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

[@ArvinAsh]

(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.

[@DylanStone-w4s]

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... (Same for the graviton and the condensed pieces in the graviton but the condensed pieces in the graviton are more condensed and compact more than the graviton so they don't quantum entangle with the graviton but their gravitational field does) 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😂 for more even updated physics from the aliens look up Dr blitz on KZbin

[@keiths.taylor5293]

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]

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

[@rafaelgonzalez4175]

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.

[@DylanStone-w4s]

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

[@stevenjones8575]

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]

yeah exactly

[@zualapips1638]

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.

[@jasonwiley798]

Never stop asking why . When you stop you give up. Someday we may actually know why electrons and quarks have

[@jasonwiley798]

An electric charge, or quarks and gluons have color charge ( whatever that is). Stop asking why and you've accepted magic.

[@Katatonya]

​@@TrevoltIV God is also the answer humans chose throughout history when they didn't have an answer. Lately people latch onto mechanisms that feel like you'll never reach the true answer for. i.e Big Bang, Gravity and in this case the fundamental mechanism of why electrons have charge and so on. Here's what I think. Down the line of that apparent infinite casual chain of mechanism, as we reach the truly fundamental mechanism, if it exists or if it doesn't, if a transhuman being that knows the answer, would tell it to you now, there's a good chance you won't comprehend it. Just like me telling an ant why I'm depressed, it won't comprehend me. Just because we aren't intelligent enough doesn't mean the answer is God. That's the easy way out. You can choose the easy way out if that helps you sleep at night for sure, but you must admin, nor me nor you do we truly know the answer. So what I mean is I can't disprove a God, nor can you prove one. And you must admit that. Furthermore in this context, this kind of God has nothing to do with religion imo. Anyways, you know what's exciting? Soon AI will reach ASI intelligence. Fun stuff will happen then!

[@daytonanderson2804]

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!

[@jasonwiley798]

Strong force and binding force

[@gator1984atcomcast]

Same here!

[@OneAmongBillions]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[@lyndalexfactor6282]

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]

"QCD"???

[@ronjon7942]

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

[@cyclonasaurusrex1525]

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

[@iridium1911]

Chromo = color, in reference to colorforce

[@ramrod0209]

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".

[@horsethi3f]

I absolutely love this channel.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you so much! Glad you enjoy it!

[@DB-ho8cc]

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

[@zyntolaz]

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]

Huh. K, that helps, thnx.

[@charlesdrury9712]

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

[@edinfific2576]

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]

Thank you. And Welcome.

[@robhappier]

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

[@billant2]

​@@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]

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]

@@localverse woah woah i wanna join this party.

[@RandomNooby]

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...

[@matt_w]

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.

[@tylerdurden3722]

I was just wondering something similar. I wondered if gluons have momentum like photons do. And if such lightspeed momentum carrying particles bouncing between 3 points would create an inertia-like effect, when attempting to move the 3 quarks in a direction parallel to the plane of those 3 points. It would cause the same results we see when attempting to accelerate a proton "past the speed of light". But then I wondered about the quarks and electrons, and my thought experiment fell apart lol. One needs a massless container for this to work.

[@markzambelli]

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]

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_]

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]

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

[@joostheijkoop]

Thanks!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks so much!

[@Johnny-bm7ry]

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

[@theklaus7436]

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]

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

[@jasonwiley798]

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]

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]

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

[@halfisher3598]

I am COMPLETELY amazed at the amount of understanding that has been developed. Amazing.

[@Turbulence1976]

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!

[@b0b3rt2]

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

[@talleyhoe846]

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

[@sridharsrinivasan400]

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]

Great to hear! thank you.

[@Kaffeesuchti1985]

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]

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

[@Baka_Komuso]

Arvin always makes me say “eureka!”

[@roycefruciano5418]

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

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

13:53 Wait WHAT? I have been taught COUNTLESS times in online science videos that the force keeping protons and neutrons together IS THE SAME force keeping quarks together, and is called "the strong force".

[@andycopeland7051]

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

[@christianmuller2863]

Danke!

[@ArvinAsh]

bitte

[@ISK_VAGR]

Arvin, you're one of the best physics educators on KZbin, 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]

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.

[@chrisdickens4862]

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!

[@FATHERbBernard777]

VERY INTERESTING !!!

[@stevenpike7857]

"We don't know why they stay glued together... so lets just call it a "force" and be done with it!"

[@ArvinAsh]

huh?

[@Qrexx1]

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!

[@joshualee3059]

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

[@tnt5320]

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

[@Deletirium]

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

[@ilya4759]

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

[@yinyang2385]

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

[@christianmuller2863]

Danke!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks so much!

[@jonathancunningham4159]

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

[@seanmostert4213]

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

[@Mysoi123]

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]

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]

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

[@kylelochlann5053]

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]

@@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]

​@@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.

[@nicolascalandruccio]

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

[@ArvinAsh]

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

[@moopius]

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

[@icaleinns6233]

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

[@FireStormOOO_]

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]

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

[@DEMOKRATEN-DEUTSCHLANDS]

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.

[@everythingisalllies2141]

Its amazing like a startrek episode is amazing. Because its fiction, fantasy. Arvin confuses two different types of energy and bundles it as one. Atomic energy is not like kinetic energy. And e=mc 2 is based on a failed theory of Special Relativity.

[@AndrewBackhouse1]

Another great video, my friend

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@avinut]

Best explanation I have heard yet. Thanks!

[@musicman9023]

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

[@shadowoffire4307]

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.

[@Pangolier]

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

[@kevinbenitez42]

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

[@ronjon7942]

Chuckle

[@peterflynn9123]

Glad I'm not the only one😂

[@louisdetulleo1347]

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

[@Nedski42YT]

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.

[@jasonwiley798]

They are very different, and this I wonder if they should be considered two different forces.

[@Nedski42YT]

@@jasonwiley798 Maybe even give them more distinct names?

[@jasonwiley798]

The people who thought up names for these forces were not marketing geniuses. The names do not help clarify what they are and do. Thus, I prefer binding force rather than strong nuclear force to match binding energy and distinguish it from the strong force holding quarks together. But I probably wont win this fight.

[@jasonwiley798]

Seriously you learned about the strong force in grade school?

[@Nedski42YT]

@@jasonwiley798 I read many books about science in elementary school and throughout my life. I was not taught about anything scientific in elementary school. I learned the names of some of the fundamental forces but had no idea how they work. I still don't. 😮‍💨

[@andoletube]

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]

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]

No quark bombs.

[@jasonwiley798]

I can wait for that

[@Th3_UnKnOwN_PrO]

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

[@nHans]

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]

Thank you.

[@bardsamok9221]

"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]

​@@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]

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.

[@jasonwiley798]

If the binding force (aka strong nuclear force) of nucleons is stronger than the coulomb repulsive force, there would be no "need" for neutro and. Adding in neutrons contributes additional binding force but no additional coulomb force. So why doesn't h-50 exist? 1 proton and 49 neutrons bound together very tightly

[@BetzalelMC]

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!

[@luudest]

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

[@juliavixen176]

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]

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

[@jasonwiley798]

@@juliavixen176 It's just match derived from Mawells's equations. but understanding its significance in physics is pure genius.

[@Christopher._M]

Quality content once again. These concepts ate so difficult to understand from books or classs but these vides dpped up that process many times and ate great reference

[@Sherlock_The_Corgi]

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]

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

[@ILLUMINATED-1]

All my energy is in my ass, it is known

[@sarass1234]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@@siquodNo, it's not.

[@siquod]

@@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.

[@danberm1755]

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.

[@Rugopoly]

✨ 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]

I also smoke weed

[@JarBarBare]

@@vvillem9💀💀

[@Amethyst_Friend]

You must be rather easy to convince about a thing.

[@ilya4759]

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]

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

[@esra_erimez]

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

[@sarass1234]

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

[@stevoofd]

Bedankt

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks so much!

[@ChrisAnonymous]

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

[@SmogandBlack]

Fantastic video, as always 😊.

[@emergentform1188]

Brilliant, love it, hooray Arvin!

[@cubeflinger]

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

[@ArvinAsh]

thanks for that

[@wesleywashington1251]

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

[@Simmo87]

Awesome awesome video. Great explainer. Thank you!

[@bettekavalec1454]

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

[@markmeiri1518]

This is fantastic!!! I will def. be showing this to my classes

[@385lima]

Very good explanation, thank you.

[@ronjon7942]

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]

Higgs explanation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGjHpHR5jrmHjqc

[@amirhosseinshoghi7985]

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]

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

[@ericjome7284]

Excellent explanation.

[@andreyassa7638]

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

[@Sebastian-v9l8l]

Really great video. Thank you!

[@e20052]

I love your content arvin ❤

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

13:55 _... and also makes up a part of the mass of the atom._ More precisely, it _diminishes_ its mass by a small amount because in this case the binding energy is negative because there's no confinement.

[@xtieburn]

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.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

Dear Arvin, may the Strong Force be with you.😎

[@ArvinAsh]

Live long and prosper, my friend!

[@MrIamshahid36]

As usual amazing stuff!!!!

[@jamescarnevale3312]

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

[@stevoofd]

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 ☕

[@gerbre1]

1:40 Can there ever be a final answer? If A exists because of B and C, you can always ask what is B and what is C and so on.

[@GuitaRN-David]

I love all videos from Arvin Ash.

[@VikingTeddy]

I love the feeling when you finally understand some small part of phenomenon, allowing you to grasp a slightly larger piece of the puzzle. Which then completely contradicts what you just thought you understood, making your grasp how little you actually understand.

[@rex7486]

14:10 - Wait... a new sub-atomic particle is created from nothing as a result of a proton stretch? Does it appear out of thin air, or does the proton lose some of its own mass to create the new particle?

[@Blameberg]

Yeah. Answer him. Im curious too

[@david.thomas.108]

Another fascinating and informative video, many thanks

[@That_Freedom_Guy]

When we are adult enough to ask childlike questions, we reveal the wonder that is all around us in this marvellous, mysterious universe. ✨️

[@pabloa4672]

You are brilliant as you explain. Greetings from Argentina

[@w01dnick]

12:05 it's easy to understand how it creates gravity, but how it affects inertial mass? Isn't inertial mass described by Higgs field and it's ~100 times less. But at the same time we have identical gravitational and inertial masses.

[@lisac.9393]

Great explanation!

[@semantia-ai]

Excellent as always

[@patrickmeneses3421]

You have a fantastic content, bro

[@shethtejas104]

WOW... Arvin, this is probably one of the best videos anyone will ever make on the subject. You have packed SO much information in these 15 mins that an average viewer would take years discovering on his/her own. And the kind of curious questions you ask is what makes your content so appealing. Thanks to you, I now know that the strong force and strong nuclear force are two different forces. I thought they were the same! The quantum chromodynamics will need another listen as those bits are heavy for an average viewer like me who is untrained in advanced physics. Blockbuster video. You are the winner of the best physics video 2024 in my books :) Now if I may, I want to ask a simple question. Please try to find time to answer it: lets say there is a can of pure gasoline and I set it on fire with a spark. It would explode. After the explosion, if I were to somehow weigh all the gases that were released during the explosion and the little soot that resulted from the fire, would that add up to the weight of the gasoline before explosion? In other words, Whenever anything is combusted, could we equate the mass of fuel before the combustion with the mass of all the vapors and soot left after the combustion? Is there any possibility of a very very minute amount of mass-energy conversion involved in your everyday combustion process? Many thanks. Greetings.

[@kagannasuhbeyoglu]

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

[@dhudach]

Your videos are outstanding. For all things in quantum mechanics, you are the 'go to' channel. My ONLY picky comment is your ad placement. I get that you have sponsors. But I just think that interrupting the presentation with " .... we'll get to that in a minute" kind of cheapens the content. Put the ads at the beginning or end. Faithful subscribers will respect your channel and your sponsors. There are already far too many ad interruptions on youtube. More is not better. Aside from all that, thank you for your research and well prepared presentations.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks for your comment. Almost all sponsors require placement in the middle of videos. That's why you see them there. I don't disagree that it can be disruptive. But without sponsors, I and many other creators would not be able to create videos.

[@dhudach]

@@ArvinAshYes, I completely understand. I know that quality content providers who depend on sponsors are in a tough spot. I guess it's my hope that with my comment and others like it, your sponsors will either become aware of the impact or be reminded that the ad during the video is disruptive. But as I said, I'm being picky here. I remain a fan and look forward to your quality videos - they provide a great deal of clarity on these difficult topics. Thanks for reading and responding to my comments.

[@frankmartin9023]

Well done Arvin. That was a superb address of this most fundamental area, which is the underbelly of everything that we experience and indeed, are.

[@ArvinAsh]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@anthonybaransky137]

Everything is energy, even matter(which has mass). Just in solid form

[@daveondra1542]

Love it, Arvin! Thanks

[@ronch550]

This is truly one of the finest channels on KZbin.