It's worth mentioning, the top quark isn't the largest quark, merely the heaviest. Quarks have the peculiar property of being smaller the heavier they are. So the top quark is actually the smallest quark in terms of size.

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Interesting, thank you!

@rickmacdonald5575

Жыл бұрын

So top quarks are to bottom quarks what alpha particles are to beta particles heh geh joke

@rickmacdonald5575

Жыл бұрын

Oh my new pickup like is gurrrrl dat thang on u is hotter than the Planck temp… it’s just too bad my thang is smaller than Planck length

@civotamuaz5781

Жыл бұрын

@@rickmacdonald5575 now listen i'm not much for jokes, ok?

@jakublizon6375

Жыл бұрын

All particles have a greater spread the less massive they are. That's why protons are more well defined in terms of position than electrons. If you look at a model of an atom, you have a tiny point surrounded by a large diffuse electron cloud.

There's another Planck unit which is the weight of a small sea creature that whales eat. This is called the Planck Ton.

@Lilly-Lilac

Жыл бұрын

As opposed to a Planck tonne, or one million planck masses

@johntaylor2683

Жыл бұрын

You could also walk the length of a planck to end up in the sea with the Planck Ton.

@jlwilder8436

Жыл бұрын

😉 😄 😂

@JustAnotherAlchemist

4 ай бұрын

*angry upvote*

@Martin-pb7ts

4 ай бұрын

Fantastic.

i couldn't figure out what the Planck mass really was until you explained how it's the mass of the black hole with size of a Planck length. instantly made sense

@isabelaatenska

Жыл бұрын

Same! I was really confused because the other Planck units are like the smallest, densest, shortest, hottest, but this is neither the heaviest or the lightest so only with that explanation can my dysfunctional brain understand it.

@justanotherguy469

Жыл бұрын

Black holes do not have size as at the Schwartzschild metric, space itself collapses and distance and time no longer have representation.

@mrfarts5176

4 ай бұрын

All this was nonsense then. Jesus, this video should have been a minute long.

@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394

4 ай бұрын

I would have led with that.

@smb1397

4 ай бұрын

so the planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible black hole?

Interesting point thats often missed: There arnt just 3 quarks in a proton and neutron, they are something of a soup of quarks and anti-quarks popping in and out. The three valence quarks that are often treated as the only quarks around are the imbalance. I.e. there are two more up quarks and one more down quark than their anti versions.

@AbelShields

Жыл бұрын

And it doesn't seem like just those ones, did you see the recent report that looks like there might be some probability of a strange quark too? Fascinating.

@oisnowy5368

Жыл бұрын

Thank you. One day the vile snookerball model of quantum physics will be ousted and it will be a glorious day. Or not. We tried to commune with the spirit of Schrödinger but he was in two minds about it. Puns aside, I wish it was stated more often, so thank you.

@oisnowy5368

Жыл бұрын

Thank you. One day the vile snookerball model of quantum physics will be ousted and it will be a glorious day. Or not. We tried to commune with the spirit of Schrödinger but he was in two minds about it. Puns aside, I wish it was stated more often, so thank you.

@FermionPhysics

Жыл бұрын

That is not true. There are strictly 3 quarks in a proton. Particles do not “pop in and out” of existence.

@nmarbletoe8210

Жыл бұрын

And that's why a proton has some inherent charm, or so they say down at the bar.

Every time I try to move at the speed of light, my body produces so many top quarks that I just don't move ... and end up watching your insightful videos!

I LOVE that we know this stuff, but have no idea what it means.

@crateer

Жыл бұрын

*i

@kenrickbenjamin1608

Жыл бұрын

I means that the Mass in the Singularity (Strong, Weak & Electromagnetic force) is so great that it produces Gravity. Einstein's Logic.

@richardeller2978

Жыл бұрын

Me too. 😂

@kenrickbenjamin1608

Жыл бұрын

@@hrsmp I know where it's going a millionth of a second before it all started. I am way beyond that.

@skyflaks6380

Жыл бұрын

Like the extinct languages that we've discovered written on slabs and rocks.

Thanks for the video! You always explain these incredibly complex topics in a way that is easy to comprehend. 👍

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much. I'm glad you enjoyed the video.

Great video, but how disappointingly large is the Planck mass --though that little matter compressed within a Planck length would form a black hole is still kind of impressive

@oisnowy5368

Жыл бұрын

That little? Or that much? How much time would it take on average to radiate it away through Hawking radiation?

@LeopoldoGhielmetti

Жыл бұрын

@@oisnowy5368 An instant or an infinite time. Because nothing smaller can exist there are two hypothesis. The first is that he radiates in an instant, disappearing and releasing all of it's mass to energy. The second is that he can't radiate simply because he can't get smaller, so the black hole remain stuck at that size without any change for the eternity. This last hypothesis is what someone think can be what we call "dark matter", a bunch of tiny (primordial) black holes that are all around us and fill all the interstellar space. At that size, they have no gravity to attract anything and are too small to eat anything, so they stay forever at that size, but all that mass adds up and at the galaxy level the total mass can be seen as dark matter. None of those hypothesis are confirmed.

@erikrichardgregory

Жыл бұрын

@@oisnowy5368 I'm guessing it would radiate away in a quadrillionth of a second or something, probably less :)

@nickluckovitch3288

Жыл бұрын

@@erikrichardgregory Probably evaporate in a Planck second

@erikrichardgregory

Жыл бұрын

@@nickluckovitch3288 by God, you’re probably right. The “Plancks” are all sort of tied together, aren’t they? I’ll bet you’re right

Your explanation is pretty solid. Only E=MC^2 is not the whole equation, its simplified so that it can go on a shirt. The full equation is actually: E^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC)^2 E=energy M=mass P=momentum C=light speed (constant)

@sipofsunkist9016

Жыл бұрын

Now that I think abt it, even that might be simplified. I’m not old enough to have gone to one of Einsteins lectures so I really can’t say for sure…

@imperialguardsman135

5 ай бұрын

E=MC^2 is true for a static mass

@JustNow42

4 ай бұрын

The contribution from mC^2 can be ignored at very high velocities since pC grow very fast.

@jinga9862

4 ай бұрын

It's E=mc^2 because most things do not go fast enough for it to affect the equation. Light tends to be the only thing to need that half of the equation. Of course, this is my very vague memory so if might be wrong

@user-og4fk6os1r

4 ай бұрын

He's talking about inertial (rest) mass so E=mc^2 is correct. Momentum by definition doesn't contribute to inertial mass. Otherwise objects would have different masses in different reference frames and all sorts of absurdities would ensue such as some observers seeing a black hole and others seeing a normal star.

Awesome video! I really like the format and the simplicity of the videos. Keep growing!

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much

I've watched so many videos about particles but never understood the relationship between them, watching your video is the first time it has been clear to me! Thanks for the great explanations

Great video! Just found your channel 2 days ago, and I'm loving it! I like the way you explained the Planck equations so easily, together with the fundamental particles. Greetings from Brazil.

you kicked up my learning curve through the roof thanks a lot!

Your presentation style is really easy to understand! It makes me want to see a collaboration series between you and @ScienceClicEN

Very nice presentation of all the different particles, thanks!

Thanks for another great video this is fast becoming my go to channel for information and enjoyment.

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much and I appreciate your kind words.

@joz6683

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningCurveScience No problem, it easy to be kind when your telling the truth...

Extremely clear explanation. Thank you!

I love your channel, interesting and informative video! I also liked the last background song

That was simply amazingly done.

Nicely done. Good pacing, clear explanations, and not too much information despite the fact that the subject matter is highly complex. Good use of maths and I'd only add some explanation of the use of the constants and why they are used to make the determination(s) under review.

Brilliant, superbly explained

Well explained, I agree with you that a tiny Planck Mass black hole would be the tiniest black hole possible, and several of these may be what is at the center of normal-sized black holes.

Thank you for another video!

You have a nice voice that's enjoyable to listen to.

Quarks and all their flavors are so interesting. Great video!

Great video Really enjoyed this one !!! 🤗🤗🤗

nicely explained, good work sir

This is exactly what I was wondering, thanks

Another very enjoyable video. I will be honest I had no idea what the vast majority of particles were but am better for watching it

So..in short then. The Planck mass is the mass of a black hole of one planck length radius.

Very interesting video. I learned a lot! Thanks

You made it very fun to watch, thanks.

@LearningCurveScience

4 ай бұрын

Glad to hear that!

11:43 Timestamp for the impatient who want the answer. Thanks for a good satisfying explanation. Describing a black hole of that mass where it's radius is equal to plank length makes a ton of sense, as that's probably the smallest size a black hole can be before it totally evaporates.

Thank you so much. That gives me a better, established term for what is really going on. 1. The total energy at every point is a constant. (Planck mass equivalent) 2. There is no such thing as negative energy. 3. Spacetime is a field of potential energy, governing motion.

@DFPercush

Жыл бұрын

The binding energy of particles, like an electron in an atom, is often given as a negative number, because it's relative to a free, unbound electron. There can also be things like negative heat given off by a chemical reaction (i.e. it's an endothermic reaction). But if you're just talking about the energy content of a particular patch of space, that's measured relative to the "ground state" which is a minimum, so I guess in a way you could say it's always positive. But it's all relative to something. That ground state might not be zero. See vacuum decay. If the energy at every point was a constant, there wouldn't be any curvature of spacetime. There wouldn't be much of anything.

@themcchuck8400

Жыл бұрын

@@DFPercush There is no "negative energy" that subtracts from energy to leave... nothing. There are things we arbitrarily label "negative" for convenience, but it's still energy. There are opposites, but there is no "anti" energy. Spacetime potential energy + every other form of energy = constant. The gradients in each field (especially spacetime) are why acceleration (and motion) exist.

Is the Plank mass related to the diffraction limit? i.e. things with mass up to the Plank mass, can diffract, by lesser amounts until something bigger than the Plank mass won't diffract, or experience much quantum effects?

Bro you're so underrated these videos are a breeze to watch and they're really easy to understand!

Does everything happen instantly at plank meter per plank time?

Another great video!

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much it really does mean a lot.

This is why the talk about the Planck length being special is bunk. I guess we can’t escape people latching onto something that sounds good.

Nicely explained ! Do we have something called as a plank force? I.e. the gravitational force between two plank masses 🤣😁

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much. Interesting. I'm researching some more of the Planck units, so I'll let you know.

@anic1716

Жыл бұрын

Yes, there exists someone like the Planck force. Force is M*L/t² so we just need to take the Planck mass, multiply it by the Planck length and divide it by Planck time squared

@cceres

Жыл бұрын

@@anic1716 ...and then what happens? Physics was a long time ago. >>

@lancebradshaw4829

Жыл бұрын

@@cceres You get about 1.21 x 10^44 newtons.

@cceres

Жыл бұрын

@@lancebradshaw4829 I... that is a *lot* of force from some very very small measurements...

Very good video

Roger Penrose suggested that Planck mass is roughly a threshold where quantum mechanics turns into classical one (with general relativity). Something like: superposition of many states may exist as long as they don't differ by more then planck masses's worth of energy. Then wave function collapses and some photon which was 'everywhere' ends up in one particular point.

Yess finally someone giving attention to this

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you. I plan to do as many of the Planck units as I can, and then explain the maths behind them

@U20E0

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningCurveScience maybe do a video on _c_ as well?

Is the plank mass the amount of mass needed to permeate the quantum vacuum for an area the size of the Plank scale and become a singularity?

At plank units, as the sizes get smaller and interactions fewer doesn't the temperature tend to zero or cold rather than hot?

When any elementary particle reaches the speed of light,its relativisic mass becomes equal to Planck's mass instead of becoming infinite,its size becomes equal to Planck's length instead of becoming zero and its lifetime becomes equal to Planck's time which is the evaporation time of the smallest possible black hole according to Hawking(see papers on "The Principle of Finiteness" in arxiv and JOP by Abraham Sternlieb).This requires certain corrections to Lorentz Transformations and to the Uncertainty Principle which are compatible with string theory and Quantum Gravity.

Very good

Hey i heard in some other video that in neutron stars, neutrons are formed when a proton and an electron are smashed together. If that is the case why does a neutron not have an electron as one of its constituents.....🤔

If anything, this just goes to show how ludicrously compressed a black hole really is. Something with a size that makes even a neutrino look like a nebula, with a weight that, for anything else, would be visible to the naked eye.

A particle having plant mass in a size of plank volume should be a black hole with plant density.. right?

Though I wonder then, if you've got planck time (time can't be measured any smaller) and plank length (distance can't be measured any smaller) then what would you call the smallest possible measurable unit of mass?

At the beginning shouldn't there be also a momentum component? And wouldn't it throw out the calculation for mass?

The binding energy is not all of the remaining mass of protons and neutrons. A large majority of the " missing mass " is due to the inertia of the quarks being tugged back and forth like a carnival ride within the internal structure of the hadron. Inertia will always translate to mass.

I think the interesting thing about the Planck Mass is the density that it infers, which is about 5.1550×10^96kg/m^3. This is much much more mass than is in the visible universe, in a 1m Cube.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

Жыл бұрын

Well, what this video fails to report, is that the planck mass is the largest mass a single fundamental particle can theoretically have without immediately collapsing into a planck size black hole. It is equivalent to a microgram, approximately. So that density, could be correct. I will not even try to confirm, my math is bad. I have a vivid visual representation of cosmology and quantum mechanics in my head.

fantastic

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Thank you very much, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

10:20 Everyone watching this video blinked when you said this.

Would you consider doing a video about the Planck Force?

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Yes it is on my list, don't worry.

Finally a Planck unit I can comprehend

TL:DR: The Planck Mass is the mass a black hole with a radius of a Planck length would have

I mean exactly what i was expecting. The mass engery in a planck length, or rather volume, needed to create a black hole the size of it. But why the schwarzschield radius and not the diameter?

Is the c squared ⬛️ a 1 dimension line in time giving it the "square" shape tucked into the invisible time structure? Like, this is my line >//

@Naomi_Boyd

Жыл бұрын

Nah, mate. The square bit comes from the formula for the hypotenuse of a right triangle. It's got nothing to do with linear velocity. It's all about the angle of motion relative to the direction of travel.

@nunjahBitnes

Жыл бұрын

@@Naomi_Boyd couldn't that visual somewhat be related? Or am I waaay off? Maybe I'll just read about it...in 8 years when I'm ready

@Naomi_Boyd

Жыл бұрын

@@nunjahBitnes Nah, you're not way off. Think of it like this. Light is what's called a transverse wave. It oscillates perpendicular to the direction of travel. That means it's constantly moving in two directions at once, and those two directions are at right angles to one another. The square is not necessarily hidden. You just have to know where to look. And if you think of a particle as a light clock, like the ones in Einstein's theory, you'd have your invisible time structure hidden in the square instead of the other way around. 🙃

Interesting 🤔 thank you

So am I understanding correctly (if simplistically) that the Planck mass is the smallest amount of mass necessary to generate a black hole?

How fast is plank length per Planck time

great vid

The planck length is the distance I meed to turn the knob in my shower for icy cold water or superheated plasma.

(havent watched the video yet) whouldint the plank mass just be the plank length?

how come planck mass, length, time and so on, are small units, while planck temperature is big?

'I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness'. That also was Max Planck

Planck length and time are invariably touted as the smallest distances and times possible, as if they were somehow fundamental in some sense. Planck mass, on the other hand, is relatively enormous. What fundamental characteristic resides with a mass as large as a speck of dust?

@user-sn8je1py5o

Жыл бұрын

PLANCK MASS/ENERGY IS THE ENERGY OF ANY ELEMENTARY PARTICLE MOVING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND ALSO TRHE MAXIMUM ENERGY OF A PHOTON,THEREFORE OF COSMIC RAYS OF ANY KIND.

Question: does a fully charged battery 🔋 have more mass than a drained one?

I was under the impression that E=MC^2 was a conversion equation. How can the gluons' binding energy be measured as having mass if energy must be converted to create that mass? Or is it that the gluons give up energy to account for the mass of the particle?

@mikenewtonninja9379

Жыл бұрын

relativistic mass - energy and mass are equivalent.

@annoloki

Жыл бұрын

Gluons aren't things. They are an expression of energy transfer in the language of particles (the standard model is, as its name states, a model... a way of describing behaviour, it should not be taken too literally... a bit like a hurricane, which exists in a place, but it's not a thing.. it's a behaviour, or rather, a collection of behaviours exhibited by air and water under certain conditions that perpetuate the continued existence of that collection of behaviours)

@CrunchRosey

Жыл бұрын

@@annoloki Ok, but we're talking about measuring the mass of a particle. I'm confused because what he said was comparable to an object weighing more because it has higher potential energy (for example). If I raise a rock above my head it wont weigh more because mass and energy cannot be measured in the same metric. So saying a proton has additional mass due to the binding energy of gluons doesnt make sense to me.

@CrunchRosey

Жыл бұрын

@@mikenewtonninja9379 I know in atomic reactions mass can be converted to/from a constant energy equialent. But he was saying the measurable mass of the particle was being affected by the energy of its constituents, if I threw a ball it wouldnt get heavier so I'm just wondering how we can measure energy as having an effect on the particle's mass. Now I feel like im falling into my own opinion...

So would one way to think about it be that this would be the upper bound of mass of a singular particle?

@user-sn8je1py5o

Жыл бұрын

YES.THIS ALSO MEANS THAT PLANCK MASS/ENERGY IS THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF COSMIC RAY/PARTICLE ENERGY.

New to me thanks for letting us know. 12:45

@Learning Curve Given the planck length, there is e planck wavelength and thus a planck frequency and thus a planck (maximum) foton energy. Using E=mC2, does this foton have the planck mass? I am not able to calculate but it sounds "logical"...

@dtakamalakirthidissanayake9770

Жыл бұрын

Great Planck (Maximum) Photon Energy.

@hugolandheer7008

Жыл бұрын

@@dtakamalakirthidissanayake9770 Thank you for your answer. So that is not the same energy?

@annoloki

Жыл бұрын

A maximum amount of energy density that this model of physics can describe. Experiments required to study higher energy levels are not available to us, so there's nothing we can say about them, like, whether they can or can't exist.

We may not know exactly what happens in the center of a black hole, but it's best kept that way. I can't imagine anything good happening there.

So is another interpretation of plank mass the smallest mass that can produce a measurable black hole?

Just a detail and major discovery on gluons a few weeks back which was major discovery in particle physics but either misrepresented by science journalism or totally overlooked by them. in terms of the detail, the gluons would look like a cloud if you could image it. similar to the electron cloud in the orbital ''shells'' of the outskirts of atomic nuclei. individual gluons were isolated and found to possess an infinitesimally tiny mass.when i say individual gluons i mean in a quantum sense. really the wave-particle duality thing of basic quantum mechanics was dismantled with quantum field theory in which really they are more akin to waves, which are quantised, meaning they have discrete energy levels and so form wave packets. when we do a position value measurement the wavefunction superposition of the photon/electron/neutrino/muon e.c.t. collapses and assumes one more localised value chosen at random but generally choosing points where the probability of it turning up was highest .it is never a point particle, but merely a more localised wavepacket, because heisenberg uncertainty principle means there is always some uncertainty over the position-so the position can never be 100 percent known and the momentum can never be zero known, therefore. so its clouds and waves we should think of in regard to the gluons and quarks. in terms of gluon study recent measurements and discoveries at the jefferson lab have answered once and for most of the mysteries surrounding the gluon binding mechanism and mass. the study was published under the title ''experimental determination of the QCD effective charge''. the gluon discovery was therefore accidental but is definitive as it comes from an entire decade's worth of data from smashing electrons at protons and neutrons in particle colliders. previously the gluon binding mechanism of QCD has been represented as a rubber band analogy in previous simulation images. and while this is probably still the best intuitive analogy, we now have a new more accurate simulation of the strong force coupling produced by jefferson lab and MIT jointly. its actually the kinetic energy of the gluons that provides the majority of the mass of the proton and neutron. i find it best to think of mass as confined energy manifesting as resistance to inertia. quarks seem to gather up gluons to themselves as the quarks move around, and the quarks acquire the gluons binding energy, causing the quarks to be strongly stuck together by the strongest known superglue in the universe-the strong nuclear force. the quarks gather more of the gluon field to them, as the quarks move across larger distances.at the shortest distances from the quarks the strong force coupling is actual relatively weak. it increases with greater distances but then it stops increasing, staying prettu much at the same coupling strength. but i suppose this is like a rubber band that has been pulled as far apart as it possibly can go. the gluons themselves therefore, get their really really really tiny mass from the strong coupling force between themselves and the quarks.

It's like the substrate to the universe. As if there was a layer of energy 90° to us moving at c.

The physics of QCD surely induces madness in the mind

I read somewhere that a Planck mass is about the same mass as a flea egg.

So, it's roughly the mass of that little bit of thread you snip off the end of something you've finished sewing, on account of it being behind the knot in the thread.

That was deep! 🇦🇺🤗

The Planck momentum is also quite normal. There is nothing physical, which makes the derived units more or less real.

What about the mass of a photon, I watched another video and it vaguely said that because it has energy it effectively has mass even if it doesn’t

@attilajuhasz2526

Жыл бұрын

Not mass, per se. Momentum.

acording to gpt, the mass in E=mc2 is squared too. by algebraic rules, it should look like (m*c)2, if im right.

A single serving of Planck Mass equals how many ounces?

So the plank mass is basically the mass of a black hole the size of the plank length?

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Yes pretty much, there are some other implications too, but that appears to be one of the main considerations

Is there a Planck density?

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Yes I'm doing a video on it soon (ish)

Neutrons, the AharonovBohm particle. All curl, no inflow or outflow. Thus no charge.

Why do you keep using Kg for such small masses?

I am dumb. I can't follow simple explanations. I am still tapping the thumbs up 👍 button to feed the algorithm monsters. It's not this clip's creator's fault that I can't understand the concepts.

So, in conclusion, a human ovum can never become a black hole. Even squeezed to the Planck volume, will at best make a neutron star

@ironl4nd

Жыл бұрын

Haha, awesome :D

Wow that wasn’t as small as I was expecting

@jibjab1408

Жыл бұрын

"that's what she said"

From what I have learned, 3-quark hadrons are bound by a Y shaped gluon tube. But that may be speculative :-/

QM classicalized in 2010: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the ‘hidden variables ‘ and constants, and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr,etc. A proton is a collection of @1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

If the universe is exapnding then as spacial area grows then that must increase the number of Planck Lengths, perhaps? And if Planck Lengths have mass, is the universe gaining mass? Just wondering how it works.

Cool video! Unrelated question: Are you from Yorkshire? I live there currently and that's what they kinda sound like

@LearningCurveScience

Жыл бұрын

Actually I'm from the other side of the Pennines, so Lancashire way.

@thakyou5005

Жыл бұрын

@@LearningCurveScience oh! That's interesting, thanks for the reply!

if that's the planck mass then what is the point of weighing anything smaller? how does something smaller than planck mass have mass?

Any one else find themselves humming Hawkwind while listening to this?