessible way, Arvin. Thank-you for all your great work and devotion to education.

@Richardincancale Ай бұрын

Very interesting distinction between strong nuclear force and strong force. Can’t wait for someone to figure how to make a Quark bomb that will put to shame all our feeble thermonuclear weapons!

@DrDeuteron Ай бұрын

No quark bombs.

@luudest Ай бұрын

The intresting thing that Einstein found e = mc^2 without knowing about binding energy and stuff like that.

@juliavixen176 Ай бұрын

Yeah, it's the "light in a box of mirrors" model, which wasn't mentioned at all in this video. It's literally how you derive m=E/c² from momentum. (Also, Poincaré did it too.)

@luudest Ай бұрын

@@juliavixen176 yes indeed! After Einstein the relationship between energy and mass was found many times more in other circumstances.

@MrIamshahid36 Ай бұрын

As usual amazing stuff!!!!

@BetzalelMC Ай бұрын

Arvin, thank you very much for such in depth and fascinating content! And thx even more for finally explaining what EVERY single one of my teachers failed to answer: my question to them was, if e=mc2, what does m=e/c2 mean; and you did so masterfully I might add! It may seem trivial as it seems to answer itself when simply reading it aloud, but I was always met with silence and the lesson moving on; not one of them mentioned this was Einsteins actual postulate… honestly love this video and admittedly have much more to say but I believe it may be too in depth for a comment to a video; thanks again!

@Sherlock_The_Corgi Ай бұрын

He’ve sad “The energy is in my mass” so quickly that I decided to listen to it again, just to be sure.

@XtreeM_FaiL Ай бұрын

I am too lazy to listen it again because all my energy is in my mass.

@ILLUMINATED-1 Ай бұрын

All my energy is in my ass, it is known

@Mysoi123 Ай бұрын

For anyone who still doesn't get it, it's very simple. I will explain it this way. So, if you have a massless photon moving through space with extra energy E, you won't see any mass. But once the photon is absorbed by a black hole, the mass of that black hole increases by the energy of the photon over c^2. Or if the photon is bouncing around the box of perfect mirrors, the energy of the photon is also added to the box of mirrors because the photon bouncing around the mirror adds pressure to the side of the box, therefore increasing its inertia. It also contributes to the curvature of spacetime, thereby increasing the box's gravity. So what it means is that while energy is a fundamental property of an object, mass is not. Mass is an emergent property; it only arises when energy is trapped. The same is the case for the interaction with the Higgs Field. Particles have masses because the process of the interaction confines them, without the Higgs Field, they are massless particles.

@KORGULL-ISOLATES Ай бұрын

WOW!!!!! Minhdand 1775 !!!!!! You and so far ONLY YOU have managed to get a 58 year old Heroin Addict, grade 9 high school dropout to finally understand the mass - energy concept, When you described the energy being added to the box because the mass ONLY becomes relevant because the energy making it be able to hit the mirrors in the first place allows the mass to show itself when energy DOES SOMETHING like hitting the mirrors or a measurement of sorts, I can't explain as well as I understand though, I do I swear I never did before But I do Now!!!! Thanks again 💓👍🧠👍💓 p.s. sorry Arvin but minhdang1775 did what you couldn't!!!!😓

@Mysoi123 Ай бұрын

@@KORGULL-ISOLATES Thanks! I’m glad my comment was helpful.

@kylelochlann5053 Ай бұрын

You have it backwards: Mass is fundamental, energy is not. The mass is the fundamental invariant object, the norm of the 4-momentum, while the energy is the observer dependent time-coordinate of the object's spacetime momentum.

@Mysoi123 Ай бұрын

@@kylelochlann5053 ||P||² = E²/c² - (P¹)² - (P²)² - (P³)² Yes, the norm of 4-momentum is related to the mass of the object, but for this to happen, the norm also depends on the rest frame. But which object is at rest in that frame? Probably the collection of atoms, so the collection is at rest. However, if you pick an individual atom, you've just selected a different frame. Thus, momentum in the time direction or energy is actually related to the spatial momentum in the collection. In the frame you've picked, you have that mass invariant, but if you pick another particle, you lose some of the mass, seeing them only as kinetic or potential energies, which then turns into spatial momentum due to gamma.

@Mysoi123 Ай бұрын

@@kylelochlann5053 Yes, but since the norm of the 4-momentum vector is invariant and directly related to mass, you must have a rest frame where the mass exists. However, which object is at rest in that frame? Probably a collection of atoms. So, if you pick a random atom that is moving in that collection, you have just selected a different frame, and some of the mass that contributes to that collection is actually kinetic and potential energies, which take the form of gamma. Thus, thanks to the Lorentz factor of that particle, the total energy and the norm of the momentum stay constant, but you lose some mass when you select a different frame. Unless you are dealing with a single point particle, then yes, its mass is invariant in all frames. But what I mean here is when you change to another frame, some of the mass that contributes to the total energy of something could turn into the value of gamma, so the total energy stays constant.

@e20052 Ай бұрын

I love your content arvin ❤

@talleyhoe846 Ай бұрын

Another one of AA's brilliant videos that gives a far better and clearer explanation than an hour spent in the classroom.

@shadowoffire4307 Ай бұрын

Arvin you always go deep and pushes the boundaries and envelope. But sometimes you not only pushes the envelope but shred it. YOU DINT PUSH THE ENVELOPE SHREDDED IT.

@nHans Ай бұрын

If you use *m = E/c²* blindly, you could end up with the *relativistic mass* instead of the *rest mass.* In the 20th century-when I studied relativity-professors nonchalantly taught that mass increases as velocity increases. However, nowadays, this concept of relativistic mass is *deprecated.* We don't mention relativistic mass anymore. We admit to only one type of mass, rest mass m (which we earlier used to write as m₀). And we use the more complete equation for the total energy of an object: *E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²* This reduces to the more familiar *E = mc²* _only if its momentum (or equivalently, its velocity) is zero._ The thermal energy of an object-as you rightly mentioned-does contribute to its mass, even though, according to statistical mechanics, thermal energy is nothing but the sum of the kinetic energies of the individual particles that make up the object. As do its internal potential energy, chemical bond energy, quark binding energy, nucleon binding energy etc.

@ronjon7942 Ай бұрын

Thank you.

@bardsamok9221 Ай бұрын

"We don't mention relativistic mass anymore" So are you saying thermal energy from kinetic energy of particles increase mass but kinetic energy of the moving object doesn't? If relativistic mass is an obsolete concept, how do we properly explain the warping of space-time, the theory still holds I assume? Without relativistic mass how do we understand particle accelerators? Or photons? Is it not correct to simply say sentences like: 'Higgs bosons contain a relative mass in the form of energy' ?

@nHans Ай бұрын

@@bardsamok9221 That's correct: The thermal energy of an object-which is the kinetic energy of the particles (atoms, molecules etc.) that make up the object-increases the mass of the object, but not of the particles themselves. However, if the object as a whole is moving-meaning, its center of mass is moving-it gains kinetic energy but no additional mass. Again, whenever I say "mass" without qualifying it, I mean "rest mass." Look, in the 20th century, everybody and their grandmother was talking about "relativistic mass" as if it was a real thing. Including my physics professors. The concept is really simple: If some object has total energy E, which includes its rest mass and kinetic energy, then due to SR's mass-energy equivalence, we get a quantity E/c² having units of mass, which they called relativistic mass. That simplicity is what made it ubiquitous in the textbooks of those days. I myself did lots of calculations involving relativistic mass. Such as calculating the relativistic mass of photons as Mrel = E/c² = hf/c². Another "advantage" of using relativistic mass was that it allowed you to keep using Newton's formulas like F=ma and p=mv to calculate the acceleration and momentum of objects traveling at relativistic velocities. Which is why many people from my generation and earlier generations still use relativistic mass whenever possible. However, other issues arise with relativistic mass that can only be solved by using rest mass and Einstein's equations. Which is why physicists and professors started moving away from relativistic mass. Nowadays they apply Einstein's equations directly to objects moving at relativistic velocities; they don't try to artificially perpetuate Newton's equations by using relativistic mass. Special and General Relativity concepts such as warping of space-time are all explained by Einstein's equations without resorting to relativistic mass. I hope that answers your doubts. BTW, the Higgs Boson does have rest mass, but a photon doesn't. The Higgs Boson's total energy comes from its rest mass plus-if it's moving-its kinetic energy. The photon's energy hf comes entirely from its kinetic energy.

@Mr-wv1tu Ай бұрын

Thank you @nHans! So great to read something here, from a person that actually KNOWS what he is talking about. For some reason, Arvins videos tends to draw a big part of the nutcase-crowd that just love to talk about their homecooked "theories", and how "mainstream science" are conspiring to hold down any brave, freethinking (e.i. crazy) person, that challenge them.

@spobleteo Ай бұрын

Excellent as always

@sarass1234 Ай бұрын

What a quality you have... Knowledge and tenacity to make it simple for us...🎉🎉... Just waiting for ur next videos.... My god im more excited to listen to u than my boyfriend 😮

@Deletirium Ай бұрын

Some flerf somewhere is shaking its head at this, smirking, and thinking "oh SURE, I bet you think quarks are spinning balls too... only the awakened understand quarks don't actually exist, because I can't see them. "

@wthomas5697 Ай бұрын

Well of course, consciousness itself creates reality. If consciousness isn't happening then reality doesn't exist, heh, heh. I can't tell you how many times I've seen that argued.

@siquod Ай бұрын

Well, it's a valid philosophical point actually. If quarks cannot be observed in isolation even in principle, then do they really exist as fundamental entities, or are they just a mental construct to help us with bookkeeping about the various charges and symmetries of hadrons?

@charlievane Ай бұрын

I think the philosophical point is that we label what patterns we think we recognize, and it's a gray area where exactly do we draw the line between a pattern='an entity' and a pattern='bookkeeping'

@wthomas5697 Ай бұрын

@@siquodNo, it's not.

@siquod Ай бұрын

@@wthomas5697 Why? Simply saying "It's not" doesn't make it so and brings no insight. @charlievane understood that this is a subtle issue, but you seem not to. The question what exactly it means to be "one thing" is not easy to answer, and neither is the question of what it means to be "fundamental". For example, between the various variants of string theory there are dualities between two different types of string, and depending on some parameter value either of them can be considered "fundamental". I will readily admit that the quark model does much more than just keep track of charges and symmetries. It can be used to predict particle scattering and lifetimes. But let's not confuse a model with reality, no matter how good it fits; the ontological question of what the "real" objects are remains: Maybe they are unknowable, maybe the concept doesn't really make sense if we think too hard about it (as a lot of concepts seem to do, but if you declare concepts incoherent because of that you become a fool), maybe there's a clear answer we haven't found yet, or maybe "pragmatism makes right" like you seem to think and the best model is reality. Only history shows that models have been superseded by better ones that work in radically different ways from which the old model merely emerges as a special case approximation.

@Rugopoly Ай бұрын

✨ im convinced that 99% of mass is from another dimension we can’t observe-perhaps one that is tightly rolled up so tiny and outside our view we will never observe it physically, just mathematically

@vvillem9 Ай бұрын

I also smoke weed

@JarBarBare Ай бұрын

@@vvillem9💀💀

@Amethyst_Friend Ай бұрын

You must be rather easy to convince about a thing.

@ilya4759 Ай бұрын

Occam's razor. We have mathematical models that allow us to predict the amount of energy. Why switch to a theory with zero evidence?

@alancham4 Ай бұрын

It doesn’t have to be tiny, but thinking about higher dimensions isn’t what the standard model is about…

@wesleywashington1251 20 күн бұрын

We don't need to understand everything you say to remain fascinated!! Great video!!

@lisac.9393 Ай бұрын

Great explanation!

@danberm1755 Ай бұрын

Great Video Arvin! 👍 If you're saying that a compressed spring has greater mass then it sounds to me like particle bonds warp spacetime more when under stress.

@AndrewBackhouse1 Ай бұрын

Another great video, my friend

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Thank you! Cheers!

@user-uk9sb4qi6h Ай бұрын

Really great video. Thank you!

@Simmo87 Ай бұрын

Awesome awesome video. Great explainer. Thank you!

@hareeshpentela5948 Ай бұрын

Wonderful!

@rampy4963 Ай бұрын

You are a legend. Love this content.

@bettekavalec1454 Ай бұрын

ALVIN, what a gift you have! You present VERY DEEP CONCEPTS in an understandable way!👏👏👏👏

@ericjome7284 Ай бұрын

Excellent explanation.

@esra_erimez Ай бұрын

This is a very *strong* video about mass and energy.

@5ty717 Ай бұрын

Very precise. Very clear.

@385lima Ай бұрын

Very good explanation, thank you.

@Amethyst_Friend Ай бұрын

Superb intro!

@dave70a Ай бұрын

I love all videos from Arvin Ash.

@criz6825 12 сағат бұрын

Wow. Just wow. Ty so much for this video. I'm falling in love with your channel.

@michael195b Ай бұрын

I've actually been wondering about gluons and what the actual mass comes from in the e=mc2 equation and you've explained it perfectly. Another great video, thanks

@jamescarnevale3312 Ай бұрын

Thank you for the clarity in differentiating between the strong force and the strong nuclear force. BZ.

@juanantonioalbacetecalero6538 Ай бұрын

Beautiful... Pure poetry!

@david.thomas.108 Ай бұрын

Another fascinating and informative video, many thanks

@FATHERbBernard777 Ай бұрын

VERY INTERESTING !!!

@user-fz1nh3mt1c Ай бұрын

i adore watching your videos. they are so informative and at the same time leaves me asking other questions =)

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

There is no theoretical basis for such a postulate.

@xtieburn Ай бұрын

Something I found interesting, (Though it does complicate things a bit so is often not covered.) from when a Professor Strassler covered this, is how there is a mess of other quarks in the proton. A big jumble of quarks, anti-quarks, and gluons popping in and out as they zip around, with the valence three being the imbalance that makes a proton a proton. Apparently its only relatively recently (Last twenty years or so I think.) that calculations are taking on the full impact of all this mess.

@stevoofd Ай бұрын

I feel like I've seen you output a bunch of videos on quarks and the strong force, but this might be the most inclusive and all encompassing one yet, easy to digest as well! Have a coffee on me ☕

@cubeflinger Ай бұрын

Arvin, you don't get enough credit on KZfaq. Absolutely excellent as always

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

thanks for that

@patrickmeneses3421 14 күн бұрын

You have a fantastic content, bro

@shahidafwan1102 Ай бұрын

Nicely explained

@eveeseki9677 Ай бұрын

Love the 3D Arvin!

@pabloa4672 Ай бұрын

You are brilliant as you explain. Greetings from Argentina

@kagannasuhbeyoglu Ай бұрын

I love this channel very much, I learn a lot about physics. Thank you Arvin Ash 🙏

@wthomas5697 Ай бұрын

Interesting stuff.

@ValerieFulmer Ай бұрын

What little I understood was fascinating.

@nyamsurenganbileg1777 Ай бұрын

Thank you you explain everything as best as

@b0b3rt2 Ай бұрын

I’m glad this channel happens to exist in this universe

@louisdetulleo1347 Ай бұрын

Thanks Arvin, you are the best at explaining quantum physics without overly dumbing it down.

@marxtheenigma873 Ай бұрын

Glad to have this info. Helps me think more about how my hard magic system works. Its exotic particles with energy bound in them. This energy allows the magic to do work. When all the energy in the magic particle is used up, the particle falls apart, and you need to get more energized magic particles.

@rohilpatel8846 Ай бұрын

Never had this visualisation before Just beautiful ❤️

@Nedski42YT Ай бұрын

The strong "nuclear" force and the strong force are different. I've been reading, but not understanding, that they are not the same thing since I was in elementary school. I can't speak "math." I've tried many times to learn it. Thanks for explaining it without overcomplicating it.

@daffidavit Ай бұрын

Very interesting and informative. Simple enough for me to explain it to sombody to make me "look" smart.

@SheSweetLikSugarNSavage Ай бұрын

You're awesome at explaining things clearly. 😊

@ChrisAnonymous Ай бұрын

Ill never forget my professor ending the lecture with, “everything you knew is wrong”

@nicolascalandruccio6069 Ай бұрын

Extra clear, as always. @0:35 there's a mistake: mv^2 should be on numerator instead of denominator.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

yep. my editor messed up and I missed it. Thanks.

@dnswhh7382 Ай бұрын

Very interesting and good video, thank you. The point I did not really get about this is, why these 3 quarks are a form of potential energy to begin with.

@leonarddarker2798 Ай бұрын

Fantastic video.

@benoitgendron8880 Ай бұрын

Fantastic! thanks

@darianagnew6524 31 минут бұрын

So fascinating!!!

@amirhosseinshoghi7985 Ай бұрын

Hi Arvin Thanks. It was awesome. I think there's a typo in the frame at 00:37 in the formula of kinetic energy.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Yes, someone else pointed that out too. I missed it in editing. Thanks.

@ronjon7942 Ай бұрын

The rationale for using color notation 7:45 to denote quark charges is pretty cool. I always thought it was goofy nerd humor, but now I see there was thought behind it. Mr. Ash, do you have an explanatory video concerning the Higgs Field? Seems like familiarity with that would help some understanding presented in this video. And thank you for your work.

@ArvinAsh Ай бұрын

Higgs explanation: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iJ2UpqR0vrq4iHk.html