What Is The Higgs Field? Matt Strassler [Ep. 460]

[@DrBrianKeating]

Is the Higgs the last major discovery in particle physics ?

[@mjs01230]

:-) I'll bite! I'd say "no." There are too many cosmic unknowns. In particular, there are clearly important issues (such as the specific masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the elementary forces) where we have huge gaps in our knowledge. Someday those will be filled. In the meantime, there are many moderately important things to learn: the masses and nature of the neutrinos may finally be clarified in the next few years. However, that said, the Higgs boson's discovery (and the equally important discovery that there is [tentatively] just one, and that there are [tentatively] no other particles associated with it) might be the last earth-shaking ones for quite a while. For this first time in about 120 years, we have no guarantees of any new particles or any grand insights within immediate reach. So whether the next revolution will be in one year, ten years, or a hundred is impossible to guess. -- Matt Strassler

[@AKA_SimplyHuman]

A star is a bubble in the ocean of plasma or the electric field. Gravity is the force against the star or bubble. Exactly the same as a bubble in the ocean. So simple and obvious.

[@michellefranklin3182]

There will be more to come. Gravity still has some answers.

[@mjs01230]

@@michellefranklin3182 So does the "Standard Model" itself. There are 20 unexplained parameters in the Standard Model, and at least a couple of unmeasured parameters. There is no explanation for why there are three neutrinos, six quarks, etc., or why we apparently have one and only one Higgs field. Etc. Some of these questions may have answers that involve discoveries that don't have to do with gravity. -- Matt Strassler

[@michellefranklin3182]

@@mjs01230 Thanks Matt for that.

[@markcounseling]

I started reading Matt Strassler's blog in 2012. Found him an open, kind, generous, exceedingly thoughtful person. His qualities of personality made me trust his intuition and judgment in Physics. In the end, the person is always part of the understanding.

[@jasongarcia2140]

Sure love these discussions. I've said it before but Dr Keating has a soothing voice. We love it.

[@DrBrianKeating]

@@jasongarcia2140 this makes me feel good

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks for being a channel member! Please leave a comment and a 👍 so I know you’re here

[@greengoblin9567]

I was skeptical when the Higgs boson was discovered. It was very different from the bosons that applied the strong and weak nuclear forces.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

9:03 this is like the mirror universe concept... If we have 0 dimensional existence then that means we have a external universe creator and this is a simulated infinite three-dimensional multiverse.

[@dalesnow6782]

Issac Asimov's 3 volumes on understanding physics was a great read for me as an introduction to physics, when I was in high school in the early seventies.

[@iancormie9916]

And as the story unfolds, it just gets more weird. At some point, this Gordian knot of loose ends might start being connected together.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Wow. Superb interview Brian. Thank you for introducing us to Matt and boy did you get the best out of him in a mere hour! He has such an incredible background in current understanding of physics yet quite like Penrose by no means afraid to question if we aren’t fundamentally wrong about much of it. There is so much that resonates. First off, finally someone who speaks of spacetime in terms of aether, a term so unholy and unjustifiably demonized since the completely vague and irrelevant Michelson-Morley (M&M) experiment. Einstein in his closing words of the 1920 Leiden lecture pointed to the inevitability of an aether in order for his GR to work, but defining ST ‘ aether’ completely different then the setup of M&M was all about. Yet universities never caught up. Happy also about the focus on fields. Just a small suggestion to consider; we don’t need separate (Higgs) fields. We need just one field. If elementary particles can be defined by some three properties (mass, charge electro-spin) then we can easily have them emerge from the same spacetime field using 3 or 4 orthogonal oscillation modes of ST. Matt already mentions 1; a sine wave for a photon. OK, now imagine a single loop rolling down a ST fieldline causing local ST tension (defining mass). That same loop may in addition toggle clock and anti-clock wise (defining charge). In addition it may also rotate along its vector of motion (defining electro spin). Let’s keep this a simple as possible. But regardless; totally in favor of his wave focus. But this interview holds so much more precious gems. Loved his notion at 38:00 about renormalisation of electron mass as per resonance frequency of the electron field. Hello?? Exactly!! This is what Penrose says; substitute E=hf into E=MC2 and you get energy is not fundamentally ‘equivalent to mass’, but to inverse time.…. It is the CLOCK in the subatomic world…’ Matt doesn’t say the quiet part out loud, but we need to choose here; which is it? Is mass fundamentally equivalent to energy or to inverse time? Einstein says Energy, Penrose says frequency. We can check who is correct; Consider the following; we know from electron orbits that ‘distance’ in the subatomic world is defined by ENERGY (eV’s orbits). So if energy is distance and mass is the clock, than the motion formula at the subatomic level becomes; E=M*speed. Speed now need to define as [J/kg=Nm/kg=m2/s2=gamma C2]. So we get E=MC2 as the motion formula. NOT an equivalence relation. Can we test that? Sure we can; look at physical processes at the tiniest possible distances; 2 nucleons right before fusion or right after fission. Don’t we see the predicted motion formula of E=MC2 there? Matt touches on so so many great over simplifications and incorrect wording in the past, this is an absolute joy to listen to. Tomorrows break-troughs in physics all lie in our past, not our future. I Haven’t read his book, but boy this could turn out to be a seminal work listening to just this podcast….Thanks both!

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@SpeakSoftly-t3r sine, loop, toggle, rotate. These are 4 orthoganal modes to vibrate in. Ockhams razor suggest to stick to 1 ST field (1920 Einsteins aether) and not separate quantum fields for each particle.

[@arcticantic1768]

I enjoy Matt''s email dispatches very much. They are awesome.

[@michellefranklin3182]

Wow, that's just the question I've always thought about. How waves give form to matter. Will be buying the book. Maybe there is no drag through the either because we are rolling through the either. I love Arthur C. Clarke.

[@JeffreyMoyer-ms7nv]

This was one of my favorite episodes. Thank you Brian and Matt!

[@michaelra275]

I love Matt, I have been a follower of his website for a long time. The website gives additional information using somewhat simplified math is wonderful and gives deeper insight into what he is talking about here. I highly recommend for people who want to understand more about this and have an engineering level of mathematics background. There is a mathematical concept of a Class 2 wave that changed how I view things. It is amazing. I wish I had the time to learn some non engineering mathematics so I could dive into it further. Maybe when I retire.

[@leoborganelli]

Please condense your questions and don't try to answer your own questions before you ask the question.....and stop name dropping. Your intellect and education speak for itself. Love the channel

[@victordelmastro8264]

If a Dice Mechanic uses a special toss and Mass of Casino Dice, he can find the Dice Induction Mass Threshold. Your x, y, z Variance spikes. I call it a Causality Field, and I am using Dice Combos to send Test Wavelets to myself via the Complex Plane. It's almost Galilean. The Casino Craps Layout is a Tabernacle. An Artifact developed by a Bookie and Dice Maker named John H. Winn. It's not 'True Detective', but it is Amateur Dice Mechanic. :)

[@JungleJargon]

Instead of everything coming from nothing, it’s more reasonable to consider that everything came from… EVERYTHING.

[@ryan-cole]

41:30 Regarding the question as to why Roemer didn't discover the constant speed of light... Actually, they kinda almost did. In his paper "Memoire sur la vitesse de la lumiere" (Arago, 1810), Arago describes the fact that astronomers were somewhat surprised by the fact that Bradley's measurement and Roemer's measurement for the speed of light were so identical, as they had expected that stars would most probably be moving at vastly different speeds. Arago's aim in the paper was to make a much more precise measurement of this sort, and to his surprise, he could find no difference in the speed of light, even accounting for the different speed of the Earth at different times of the year. He initially explained this as resulting from the fact that the color of light depends on the speed, and the visible range only corresponded to a very small portion, so that even though light travels at very different speeds, we are only able to see a narrow range of speeds. This idea did not hold up however, especially when it became possible to measure light in other frequency ranges. And when the wave theory become more generally accepted, an alternative was proposed by Frensel (1821), that the ether was dragged in a medium by an amount depending on its refractive index. For a medium like air/vacuum this coefficient should be 0. This idea was 'confirmed' by the Fizeau water experiment (1851) when they compared the speed of light in moving water upstream vs downstream. The purpose of Michelson-moreley was to test this idea, particularly the claim the the ether should be stationary in air/vacuum. The result was particularly surprising because it contradicted the apparently confirmed ideas of Fizeau. (of course, now we know Fizeau was actually measuring the addition law for velocities in relativity)

[@stephonalexander6162]

A true master piece by two masters

[@kenbrock-studio]

Matt Strassler! Such an easy listen, and so well spoken. I immediately ordered your book. Brian, thanks for this episode. Fascinating. More would be appreciated. KB

[@JungleJargon]

Our motion is relative to everything else. If everything else is moving, what is it moving in relation to? The real thing to consider is the differing rates of causation due to the amount of gravity from galaxy to galaxy.

[@JumpingCow]

Very inspiring. Thank you for the directions to his book and blog.

[@BillBSET]

Great interview!! Thank you!

[@ezraorlofsky7809]

So interesting that the book of creation "sefer yetsira" refers to existence as based on sound/vibrations

[@mjs01230]

The idea that the universe might have to do with vibrations is a very old one indeed, and it comes in many forms. In a sense, the job of science was to figure out which, if any, of these versions of the idea was correct. The discoveries of the past century show that the overall idea was on the right path, but none of the versions humans invented in advance was even close to correct -- because the universe is so profoundly counterintuitive that we needed experiment to guide us. We would never have imagined it. -- Matt Strassler

[@ezraorlofsky7809]

@@mjs01230 in the introduction to the book I mentioned Saadia (10th c) lists ten approaches to explain existence, the second of which is atoms (indivisible, infinitesimally small particles) and the eighth approach is the subject of the book of creation. It entails the combination of letters and numbers in specific patterns to make vibrations that can actually take form. Sounds suspiciously like quantized frequencies. Well anyway it's very fun to read and appreciate these obscure ideas in relation to the empirical advances science has made. "So far away what has been and so deep who can find it" ecc. 7:24. This is the parable of science, always striving to get closer to the unattainable perfect truth.

[@mjs01230]

@@ezraorlofsky7809 It's easy to read into past texts the knowledge of the present. But if the text can't permit you to calculate atomic energy levels and the lifetime of positronium and the decay modes of the Higgs boson, then it's simply not in the same league. -- Matt Strassler

[@ezraorlofsky7809]

@@mjs01230 I'm buying your book sir thanks for the wisdom. Ezra orlofsky

[@ezraorlofsky7809]

@@mjs01230 Amazon won't deliver your book to israel

[@BarriosGroupie]

Great interview and great to see Matt and his book being made known to the wider public, thanks in part to Brian and others.

[@classicalmechanic8914]

Symmetries has led the physics astray and Matt is one of the rare people who understands symmetric equations do not neccesary mean isotropic laws of physics.

[@innocentsmith6091]

The problem with teaching about the controversy with Galileo is that so many people do it so very wrongly.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

43:13 same thing goes for gyroscopic effects... People can explain how it works but they can't explain why it works... It works because we are surrounded by aether...

[@everettluxton8201]

Thanks for producing such a great atmosphere for furthering my knowledge of physics. I was first introduced to quantum physics in the early 70s by a boat captain ,giving me a book by Neils Bor,(hope I have the spelling correct) ,and having discussions with me that still influence the way I perceive the universe and all of it’s splendid wonder. I have and have had many experiences that seem to defy the basic laws of physics and I am trying to understand more for better insight. I have had experiences with instant manifestation,experienced the past and interacted with it just as if were the present.i have seen many different beings that ,at first It thought were from a distant world but now I believe they are from other dimensions and we don’t interfere with each other’s world. I know my vibrations are a little off from most people,but I’m ok with that. Anyway,I like to listen to you geniuses that can explain things to a high school graduate like myself with no college experience😅

[@OBGynKenobi]

Should we rename it Phybics?

[@ritalewis1021]

Loved the intro

[@ArtisanTony]

I don't mind the analogy of music. It's when these waves and frequencies are manipulation to make music when usually they are frequencies we can't hear. Then people misinterpret this and start moving to woo and away from science. It's like the music created from the frequencies coming from a black hole. This was manipulated to sound scary. lol now people will think black holes are evil. It's kind of silly.

[@mjs01230]

I fully agree. It's one thing to make analogies; it's another to confuse people into thinking that the universe is really making sounds that the human ear can hear. I'm always very careful about this --- Matt Strassler

[@jonmurphy776]

Also the three generations of subatomic particles mimic gases, liquids and solids. The uncertainty principle shows us we can localize an electron in a cube of ice but as we shine a light on it , it can turn into steam and now it’s energy is known but it’s location eludes us .⚡️

[@JungleJargon]

The main thing to figure out is how mass can slow down time and shorten distance.

[@sparkstarter]

Block out the sun and stars, build a copper chamber, cool it down, put it outer space, float around in there you will still be able to measure relative motion with respect to the thermal radiation that exists inside and from the walls. Correct me if I missed it, but I never saw an experiment that definitely proves if the CMB is radiated from the edge of space or the temperture of space itself.

[@robertsouth6971]

Maybe some wave packets are entangled with their parallel world counterparts to various degrees, meaning the there's so much energy in just the total of those alternate waves that it adds up to a mass they all share with each other. And maybe the observed lack of reduction in light speed over great distances anticipated due to quantum foam is explainable by the quantum foam being the source of the value of vacuum permitivity in the fine structure constant to start with, so it's already factored into c.

[@nunomaroco583]

Hi, incredible talk, always great points of view, lots of knowledge.

[@AKA_SimplyHuman]

The Higgs Boson is an artifact. Mass is a condensate of the electric field. Currents and waves within the medium. It’s all electric. Space is not a container. Space is fundamental mass or the ultimate solvent. If you start at the core of a planet or star, and moving outward, you would find the entire spectrum of electromagnetic energy or mass.

[@terrywallace5181]

Very good program.

[@SONALI-w2s]

Really nice. Thank you.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

11:10 i agree... I think there are a lot of repurposed words that have the same disadvantage.

[@Orion15-b9j]

My modest opinion is that the Universe is a Physical System, where Space is the necessary coordinate system to provide specific position and stable position of its elements. Space is acting as a "Neutral" because its dimensions are neutralizing their momentum and is acting as a "Neutral Medium" - (Vacuum). Time is an active directional propagating dimension, which is in "Superposition" (is everywhere and is running in not define direction) - This means that Time is outside of the physical system of the Universe and Space is inserted into Time dimension. Such configuration is providing the irreversibility of the physical processes.

[@mjs01230]

Well, maybe, but you can't in any sense insert three-dimensional space into time. That would be like somehow inserting the north-south/east -west plane of the ground into the up-down vertical direction. It doesn't make sense. -- Matt Strassler

[@Orion15-b9j]

@@mjs01230 I am curious to learn why to some "Special" people is allowed to insert "anything anywhere" and to create impossible physical substances and interactions, But to me is forbidden even to make credible suggestions? I never say that space is three-dimensional. The explanation is longer to write here. There is one book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Where everything is well explained. Regards

[@sluggo3slug]

Very strange and amazing

[@mjs01230]

Describes the universe perfectly...! -- Matt Strassler

[@jmf5246]

The best physicists i had as an undergrad major were also good engineers. They explained things a bit more understandable.

[@Swede_4_DJT]

Greetings from Sweden. How might our understanding of the Higgs field and its interactions evolve if future discoveries reveal new particles or forces beyond the Standard Model? While the Higgs field explains how certain particles gain mass, could there be additional fields or interactions that influence the masses of particles or reveal new mechanisms of symmetry breaking? Furthermore, if the Higgs field is part of a larger structure or linked with other unknown fields, how might this reshape our current view of mass, symmetry, and the fundamental nature of particles?

[@enlongchiou]

2^(1/6)*ch=125 Gev[1.602*10^-19/c^2] : Higgs boson, (8.809/8.45)^3*ch=126.25 Gev : Higgs boson by muon decay which shrink proton radius pl=g(p)*(4pi*pm/3)/c^2=8.809*10^-16 meter to 8.45*10^-16 meter, g(p)=g*m^2/pm^2=g*(pl/4.1888*l)^2=1.13*10^28 which can deduce ch=2pi*l*m*c^2=2pi*pl*pm*c^2/(4pi/3) is strong force by graviton g*m^2=ch/2pi : solution of GR field equation ch=8pi*g*(m*c^2/2)^2/c^4 oscillating between Planck scale quantum black hole l=g*m/c^2=(h*g/2pi*c^3)^0.5=1.616231*10^-35 meter which can deduce ch=2pi*g*m^2, m=(ch/2pi*g)^0.5=2.176466*10^-8 kg, c=299792458[meter/second], h=6.62607*10^-34, proton scale QBH pl where pm=1.672621868*10^-27 kg : proton mass, T=g*m^2/137.036*8.38=0.015448 Gev : Tau neutrino, M=pm^2/(2*g*m^2*137.036)=1/(2*g(p)*137.036)=0.1811 mev : Muon neutrino, E=me^2/(g*m^2*137.036)=0.108*e : Electron neutrino where me=9.10938356*10^-31 kg : electron mass, Sterile neutrino S=(E*T)/(M*T)=2*(me/pm)^2=2*137.036*(2.16*10^-9) can deduce (me/pm)^2/137.036=2.16*10^-9=0.00116592026-0.00116591810=(0.001165920+((61-41)+(57-25))*10^-9/2) - (0.00116584719+6845*10^-7+154*10^-8+92*10^-9) : discrepancy of muon magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor between experiment data, theoretical prediction from FErmilab at 8/10/23 due to Higgs field ch oscillation between Planck, proton, Atom scale A^2=g(p)*pi*me/128.4980143*c^2 which can deduce ch=2pi*A*me*c^2/137.036 where A=5.29177282*10^-11 meter, 1/137.036=k*e^2/g*m^2 : fine structure constant unite g*m^2 of GR with QM of k*e^2=g(p)*pm^2/137.036=ch/(2pi*137.036)[e+]=me*(c/137.036)^2*A[e+]=4pi*g(p)pm*me*137.036/128.51991 which can reproduce Dirac's quantum field deduce 0.001161409725=1/(2pi*137.036)=e+/ch : Schwinger's weak QED of Yang-Mills gauge field for anomalous electron magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor from positron e+.

[@FAK_CHEKR]

I have an hypothesis that one requirement for existence in this universe is motion. Can you imagine anything that is not in motion?

[@mjs01230]

Yes and no. It's important (and emphasized in the book) that in our universe, all motion is relative. For this reason, every object in the universe, if traveling steadily, can only be said to be BOTH stationary (relative to itself and a few other things) AND in motion (relative to most other things. This might seem like a logical game, but in fact it's this BOTH/AND which explains why we don't feel the spinning of the Earth and our motion round the Sun. So actually it's really important. -- Matt Strassler

[@JungleJargon]

The Big Bang is kind of weird because it would take a greater power than all of the gravity in the universe to cause it to expand.

[@stoneneils]

Isn't it more easy to imagine the universe started out as some sort of 'seed' like a plant? The 'grapefruit sized mass' was a seed not the entire universe crunched into one spot.

[@JungleJargon]

@@stoneneils With energy, it’s not possible to charge a phone with an equal or lesser amount of charge. It has to be a greater amount of power or charge.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Unless, it is merely a point from where infinite internal energy is gradually inverted into emergent infinite space. If in addition we also accept energy is the inverse of space (as mass is the inverse of time) we are dealing with the ‘big bang’ construct simply being the constant of 1. An eternal oscillating balance based on the inverse relation of core physical units

[@JungleJargon]

@@RWin-fp5jn That’s a mathematical construct. The problem is how the energy got ordered since energy can’t make or order itself.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@@JungleJargon well no. it is a physical construct based on a dual setting of inverse relations. Inverse means ‘1 divided by’ . The organising principle is that these settings alternate not just in phase but also in alternating scale. E.g: The big bang energymass singularity generates emergent spacetime (our observable universe) in which there will form spacetime singularities ( galactic cores) generating energymass ( our galactic plane fabric) in which there will be energy singularities (stars) generating emergent spactime, in which there will be spatial singularieties (atoms) generating energymass etc etc… the rules are set outside of this

[@garycleave9565]

Tesla’s saying applied to a troubled marriage relationship: Once upon a time We were In tune In harmony In sync On the same wave length We shared a common vibe Until our frequencies Were rocked by a shock Our charges changed We repelled Became estranged Said goodbye to good vibrations Once attracted by the resonance of romance Now distanced by dissonance Good friends no more The music was missing All that remained Were reverberations The memories of past synchronizations

[@JungleJargon]

Special relativity is relative to the observer and general relativity is relative to the amount of mass and gravity in the vicinity which determines the measures of time and distance which determine the rate of causation.

[@JungleJargon]

It’s almost like the gravity from mass is pulling on *something.*

[@disciplesofjesuschrist2026]

oh those creepy sterile neutrinos are at it again

[@JungleJargon]

Vacuum doesn’t cause inflation.

[@helicalactual]

Field "=" an entangled volume on the given manifold in which a perturbation eventually scrambles the entire substructure.

[@Braun09tv]

A field is the sum of all relationships between every distance within its geometric model. There is only one single field in existence just like there is just one electromagnetic spectrum in existence.

[@gcoffey223]

Love this channel

[@phobosmoon4643]

Is wave fundamental or is axis of asymmetry fundamental?

[@Virtueman1]

Maybe also interview Unzicker? The youtuber/physicist.

[@robertteh3056]

If we accept that gravity is not a force nor an elemental force, then it would be illogical to assume that gravity-based particles, like Quarks, Higgs Boson, Fermions, Electrons some how possess a force or elemental force capable of explaining the spacetime or the infinite null outside such as dark energy dark matter and timelessness!

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

9:03 this is like the mirror universe concept... If we have 0 dimensional existence then that means we have a external universe creator and this is a simulated infinite three-dimensional multiverse... This also allows for this 3 part system simply by using logical dimensional progression.

[@tgunersel]

I have joyfully learned a lot :) Thank you moth :)

[@winterphilosophy3900]

We can only express objectivity by the limits of our human language.

[@stoneneils]

Can someone tell me if sound and electrical waves are affected by gravity...ie once created..do they maintain or do they fall.

[@mjs01230]

They are. For electromagnetic waves (i.e. light and radio waves and microwaves and all the other related forms) Einstein predicted that the Sun's gravity causes the waves' paths to bend; the apparent verification of that prediction made him internationally famous overnight. The behavior of sound is somewhat more complicated because it is moving through a medium, but yes, it both responds to and creates gravity. -- Matt Strassler

[@FAK_CHEKR]

Off topic perhaps but aren’t “fields” just so many aethers? Does a field really exist or is it like a dimension, which is not a thing in itself but a concept that makes the math easier?

[@jasongarcia2140]

That's not off topic btw.

[@mjs01230]

Great question. In fact, a field is not an aether. An aether is a medium, like air or water, while a field, like water pressure or air density, is a property of an aether. The luminiferous aether that was considered as the medium for light waves was imagined by Maxwell to have the electromagnetic field as one of its properties. An aether can have many fields, just as air has air pressure, air density, wind and humidity. Space itself can be thought of as an aether, with the gravitational field characterizing its shape. It is possible that the universe as a whole should be thought of as a single aether, and that the cosmic fields represent its properties. But we don't know whether that is true; there's no observational evidence as of yet. (Discussed in great detail in chapters 13-15 of the book.) -- Matt Strassler

[@TheShadow-n3p]

Disturbing and smart. It never occurred to me to think that a photon could be a tiny monster.

[@erichodge567]

The more I learn about cosmology, the more I'm sure about one thing: There is no nothing. Nothing is not a thing.

[@JungleJargon]

What if there is no inflator? What if the universe is not expanding into oblivion for no reason?

[@JungleJargon]

Massive amounts of matter are slowing down causation.

[@Mikey-mike]

Excellent

[@gkelly34]

Sounds like we’re inside a holodeck from Star Trek 🖖

[@Alekosssvr]

Can we create a field that negates the Higgs field, an anti-Higgs field, if you will? (This would explain all the key behaviors of UAPs.....)

[@someguyfromafrica5158]

there's no drag because the earth is going with the flow

[@timbeaton5045]

Re the "Phibs" notion. It pretty much happens all teh way through one's education process. You don't show a 5 year old the full set of equations for the Standard Model, as that is pointless. it takes a long time (for those of us who are smart enough, and l’m NOT one of those!) to build ones understanding through all the stages to get to the nitty gritty. Same with mathematics. Much of the stuff you learn, say in your first approach to Calculus is actually wrong, but only in the sense that much of the more precise detail is left out, until you grasp the basics. Classic example of this is Hawking radiation... a classic Phib is that a spontaneous particle pair formed near the EH is seen as HR because one of the pair falls in with negative mass(?) and the other escapes and is seen as representing the "temperature" of teh BH. This is well acknowledged to be a wild misrepresentation of what HR is....and indeed is not how Hawking derived the theory. But is a "useful" heuristic to get the main idea of a black hole actually having a temperature that will lead to its eventual evaporation.

[@mjs01230]

It is certainly true that teaching involves compromise at all stages. This is true even when experts present their work to other experts; they don't have enough time to cover every detail. However, the art of pedagogy involves finding a simplified message *that is still accurate.* You don't want students to have to un-learn what they've been taught, only to have to extend what they've been taught. Otherwise it's very hard on the students' brains --- not to mention the fact that they soon correctly conclude that you are lying to them at every stage, making it impossible for them to believe anything you say. -- Matt Strassler

[@timbeaton5045]

@@mjs01230 indeed!

[@AKA_SimplyHuman]

A star is a bubble in the ocean of plasma or the electric field. Gravity is the force against the star or bubble. Exactly the same as a bubble in the ocean. So simple and obvious.

[@JungleJargon]

The vacuum energy is the opposite of pressure.

[@geoffreyfarrugia1474]

Can the higgs field be manipulated in a way that mass is affected?

[@ikeax4892]

[@psmoyer63]

Judging by your discussion about aether there is some basic information from Maxwell you may not have encountered. #1 ”...Maxwell’s Encyclopedia Britannica article on the aether, in which it was regarded as ‘composed of corpuscles, moving in all directions with the velocity of light, never colliding with each other, and possessing some vector quality such as rotation.’” Sir Edmund Whittaker, AETHER & ELECTRICITY Vol II, p 247-248. In this sense aether is not IN space, aether IS space. Aether and space are one and the same. And here is the first hint that it may be relativistic, something Einstein might have gathered from Maxwell's mathematics. #2 In Maxwell's Britannica article he explains that he had done an experiment that, while not as accurate as the M-M version, confirmed that motion of earth through the aether could not be detected. #3 That aether was a particle (discrete, not continuous) that could essentially expand and contract. A hint that aether plays a role in the gravitational force?

[@OBGynKenobi]

Is it the music of the Spheres or the Ainulindalë

[@Joshua-by4qv]

Good episode. Sometimes you have to suck it up and do the math.

[@rikkys]

I wanted to hear about the higgs field. I heard two guys blabber on about history while massaging each other's egos for 20mins. I gave up.

[@bodapodopaboqobadopoqabod]

Expensing bodies give rise to a relatively that cannot escape the constant

[@semontreal6907]

With all due to Galileo, nobody and I mean nobody can convince me that we're spinning at a thousand miles an hour at the equator and not feeling it. Is this another Phip?

[@tonywells6990]

If you have ever been in an airplane do you deny that it is moving at ~600mph?

[@mjs01230]

As I discuss in the book, the biggest mistake we humans make in confronting the world is in assuming that our senses provide us with accurate information about how the world actually works. If you believe everything your senses tell you, you will spend your life understanding nothing. That was the great lesson of the last four centuries of science -- Matt Strassler

[@stoneneils]

Please don't embarrass our city like that.

[@semontreal6907]

@@stoneneils So you speak for our city? And why adhoms ant not adresse the issue

[@devalapar7878]

I don't think space is an ether. Ether has a motion. Anything else is not an ether.

[@Beelzebubba1983]

One second, I don't have any Dramamine. Send me some Tuanol instead please.

[@ezza88ster]

That was great. Scientists are loosening up! What you guys been smoking?! 😃.

[@mjs01230]

You'll have to ask Brian. I couldn't smell it since we were on Zoom. -- Matt Strassler

[@ezza88ster]

@@mjs01230 🤐 Here's hoping you can get Brian to spill the beans...

[@robhalstrom2937]

The statement, “Where do these symmetries come from? From the equations of gravity” cannot be a true statement. The equations came about in the 20th century by man’s figuring. The symmetries were there a great deal of time before that, or no?

[@jonmurphy776]

Space is an ocean of photons known as the cosmic microwave background radiation! The faster you move through it the more blue shifted it becomes! Go the speed of light through it and you are toast!🎯

[@mjs01230]

One of the things that I emphasize in the book is that space is ***not*** an ocean of microwave photons. Yes, most of space is *filled* with an ocean of photons. But go inside a large metal box; the microwave photons cannot enter, but the space is still there. And unlike the ocean of photons, which is quite ordinary --- you can measure how fast you move through it, and indeed you'd better not travel too quickly through it --- the space inside the metal box is quite extraordinary, because you *cannot* measure how fast you move through it, and no harm will be done to you no matter how quickly you move across the box. -- Matt Strassler

[@jonmurphy776]

Aren’t the two high tides on opposite sides sides of the earth actually caused by an electromagnetic field generated by the sun and moon pinching the earth like a grape causing it to bulge? I’ve learned from Einstein to try to visualize what’s going on! Thanx for your response!⚡️

[@axle.student]

13:50 So, basically everything I have ever learned about physics was rubbish and I wonder why most of it is contradictory to nature.

[@MrJPI]

Waves in an Impossible Sea has no formulas. 😒

[@808bigisland]

Nah. Still phenomenology.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Why can't both newtons bucket and mach dictate relative inertia value ? Why cant both influence the final measure? I body frame of reference line of measure turns 2 planetary body's into a 3 body solution a 4 body problem. 3 planetary body's 1 + space/ motion. It is and was very important in how much this statistical anylitical blessing & curse is found in reality. Depending upon what kinda answer you want which side of fence your on . But obviously we find miss aligned deformity or over hulucinating , ionizing polarizing etc etc. It tells us about our own orders of magnitude scaled relation between electro ,fluidlike, thermal dynamical Lagrangian & hamiltonian occelating feilds and waves etc etc.

[@robindao5]

aether is the higgs field.. well it's all the fields.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Matt came to visit thee! Drawn near!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Brian, take care of thy seat! Will follow thee! Same with my Host Matt!

[@Seekthetruth3000]

In physics, what is nothing?

[@mjs01230]

It seems that no thing is nothing. Empty space is what you get when you remove everything from a region that can possibly be removed. But empty space doesn't seem to be nothingness; after all, it can expand, warp, and ripple. -- Matt Strassler

[@DarkskiesSiren]

Present

[@22yrad]

So many commercials now I can barely enjoy these videos.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Who's Matt talking, too?

[@oliverjamito9902]

A comforter of the House!

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Good ... but change the title “the nothing is inconceivable”.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Brian, many will say, "How can that be?"

[@oliverjamito9902]

How?

[@oliverjamito9902]

My Host Brian need not be nervous concerning thy Friend!

[@abc007]

Isn't this what Terry Howard was saying??? Don't steal his ideas. We see you

[@mjs01230]

I've been in this business for thirty years and am simply explaining what the equations of conventional particle physics say, using pedagogical methods that I've been using for twelve years. There's nothing in this that is stealing anything; it's all physics from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, merely translated into non-technical language. If Howard claims to have invented this, then he has people like Feynman, Higgs (and Brout and Englert), and Weinberg, and quite a few others, to answer to. It's a good idea to get your facts straight before you start accusing people of being thieves. -- Matt Strassler

[@oliverjamito9902]

Brian, who can carry the documents? Without being crushed!