But What Exactly Is Mass And How Is It Formed? The Answer May Surprise You

[@whatdamath]

Small clarification, the new discovery in this case is in regards to what happens to gluon energy as they move farther away (explained near the end). This is a pretty big discovery for particle physics but maybe not so much for us commoners. I did want to highlight the new simulation though as it's brilliant Jefferson Lab has been doing incredible work so far but unfortunately their work has often been overshadowed by other silly discoveries like the Axial Higgs which is not even a thing. As for the concept of mass itself and how all of this related to dark matter and other mysteries - at this point nobody really knows how any of this connects The important part is that mass/gravity seems to be formed in a way that's just so counterintuitive

[@DalbyJoakim]

Nobody = Thad Roberts?

[@2nd-place]

This is the craziest shit I ever heard. I love you. Please do more videos on this topic because I’ve been interested in this since I was a little kid and I never thought this mystery of the universe would be unraveled in my life.

[@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre]

Would I be totally off base if I thought of the gluons mass traits as similar to a gyroscope? Because that's what I immediately think of, the distance is similar to a size of gyroscope from what I just heard here. And when I think of a massive gyroscope, I think of the speed that the outermost circumference is traveling being a limiting factor on the size of it, leading to a limiting factor for the strength of a gyroscope. As the speed increases, the material strength approaches a point where the inertia acting on the rim exceeds that strength and a bits may fly off the edge or simply break the entire structure. Thinking of how relatively miniscule each particle is, as compared to the space that the cloud has, the likelihood of impact would be low and the speed of the particle would increase the frequency of the impact. As this relates to dark matter and it's mass, I'd venture the guess that we could see breakaway gluons in a similar situation to materials breaking away from a gyroscope so large that is outer diameter inevitably imparts enough inertia that its energy exceeds material strength. As for the classic dip on a plane concept of the warping of space time being a representation of gravity, maybe the more gluons there are in a finite area, the more the currents created by the motion of the glouns are imparted on the nearby space time fabric, acting like a whirlpool that doesn't just affect the plane that is the surface of a liquid, but more of a 3dimensional vortex, leading to an orbital axis perpendicular to any plane intersecting the mass. That's as far as I got with it before I realized the contradiction between gluons being expelled with high speed and gravity attracting mass like a drain pulling water in, like a whirlpool. Buuut, maybe, I should be thinking of it more like the tendency of materials precipitating out of a colloid suspension moving towards the center of a rotating fluid, like the little mound that forms if you swirl water in a glass and add something granular that isn't soluble.

[@jonathandock8416]

Could it be possible that the mass created by the forces holding it together is stretching and compressing it like a mixer, and in combination with the weight they change properties until they create a stable environment for themselves and will attract more particles that will put the mixer back in motion to create something new 🤔 loved the video!!!

[@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre]

@@jonathandock8416 I think we are talking about the same thing, and I like how much more concise your description is

[@MaximusTheConqueror]

Anton this ranks up there with your top 3 explanations of a complicated subject. This is absolutely one of the best science videos I have ever watched. Thank you.

[@DerekMoore82]

I hope David Butler makes a video about it. His explanations are the easiest for me.

[@hughblue1404]

Agreed this one was awesome

[@silversolver7809]

Was just going to write the same. Excellent explanation Anton, thank you!

[@ritemolawbks8012]

@@DerekMoore82 He's an old-school physics professor. The classical music gives him extra credibility.

[@jimmyc451]

Agree. I almost understand this one

[@Cindoreye]

When I see clickbait in the areas of physics and astronomy, I often just read the papers myself if possible, but as a biochemist some of these papers are beyond my specialty. You have always done a great job breaking down these topics for the layman without falling into clickbait. Keep up the good work.

[@christinarobohm6920]

Agreed. If I see something clickbait-y I don't watch bc it doesn't feel scientific. Science is 🤯🤯🤯 enough, I don't need it hyped. So grateful for this channel

[@HkFinn83]

@buzz magister I don’t think you understood. Bleeding edge research papers or phd theses are not educational material for lay people. You could read every research paper in the world, you wouldn’t learn anything and would waste a lot of time. For example, I have undergraduate degree in physics; I’m nothing like educated enough to know what most of these papers are even about, never mind comprehend them. Maybe I could if I spent another decade studying, then there might be some value in reading a paper. If you want to learn physics, get some textbooks, the more basic the better, and work from there. What you’re doing is like trying to read a book in a language you don’t understand; it’s a waste of time. And remember what these sorts of channels do, where the host basically muses on the implications of some research, is entertainment. It’s not really as educational as you might think.

[@Hackanhacker]

well said

[@Hackanhacker]

@@HkFinn83 it depend xD 😂

[@bangerxshane]

@@HkFinn83 "not really as educational as you might think", for the most part I can agree with you, but the value of education is different to different people. An engineer for example learns physics, but often only up to practical application, so in the eyes of a physicist wouldn't their theoretical education be lacking? Many of us here on KZbin are just 'enjoying the science happening', and I don't think that holds any less educational value for what's intended.

[@JamesMartland65]

As an engineer, most of this particle malarkey is beyond me, but I like to see if I can grasp some of the concepts. Anton is fantastic because he makes these videos accessible without being dumb. I actually think I started to understand the basics here, which realistically means I've just started to climb the Dunning-Kruger curve. Buy hey, thanks to Anton I can delude myself into thinking I'm up-to-date! 😅

[@distantraveller9876]

While the Dunning-Kruger effect itself has been supported by research, the Dunning-Kruger curve has been criticized as oversimplified and potentially misleading. One major criticism is that it assumes a linear relationship between ability/knowledge and confidence, which is not accurate for most situations. In reality, people's confidence fluctuates based on a variety of factors beyond just their level of ability or knowledge, such as their mood, level of stress, or social context. Additionally, the Dunning-Kruger curve suggests that people with high ability/knowledge have low confidence and vice versa, which may not always be the case. Some highly competent individuals may have high confidence in their abilities, while others may have imposter syndrome or other factors that lead them to underestimate their abilities. Therefore, while the Dunning-Kruger effect itself is a valid phenomenon, the Dunning-Kruger curve should be viewed with caution and not used as a strict model for how confidence and competence are related.

[@808bigisland]

D-K applies to the morons.

[@defeatSpace]

I love this "particle malarkey" phrase

[@Breezeyy]

should it not be easy to deconstruct an atom?, using reverse engeneering?.

[@cmilkau]

There was this thought experiment where you have just 1 photon bouncing back and forth between two mirrors. Just this photon makes the mirrors resist acceleration, as if they had additional mass. The reason is that acceleration makes the photon bounce off harder on one mirror than the other. I really love this thought experiment because it gives you a nice illustration how mass can emerge just from particle interactions. In this particular case, the photon is even massless itself, and the "mass" is emergent from small-scale momentum transfer.

[@christianthom5148]

I find that too really mind blowing. Take massless photons and put them in a reflective box, and the box acquires mass !

[@cmilkau]

@@christianthom5148 I wonder if the Higgs mechanism works in a similar way. Constant interactions between the Higgs field and other fields slowing down particles and giving them effective mass

[@christianthom5148]

@@cmilkau I think the mass given by mean of the Higgs field is just due to the energy coupling between the fields. There is no "slowing down", that expression doesn't even mean anything...

[@rarebird_82]

Cheers lads my mediocre brain just melted 🥵

[@blinded6502]

Mass is not caused by photons hitting mirrors. It's caused by them having their own momenta, directions of which you'd be trying to change by giving it an extra momentum being applied to the whole system.

[@punkypinko2965]

This actually makes more sense to me than anything I've heard about sub-atomic particles and mass.

[@catcherboy96]

Fr. It’s just energy state transition.

[@teknoaija1762]

i think so too.

[@slyy4096]

Its like gluons are parts of the fabric of space. Perhaps as vibrating so fast, their p²c² cancels out, and what's left is m²c⁴

[@TheDentedHelmet]

@@slyy4096 could free floating Gluons and other sub atomic particles or even non-interacting subatomic particles explain Dark Matter?

[@TitanBichota]

@@TheDentedHelmet If mass comes from the force between gluons then free floating gluons or non-interacting subatomic particles wouldn't have mass, and as dark matter does have mass then that wouldn't explain it. I think🤔

[@erictaylor5462]

4:00 All of the Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon have mentioned this. They still had all of the mass they had on the moon, plus the mass of their quite heavy space suits. Yet the mass they could feel, their weight, was much less than what they were used to. They all mentioned issues with stopping or changing their direction of motion. They would input the amount of muscle power required to make the change they wanted only to discover it was not nearly enough. By which time they were crashing into equipment or worse, falling down. We can see these awkward movements today and laugh knowing nothing bad happened, but at the time every fall and every crash was terrifying, because the rocks on the moon have never weathered they have sharp edges just right for tearing through space suits. Every fall was extremely dangerous. We were lucky no one got hurt.

[@drsidsloth]

Science!

[@TheMentalblockrock]

That's because it was all filmed in a Hollywood studio using wires/water tanks. ;-)

[@MrTubeuser12]

an interesting perspective on that is that kinetic energy didn't seem to be accounted for on the moon. kinetic energy is the result of mass and velocity, so while their weight was less because of lower gravity, their mass was the same, so the resulting kinetic energy they built up while in motion was the same, because they "felt lighter" they didn't use enough force to stop/change direction and the resulting Kinetic energy, because of their mass, kept them going.

[@WaterShowsProd]

@@MrTubeuser12 Not so much that it wasn't accounted for, but there's no real way to train someone for it through experience until they are in that environment. It can't really be simulated. Well, I suppose it could be now to an extent, using virtual reality, but in The 1960s there wouldn't have been a way to simulate low gravity environments, other than underwater training, but there you have increased resistence and you are still feeling the effects of gravity we are accustomed to.

[@BIGBaNANaBender]

ROFL

[@vinaychambore4295]

Anton explaining the incomprehensible puts my mind at ease.

[@eerohughes]

If it were incomprehensible he wouldn't be able to talk about it. You are only revealing your lack of intelligence. It's sad really

[@thomasnuedling9167]

Anton's voice and smile with the wave are very reassuring and relaxing.

[@thomasnuedling9167]

@@eerohughes Where is your final period smarty-pants?

[@sonarbangla8711]

What Anton wants us to know is that mass isn't constant, like space and time, mass also vary with speed. We are far from knowing the secret of the Higgs. Anton is exceptional.

[@eerohughes]

@@thomasnuedling9167 ...

[@baxtermullins1842]

I’m an engineer with a cross feed into physics ~ much of my work is using a mixture of Goldstein’s text to solve Newtonian mechanics problems. But, I sneaked into the quantum mechanics and particle physics. Problem is that was in the 80’s. So watching Anton’s presentations make thus 77 year old want to go back for more lectures in this magical world! Just a note, I used concepts from quantum world to push R&D technology projects - it worked to stimulate solutions to some very interesting computer applications! 👍👍

[@jeffyates6219]

From my understanding, the remaining 99% of the mass of the proton and neutron comes from 1) the energy of the gluons and 2) the relativistic mass of the quarks caused by the relativistic speed of the quarks caused by the strength of the strong force. The energy keeps swapping between potential energy (gluon strength when far apart) and kinetic energy (when gluons close together).

[@mihailmilev9909]

Is this actually what he said? If not where does it say this?

[@inevespace]

1) binding emery(potential) is negative, so all other systems which we know have less mass because of interaction(nuclei, atoms) 2) mass is constant, it is misconception from 100 old textbooks about special relativity when classical equation for momenta was used together with relativistic equation for momenta. Every modern physicist tell you that mass does not change with speed.

[@permanentvisitor2460]

@@inevespace outside of the specific reference frame of the object, no, mass doesn't change. But to an observer in the same frame it appears to. If I'm not mistaken. Relativity is fun.

[@inevespace]

@@permanentvisitor2460 I don't understand what you mean. "an observer in the same frame" means frame of an object.

[@permanentvisitor2460]

@@inevespace relative frame of reference. As in, someone at a relative state of rest on the homeworld of the departing craft is observing it to move away from them at velocities close to c in their shared frame. But to some other observer moving at the same velocity with no acceleration or deceleration, the craft/object would appear to be still, and no relativistic mass nor time dilation is observed.

[@bigboy4006]

Anton does a better job of comprehending and explaining things than I would. I love science, and I enjoy hearing someone articulate enough to explain science.

[@lucaschess-x7c]

Wow, he explains better than you... and who are you exactly?

[@framryk0]

Strange… feeling down before I watched this, now more up beat and totally charmed by your top explanation. Glad Jefferson labs got to the bottom of this. Great video!

[@baomao7243]

I’m on the same wavelength. I had the identical vibe.

[@Joe-dp1cg]

lol

[@lindaseel8633]

Me too. Anton has a wonderful happy vibe.

[@MrAlyxandyr]

Booooooooooooo. Take my thumbs up.

[@sebacaine6974]

😂 I see what you did there. Very nice. lol

[@intrepiddt]

Always so great to hear from Anton! Thank you Sir, your analysis is extremely valued.

[@RadicalCaveman]

"Hello, wonderful person!" "Yes, Sir!"

[@pokor5791]

I didn't realize how much Bob Ross was like ASMR until the recently. Anton is the science ASMR! This is a very good thing.

[@ivornelsson2238]

I personally most like all his continuous expressions of standard scientists again and again being baffled and surprised over their own restricted scientific approaches.

[@extropiantranshuman]

1:28 thank you for recognizing how destructive misinformation can be - a lot of people brush off creating misinformation as just having fun or not caring - but it's something to take seriously - and I'm glad you're on the right track now in doing so! I truly accept your apology - as you didn't know better or mean to.

[@electricdreamer]

Gratz on 1 million subscriber!

[@aggonzalezdc]

One of my favorite quotes on the matter, "don't ask how energy creates mass and matter or becomes matter, that's wrong. Matter and mass are just cool things that energy does sometimes."

[@usr7941]

This is antiscience

[@arseniix]

Nah, every particle is "matter" in some sense, and any interaction is mediated by those. But their momentum is energy. So they both are inseparable

[@nerkulec]

@@arseniix Not exactly. At a deeper level particles are just packets of energy in their quantum wave function and often you can't even identify individual particles - they inhabit states that would be hard to interpret as individual particles

[@Laff700]

@@usr7941 Nah. Mass isn't actually a real thing, it's just energy with less steps.

[@BruceNJeffAreMyFlies]

@@usr7941 No it's not. Science is all about finding the right question to prove or disprove your hypothesis.

[@das_it_mane]

Considering E=MC2 and that without mass, you'd be going the speed of light, it makes sense that something bound in a small region via strong force would translate that energy into mass. This is one of the most intuitive ideas and something that always seemed to just make sense. Glad that there's more evidence for it.

[@Triairius]

I was thoroughly surprised with how intuitive this concept is, considering how deep into the understanding of mass it is.

[@sandybarnes887]

Yeah. E=Mc² is such a deep equation.

[@_0MEGA_]

Mass and energy are interconnected - one cannot exist without the other. Einstein did indeed predict this relationship mathematically, and in much detail, when his 'special theory of relativity' was first published in 1905. Nice to finally get conformation that he was right, though it's been more than century... Imagine him being alive, witnessing how far science has come, and how much we've learned.

[@sirensaid243]

@@typingwithmyaxe4808 so Einstein was wrong hmm

[@_0MEGA_]

@@typingwithmyaxe4808 Thank you for your comment - i understand what you're saying, and i recon that this is a common cause of confusion about relativity; It is not that you're wrong per se, but you're not right either. The correct answer depends on the perspective of the observer; from a human point of view, you're wrong, but from the particle's perspective, you're absolutely right - That's why it's called relativity. :)

[@sonnyburgos5148]

Hello wonderful person

[@jonathoncouchey7151]

This is anton

[@chuckles123]

And today we are going to be

[@D-Nation]

@@chuckles123 talking about some relatively incredible

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

Discoveries some scientists wrote about in this paper … that you can find right about there in the description …

[@Slothian]

welcome to what da math

[@apollokr64]

Anton, I want to let you know how much I enjoy your show. It’s just so fascinating. I love EVERYTHING ❤science, so I love how you include so many different subjects. Thank you.

[@dretheblack]

great job anton thank you very much

[@oneeyejack2]

the total mass/energy of any system always include the kinetic/potential energy of its elements to each others.. so if you are a element of the system, what is kinetic energy of other components for you, is mass for everything out of the system.. There's a tiny step to postulate (if you believe matter is infinitely fractal like me) that all mass is kinetic/potential energy !

[@absalomdraconis]

The combination of E=mc^2 and photons=energy is enough to analogize motion to mass. The only conceivable discovery about gluon motion = mass was in the details and ratios.

[@freefall9832]

I see mass as energy with lower entropy or time frozen energy

[@Triairius]

Anton, you took me several layers of understanding deeper than I knew about mass, and your explanation was so perfect that I felt like I easily kept up with the new concepts. This is a top tier explanation.

[@7337-y2f]

How was it perfect? At a minimum, conservation of energy has to be true, so where does all the energy in the motion of gluons and where do they aquiver binding energy. From where does this energy come? How does it couple with mass? At lease a model with derivation on how would be a minimum for an explanation, right? Or do we now just expect that energy just is magically available?

[@Triairius]

@@7337-y2f Dude, just let me enjoy it.

[@JohnyPaprikas]

You are doing a great job for humanity. Thanks Anton!

[@justenoughtobedangerous8596]

Wow, as stated before a very thought provoking video, from what I understand:- The mass of the quarks within a hadron only account for 1% of the mass of the hadron. The rest of the mass is caused by the movement of the gluons WITHIN the hadrons acting between the quarks. This causes the strong force and the mass can be represented by the binding energy (+ve) between the quarks. The mass of an atomic nucleus, is less than the mass of the individual hadrons that make it up. This is because the binding energy is negative, I.e. energy has to be input to break the hadrons apart and some of this energy is converted to mass. So does that mean that the binding energy between quarks is positive ? and if so what is holding them together.? There was also something in the video about the strong force not decreasing with distance (Not sure that this is what I learnt in A level, at least not between hadrons) Anyway, now the being dangerous bit. Is there anyway that this gluon (or pion, outside a hadron) interaction could be attractive at short distances (between hydrogen H+ atoms) and repulsive at large distances. Giving Dark matter attractive) when there are a large number of H+'s (i.e. in a galaxy) and Dark Energy (Repulsive) in the voids of space ? Just a thought

[@DrDeuteron]

right. you can't unbind quarks. There are no free quarks. As you pull a qqbar pair apart, the energy in the gluon flux tube binding them *increases*, like a pulled spring until there is enough energy to produces a qbar q pair, so now you have two meson (likewise for baryons), It's called "hadronization" and is studied in "jet physics".

[@LoanwordEggcorn]

Thanks for telling us about a very amazing discovery.

[@vryusvin3905]

Great job Anton! Thank you for laying this out in only the way you can, so that we can understand our amazing universe so much better. What a world!

[@VikingTeddy]

Did you know It was called the "God" particle due to puritanistic media? Peter Higgs actually called it the "Goddamn particle" because it was so difficult to detect. But the media didn't want to use the word 'damn', so we're now stuck with 'God' particle

[@doctorshoot]

as always Anton a fine presentation - every discovery raises more questions than answers - the mystery of existence deepens

[@TheNivektube]

Thought there’s be strings further in

[@seldom_bucket]

I think im gonna need a bigger magnifying glass to solve this one.

[@doctorshoot]

Big magnifying glass out there in space but always strings attached of course

[@garrychamberlain1197]

As a Dad who lost two Sons my heart is so sad for your loss , Our children have a special place in this universe and wait for us . What ever whoever made this cosmos has a plan .As a physicist you know how much has to be perfect to create where we live . I came the long way round to understand there is a creator and there is a plan .God Bless you and your family.

[@KraussEMUS1]

Amazing! Thank you!

[@Bluth53]

Most important video this year so far! Thank you Anton! We love the way you explain and pick topics and even correct yourself.

[@gregknipe8772]

again, thank you for churning out so many challenging and educational topics. it seems like you do a great job following your passions here.

[@SpaRool]

I highly recommend checking out PBS space-times video on how mass arises from gluons. They use the hypothetical light in a box example and it's highly intuitive. It's a must watch!

[@rJaune]

A very good recommendation!

[@captmack007]

PBS is leftist propaganda

[@liombeendeley2167]

And that was years ago.

[@rinthean]

Yes! I learned from that video that the Higgs field interactions are what gives things mass and what define the behaviors of mass. I wish that had been mentioned here.

[@Devo491]

You continue to fry my brain with your amazing work, Anton! How you manage to produce so much material is a tribute to your energy, and the efforts of your research elves, big shout-out to them as well!

[@hnkhvn]

I am an old F4 Phantom II combat fighter pilot. When we are turning, doing loops, pulling out of dives, we are accelerating in a different directions and we feel the g-forces on our bodies, which increases our body weights and mass. We measure This acceleration with g-meters in our cockpits and must report any over-g conditions to aircraft maintenance so they can inspect the planes for any broken parts. What your video has shown are quarks that are held together by squiggly lines called gluons. The quarks are moving around at a very rapid pace and are changing directions each time they move. That change of directions is creating acceleration in a new direction, much like our fighters are doing in rapid turns that create gravity. One of the questions I have is the changing and acceleration of directions of the quarks creating the mass and thus gravity?

[@jaybingham3711]

It won’t be surprising that the angular momentum of the quarks could contribute to mass. But it’s elemental gluon particles (and their angular momentum) that appears to account for most of the mass. But there’s the rub. Gluon particles are believed to be massless. Gluons are categorized under the category of bosons. That category is where particle physicists group the small number of force carrying particles. It includes the well-known carrier of the Electromagnetic force…the photon. So if as a boson, the photon is massless…then how does throwing a bunch of massless photons at a solar sail cause it to move? We definitively know it does happen as a number of space missions have proved. And the best guess is it’s due to the angular momentum imparted by the photons. As far as the movement of gluons binding the quarks together in respective confined configurations that create a mass particle (whether proton/neutron), it seems again angular momentum is our best guess. In this case though, the strong force is involved. It’s what is responsible for confinement of the gluons. A good analogy for this is the one Einstein used for a box lined with (perfect) mirrors. Without any photons permitted inside, the box will weigh a certain amount given it’s overall mass. But upon dumping a bunch of photons inside (which will reflect around indefinitely because of perfect mirrors), the mass will go up. But all that was dropped inside were massless particles. So here we are…stuck again with theorizing the creation of the (extra) mass as a result of angular momentum. So things seem to be making some sense. But there’s still a bit of a chink in that chain of title. The movement of massless particles (“energy”) produces mass. This implies mass to be almost an emergent phenomenon. We get around that by simply asserting that individual particles are created with a variety of attributes. Spin is what addresses the matter of angular momentum. But elemental particles are created from quantum fields. And as far as we know, quantum fields are nothing but mathematical constructs. Quantum fields aren’t comprised of “energy.” Down at these levels things get quite murky once again.

[@phelansa23]

Excellent video. One of the best explanations I have heard.

[@SamLowry_DZ-015]

I appreciate your ability to explain science. Thank you for your work.

[@TheImpracticalcowz]

This really makes me think that gravity and magnetism are much more closely related than thought. I’m also amazed at the tech that’s used to “see” these particles and how we use that tech to learn about all these things. Anton always keeps me interested

[@StanleyKubick1]

Right? Gravity could almost just be a byproduct of mass

[@mandelabrein8116]

Why does gravity decrease inverse square and magnetism decrease inverse cube?

[@permanentvisitor2460]

@@mandelabrein8116 but electromagnetic radiation intensity decreases by the inverse square rule as well. Magnetism is a closed flow.

[@mandelabrein8116]

@@permanentvisitor2460 my question was to try and make op think about what they're saying. If gravity and magnetism are related, why does gravity follow inverse square and magnetism follow inverse cube? Because they're 2 different phenomena

[@permanentvisitor2460]

@@mandelabrein8116 ah, yeah. Sorry about that. Carry on.

[@dubsar]

Thank you!

[@Celeste-in-Oz]

Anton translated that complex information SO well.. it’s astonishing 🤯

[@paulpaxtop1580]

Fascinating and so clearly explained. Many thanks.

[@ReneKnuvers74rk]

I kind of visualize this in my head as the gluons being springs. The longer they are, the more potential energy they have. At short distances they hang loose and have little effect on the quarks. My image is shaped by the squigly lines themselves. I do understand the actual situation is much more difficult.

[@deinauge7894]

this visualization is kind of what started string theory some decades ago. decades ago, isn't this supposed to be new discoveries? most of the facts in the video are long known - the simulations are getting much better (as shown in the 1st half of the video) - and there seem to be better measurements of the strong force at higher distances (the usual models gave a constant force, just as measured now. that's what i learned 15 ys ago, and it was not new back than) so yea, it IS great work. but not as groundbreaking as the higgs, since there is no new discovery here....

[@DrDeuteron]

@@deinauge7894 but DGLAP won the nobel prize last year, so it's not that bad. Just better data ti input.

[@AngDavies]

For understanding mass, I always found the "light in a box" thought experiment to be really helpful. What is mass? Mass is energy of a system/object that is not kinetic/ doesn't move. A photon does not have mass, all of its energy is in the form of its kinetic energy/momentum :p^2=E^2. Multiple photons on the other hands *can* be massive. Put them all in a perfectly mirrored box, and they all start bouncing around like a gas and the net momentum is zero. But the energy is just the sum of the energies of the photons, so, now E^2>p^2 and the system acts like a massive object with inertia and such, and only by going inside the box do you see the difference. The gluons are acting like the box in this scenario, both to the quarks and to themselves.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

The "mass" term you refer to is the length of energy-momentum 4-vector. It's indeed zero for objects moving at the speed of light.

[@AngDavies]

@@denysvlasenko1865 and equal to the rest mass (up to a constant c, was assuming natural units ) for other objects/partcles E^2-|p|^2=m^2

[@curryosity7260]

Right, I also liked the "Photon Box" analogy very much to have at least a little understanding about how even massless particles "form" mass as a bound ensemble. I saw it in Spacetime Video which could be a good complement to this one.

[@THE-X-Force]

@@typingwithmyaxe4808 "weighs the same ... but a bit more" ?

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

That's actually a better analogy. "Mass" is confinement. Light can collapse into a black hole directly under its own mass, provided it is confined. "Light in a box" does indeed have more mass, and does increase the mass of the box. Light has momentum, but no mass on its own. If this momentum becomes averaged within a confined area, that's where your mass cones from. However, i would not say it isn't kinetic. In fact, i consider the kinetic movement on a small area to be exactly what "mass" is. Movement that is localized to a point across the time domain: that's mass. Movement that is distributed through the time domain in multiple locations is momentum, but things with momentum may not have mass at all (photons, gluons). This may have something to do with the torsion forces of space itself, as particles "spin" through their momentum domain. This shows up on a macro scale as spatial "curvature", so is lost on most people looking at GR from an overview effect. Agreed, Yes, it's exactly the confinement of stuff into a small area that gives you the "mass" effect. The more stuff you have, or the smaller the space, the more "mass". Ultimately though, "mass" is a frequency. Mass=hv/c^2 , (where v= freq).

[@Ensign_Nemo]

This discovery can explain most of the ordinary mass in the universe, but the origin and composition of dark matter is still not known. It's not even clear if dark matter actually exists, in the sense that right now we can't conduct an experiment that can find any specific particle or particles of dark matter. We don't know what dark matter actually is. As dark matter is presumed to make up more of the universe than visible matter, it's more accurate to state that this discovery explains "99% of the ordinary mass in the universe", rather than "99% of the mass in the universe". Since 27% of the universe is postulated to be dark matter, adding that single word is a rather important clarification. 🤓

[@JohnDoe-qz1ql]

Well, I do not believe "dark matter", if real, is considered a form of exotic matter.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@JohnDoe-qz1ql I'm trying to figure out if axions would get mass from the higgs... no clue man that stuff is comxlicated

[@larscarter7406]

Maybe dark matter just doesn't have gluons.

[@vincentvoillot6365]

Very good video but nothing new about that. How can the energy binding quarks can make weigth ? Mass is energy : E=MC². If you confine energy ( kinetic, potential, ... ) in a volume you get a mass. Bosons are force carriers, all are massless, having a spin 1 (photon is the most famous one). The higgs field was necessary to explain how boson Z and W get their mass . Because without it, the strong force wouldn't be confine to the nucleon long enough for colors interactions to take place. What we still don't know is how gravity is carried ? How can a force affect space and time ( the other three don't ) ? That's the real Nobel winner .

[@ameliaromaniszyn9864]

Phisics for dummies, updated edition : "mass is the squigglly lines between 'u' and 'd', the binding force of love between ups and downs, the glue(tons) that glues us together no matter how much we stray apart"... Thanks Anton, always a pleasure to learn something thanks to you !

[@S.ASmith]

I have comments about this concept on your channel from YEARS ago. I actually started writing a paper about this concept and something very similar relating to quantum gravity way back in 2012/13. It is nice to see a team actually taking this seriously...it's vindication of my hypothesis!

[@thomaswayneward]

I did also, it is kind of obvious from the information we have now.

[@thedeemon]

This was all well known in the Standard Model since 60-s.

[@thomaswayneward]

@@thedeemon LOL

[@S.ASmith]

@@thedeemon I disagree. The strong nuclear force and QCD interactions, while we know a bit and the model for the interactions has been around more than half a century, it is still something we've barely touched upon. There's a reason why a lot of accelerators are doing Spin related tests and Glueball detection tests (composite Gluon particles, some of which interact with the Spin-2 tensor field...you know the one that the graviton was hypothesized to interact with). I've got a well sourced paper I should really finish and submit on a related subject.

[@thedeemon]

@@S.ASmith I mean the main idea of where mass of protons comes from. That's not news at all.

[@ArrovsSpele]

So glad that we are getting closer. I myself thought that mass and gravity could be coming from interaction itself. Most likely gluons stick to space itself too. Strange coincidence is that Bob Lazar(controversial person) mentioned that antigravity(not anti, but strong localised gravity wells) can be made from strong force leaking from atom.

[@KatharineOsborne]

He could be completely wrong about aliens and accidentally right about physics 😄

[@ArrovsSpele]

@@KatharineOsborne Thats why i said controversial. But, seemingly, even, if he throws around science fiction, its based into science. In other words he have good science knowledge.

[@JaveyJenkins]

Mr. Anton, Hello wonderfull person. I've spent the last 30+ years persuing what is gravity on the subatomic scale, as a hobby and passion. It's well known that mass and gravity have a relation. My theory at this point is that timespace on these scales should be looked at as a superfluid. This fluid flows and moves in relation to the vibrations of the gluons interactions, QCD. The resitance of the vibrations in the superfluid is what we experance as mass. The flow of the Superfluid around the atoms is what becames gravity on the macro scale. The lamaner inflow is what keeps you in your seat. The turbulant outflow is what helps create quatam noise. Once you get far enough out from earth, the outflow will normalize into a smooth flow that should outpace the slower inflow. This is the pushing effect we see out of gravity at a distance that helps keep Saturns rings clean and pretty. I'm still trying to figure out a few things and this is a theory I'm still working on. Mr. one cup built his theory on the meter. This is one of the reasons it has a lot of trouble dealing with planck length fluid dynamics, and no there are no classes for that. ✌❤

[@jaredf6205]

You can imagine all you like, but this is all worth nothing without any math to back it up.

[@JaveyJenkins]

@@jaredf6205 , super fluid dynamics is one of the things I've been trying to learn, I'm still working on that... then I'll have some math and then I'll work on a paper... then you can see the math, if I ever get it figured out 😁

[@jackwilliamson1929]

Oh that clears it up.

[@chanceanger6762]

Always dih u and ur attitude towrds everything. I also noticed a couple chanels here that had alegid images from the jamws W scope before it had finshed parallel parking. PBS Space time does an exelent job breaking down mass as basically the potental energy contained in ALL the virtual particuls involved directly with the nuclius of an atom. It is worth mention that gluones and the strong force (like all the forces) is mediated by "virtual particals". As such are likely not even " real" in the classic sence. This is why thy tend to decay faster than any quanta. And rhis kinda s*it can decay zstupid fast!! Thanks for being stand up solid and real.

[@hans3331000]

I remember going through the topic of binding energy once. My professor said essentially einstein's E-mc^2 means mass and energy are the same thing just different manifestations of each other. So if it has energy it has mass i guess. Makes sense since photons have momentum but no mass, but they have energy

[@DrDeuteron]

But binding energy is negative and lowers the total mass. The gluon thing I backwards.

[@PoolOfTrees]

Thank you for this, Anton. Like many people, I thought that the Higgs boson explained all mass, but you have explained really well why this discovery is even more significant. I imagine that this information will lead to more important discoveries around the strong force and gluon interactions.

[@annapierce8666]

So basically you're saying the strong nuclear force contains most of our universes mass. That's hEaVy Aton

[@SiberCatLP]

You know it's a good explanation when you can see the answer before it's told to you. For me, the lightbulb hit me right after gluons were mentioned. "Right, the protons and neutrons are held together so strongly we thought they were indivisible for decades. The binding energy is probably immense. Wait, energy and mass are related: E=mc^2! It's the binding energy!" A wonderful explanation, Anton. Thanks, as always.

[@OmniGuy]

Anton and Arvin. Two absolutely spectacular teachers.

[@tortysoft]

I was really confused by this, so I asked my son, who is doing his PhD partly at Cern. He said :- " The Higgs gives 100% of the mass of fundamental particles. So 100% of the mass of particles like quarks and electrons, which aren't made out of anything smaller, comes from the Higgs. You then have constituent particles like protons, made up out of quarks. Associated with the binding of quarks together to form a proton is an energy - the 'binding energy' (that is, glouns hold it together). Because E=mc^2, this binding energy, required to hold the quarks together, has a mass. It works out that for particles like the proton, the overwhelming majority of the mass comes from this binding energy rather than the contributions of the mass from the quarks" Wonderfully clear I thought.

[@thedeemon]

Right!

[@LordZero666]

Ohh, that clears everything up. Fundamental particles with mass get it from the higgs field, particles that are made out of smaller particles get it's mass from the binding energy between them. If this is correct i totally feel like children in primary school will learn about this like a fact of life, just like we do with evolution.

[@MrDiveDave]

I have been following this channel for quite awhile now. I am very happy to see Antons success. Always a great explanation of complicated topics for the rest of us to understand a little better.

[@whatdamath]

thank you Dave

[@MasterDeroy]

This is absolutely fascinating Anton, please do keep your vids coming. If the seperation of gluons creates a force which we attribute as gravity, maybe we need to give forces new names when dealing with subatomic particles. Will this research lead to anti gravity technology? Maybe. Lol

[@SSD0584]

I would think that if gravity is mass attracting other mass then anti gravity would have to mean we would have to have anti mass and with that being said anti means (lack of) mass which seems impossible.

[@GRosa250]

@@SSD0584 what about anti matter, does that qualify as anti mass?

[@SSD0584]

@@GRosa250 Anti matter responds to gravity just like regular matter. It just annihilates when it comes into contact.

[@MasterDeroy]

We already have anti gravity capabilities such as super symmetry using magnets and dry ice. I feel its just about a matter of time before we realize we can manipulate gluons to reduce the mass of an object therefore making it easy to float/fly. People need to think outside the box more, it's how we got here.

[@johncledd8063]

I'll dare to say that those gluons are a key to better understand the time and mass relationship

[@breannathompson9094]

3:55 unfortunately that time around 2012, astrophysics became a pop culture movement. And "higgs boson" sounds much more catchy than the recent discoveries! Plus you caught the wave of people with tv shows like big bang theory, nova, or cosmos who didn't really have a passion for astrophysics or quantum physics, they just rode the wave of popularity.

[@-jeff-]

TY Anton for another massively intelligent video and being the gluon than holds us in your orbit.

[@galaxia4709]

Lol, sweet

[@BleachDemon707]

You're a dummy, huh?🙄

[@kiwibob223]

The gluons must be moving at close to the speed of light yes? And we expect an objects mass to increase as it approaches the speed of light. Is this increase the same or a consequence of the gluons interaction with the underlying fields?

[@AtomicQBomb]

Damn good point bro

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

i heard it said that gluons are massless & everything that's massless moves at the speed of light.

[@LyubomirIko]

The gluons come IN and OUT of existence out of nowhere. They are virtual. They zip around the quarks in speeds closer to that of the light for a moment, then disappear. Repeat. Think about it - what we call mass/energy literally comes from the equivalent of tiny Perpetuum mobile....in avery atom. OUT of nowhere. The Law of Conservation of energy is violated there - by the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The philosophical complications of this are massive. Think about it.

[@freefall9832]

May the Ukraine 🇺🇦 have strong gluons and maintain light speed mass! Glory to the Ukraine

[@AnthOny-gl7lj]

Thank you for your integrity, Anton. I completely understand, especially being on KZbin, that you have to title certain videos a certain way to get clicks. I always find your content to be well researched and good-intentioned. Good for you on calling out the superficial way that the news works, and how this is informing what the general public knows about such important and fascinating discoveries in your field. Keep doing what you’re doing. I will be a subscriber and avid watcher for as long as you are making content. We love you!

[@jamesmartin9401]

This makes perfect sense to me. Mass has to be more of an effect, no gaming pun intended, than an intrinsic quality. In essence, matter is just tightly wound energy and it's interactions. I say this as a total layman but it's not unlike anything else. You don't lose that energy. Otherwise, fission and fusion wouldn't result in massive energy releases. I'll take Anton's word that mathematically it's counter-intuitive, but conceptually, I'm not really struggling with it.

[@NullHand]

I recall, back in the '90s, a QM exercise problem on the mass contributions of proton components. The Higgs wasn't yet observed then, but was theory. That theory and collider measurements already showed quarks had a rest mass that summed to far lower than a proton. So one can take the de Broglie matter wavelength equation, set the wavelength to the collider measured diameter of the proton, and using Planks constant get a rough value for the momentum of a quark. Throw the (dodgy) available mass figured for a quark in and you are left with a highly relativistic velocity. I know that physicists often get really huffy about relativistic mass not being "true gravitating rest mass", but if you added the relativistic mass to the quark rest masses you get pretty close to the measured rest mass of a proton. Same trick works for a neutron. This is a really blunt tool hack, compared to more refined computational QCD models that show a Maelstrom of energy swapping between quark momentum and gluon bond lengths in the weird three body configurations within triquarks. But it did leave me with the lasting impression that ultimately "matter" was really just our arbitrary word for trapped energy, and it is thus energy that ultimately gives us gravity, and the properties we assign to ”matter”.

[@pierluigidipietro8097]

So, maybe one can imagine a way to resonate to this binding energy and lower the mass value almost to zero. Did you envision a UAP accelerating as if they have zero inertia? Have a nice day

[@SpeakerWiggin49]

Matching the resonance would be extremely difficult as the interior interactions of quarks making up baryons is complex and has very high entropy.

[@pierluigidipietro8097]

@@SpeakerWiggin49 "extremely difficoult" is a concept way different than "impossible"

[@fractalboy8125]

Not the best discussion of this topic. It’s been known for a long time that the vast majority of the mass of a hadron comes from short lived quark anti-quark pairs produced by gluon decays. Since the strong force is so strong, gluons decay very rapidly producing these pairs, which in turn anihilate just as quickly. However, at a given instance in time, a hadron typically contains many more quarks and anti quarks than just the valance ones. This is why hadrons are so massive. It also explains the pion exchange force that holds nuclei together and why the lhc is capable of doing top physics using protons. Without looking at the results you mention, I believe the animations you show are intended to describe this phenomenon. Incidentally, the statements about the Higgs in your introduction also don’t apply, since in the standard model fermions gain their mass through yukawa couplings with the Higgs field. This includes sea and valance quarks equally

[@michaellee6489]

So does this explain dark matter? Dark energy? Great stuff, Anton! I respect you so much for being honest about prior mistakes or mishaps... It goes a long way towards your credibility in the future. Good to have someone we can count on like that.

[@ritemolawbks8012]

It might account for some of the *dark* *matter,* but this type of matter interacts with light and other visible mass, energy, and radiation. It's still not nearly enough to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe and the gravitational source binding galaxy clusters.

[@ThatCrazyKid0007]

Nope, this just changes where we think the mass comes from in an atom, it doesn't change the amount of mass we measure atoms to have which is why it's not related to dark matter/energy.

@@ThatCrazyKid0007 no it doesn’t change how we think about mass, it just confirms it

[@SpeakerWiggin49]

Unfortunately, it appears that Dark Matter can't be made out of Fermions and Bosons. If it was, it would interact with other forces, such as electromagnetism.

[@RiyazGuerra]

Thank you for the detailed and easy to understand explanation! You are a great teacher, your students are lucky to have you!

[@chadriffs]

Finally, my theory has been confirmed! I have said that mass comes from spin which further creates form, time and consciousness. Because prior to spin is duality or positive and negative/EM which can switch back and forth but when spin is introduced a third force is created which gives form (this not that) time (here not there) and consciousness (perspective as this here now, not that there before).

[@pahg]

So much to learn about ourselves and our universe. Thanks, Anton, for what you do.

[@yun.mp4728]

Hi Anton I agree so much with your opening statement about clickbait! And it’s one of the reasons why I watch your Chanel! You do not clickbait in your titles or claim that studies we have made way back in 2015 are new scientific evidence! So many channels are pumping out skewed science and it will confuse so many people who aren’t already aware of the real factual science behind the skewed mislead information in shitty KZbin channels! X

[@grantwithers]

Amazing job on the presentation as usual anton.

[@tnekkc]

My college professor from 1974 was on PBS TV ~two years later, and the moderator would not let him say QUARK. It is a good thing we now have youtube and Anton.

[@tashalee666]

I am so deeply sorry for your loss, thank you so much for your content.

[@victoriay6246]

Been watching Anton for over three years….. I swear he is the BEST source for research paper reviews. Man is solid!! ♥️

[@AdlerMow]

This is the link between relativity and quantum mechanics! E=MC2, down to subatomic scale. Hope they keep on track for more amazing discoveries like this!

[@adampackard7953]

Besides the brilliantly done explanation, the smile at the end gets me every time :)

[@daltanionwaves]

This actually makes mass very Intuitive rather than counterintuitive... Because the binding force is the measure of the constraint on the motion of quarks. These quarks in our own bodies exist in quantum fields not empty space, and so we physically feel that resistance to acceleration in the macro experience of human scaled life... Additionally, no 2 fermions can occupy the same state, so we don't flow freely through space like we would if we were made out of photons. We can pretty darn near think of motion itself as a more fundamental force underpinning all energies kinetic and potential and otherwise, so thinking of mass-energy equivalence in terms of binding energy, and how much a body resists acceleration, follows very naturally from the strong force. This is the best explanation of mass I've seen so far.

[@WeBeGood06]

Hi Anton, maybe this will help. These Results in this paper are what is expected from the Quantized Inertia Theory. Hypothesis: "Unruh Waves == Strong Force == Gluons" When Physicist get the Name Wrong, decades of confusion ensue. Gluons are not glue, and aren't holding things together, and are not inbetween Quarks. They are Unruh Radiation "pushing" things together. There is no Dark Matter. The correct Theory is Quantized Inertia, a version of MOND. With Quantized Inertia, it is the Unruh Radiation that creates Mass, pushing on things equally from all sides from the Universe Horizon to the opposite Horizon.

[@aureaphilos]

I greatly appreciate your honesty, Anton! "We now have a slightly better visualization allowing us to kind of see this, and allowing us to kind of understand what's happening... eh, at least to some extent." A nice video on an extremely difficult-to-conceptualize subject. Nice work, Anton.

[@jeroendebruijn1974nl]

nton, you wonderful person. Even if i would agree you did have some clickbait articles in the past. You are one of the few resources we can all rely on to have actually done your research and give us the truth withing those great videos of yours.

[@landforsalestore]

As a commoner, and not a physicist, the first reaction I had to this excellent video is that those "squiggly lines" could be an explanation for gravity. I mean, if they are a force that creates mass, and mass is attracted to mass, then the more of these "squiggly lines" there are, i.e. the greater the mass, the greater should be the attractive force. Thanks Anton.

[@LightBringer666]

the way you've described it, it feels to me like protons and neutrons may look like galaxies made of gluons and that's beautiful

[@Midas2010]

Absolutely brilliant explanation that helps to visualise what is happening!

[@TheDirge69]

Anton, you are a very good communicator!

[@banba317]

Thanks for posting this; it's utterly fascinating!

[@sirensaid243]

Such a truly amazing time to be into astronomy & Such a truly wonderful person to share and educate us as you do Anton. Can't wait for tomorrow's video

[@younie-froonie]

Anton is the best. I think I'll be listening for as long as you keep making videos. I watch every episode everyday❤

[@stefanfyhn4668]

I think it's somewhat intuitive. Based on the following ideas: - Gluon strands gain energy when stretched - You can only stretch a gluon by adding energy - When gluon strands are stretched too far apart and break, they just create new quarks. - New matter(quarks and gluons) are created when energy is added (gluons stretched to point of breaking) -Energy IS mass At this point I'm just having trouble understanding the nature of gluons, where they get their energy from. Unless gluons is fundamentally energy and mass altogether, that just * exists * due to coupling quarks together. So does quarks create energy and mass via their coupling?

[@deeplearning7097]

Excellent work, as always. Thanks Anton.

[@58degreewedge61]

This video is freaking awesome!! Your description and video effects almost made this incredible discovery understandable for my tiny brain. The philosophical take away from this is that the forces that keeps people together (love primarily) is massive in the big picture of everything.

[@rwsmith7638]

Thanks Anton, for keep things clear.

[@charlesjmouse]

A pretty darn good explanation for a chap who professes to find the subject difficult. Many thanks.

[@Antoine893]

Thank you for mentioning the MIT video. This is a super interesting subject and I was about to ask you if you could recommend resources to understand this better, but you anticipated that.

[@borabingol6797]

This is the best video I have ever watched explaining mass along with how protons/neutrons exist. And the new finding is another mind blowing thing. I suppose that may change the static and slow advance in physics where we may encounter a leap in physics. Thanks for lecturing us, thanks for enlightining us.

[@dennisbrown5313]

Their results both add to and confirm a lot of what was known - certainly, that gluons are responsible for most the mass of a proton/neutron has been known for a while already. Further, that these gluon fields get more energetic as these quarks separate was also well understood. But just because gluons separate on their own yet their mass increases is new and glad you discussed this important discovery. By the way, gravity really isn't a force - yes, we all say that when talking to lay people but in a vid like this, its best to note that there is no such force. So rather then talking about gravity causes mass's to attract - which is misleading - point out that this effect is a complex interaction of mass/space and time that appears like such a force exists. The advantage of using the correct cause of gravity is if it turns out that "Modified Gravity" is correct, and that the one over 'R' squared law does not always hold if other fields are involved (which there is no proof yet) becomes logical.

[@matteyas]

I am happy to see that the mass-energy equivalence being literal is finally reaching a wider audience! The next step is to look at the energy-frequency equivalence. :) My hypothesis is that the frequency is not wave equation based, but a measure of quantum interaction likelihood. For example, any particle that _interacts_ with the Higgs field has a potential in relation to it and thus gets a mass contribution. Potential energy can then be seen as the interaction probability (per time, to make the connection to frequency) and kinetic energy can be seen as a gradient in the interaction probability matrix. Of course, this is quite speculative, but I find that quantum interaction frequency is a highly useful thing to contemplate.

[@Galaxius2117]

I've literally watched this channel grow with my own eyes since around 100,000 subscribers. It is amazing how far you've come!

[@Censor-Target]

This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you.