Daniel and Jorge Explain the UniverseDaniel and Jorge explore the mystery of inertia and whether a controversial theory can explain it.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
If you love iPhone, you'll love Apple Card. It's the credit card designed for iPhone. It gives you unlimited daily cash back that can earn four point four zero percent annual percentage yield. When you open a high Yield savings account through Apple Card, apply for Apple Card in the wallet app subject to credit approval. Savings is available to Apple Card owners subject to eligibility. Apple Card and Savings by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Branch, Member FDIC terms and more at applecard dot com. When you pop a piece of cheese into your mouth, you're probably not thinking about the environmental impact. But the people in the dairy industry are. That's why they're working hard every day to find new ways to reduce waste, conserve natural resources, and drive down greenhouse gas emissions. How is US Dairy tackling greenhouse gases? Many farms use anaerobic digesters to turn the methane from manure into renewable energy that can power farms, towns, and electric cars. Visit us dairy dot COM's Last Sustainability to learn more.
Our iHeartRadio mus Ac Festival for a sentate Bike Capital one coming back to Las Vegas twenty first Weekend full of superstar performances A Sap, Rocky Big Shun, Camilo, kavel Tojika, Zuliva, Whens, The Funny Hoss, Keith, Urban, New Kids on the Block, Paramore, Shaboozi, The Black Crows, The Weekend, Thomas Victoria, Monette, Coldplay, Is, Chris Martin and more, Stream Live Holy on Hulu and get It gets to be There at axces dot Com.
Guess what Will?
What's that Mango?
I've been trying to write a promo for our podcast, Part Time Genius, but even though we've done over two hundred and fifty episodes, we don't really talk about murderers or cults.
I mean, we did just cover the Illuminati of cheese, so I feel like that makes us pretty edgy. We also solve mysteries like how Chinese is your Chinese food? And how do dollar stores make money? And then, of course can you game a dog show? So what you're saying is everyone should be listening. Listen to Part Time Genius on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Good morning, or have you left the house yet today?
I have Yeah, I record in my garage. I have a setup there, so thankfully I'm out of the house. But if you mean like leaving the premises of my house, no, I haven't done that yet. I mean it's not even noon. Who leaves the house before noon?
I guess most of humanity have that experience.
Are you saying I'm not part of humanity?
I'm just saying maybe you have more inertia than the rest of us.
Yes, Hey, cartoonists, address tends to stay in rest less an external deadline is applied to it.
Yeah, I think that's Newton's forgotten fourth law of cartooning physics.
Forgotten or he never got to it because he had too much inertia.
He never managed to change out of his pajamas.
Hi, I'm Horee. I'm a cartoonist and the creator of PhD comics.
Hi I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist and a professor at UC Irvine, and I have my own kind of inertia.
Oh yeah, is it mostly around your waist or do you have a very inertial head.
It's sort of more conceptual inertia. Once I have an idea, I don't.
Like to let go of it, So the idea has inertia, though is that what you mean? Is it a heavy idea or a light idea?
It sort of stubbornly sticks around in my brain. Sometimes I'll get curious about something and it just will not leave me for months or years, until eventually I find an answer.
Aren't you describing all physicists?
Though?
Is a nursertain sense amount of compulsion you need to be a a researcher, a scientist.
I think there is in fact a minimum quantum level of obsession you have to have in order to dedicate your life to these crazy ideas.
Well.
Welcome to our podcast Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe. Hopefully you're a new Obsession, which is a production of iHeartRadio.
In which we explore the entire universe without leaving our houses or changing out of our pajamas. We help you perform the incredible feat of trying to import the entire universe, all the stars and galaxies, in tiny particles and alien landscapes that might be out there into your brain without ever leaving your home. If you are lying in bed, or sitting on your couch, or otherwise chillin' out, we hope to bring the entire universe to you.
That's right, because it is a pretty heavy universe, full of massive and amazing revelations and things to discover. Did we try to fit all inside of your head.
It's a big project to understand how the universe works, and something we've been working on for a long time, decades, centuries, even millennia. If you take seriously early in Greek physics.
Which you don't, right, I've seen you talk about Greek physicists, or as you like to call them, Greek guessers.
You know, they had a different approach. They began by thinking internally just what made sense to them. The concept of empiricism came a little bit later, actually going out and testing these ideas to see if they do describe our universe. Is a little bit more modern than the ancient Greeks.
I feel like it's a little bit unfair though, because like, you know a lot more than them, but only because there were a lot of people who did signs and research before you did. Like if you were born in Greek times, who knows what you might be thinking.
Oh, that's definitely true. And I don't claim to be smarter than Aristotle or Galileo. I think the lesson to take away from it is that progress is slow, and that things that seem obvious to us were actually big intellectual steps forward, and we can't really recognize that anymore because we are so marinated in our current way of thinking we forget how big an intellectual leap it was to try to describe the universe in terms of mathematics and make predictions and go out and test those things. All of that was a big idea that took thousands of years to bubble up from inside human brains.
Yeah, although it all seems like Greek to me these days, there is a lot of scientists have discovered and theorized about the universe, and we've made a huge amount of progress. We have a pretty solid theory about what things are made out of and also how the stars and the galaxies and the black holes out there moved.
It is kind of incredible how much progress we have made. Our mastery of technology is evidence that we understand how the universe works at a very microscopic scale all the way up to a macroscopic scale. We can use computers, which are based on the motions of tiny little particles to guide enormous things like a seven forty seven across the ocean. It's this harmony between the very very small and the very very big. We have explored the universe at all of these scales and many scales in between, and at each step we can find some story to tell about what's going on, how things work, what laws they seem to be following. It never ceases to amaze me that the universe is understandable.
It is pretty amazing. Although even though we have theories that can predict things like the motion of particles and the motion of galaxies and stars out there in space, that doesn't necessarily mean that we understand these theories or what they mean or where they come from.
Yeah, we tell little mathematical stories about the universe, but sometimes it's useful to stop and say, like, what is this thing we are talking about anyway? Like we have the Shortener equation that tells us the wave function of a particle and how it moves through space, but it leaves unanswered important questions like well, what is a particle anyway? And it turns out that physicists and philosophers have riotously different opinions about what this thing is we're talking about. But we can still tell stories about these objects even if we don't quite understand what they are. But it's very fun and very fruitful to dig into these questions and try to understand exactly what it is we are talking about.
Yeah, there are still very basic things about the universe we don't understand. And they don't just relate to tiny, little miniscule particles that you can't see. It also applies to you and me and what you do every day, which is to move.
Or to not move, and to just sit in your chair here all day long.
Are you describing physicists or cartoonists or both?
I was just being general. I don't know why you're particular responding.
You know, well, why are you mentioning it?
Well, it's a sort of mysterious process. Right. You sit in your chair, and you stay sitting in your chair. You expect that, unless you're getting up to move across the room or go fetch another banana, you're going to be in your chair all day long. And that's the kind of thing that seems obvious to you, and it seemed obvious to Aristotle, and it seems obvious to everybody. But understanding the mechanics of it, like why things at rest stay at rest, why things in motion. Stay in Motion raises some really fascinating issues about like what is momentum? What is inertia? What is mass?
Anyway, so today on the podcast, we'll be tackling the question what is quantized inertia. I'm guessing this means quantum mechanics of inertia.
It's two buzzwords stuck together to make a buzzword. Finish.
I'm not sure inertia is a buzzword. Do people use it to denote, you know, exciting things? Not usually? Yeah, inertia is never a good thing, is it.
Yeah, Like Silicon Valley disruptors, they're usually looking to disrupt industries that have too much inertia.
Yes, it's something you want to break. I guess unless you're a cartroonism, which case you enjoy a little bit of inertia sometimes. But it is a fascinating question because I feel like inertia is a word that you know even as a little kid. You learned pretty early on that it's just like what heavy things have that makes them hard to move. And so to think about the idea that we don't know what it is is kind of crazy. M hmmm.
It's interesting word also because I'm not sure if it comes from physics and then we use it in our lives to describe, like our emotional states or our motivation levels as a metaphor for a concept from physics or for when the other direction and physics stole it from English because it's similar to the concept that already existed.
Mm, there's no history words in physics.
Oh, I'm sure there is, but I'm not an expert in linguistics. Somebody out there who knows the history of the word inertia write in and let us know.
Well. Also, it depends what you call on a scientists, right, maybe like early cavemen saw big rock and they found it hard to move, and they said, you know, came up with a word for it, And that's kind of like being a scientist, right.
That's certainly being descriptive. I think philosophers of science might quibble about whether you're doing science just by describing your experience in the world. I think maybe science also requires developing a model to explain what you've seen, what you've experienced that also predicts what would happen in the future.
I'm sure they predicted that the rock would have moved.
Rock was heavy, yesterday, Rock heavy today, rock heavy tomorrow. Me scientists me published first paper or first rock.
Yeah, first stone tablet, first cave painting, got a publication range.
Of one impact factor one.
It is a pretty amazing question to ask, because I imagine it's not a question people ask every day, like what is inertia? We just kind of take it for granted that inertia exists.
We do take it for granted, especially because we have fairly solid theories of physics which use it, you know, Newtonian physics, Einsteinian relativity. They all rely on this concept of mass and on inertia, so they play a role in the mathematical stories these theories tell, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily explain what it is or where it comes from. Einstein's relativity can tell us that things with energy in them have mass, and that mass has inertia, but doesn't answer the question why why do things with energy in them tend to need a force to accelerate them for example?
Yeah, and it's a pretty fascinating question. And so, as usual, we were wondering how many people out there had thought about this question or had heard of the term quantized inertia.
So Thanks very much to everybody who volunteers for these to be on the mic for the podcast. We really appreciate it. If you'd like to hear your voice speculating about future topics for the podcast, please don't be shy write to us to questions at Danielandhorge dot com.
So think about it for a second. What do you think is quantized innership. Here's what people had to say.
First, I'm going to take a wild guess that quantized inertia is essentially just a quantized view of inertia. And secondly that you're using the same definition of inertia as I learned in school way back when. I guess you would just build the quantum of inertia with the quantum of mass times the quantum of distance over the quantum of time, and quantized inertia would be inertia momentum whateveryon want to call it measured in that unit.
Quantized inertia sounds to me like it's going to be small packets of movement that can be discreetly segmented into little individual quantized bits of movement. So it's not this continuous Everything stays in motion as long as it's in motion that we would expect from Newtonian.
Physics inertia, but quantized quantized inertia. So I don't know.
I don't know what contestintia means, but I'm guessing it's something to do with inertia that originates from something that doesn't have mass. So if you were to take a box, an empty box, like completely empty, I mean, apart from virtual particles, I guess. But if you had an empty box and waited, it would weigh less than if you took a box with photons in it, even though photons are massless according to the currently prevailing theory, just because of the emotion, because of their momentum, that box would have inertia. So I don't know. Because photons are the quanta of the lecture magnetic fields, so maybe that's what quine size inertia means, but I'm not sure.
All Right, not a lot of valid guesses here. I like the person who said it's inertia but quantized. Isn't that what quantum physics is. It's physics, but quantized.
That's what quantum everything is, right, Quantum dessert dippin' dots?
Yeah, Yeah, I think quantizing a dessert would probably help with your own inertia around your waist.
I don't know. I think the smaller the pieces are, the more of them you can have, So you just end up consuming an infinite number of dippin' dots. They're so small. How can they possibly add up to anything.
That seems physically impossible? Daniel, are you're a physicist.
I can bend logic when it comes to dessert.
Yeah, does make it harder to bend your body.
But I did really like the answer that suggested that quantized inertia could come out of quantized distance and quantized time. Essentially, if all of reality is quantized, then everything is quantized, including inertia and dessert.
M Yeah, yeah, I guess if space is quantized, and technically moving through space or not moving through space is also quantized.
That's right, Either you're eating dessert or you're not, unless it's quantum mechanics, in which case maybe you're doing both at the same.
Time the dessert uncertainty principle.
So this is a really fun topic, quantized inertia. I like it because it touches on a really core question in physics, like what is inertia and mass? Anyway, But also lets us explore a recent hypothesis suggestion that might answer those questions.
Right, And I guess, just to be clear, quantized inertia is a concept that comes from a theory that tries to explain what inertia is.
Yeah, that's exactly right. It suggests that inertia comes from tiny, little quantum effects in the universe.
All right, well, let's jump into it. And I guess it's start at the beginning. What do physicists call inertia? How do they define it?
So inertia first appears in Newton's theory, right, it tells us that things in motion will stay in motion and that things at rest will stay at rest. And in that sense, it's another way to state conservation of momentum. You know, things that have no momentum their mass times their velocity will continue to have no momentum unless you apply a force to them, unless you accelerate them by applying a force. Things who have constant velocity constant momentum will contain you to have that momentum unless again, you apply a force to change that momentum. So that's the principle of inertia.
Right, It's kind of the idea that if something has velocity, it's hard to change that thing's velocity. Right, So that's kind of the concept. And maybe the more of it that you have, the more inertia that you have, the harder it is to change that velocity.
Yeah, and that's where Newton's laws of physics come in. Right, you have a certain velocity, you need to apply a force to change that velocity. And because force is mass times acceleration, then to get a larger acceleration you need a larger force. Because force is mass times acceleration. The more mass you have, the larger the force you need to get the same acceleration. So things that have more mass therefore need bigger forces in order to accelerate them. Like if you push on a tiny rock, you're going to accelerate it more than if you push on the entire Earth with the same force.
Right, So then I guess is inertia related to mass? Does it include mass or is it just the general concept that you need a force to move a mass? You know what I mean?
The mass that we're talking about there we often call inertial mass because we think it's the mass that gives things inertia. The property of having mass. If you didn't have mass, then you wouldn't have inertia. So if the inertia comes from having mass, because you also need that mass to have momentum.
Right, Although could you also say that you can't have mass if you don't have inertia, or that what we call mass is actually the property of inertia.
I think it's the second that what we call mass is actually the property of inertia. That's why we get more specific and we call it inertial mass.
Right, because there are other kinds of masses.
There are other kinds of masses exactly. And it's also a subtle distinction between momentum and inertia because it is possible to have momentum without mass, Like photons have momentum even though they don't have any mass.
Does that mean photons have inertia or not? Or is it all very light?
Well, photons do carry momentum, right, And so a photon, for example, can bounce off of something and push it, you know, like a soul or sale is a photon pushing on something and transferring its momentum to that object. So in that sense, they have momentum, but inertia is like the resistance of an object to changing its velocity, and photons can't change their velocity, right, they always travel at the speed of light. So inertia when it comes to photons is very confusing.
Does that mean photons have infinite inertia?
That's an interesting question. You can change the direction of a photon even though you can't change its velocity, and that does actually count as a change in its velocity vector because you're changing its components. Something with infinite inertia you wouldn't be able to change its direction either. So light is a sort of special category there.
I think you're saying that light does have inertia, or maybe that it doesn't apply to things without inertial mass.
I think there's a few different concepts here. There's momentum, which light definitely carries, but inertia here we're talking about inertial mass, and photons definitely don't have any inertial mass.
All right, So some particles in the universe seem to have inertial mass, and it's sort of related to isin theories about gravity too, right.
That's right. And there's another interesting wrinkle about inertial mass there, which is it doesn't just come from the mass of your particles. Right, So, for example, particles have their own little mass which they get from the Higgs boson. But then you can put them together and use energy to build those bonds, and that energy also contributes to the mass of the object. So, for example, a proton is made of little quarks. Those quarks have really really tiny inertial masses. The proton has a lot of inertial mass because of the energy in it. So the proton, this bound state of all the quarks, has a lot more mass than the things it's made out of. And that's because energy inside an object is sort of what gives it mass, it gives it inertia. So there's all these different ideas here. What is mass, What is inertia for an object? It reflects how much energy is sort of stored inside the object, not just the mass of the objects inside of it.
Right, And in our book frequently asked questions about the uners. We tackled this in a whole chapter where basically conclude that there's no such thing as mass, right, like everything is just energy because most of what we call mass in our bodies is actually the energy stored in the between the particles. And also like even the mass of a particle is really just the energy it has with the Higgs field, right, and so it's all just energy, which means there is such a thing mass.
It is all just energy, but it does seem to have inertia. And that's true also in other counterintuitive examples, like with photons. Photons have no mass, but if you put a bunch of photons in a box with mirrors inside, for example, so they're bouncing around, then that will have more mass than an empty box. So you can like make a box more massive by shooting a laser into it and capturing those photons because you put energy into it. So it is all just energy, but that energy has this property of inertia.
Right It. See kind of seems like maybe the right order of these concepts is that you know, whenever you have energy localize or put together in a particular object or spot or even a box, it's somehow difficult to move that box or object, like you need to apply some kind of force and energy to change its velocity. And then that's the concept of inertia. And then what we call mass is kind of a measure of its inertia.
Yeah, mass is like a dial that tells you how much stored energy there is inside of it, and there's this relationship between the stored energy inside of it and how hard it is to move that thing. And mass is that multiplicative factor between those two things exactly.
Right, which means inertia? Is it kind of like predates mass or is more important or you know, it comes before the concept of mass, So it's pretty pretty important right.
Before in what sense, like chronologically or sort of conceptually.
I mean like conceptually, like in terms of the way that we think about these ideas the order of concepts, it comes first.
Right, Yeah, you could definitely think about it that way. What we observe is that there are things in the universe and those things seem to have inertia. We explain that by coming up with this concept of mass for these things that it's sort of the origin of their inertia. But it's really just more of a description than an actual explanation. We don't really understand the mechanism by which energy resists changes in its inertia. I think that's what you mean.
Well, I think I mean, like in your light box example, if I put light inside of a box with mirrors inside of it. It's going to have inertia, but that doesn't mean that the light I put into it has mass. So it's almost like inertia is kind of a more important or overarching, kind of fundamental concept than mass.
Well, I think big inertia will be happy to hear you say that.
Oh good, I'll wait for the check. All right. Well, let's get into this idea of inertia, why we don't understand what it is, and also a new theory that might have an answer for it. First, let's take a quick break.
With big wireless providers, what you see is never what you get. Somewhere between the store and your first month's bill, the price, your thoughts you were paying magically skyrockets. With mint Mobile, you'll never have to worry about gotcha's ever again. When mint Mobile says fifteen dollars a month for a three month plan, they really mean it. I've used mint Mobile and the call quality is always so crisp and so clear. I can recommend it to you, So say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plans, jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages. You can use your own phone with any mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with your existing contacts. So dit your overpriced wireless with Mint Mobiles deal and get three months a premium wireless service for fifteen bucks a month. To get this new customer offer and your new three month premium wireless plan for just fifteen bucks a month, go to mintmobile dot com slash universe. That's mintmobile dot com slash universe. Cut your wireless bill to fifteen bucks a month. At mintmobile dot com slash universe. Forty five dollars upfront payment required equivalent to fifteen dollars per month new customers on first three month plan only speeds slower about forty gigabytes On unlimited plan. Additional taxi spees and restrictions apply. See mint mobile for details.
AI might be the most important new computer technology ever. It's storming every industry and literally billions of dollars are being invested, so buckle up. The problem is that AI needs a lot of speed and processing power. So how do you compete without cost spiraling out of control. It's time to upgrade to the next generation of the cloud Oracle. Cloud Infrastructure or OCI. OCI is a single platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs OCI has four to eight times the bandwidth of other clouds, offers one consistent price instead of variable regional pricing, and of course nobody does data better than Oracle. So now you can train your AI models at twice the speed and less than half the cost of other clouds. If you want to do more and spend less, like Uber eight by eight and Data Bricks Mosaic, Take a free test drive of OCI at Oracle dot com slash strategic. That's Oracle dot com slash Strategic Oracle dot com slash strategic.
If you love iPhone, you'll love Apple Card. It's the credit card designed for iPhone. It gives you unlimited daily cash back that can earn four point and four zero percent annual percentage yield. When you open a high Yield savings account through Apple Card, apply for Apple Card in the wallet app, subject to credit approval. Savings is available to Apple Card owners subject to eligibility. Apple Card and Savings by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch Member FDIC terms and more at applecard dot com. When you pop a piece of cheese into your mouth, or enjoy a rich spoonful of Greek yogurt You're probably not thinking about the environmental impact of each and every bite, but the people in the dairy industry are. US Dairy has set themselves some ambitious sustainability goals, including being greenhouse gas neutral by twenty to fifty That's why they're working hard every day to find new ways to reduce waste, conserve natural resources, and drive down greenhouse gas emissions. Take water, for example, most dairy farms reuse water up to four times the same water cools the milk, cleans equipment, washes the barn, and irrigates the crops. How is US Dairy tackling greenhouse gases. Many farms use anaerobic digestors that turn the methane from manure into renewable energy that can power farms, towns, and electric cars. So the next time you grab a slice of pizza or lick an ice cream cone, know that dairy farmers and processors around the country are using the latest practices and innovations to provide the nutrient tents dairy products we love with less of an impact. Visit usdairy dot com slash sustainability to learn more.
All Right, we're talking about inertia, and ironically it's taken us a while to get to this topic. You might say, we have a lot of inertip.
And there's also some sort of inertia in the field about answering these questions at the foundations. Once we have a theory that works that we can use to describe the universe, a lot of people like to just run with it and go off and predict things and build ideas on top of it. There isn't always an appetite for like digging into the details of like what does this mean? It feels to people a little bit like doing philosophy, which is why for a long time people ignore questions at the heart of like quantum mechanics, you know, our particles and is the wave function actually collapsing because we have the theory that worked. But I think it's really interesting and really important to dig into these details and try to understand what is this foundation on which we're building all of our theories.
Yeah, and so we define inertia as kind of basically the observation that whenever you have an object which is mostly energy, or whenever you have a lot of energy in one spot in one kind of thing, it's kind of hard to make that thing move or to slow it down or basically to change its velocity, And so that observation that's what we call inertia.
Yeah, that's what we call inertia.
Okay, But I guess the big question is like why is that? Why is the universe like that? Well, like why is it hard to change the velocity of things that have a lot of energy?
That's a great question, and I think it's important when we ask big questions like that to think about what kind of answer are we looking for? Are we looking for an answer that's like this is the only way the universe can be because it's the only way the mathematics hangs together, and consider there is no way to build another theory of physics that doesn't have this property. It's like a necessary consequence of something fundamental to our universe. Or another kind of answer would be like, oh, here's the mechanism, here's microscopically, what's happening when you try to push on that box of photons, like to understand the little details of exactly what's happening.
Why.
This concept of inertia sort of emerges from that, right.
I think you're talking about the difference between giving up and throwing your hands up in the air saying just that's just the way the universe is. And the other option, which is to dig in deeperence if there's maybe a simpler explanation for things like inertia. Right at some point, you could just say, hey, that's just the way the universe is, because there's no way that the universe firs could have been differently. The inertia is just there because it's there. Or you can might dig in deeper and say, oh no, look, actually it's because of this other thing that we know about the universe.
Right.
I think it's just a question of which rabbit hole you want to go down. If you want to go down the path of like finding fundamental principles that force the universe to be this way, then you can make arguments like the ones we make about conservation and momentum. Why does momentum seem to be conserved in our universe? We think because of Norther's theorem and various symmetries. That is, because space is the same everywhere, And so then you can ask, well, why is space the same everywhere? It's a fun rabbit hole to go down, but it's sort of a different structure of the argument to say that it's constrained by certain physical principles, and then you can of course ask like, well, why those physical principles, So you never really get to an answer, I think, but it's just sort of like a different direction to try to explore. I don't think either one should be called giving up. Giving up is like staying at home in your pajamas all.
Day, unless you're doing physics in your pajamas at home. Isn't that what you do a lot of the time.
Too, Yeah, I stay home, I say, in my pajamas, I eat Dippin' dots, and I think about the universe.
There you go. See, inertia can be a good thing. I feel like it gets a bad rap, it does. We always talk about inertia as a negative thing, whereas momentum, now, that's a good thing usually.
See I think you're just a shill for Big Inner. I think you're being paid on the side by Big Inertia to rehab its image in the community, in.
The physics community. Exactly.
You're here telling us that it shouldn't be a negative thing. You're here telling us that it's more fundamental than mass. I mean these are basically big Inertia's talking points.
Well, I think we're all on the thumb of inertia, so really I kind of want to make it happy, right, You don't want inertia to turn against you.
I see now you're resorting to threats. Huh, Fall in line, everyone, or big inertia will get you.
I didn't say that, you did, Denny. But in terms of the question of what is inertia? I guess then, so which answer are we looking for. Are we looking for a way to say that inertia is because the universe couldn't have been any other way without inertia? Or are we trying to find mechanism for inertia?
People are going in both directions. There are some folks on the sort of philosophical side trying to understand whether we can connect it to symmetries of the universe, et cetera. But today we're going to dig into this theory of quantized inertia, which is trying to describe it from the bottom up, explaining the mechanism of it from the quantum scale, from the microscopic picture of the universe. What is actually out there pushing back against you when you try to move that heavy rock.
I see, So maybe like you're trying to find a way to say that not that inertia is just is it's like the result of this other simple theory that we have about the.
Universe, exactly the way that, for example, we can explain the mass of little particles by saying, oh, it's the interaction with this field. There's a physical mechanism, the Higgs field, that's changing the way particles move as if they have mass. Right, that's a nice mechanistic explanation for why these particles seem to move in this way. Can we find a more general, similar sort of description, an explanation for something that's happening out there in space that's pushing back on things, that's changing how they move in a way that we describe as inertia.
Right, And I guess this gets us to this kind of very subtle distinction between the inertia of fundamental particles and the inertia of objects like you and me. Like we know that for a small fundamental particles, so their inertia comes from the interaction with the Higgs field.
Right.
What we don't understand is why collections of particles, or when you have energy like stored in a spot between particles. Why that has inertia because that's not interacting with the Higgs field.
So what you're saying, it's a good question. I mean, we can describe what happens when an electron is moving through the universe and interacting with the Higgs field. Has certain mathematical properties of that interaction. We think the electron by itself without the Higgs field would have no mass. We travel always at the speed of light, for example, and we can describe exactly how the interaction of the electron with the Higgs field changes its motion just the same way as if you sort of like created mass for this particle, if you just gave it inherently this inertia. We don't have a mechanism for the Higgs boson to do that to like a collection of electrons differently than it's just its interaction with the individual electrons. Like we can describe how the Higgs talks to one electron, but now put a thousand electrons together in a and give them energy, it has more inertia. We can't explain that using the Higgs field. The Higgs field just interacts with the individual electrons.
So then the inertia of a box fuel of electrons is due to something else. Entirely, you're saying.
We don't understand the source of that inertia.
But it sort of acts exactly like the Higgs field acts on fundamental particles.
In the sense that they both have inertia. Yes, they both have inertia, which we can describe as mass. They resist changes in their motion.
Right, But isn't it suspicious that it's exactly the same. Like, you know, an electron is just a little bit of energy, and it interacts with the Higgs field, and that's how it gets its inertia. But then when you have a whole bunch of energy together from multiple particles, wouldn't you think that also interacts with the Higgs field.
You might, But we don't think that the Higgs boson has a monopoly on inertia or on mass. We think that there are other ways even fundamental particles might get mass. For example, dark matter we suspect is a particle. We're also fairly certainly it doesn't get its mass from the Higgs boson, because Higgs boson only interacts with particles that feel the weak force, and we're pretty sure dark matter doesn't feel the weak force. Neutrinos even might get their mass not from the Higgs boson, but through some other mechanism if they are Mayorana particles. Check out our whole episode about neutrino masses. So we think that there might be multiple ways for even fundamental particles to get mass. The Higgs boson is not the only way, and so more broadly, we think it might be possible for collections of these objects to get mass via other mechanisms. And that's exactly what quantized inertia is, is another way to give mass to objects.
All right, let's get into this theory of quantized inertia. It's a recent theory right by one person.
It is a fairly recent idea and it's championed by one particular physicist in the UK, Mike McCullough. And it has a sort of nice collection of ideas inspired by black holes and event horizons and quantum mechanics, all mixed together in sort of clever package.
He's like, listener, everything that we can into this to give it more inertia or momentum, whichever it sounds better.
It is a bit of a grab bag, and recently he's used this theory quantized inertia, to try to explain mysteries like dark matter, and also things like sono luminescence and the Pioneer anomaly and free energy and also dark energy in the expansion of the universe. So it's sort of a very useful toolbox for him.
Can I come up with cartoon ideas also that would be more helpful for me?
I'm thinking maybe you can also explain who shot JFK. I mean, let's just solve all the mysteries while we're at it.
Well, technically, inertia that kill JFK. But I guess the main question here that we're the physicists are trying to solve is why do collections of energy, like when you pull energy together, why is it hard to move it from one place to another? And this theory says that maybe it's due to quantum effects. That's what it's called quantized inertia.
Right exactly. He takes the picture of the universe as filled with quantum particles. Right, All space has fields, and these fields can't have zero energy, so they're always sort of oscillating out there in the universe, and in certain situations these fields do weird things like, for example, if you have a black hole, you have an event horizon beyond which you can't see anything. Stevid Hawking predicted that if you have these fields near an event horizon, it generates radiation, so it's called Hawking radiation. It's the particular combination of having these quantum fields and an event horizon. In order for those fields to be sort of self consistent, you need the black hole to be generating some radiation. You need a propagation of waves through that field outward from the event horizon in order for sort of mathematically things to add up. So the lesson there is that event horizons tend to cause radiation.
Right. That's why they say that a black hole will eventually evaporate, right, or black holes are always evaporating. Although has this been actually observed or is this just a theory that black holes have radiation just.
A theory, definitely never observed. Hawking radiation, if it exists, would be extremely faint. For small black holes, it's quite bright, but for the black holes we expector out there in the universe, it would be very very low intensity, so very difficult to observe, especially this far from black hole. So we don't know for sure that it exists. But in the theory, these quantum waves which fill the universe, if they encounter an event horizon, it generates radiation in the other direction. And it's this kind of radiation that mccallus suspects causes inertia.
Wait, what do you mean, So if I have a black hole, it has an event horizon, which is like the edge of the black hole where stuff can fall in and will never get out. You see a quantum wave hits it, or a quantum field interacts with it. What's the difference.
Quantum fields exists all through space. If you're going to solve the equations for that field, to get a consistent solution, you have to figure out what happens to those fields at the event horizon. So Hawking's derivation shows that in order to satisfy the wave equations of quantum fields, there has to be outward radiation.
And so you're saying this is kind of an example of what's also happening with inertia.
It's an example of an important principle at the heart of quantitised inertia, which is event horizons cause radiation. It's not suggesting that black holes cause inertia. Is just an example of how event horizons cause radiation. This argument needs one more piece, which is how every time we move we're basically creating event horizons.
WHOA what do you mean every time we move where I'm creating like like a black hole.
Sort of like a black hole. We did an episode once about whether or not it's possible to outrun a beam of light. Right, You might imagine that if somebody shoots a beam of light at you, that there's no way you can run fast enough to avoid it. If you run away from me and then I turn on my flashlight, that eventually that light will catch up to you because it's traveling at the speed of lighting. You can't travel at the speed of light, so eventually, give an infinite time, it will catch you. That's not actually true if you run away with constant acceleration. So if you move with constant acceleration, it actually creates an event horizon behind you, a part of the universe which no longer can reach you. We did a whole episode about this counterintuitive principle, where acceleration itself casts event horizons.
Right, Although it seems impossible to have constant acceleration forever. Wouldn't that take an infinite amount of energy.
It definitely would take an infinite amount of energy. Practically, it's not something I know how you could achieve or I would recommend. But in principle, mathematically, if you are undergoing constant acceleration, then you are cutting yourself off from part of the universe. It's part of the universe whose messages will never reach you. Those light beams will get closer and closer to you every year, but never actually touch your back.
Basically, you're leaving the rest of the universe that's behind you in the dust. Kind of what you're saying right like, if I move with constant acceleration in one direction, I'll never kind of see the stuff behind me, maybe forever. But then, how does this related to intertia?
Now, to take these two ideas, one is event horizons cause radiation. The second is acceleration causes event horizons. Put them together and you get acceleration causes event horizons, which cause radiation. So now every time you accelerate, you're creating an event horizon behind you. That's sort of I'm alert to the edge of a black hole which is going to create radiation for the same reason you get hawking radiation. So every time you accelerate, you're creating this event horizon behind you, which is going to generate a kind of radiation behind you and basically bathe you in radiation from the universe. Because this radiation is not the same in all directions, because the event horizon is behind you and not ahead of you, it can change the way you move. And that's the core principle of quantized inertia, that the way you move is changed by this quantum radiation caused by the event horizons created as you accelerate.
That's a long sentence there. I guess I'm still stuck in this idea that every time I move. You're saying, every time I move or accelerate even my hand, I'm creating an event horizon. But earlier you said I need an infinite amount of acceleration to generate that event horizon. What are you trying to say that even a little bit of acceleration causes an event horizon right behind it really far away? Or how does it work.
In order to outrun the beam of light, you would need to accelerate forever. You need to create that event horizon and never let it dissipate. So you'd need to accelerate forever, and that would require infinite energy, not necessarily infinite acceleration, but you'd have to be accelerating till the end of time to avoid that beam of light. But every time you accelerate, you do create an event horizon. That event horizon collapses when you stop accelerating, because now those parts of the universe can reach you. So you create an event horizon temporarily when you accelerate. It collapses when you stop accelerating. If you want to maintain it, you'd need to keep going forever.
Where does that event horizon get formed? Not right behind me? Right? Probably super far away, isn't.
It depends on how fast you're going and how much you accelerate. The faster you're going, the closer that event horizon is to you.
Okay, So then if I move my hand. Let's say I'm waving my hands here in front of me, where is the event horizon for me?
Well, you're moving a fairly slow velocity, I'm assuming, and so that event horizon would be like light years away.
Okay, So you're saying, like, if I move my hand forward, it's someone during that brief time that I'm moving my hand, someone in Alpha Centauri shooting a laser on me. Technically that in theory, like if you do the math, that laser won't reach my hand.
And if you kept accelerating your hand, that laser would never hit your hand. Since you probably stopped accelerating your hand, that event horizon collapses and it will eventually fry you.
Right, Okay, So now I created a little event horizon with respect to my hand. Is event horizon is light years away in alpha centauri.
M hmm.
How is this related to inertip.
Because event horizons create radiation. So when you did that, you generated a kind of radiation from the quantum fields of the universe. This is called unrue radiation, named after a physicist whose last name is Unrue u n r Uh. And so this radiation generated by this event horizon, Mike McCollough thinks is the source of inertia because it basically is pushing against you.
I feel like you're saying that me moving my hand is creating particles in alpha Centauri. Is that what you're saying?
It's creating radiation from the event horizon that may be very very far away.
Yes, so, and it's instantly community, Like the movement of my hand is instantly communicating to Alpha Centauri to make particles out of nothing.
It's not making particles out of nothing. The event horizon that you created in Alpha Centauri triggers radiation in the rest of the universe's quantum fields. So unrude radiation, which is a whole interesting thing that people actually believe exists, suggests that anybody who's accelerating will feel this quantum radiation from the universe, And Mike McCullough suggests that quantum radiation is responsible for inertia.
Right.
I guess it's a little hard to I guess process this because I feel like you're saying that the rest of the universe somehow cares if I move my hand forward.
We are all tied together by these quantum fields.
But it's light years away. But I'm feeling the inertia of my hand right now.
Yeah, it definitely doesn't take millions of years for you to feel that inertia. I think that's because the event horizon that's created as you accelerate isn't immediately formed really far away from you, sort of like sweeping away from you as you accelerate, because even in Alpha Centauri, they don't know that you've moved your hand. So that event horizon is sort of like being created as the information propagated, it's out to Alpha Centauri, and as it's doing so, it can also generate this quantum radiation that's pushing back at you.
All Right, I'm feeling a lot of inertia in my head right now. I'm sure a lot of people are. So let's dig into this a little bit more and figure out how this crazy quantum radiation gives us inertia and also how true this theory is. But first, let's take another quick break.
When you pop a piece of cheese into your mouth or enjoy a rich spoonful of Greek yogurt, you're probably not thinking about the environmental impact of each and every bite. But the people in the dairy industry are us. Dairy has set themselves some ambitious sustainability goals, including being greenhouse gas neutral by twenty to fifty. That's why they're working hard every day to find new ways to reduce waste, conserve natural resources, and drive down greenhouse gas emissions. Take water, for example, most dairy farms reuse water up to four times the same water cool the milk, cleans equipment, washes the barn, and irrigates the crops. How is US Dairy tackling greenhouse gases? Many farms use anaerobic digestors that turn the methane from maneuver into renewable energy that can power farms, towns, and electric cars. So the next time you grab a slice of pizza or lick an ice cream cone, know that dairy farmers and processors around the country are using the latest practices and innovations to provide the nutrient dense dairy products we love with less of an impact. Visit us dairy dot com slash sustainability to learn more.
Our iHeartRadio Music Festival, presented by Capital One coming back to Las Vegas two nights, first on one stage, stream live only on Hulu weekend, full of superstar performances, never seen before, collaborations at once in a lifetime artist moments you'll have to see to believe. CITs are on sale now at axcess dot com.
Don't miss asap Rocky shut.
DULEEPUS Monyosier de Serban, The New Kids on the Blocks, Paramore, The Chaboozie, The Black Crows.
The Weekend, Thomas Frett, Victoria Money, a special performance by Coldplays, Chris Martin, Dan Moore.
You're seeking to be there now at AXS dot com.
Hi.
I'm David Eagleman from the podcast Inner Cosmos, which recently hit the number one science podcast in America. I'm a neuroscientists at Stanford, and I've spent my career exploring the three pound universe in our heads.
We're looking at a whole new.
Series of episodes this season to understand why and how our lives looked the way they do. Why does your memory drift so much? Why is it so hard to keep a secret? When should you not trust your into a Why do brains so easily fall for magic tricks? And why do they love conspiracy theories? I'm hitting these questions and hundreds more because the more we know about what's running under the hood, the better we can steer our lives. Join me weekly to explore the relationship between your brain and your life by digging into unexpected questions. Listen to Inner Cosmos with David Eagleman on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm doctor Laurie Sandos, host of the Happiness Lab podcast. As the US elections approach, you can feel like we're angrier and more divided than ever. But in a new hopefull season of my podcast, I'll Share with the Science really shows it was surprisingly more united than most people think. We all know something is wrong in our culture and our politics, and that we need to do better, and that we can do better with the hell love Stanford psychologist Jamil Zaki.
It's really tragic.
If cynicism were appeal, it'd be a poison.
We'll see that our fellow humans, even though we disagree with, are more generous than we assume. My assumption, my feeling, my hunch is that a lot of us are actually looking for a way to disagree and still be in relationship with each other. All that on the Happiness Lab, listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
All right, we're talking about quantized inertia, which is not like inertia chopped up with dilttlebits. It's more like the idea that inertia is caused by quantum effects.
Yeah, I think that the picture of quantized inertia is that accelerating things in the universe generate this radiation from the background quantum fields that change the way they move. It's sort of similar to the way an electron gets mass from the Higgs field. Right as electron moves to the Higgs field, it's interacting with that field, and that interaction changes the way it moves. So here the picture is you're moving through the universe and your acceleration is now creating these virtual particles, which you can think of as interacting with the background to quantum fields of the universe in such a way to change your motion and effectively give you innertia.
Right, And you said, it's because when I move my hand, I'm creating an event horizon of a point that things that move at the speed of light can't reach my hand. And somehow that creates particles out of thin air, which, in creating these particles, I guess, takes energy, which then means that I need energy to move my hand.
Yes, somehow they all work together so that when you're trying to accelerate, you're basically running into this quantum wind of virtual particles pushing you back. So, according to this theory, The reason it's hard to get a blob of energy going is that when you push on it, the universe sort of pushes back with all the virtual particles.
But it pushes you back, or it pulls you back. I feel like it it pulls you back because you're creating an event horizon behind you.
Right.
Remember that quantum interactions, especially with the virtual particles, can also pass negative momentum, So it's a little bit counterintuitive whether to think about that as a push or a pull like with quantum particles. I can throw you a ball that has negative momentum, which is sort of like pulling on you even though I've thrown something to you.
Right, It pushes your back, which I think most people will say is pulls you.
Back, all right. Cool. So it's an interesting combination of ideas. This idea of unrude radiation is real idea that's taken very seriously quantized inertia. I sort of co opted it to try to use it to explain inertia. One big problem with it, though, is that people don't expect unrude radiation, the sort of way that virtual particles will hit you when you accelerate, to be something we could ever actually measure it's predicted to be like super duper duper tiny.
What does that mean? Is in inertia pretty significant? Like if you have a big block of lead or iron, it feels a lot inertia, So unrude radiation should be pretty significant.
You're exactly right. And that's a big problem for quantized inertia because if you calculate the unrue radiation you get for reasonable accelerations, it just isn't enough to explain the effects we see from inertia. So, for example, if you accelerate an object that one meters per second squared, and you calculate how much is unrude radiation heating that object up or pushing back on, how much energy is bathing that object from unrue radiation it's usually measured is how much you would heat that object up. You get like ten to the minus twenty one degrees Calvin, So one meters per second squared acceleration, which is pretty typical normal kind of thing to feel on Earth, is basically imperceptible amounts of radiation you would get from the quantum fields. So it doesn't seem like enough to explain actual inertia.
You mean, like if you apply the theory of unruradiation, it wouldn't be enough to count for inertia. Also, like if you're creating a bunch of particles in your wake every time you move, wouldn't you like see these particles.
People have looked for un radiation, but nobody's ever seen it because it's so tiny. It's sort of like looking for hawking radiation. We think maybe it's there, but nobody's ever seen it because it's so faint, it's so difficult to detect.
Also, it would technically be really far away, right, Like when I move my arm, you said that the event horizon that forms is like light years away. Wouldn't that be there were the particles form.
It's difficult to pin these things down because we're talking about quantum waves, which aren't necessarily always very well localized, right, And as we said before, the event horizon is probably created as an outgoing wave in these quantum fields. So I think it's tricky to think about the sort of special relativity of the motion of these quantum fields.
But I guess where is this theory now? Does it work out mathematically or is it still kind of a stretch.
It's not taken very seriously in mainstream physics. People don't think that mechanistically it works. I've read a paper analyzing and carefully. They found a bunch of flaws in the derivation of quantized inertia.
Ooh, just kill it if there are flaws mathematically.
I think that's one reason why it's not taken very seriously in mainstream physics, but has gotten a lot of press. And one reason is that it's been used to try to explain some other big mysteries in the universe. So like, maybe it explains inertia, maybe not. But the proponent of quantised inertia has also suggested that maybe it can explain dark matter, and maybe it can explain how to build warp drives, and maybe it can explain the Pioneer anomaly, and maybe it can explain dark energy. Sort of sort of taking this tool and try to apply it to all the big mysteries of the day, which makes it easier to get like clickbait articles.
Wait, too, how would it explain things like dark matter just because it would give dark matter inertia or mass with that can't be explained any other way.
So it can explain dark matter by changing how much inertial mass we think stars might have. Remember that one of the origins of the whole idea of dark matter was that galaxies are spinning, and they're spinning way too fast for the gravity of those galaxies to hold them together. And in order to do that calculation, you have to assume you understand how stars move, you understand their inertia and the force of gravity on those stars. Quantitized inertia says, well, maybe we've been miscalculating the inertia of these stars, right, that maybe for things that are not accelerated very much, they have less inertia. So he proposes a different relationship between inertia and acceleration. He says that really small accelerations, maybe things have less inertia. And so the picture then is that maybe the stars at the edge of the galaxy, you don't need as much gravity to hold onto them because they actually have less inertia than we thought they did. So you solve the problem not by saying, oh, there's more matter, which provides more gravity, but by saying you don't need as much gravity because those stars can be held in without as strong a force because they have less inertia than you thought.
So this quantitized inertia isn't explaining dark matter. It's just it's actually saying it doesn't exist. It's saying that there is dark matter. What we're seeing is really just that inertia doesn't scale the way we think it does exactly.
It's more similar to mind the idea that gravity changes over very very large distances. You're right, it doesn't explain dark matter. It explains the mysteries that originated the ideas of dark matter, but without dark matter. So it's an alternative to dark matter, and some people actually like it better than Mond. Mond members a theory that gravity works differently at different distances, but Mond has a sort of arbitrary parameter in it says like below some acceleration, gravity works differently than above some acceleration. People don't like when it's like an arbitrary number and a theory like why that number or why not something else? And so people have argued that quantized inertia has a more elegant explanation for this because it doesn't have this arbitrary parameter in it. But then again, also it doesn't really work.
So yeah, so, and is it well known that this theory doesn't work mathematically or is it just like a set back, like, oh, you have this error, but you know eventually they might be able to fix that error. Like why are we still talking about this if the math doesn't work.
We're talking about every two reasons. One is that a bunch of listeners wrote in and saying, hey, what is this theory of quantized inners? I keep hearing about it because the main proponent of it has been successful in like giving TED talks and writing public articles and getting attention for it. So it's an idea that's out there in the community about like explaining this deep mystery of inertia. I don't think that it works. I think most mainstream physicists think it has big problems with it. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean that those problems might not be solvable at some point in the future. But as it stands today, it's sort of like a vague idea that doesn't really hang together to actually explain anything I see.
So, like the specific ideation or instance of it right now doesn't seem to quite work. But it's still an interesting idea to think that maybe what we think is stuff like dark matter, or maybe the way we can explain things like inertia is, you know, matter and energy's interaction with the quantized fields and the creation of these event horizons. That's the idea that maybe is still sticking around.
Yeah, and it's important to remember that we can't solve these problems all at once. He's taking on a really big problem like what is inertia, and you don't expect somebody to come up with the complete explanation in their basement all by themselves. The way the process works is somebody has an idea which sort of takes you in a certain direction, and maybe it doesn't work, and five years later, somebody comes up with another idea that maybe solves a problem and makes it work or brings you closer. So it's sort of this iterative search. It's not like evolution where the theory has to work at every stage to survive. We can keep a theory around even if it's not quite working yet because it might potentially come together later.
All right, well, it sounds like an interesting idea that might solve a pretty fundamental question about our universe. Why do things have inertia? Because without inertia the universe would be totally different, Right, Without inertia, things would be pretty chaotic.
Our entire experience of the universe would be very different without inertia. Inertia is a basic property of matter and motion, and yet it's something we still don't really understand. So I love when people take on these deep questions and think out of the box and try to combine ideas they've heard in ways that might explain them. Doesn't mean that their first idea will be right, but it's definitely the kind of thing that's worth pursuing.
Right right, I think what you just said is that inertia is a good thing. Right.
Am I getting some of that sweet big inertial money?
So yes, I'm getting the money to turn you. Oh all right, Yes you don't get a cut, all.
Right, put me on your list of converts on pro inertia.
All right. Well, hopefully these ideas fit inside your head and maybe nuts them with a little bit of inertia, a little bit of momentum to think differently about the world around you, and about how interesting things that we maybe never thought about could explain why things are the way they are.
And to those young scientists out there, be encouraged because there are still deep and basic questions about the universe. We do not know the answer to. Somebody out there and will figure these things out.
It might be you, even those of you sitting in your pajamas at Hope Well. We hope you enjoyed that. Thanks for joining us, See you next time.
Thanks for listening, and remember that. Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. When you pop a piece of cheese into your mouth, you're probably not thinking about the environmental impact. But the people in the dairy industry are. That's why they're working hard every day to find new ways to reduce waste, conserve natural resources, and drive down greenhouse gas emissions. How is us dairy tackling greenhouse gases? Many farms use anaerobic digestors to turn the methane from manure into renewable energy that can power farms, towns, and electric cars. Visit you as dairy dot COM's Last sustainability to learn more.
Our iHeartRadio Music Festival for the Senate Bike Capitol one coming back to Las Vegas twenty. First, A weekend full of superstar performances A Sap, Rocky, Big Shun, Camila kavel Tojika Zulia, What's the Funny? Hoosier, Keith Urban, New Kids on the Block, Paramore, Chabouzi, The Black Crows, The Weekend, Thomas Red Victoria Monette, Coldplace, Chris Martin and more. Stream Live Holy on Hulu and get it, it gets to be there at Access dot com.
Guess what?
Well, what's that?
Mago?
I've been trying to.
Write a promo for our podcast, Part Time Genius, but even though we've done over two hundred and fifty episodes, we don't really talk about murderers or cults.
I mean, we did just cover the illuminatio cheese, so I feel like that makes us pretty edgy. We also solve mysteries like how Chinese is your Chinese food?
And how do.
Dollar stores make money? And then, of course can you game a dog show?
So what you're saying is everyone should be listening.
Listen to Part Time Genius on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts
