The Origins of Mass

1. First "kinetic energy", as the linear momentum of a particulate mass-object that is in motion relative to another (e.g. 'observer') mass-object, as imparted to it by an initial 'pulse' of accelerating force; and the "potential energy" we say a mass-object has that is being held aloft in a (say) gravitational field, are in fact the same thing - the "held aloft" object being, in fact, subjected to a sustained (or you might say, not yet completed pulse of) accelerating force point-radially with respect to the center of mass of the system under consideration.
2. Second, all "motion" is - ultimately - point-radial, originating from "The Big Bang", and still proceeding from it we must assume - no matter which 'direction' a given particulate mass-object is "pushed" by one of its fellows.
What distinguishes a bounded region (such as a "proton") of confined motion (such as that of its "quarks") from the "empty space" (defined by the propagation of EMR photons through it at "the speed of light") surrounding such a region, is precisely that property it exhibits that we call "mass", and which is more accurately described (I propose) as the point-radial (and 'still spinning') fluid vortexual acceleration-flow (complete with 'length contraction' and 'time dilation') imparted to the spacetime contained in that region by some initial point-radially 'explosive' event like "The Big Bang" or a stellar supernova.
3. "Spacetime", the 'stuff' we perceive as being "curved" by the presence of a gravitating mass, is an otherwise scale-uniform superfluid medium (SUM) whose self-relative motion -- a.k.a. "acceleration" -- is what endows it with structure (geometric and otherwise).

Ouch! But ok 🤭, let's move on:
1. First "kinetic energy", as the linear momentum of a particulate mass-object that is in motion relative to another (e.g. 'observer') mass-object, as imparted to it by an initial 'pulse' of accelerating force; and the "potential energy" we say a mass-object has that is being held aloft in a (say) gravitational field, are in fact the same thing - the "held aloft" object being, in fact, subjected to a sustained (or you might say, not yet completed pulse of) accelerating force point-radially with respect to the center of mass of the system under consideration.
2. Second, all "motion" is - ultimately - point-radial, originating from "The Big Bang", and still proceeding from it we must assume - no matter which 'direction' a given particulate mass-object is "pushed" by one of its fellows.
What distinguishes a bounded region (such as a "proton") of confined motion (such as that of its "quarks") from the "empty space" (defined by the propagation of EMR photons through it at "the speed of light") surrounding such a region, is precisely that property it exhibits that we call "mass", and which is more accurately described (I propose) as the point-radial (and 'still spinning') fluid vortexual acceleration-flow (complete with 'length contraction' and 'time dilation') imparted to the spacetime contained in that region by some initial point-radially 'explosive' event like "The Big Bang" or a stellar supernova.
3. "Spacetime", the 'stuff' we perceive as being "curved" but the presence of a gravitating mass, is an otherwise scale-uniform superfluid medium (SUM) whose self-relative motion -- a.k.a. "acceleration" -- is what endows it with [geometric] structure.

Complete speculation based upon mathematical argument & almost no experimental validation. So why is it being sold as definitive fact ? … ‘We Think’ should preface almost every sentence sated in this video …. The confirmation of the Higgs was touted to result in many miracle discoveries; what happened ? —> Nothing. FermiLab is full of people justifying their enormous wages. There’s lots of politics in science

"sum of atoms = mass of you" isn't true is it? it neglects the energy of chemical bondings. Even if it has small impact, an equal sign is an equal sign and in this case it's only almost true.

Elsewhere it's been claimed that the denser elements like osmium are such because the inner electrons must orbit closer to the speed of light to keep from being pulled into the nucleus, and that speed increases their "felt" mass due to the relativistic effects.
Is any of that correct?

Is that a Scottish/Jamaican/Pakistani priest? 😂

Why was father Flanagan from Barbados?

holdon .. mass does not exist .. it's just energy. Does that mean I'm not overweight but just to energetic ? Does it ?

I thought at one point you were going for a northern ireland accent but yes it went all over the shop ! 10/10 for bravery and keeping it in though 👍

🤯 thanks. Your videos are the best.

Love your work Dr Lincoln. Please try not to put on an Irish accent again. Thank you.

Wow!

I understood the explanation about the Higgs field - the particles seem to be "slowed down" by this field. But I do not fully understand the explanation of mass through Einstein's formula. Yes, the formula itself is clear, but I don't understand what in this case "slows down" the particles in space.

Now please tell me what the h is energy and where it comes from.

If the mass of the quarks themselves are only 2% and 98% of the mass comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks moving very fast what about the 2%. The 2% still has mass.

This video brings to mind the image of an entity comprised of trillions of gyroscopes, all actuating resistant force as the greater form moves about.

Gravity is an acerbation of 32 ft per second for earth and that make f = ma. What bothers me is this only true on earth not universally

Why would electrons not having mass mean no atoms? Aren't they held in by charge, not mass?

Dr. Don, I read-skimmed your referenced article by Frank Wilczek, and I did not see a clear sense that it supported your proposition about a boxful of energy behaving as if it had mass. The whole notion that mass is not real is very unsettling, because it undercuts the notion that mass can distort spacetime (let alone make an apple fall from a tree). IMO a much more complete explanatory video would be needed to convince me of what you presented, and be careful about what analogies you use. I can grudgingly accept space time, quanta, wave-particle duality etc, but massless mass is a bridge too far at this point in time. FYI - I am a retired structural engineer-bureaucrat.

Question: At temperatures near absolute 0, do we partially lose our mass?

So if old fashioned mass is not real, why do massive objects bend space-time?

How exactly you measured quark's mass?

Hi Don, I have recently read that this is not correct and that 99% of a proton/neutrons mass comes from the rest mass/intrinsic mass of the quarks. Only 1% is attributed to potential energy. Can you comment?

Don't worry mate. Your joke was hilarious!

Your ability to explain things is inversely proportionate to your ability to feign an Irish accent.

Common idea of Catholics (which I am): you start to really live only when you die.

Who’s here after the discovery of charm quarks in a proton?

It is interesting and sad that FERMI Lab does not use ISO - how can you be a world leader if most world Physicists can not understand you symbols!

It is obvious to me that physicists don’t undestand qualitatively anything that they condescendingly teach

Hate it when people who are not funny try to be.
You sir, are unsubscribed.

I like how when the camera changes angle, he turns his head toward me. It makes me feel like I'm important. I knew it! I always knew it! I am very important! Thank you Discount PBS Spacetime!

I'm Catholic, and any Catholic who is offended by this, just likes to get offended.

Interesting that we are just mostly potential energy.

As a catholic Irishman that joke was hilarious

Energy is attractive to energy?!

How then does quark kinetic energy cause spacetime to warp?

But where does the quarks' mass come from?

Where is particle?all things are energy?

I took Physics 101 50 years ago. IIRC, quarks weren't even discussed.
Love your videos. I have learned more about physics from them than from that semester of basic physics, as well as refreshing my memory on topics that were covered.

I wish my physics teacher was a 10th as good as this. Mind blowing stuff that actually makes sense.

im wondering how this might relate to zero-point energy (Casimir)? could you "generate" mass from fluctuations, or do scientists think it's more of a waiting game with chance field interactions?

I thought there was some discrepancy about the actual proof of the Higgs boson being discovered? Doesn’t it have something to do with how rare of a decay it is from photons, that there is some statistical discrepancies?

Huh ?? from the rear of the class room again.

i wish my physics teacher was uu😭💙

I don't understand. Doesn't that indicate further subatomic particles in quarks if they have any mass at all? Unless it's impossible for a quark to be immobile?

so when total speed of all partial rich all most 0 then total mass will be all most 0 then space contract all most to point then will be very interesting moment the momentum of contraction will speed up like snow ball and space spontaneously bounce off in call "big bang" or contract in black hole. This is very dynamical system small change in mass of nucleus will have different results for universe and origin of energy an space is just illusion of cyclic change of external fenomen of internal property of particles.

Love this video.