Higgs.m4v

[@coolbinz9875]

I find these videos strangely therapeutic.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Correct, it is only theoretical. We included it because it is the most consistent way to include quantum gravity with the other forces.

[@CACBCCCU]

The force quanta of fields is carried by particles, as mentioned at 1:31 and these particles are bosons (integral spin). Sometimes it's said, for example, that EM quanta ("photons") carrying a magnetic field are "virtual" EM particles, but my understanding is the quanta of a field do not exist as transient "conservation violating" events as described at 1:49 occurring within the limits of Heisenberg's uncertainty. I would consider such events more as media noise upon which the force quanta ride.

[@stevethebarbarian99]

If a graviton existed, how would it be that it could escape a black hole when light cannot? If the graviton existed, how would it react with space to warp it - or would this not be the way it worked? Does quantum theory rely on it's existence? Awesome video as usual. :)

[@cassiopeiaproject]

Quantum Field Theory constitutes a thorough description of what fields are. Since it is a very successful theory, we can certainly say that we know what fields are -- both particle fields and force fields.

[@modus_ponens]

Thank you, thank you, thank you! This video clarify everything that I have been confused about atomic level. ...Thank you.

[@FHB71]

Great. This is understandable even to a non-physicist. Thank you.

[@EvilApple818]

Higg's Field is EVERYWHERE? Warms my heart :')

[@CACBCCCU]

As noted earlier, I'd question the correctness of saying force fields are manifested through any sort of violation of energy conservation. Though some may refer to force (field) quanta as "virtual" these quanta are, I believe, always real. They're weak individually and numerous and not made for direct visibility, so they're indistinguishable from waves or curved space. It's almost like trying to make out individual water molecules in the ocean. That's my take on it, anyway.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

...and that's what makes science so much fun.

[@metadaptation]

even if we don't find the higgs boson, it was a most excellent hypothesis.

[@CACBCCCU]

I'll consider gauge bosons as existing in bound and unbound states. As far as being a bound force particle, it seems the Higgs should exist only as the glue to something much more massive than a heavy nucleus. Tall order. Does that make it impossible to generate on Earth? I think so. Its signature would also be deeply hidden in the overwhelming noise from the massive thing decaying, I suppose.

[@CACBCCCU]

Gravitons have low energy and long wavelengths, IMO. There's the need for gravitons with super-luminal motion, or maybe long-distance tunneling, for gravitons to be emitted from within the event horizon of a black hole. Supposing a graviton medium is the Higgs field, it seems that the unbound Higgs boson should be even weaker, with a longer wavelength, and it should be cable of traveling faster, or tunneling further, than a graviton. I'm just looking at things from another perspective here.

[@CACBCCCU]

At around 1:30 the video implies that force fields, such as Earth's magnetic field, are carried by "force particles" (so far, so good) and that these "force particles" are "virtual particles" that are so-named "because they violate the conservation of energy rule for extremely short times in order to exist." I'd question the correctness of saying force fields are manifested through any sort of violation of energy conservation.

[@cassiopeiaproject]

All our videos are available at our web site or from Itunes U, see our web site for details about how to find us on Itunes U. Of course ItunesU is a great resource for other science education videos.

[@ActiveStorage]

"but you dont care when and i do" fair enough. my only point was that there is no need to care about such things because it will happen anyway. There are much more important things than just waiting for something to happen peace

[@MITHWORLD1]

Particles and anti-particles colliding create new particles,like the Higgs bosson? I thought they annihilate eachother...Has this something to do with Heissenberg principle? Thank you in advance

[@boodistGeek]

Excellent, clear explanation with informative graphics

[@Neeraj12345678987654]

As the universe expands, shouldn't the Higgs field get more dilute and therefore particles will have less resistance to the Higgs ocean as they whizz around in space making all the particle travels faster. Is this right because this seems too bizarre.

[@CACBCCCU]

At around 2:38 the narrator flips back to conventionality in describing force particles as "real." Rather than violations of energy conservation, it makes more sense to me to say some events involve constructive wave interference with quanta promotion and/or tunneling. These events apparently can occur with promotional transfers over larger distances for weaker particles (via Heisenberg's principle) and the frequency of these events increases with their density. ... Not sure, though.

[@numbers3268]

Too bad this channel is dead, i really wanted to know what the music was.

[@ActiveStorage]

just let them prove their concept to be either right or wrong. No need to say "the sooner they prove it the better"

[@CACBCCCU]

It's like there's a bad edit in narration at 1:54 in this video. The narrator also says "talkin'" around 0:20 which I would say suggests a lack of careful attention to detail.

[@nehorlavazapalka]

It is sad that higgs field came into existence one picosecond after the big bang, before then all particles moved at the speed of light, so according to STR all particles haven't had any chance to experince time....... it is sad that time (or at least the time of our universe) started just planck's time after..........so, what option is right? ...information carried by photons exists forever?

[@saurabhs1996]

gravitons are also predicted string theory

[@revolutionarycomics4781]

what is the name of the second song?

[@stg213]

If quantum physics (and therefore the standard model) relies on carrier particles, then entanglement over long distances makes no sense... at least not in 3D. There are no carrier particles in the standard model that can work at those kind of ranges at which entanglement is observed. Either there are other particle fields that are not yet described... or it works completely differently. Could be that points apart in 3D occupy the same space in a higher dimension... or...

[@Jokker88]

But thats just it, we do not know if the wave function really exists, i'm going to go ahead and quote wikipedia here :P "Whether the wave function is real, and what it represents, are major questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many famous physicists have puzzled over this problem, such as Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Some approaches regard it as merely representing information in the mind of the observer. "

[@rougebopper]

this is awesome. im looking for this type of stuff exactly! does anyone else know of longer ones? quicksilverscreen com has lectures on particle physics for non-physicists. there is also a bunch about classical physics leading up to quantum theory. anyone know where i can get more information rich, easy to watch documentary type videos?

[@MrHirenP]

@cassiopeiaproject Yes, we know what fields are.

[@Jokker88]

Yey the interactions of these force carrying particles does not make sense. They say, how does the apple know to be attracted to the earth. There needs to be a particle mediating the force. But a particle moving between the apple and the earth cannot create a mechanical effect of the apple falling. And the apple doesn't know anything of the fact that it's being attracted, it's a logical fallacy to say how does a particle know what to do.

[@ActiveStorage]

i said "waiting for something to happen" is a waste of time. re-read the previous post

[@ActiveStorage]

logical fallacy. since it is very successful theory we can certainly say that this theory is working. so far so good. we can not say that we know what fields are because we know that theory is working. knowing the mathematical model doesn't mean knowing the actual field described by this model

[@Kijzer13]

Sure, if you want to wait another 1000 years thats fine. I like to think that we will at least get to see wich theory will be proven right in in this lifetime.

[@Kijzer13]

I dont know how long you'll have to wait no, but you dont care when and i do. So now we're back at my frist comment, that the sooner CERN is ready to do tests the better. What if Newton waited another 100 years with publishing his work, where what that leave us today?

[@droctopuse]

what if dark matter creates the higgs field

[@ActiveStorage]

Please stop comparing "field" concept with "matter" concept. We KNOW what wind velocity or air temperature is. we DO NOT KNOW what magnetic field is

[@ActiveStorage]

how can u possibly know how long I will have to wait? maybe in this lifetime maybe not. They will prove it anyway so chill out

[@Jokker88]

Am i the only one who finds the idea of fields and forces and force carrying particles as extremely unintuitive and extremely assumption based? Purely from the perspective that they are a complex system of interaction which currently has no explanation for existing. I have an idea of a single underlying mechanism based on four spatial dimensions. Because there is no creation existance itself, at the very core must be unbelievably simple for for it to exist in the first place. :/

[@Kijzer13]

Why is that you ask? Thats the same as asking what good fysics does and why people spend time on it. Well, fysics shows time upon time that it is the only way to get us closer to the answers that has occupied mankind's thoughts since the beginning of time. And if that isnt a good enough reason for you then maybe try to consider the next time you watch a you tube video that fysics and the search for the "truth" made that very video possible.

[@ActiveStorage]

"The sooner they prove higgs-boson's exsist the better" and why is that? Cant wait to discover the theory of everything? )do u really think we will discover "the god's particles" that give everything its mass property? The only thing we are going to discover is new smaller fundamental particles. The more energy u put in the smaller particles u gonna get. There is no end to this. well there is.. infinitely large amount of energy input might do the job but.. lol. yeah