5 Reasons People Don't Understand Special Relativity!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this video, I want to talk about 5 common mistakes and misunderstandings people make in the special theory of relativity.
Big thanks belong to people supporting me on Patreon, Buymeacoffee and Super Thanks for giving me the motivation to create the video namely
-Jason Mclane (Patreon)
-Filip Blaschke (Patreon)
-Nathan Myers (Patreon)
-Tony (newly bought coffee)
-vaisanensimo (newly bought coffee)
-justin.vickers (newly bought coffee)
-benjamindees (newly bought coffee)
-jc (newly bought 3 coffees)
-hugoballroom5510 (newly super thanks)
-ronweber5652 (newly super thanks)
-keithbessant (newly super thanks)
Since I am kinda busy I can't answer more elaborate questions in the comments but for this purpose, I created a possibility to ask questions for a small fee of 5 dollars on
www.buymeacoffee.com/pprobnso...
attributions:
www.freepik.com
especially: rawpixel, brgfx, macrovector, pikisuperstar
www.vecteezy.com
for vector graphics
www.mixkit.co
for audio effects
www.pexels.com
Video by Ketut Subiyanto: www.pexels.com/video/man-usin...
Video by Diva Plavalaguna: www.pexels.com/video/a-couple...
Video by cottonbro studio: www.pexels.com/video/desk-wri...
Video by RDNE Stock project: www.pexels.com/video/frustrat...
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 3 // FNC vs FUT | EDG vs PRX](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pw2T5v0ogDI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 2 // PRX vs G2 | EDG vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T5j2XVcDFs0/mqdefault.jpg)
"See vs know" is a good one. I almost tripped up on it.
Smart, clever, intelligent, down to earth = brilliant
I have here, a list for you, of 5 common, but stubborn mistakes that are made repeatedly with respect to the topic of special relativity.
1. Confusion between the objective location of an observer in velocity space and the arbitrary location of the zero, or the origin, in velocity space. The common phrase "inertial frame of reference" is normally used in order to refer to both of these concepts and it also ties them together. Subjective framing is therefore tied to an objective location in velocity space. In this way, the relative vs absolute dichotomy is conflated with the subjective vs objective dichotomy. This confusion leads many to the false conclusion that all velocities are necessarily subjective just because they are relative. The use of the concept of velocity space helps us to keep us from confusing subjectivity with relativity, and it allows us to understand speed as a distance between points in velocity space.
2. Confusion between the true distance between two objects and the frame-dependent displacement of a moving object. The length of the path taken by a beam of light as it travels between two mirrors is actually a frame-dependent displacement, while the distance between the mirrors is a true distance. The problem with a frame-dependent displacement is that it is not objectively real because it changes depending on an arbitrarily chosen frame of reference.
3. The idea that objects or observers are able to move through space itself, or relative to space itself, along with the idea that space itself can move, stretch, expand, or shrink. This is a subtle resurrection of the notion of an absolute inertial frame of reference and it contradicts the first postulate of special relativity.
4. The idea that the relative and finite speed of 299,792 km/s also functions as a cosmic speed limit. This would have been plausible if 299,792 km/s had been either defined in velocity space or infinite, but because it is neither infinite, nor defined in velocity space, then it cannot possibly function as a speed limit.
5. The idea that symmetry an epistemological limit. The question of who is "really" in inertial motion or who is "really" stationary is often taken as a meaningful question with respect to the twin paradox. The continuous dimension of acceleration is then mistakenly applied as a means of deciding the "winner" in a contest between two incompatible accounts of reality. This is also a subtle resurrection of the notion of an absolute inertial frame of reference. God does not play poker with time.
In order for time dilation from inertial motion to be an optical illusion, one would need to first observe apparent time dilation from inertial motion. It is a bit premature to call anything that is not actually observed an "illusion." A thought experiment would not suffice for this purpose, since we are merely calculating what an observer would hypothetically observe according to the equation that we accept as valid (the Lorentz equation).
5 is the big one. We can't comprehend that there's no such thing as a "here and now" because everything about the picture our senses paint for us tends to tell us the false narrative that not only *is* there a "here and now", but that there's *only* a "here and now".
Special relativity doesn't make sense to most people because it's like being hit in the face with pure cognitive dissonance.
Your explanation of how the wire attracts positive charges after the current is started so as to “slowly neutralize itself” raised the question whether this effect is measurable? Does a wire become temporarily negatively charged when a current starts flowing? We are used to talking about induction and back emf in a wire with changing current, it’s tempting to think they must be related effects.
Great idea to make this video! 😊
I'm confused the way you presented your points. Some looked like mistakes, some looked like guidelines. Consistency is important I think. Keep up the good work!
Thanks Lucas for pointing these out. I had to learn SR the hard way as I'm not a professional and tripped over this many times before I discovered Lampa, Terrel and Penrose. In my own video's I named it 'Real world time dilation / length contraction' to separate what actually happens (what we know) from what we see. I would love your feedback on them but fully understand that these request come in often. In level 27 I do time dilation, in level 28 length contraction and in level 33 it all comes together when a 25m rocket flies into a 15m shed and I compare 'traditional' SR from both perspectives + what the video from the astronout would be like versus the one taken in the shed. Each level knows 3 sublevels: A = visualized/words, B = spacetime diagram and C = hardcore math.
Exellent video. I would add number 6) Difference between observer and reference frame.
after watching I have No 6: Don't bring physics into a thought experiment. People get derailed in the current carrying wire experiment with talking about quantum theory of conduction and the drift velocity irl being so low (I mean it's true, and the relativity of simultaneity dominates gamma at v
This was very, very helpful. I don't recall any other presentation of electromagnetics mentioning stray positive charges settling on the stationary wire (never mind negative charges driven away) to neutralize it. It must be a very small absolute number of charges, hard or impossible to measure.
Hi, during my phD, I always wonder how a bunch of proton see the accelerator. Due to length contraction, the size of the whole accelerator can be shrunk such that it become smaller than the size of the proton bunch it accelerates. Is there any thing wrong in my assumption?
If we consider Aether is a solid also drag with everything, we opens ourselves a paradox in which everything stands still in space and no orbital effect.
One may counter argue against Aether drag applying with an aberration effect. However aberration only opens doubt in Aether drag and isn’t a direct proof against it.
Addressing aberration effects:
Aether is regarded a fluid, an incompressible fluid. It has no mechanical except electrical properties which is u0 permeability and e0 permittivity. It adheres to and drag with matter in order to couple light, electromagnetic energy, between Aether and matter, and in doing so DRAG with earth as well as the interferometer, and hence to a static fringe pattern effect and a net zero velocity. As a fluid, however, Aether velocity remote from earth drag at a different mean velocity which is defined by the nearest planets and galaxies by a factor of 1/r.
The laterally sheering effect in Aether fluid is regarded as a boundary layer on laterally moving surface. Which supports complements the aberration effect?
I think teachers should be saying "understand" rather than "see", to save any confusion. Great Video.
Thanks!
Thanks for support :)
Can you please share your view on superdeterminism, it would be great to know your perspective.
@@lukasrafajpps
in your lab example, where do the extra electrons in the wire come from? :P when you initially increase the current
I saw in a video another explanation for the charges.
...+-+-+-+-... when the electron goes over the plus charge becomes 0 ant then it becomes -+-+-+-+ the apparent charges (what the outside electron really feels) go one for the right and the other for the left. Which explanation is right?
Hi Lukas, please correct me if I'm wrong!
1. The "fabric of space-time," the non-existing "ether' and the "quantum fields" are synonyms, the same thing.
2. It's all about relativity. Yes, you are actually contracted... as the whole space of the universe in the direction of your movement. If you reach C (let's assume you are massless), you will live in a 2d plane from your perspective. And you would disappear from sight, relative to everyone else's reference frames.
3. You're always moving through space-time with a combined speed C. Incrasing your speed through only space, decreases your speed through time.
4. Your speed through space constantly decreases. And your speed through time constantly increases. You observe an expanding universe with constantly increasing expansion rate, till your time speed reaches C - the heat-death of the universe.
5. C is not just a speed. C is energy a metric. C is the size of the universe, the energy of the Big Bang, the limit. You only observe it as the speed of massless wave-particles and information limit through space. Actually, it represents the energy released during the Big Bang. If the energy was more, C would be a higher number.
6. Energy is constant. You can't destroy it. You can't create it. You can change it, transfrom it. From potential energy to kinetic energy.
7. Before the Big Bang was only finite potential energy. No space, no time, no particles, no mass. During the Big Bang was only the same finite energy, but immediately changed to kinetic energy. After the Big Bang was and still is a decreasing kinetic energy and increasing potential energy. The end will be the same as the beginning - heat-death of the universe - all of the kinetic energy will be transformed back to potential energy. Space and time will be pointless because there will be no reference frames.
8. Kinetic energy deforms space-time. Enough kinetic energy at the same space during the same time means enough warp of the geodesics, enough to keep that energy trapped, to make it potential energy, to make it mass. (Trapped kinetic energy, cannot move, has zero velocity, so it's transformed to potential energy) make it moving slower through space, to create gravity. (Potential energy is more or less equal to mass, and mass can't travel with the speed of light).
9. When you have only potential energy and no kinetic, terms like space, time, speed, distance are pointless. You don't have something else to compare to. You don't have something relative to something else. So, asking about size before the Big Bang or after the heat-death of the universe is not only pointless, it's also the same. There is NO size there. There is NO time there. We can say that the heat-death of the universe would be basically the same as the "times" before the Big Bang.
- The Universe is finite if we are talking about energy consisted in it. We cannot know if there are other universes, multiverse, or an infinite field(s) in ours, but we can now for sure that the Big Bang was a finite rapid transformation from a potential to kinetic energy.
- There are no gravitons. Gravity is a side-effect, not a cause. Gravitons would need a special field, but we already have it - the so-called "fabric of space-time" - it's just flat space-time or curved if there is a presence of mass. Basically, we cannot have a particle, we can have only the waves.
- There is no dark energy. The universe does not expand, only our speed through it changes, changing our relative perspective for its size. Our speed through space-time is always C. After the Big Bang, everything with a mass, constantly decreases in terms of speed through space, while time itself always and constantly increases. From our reference frame, while our speed decreases, we are observing an expanding universe, expanding with constantly increasing rates.
- There are no particles/waves moving faster than C/back in time.
- Time travel is possible, and we're doing it, but it's a one-way ticket forward.
- There are no white holes.
- There is no wave-collapse. Ever. To be exact, there are no particles at all, there are only waves. Double slit experiments, quantum eraser, etc. does have nothing to do with our conchesness and wave-collapse. No, we're just deciding to measure different stuff.
1. The major difference between Luminiferous Aether and Space-Time is that - Aether is an absolute reference frame that is unobservable. Whether the space in space time is just regular tangible space and time here is regular tangible time.
2, 3 is OK AFAIK.
4. Nope nope. Nope. One's speed through space doesn't slow or speed up at all, unless they hit the gas pedal or break of course.
5. Again Nope. C isn't an energy metric. It's just the speed of causality.
6. Again, no. Energy is not only not constant, its not even a physical thing. It's just the measurement of "net change" in any process. Energy is conserved when the universe is time translation imvariant. But the real universe isn't. So, energy isn't even conserved, let alone be constant.
7. Nope. Nope. Mass is equivalent to curvature of space-time. Since that's a "net difference" than 'empty' space, there's definitely energy difference, but otherwise the whole argument is BS.
8,9. Dude, these things u r saying are anything but physics. More like exiting fiction with some tinge of physics.
on 1)
-If there is only ONE frame, the what your see by detecting light is all that matters (Doppler Shift, Terrell Rotation). With more than one frame, no one cares.
-with two+ frames, what you see means what your infinite lattice of synchronized grad students students measures locally and reports backs to you later.
on 4) This is the most important, if your set up is goofy, you're doomed. You always need a rest frame, and it is introduced first, you can call it A, Alice, or S.
The next frame is moving. It must be called B, Bob, or S', respectively. If there is a 3rd frame- C, Charlie, S''.
If you ask me a question not set up like this, I will not answer it. And if you don't introduce the frames in order: come back next week.
[1] Addition: don't pick non-relativistic velocities.
on 2) I disagree with the statement that B is purely a result of length contraction...because if you do a Lorentz-like transformation without gamma, the relativity of simultaneity takes over an makes effects--that are no physical, so do it yourself if you want to see.
LT is linear, lines look like y = mx + b, and you can't attribute everything to the slope, the intercept matters, too.
I don't know what exactly you mean but length contraction is purely a result of relativity of simultaneity which breaks the definition of length in classical physics.
@@lukasrafajpps that a good way to look at it -as two simultaneous events at a ruler's end points aren't simultaneous in any moving frame.
So what I'm talking about is:
t' = g(t - bx)
and noobs focus on the slope, gt, which is time dilation, and give short shrift to the intercept: gbx, which is the relativity of simultaneity.
What about quantized inertia?
Hi, could you please explain why E=mc2...why is the c squared? Also I struggle to comprehend what is mass, could you explain it? Thank you :)
No one knows exactly. The one who explains will receive a million dollars.
There is trivial explanation about mass, you can google it.
And there is hints to deeper understanding: bosons - no rest mass, fermions - have rest mass. Fermions -> spin 1/2 -> Pauli matrices->spin symmetries->Bott periodicity theorem. So appearance of mass somehow connected to twisted spacetime at quantum level and interactions between energies.
Energy is expressed in joules, and joules in the international system are expressed in kg.m².s‐²
You have to time mass by the square of a velocity to match the units of the international system.
Grant me my million dollars x')
The video has good clarifications. But it can be clarified further, mathematically & logically, in a simple way.
- Follow what the math says in the Lorentz factor in the SR time dilation equation
- The v^2 variable in the Lorentz factor = 2 • acceleration • distance (assuming initial velocity = 0). This is the Torricelli equation, later incorporated among Newtons equations of motion.
- The v^2 variable in the Lorentz factor can not be used for time intervals in relative motion where acceleration/deceleration does not take place. That is what the mathematics above says, and it is inescapable. It is a fact whatever Einstein himself thought, wrote or said. Or whatever anyone else has thought, wrote or said since then. Or whatever anyone now thinks, writes or says.
- Therefore, it must be during time intervals with accelerations/decelerations ONLY, where the physical time dilation is created (physical slowing down of a clock).
When discussing Special Relativity, one has to separate:
1. Objective reality, real physical effects, physical change of a clock within certain time intervals according to the mathematical proof above.
2. Subjective reality, additional optical specific observer effects.
FYI, the light clock, often used to derive the SR time dilation equation with the Lorentz factor, does NOT illustrate continuous time dilation with inertial constant relative motion. It illustrates, and generates an equation for, accumulated time dilation during time intervals with acceleration concerning the object which was accelerated to create the motion relative to the non-accelerated object. In other words, the light clock derivation is fully in sync with the mathematical proof above.
on the question of choosing an initial condition if slightly flawed, the demonstration is usually done wrong in my opinion. what you did is fine heuristically, but it is lightly more complicated in reality, if you have some loop of wire, the charge is conserved within it, so increasing or decreasing the current does not change the current density, but the current is built up from electron which themselves length contract or do not length contract. if the electrons are moving in the circular path faster than the positive charges, then they will be more length contracted on average in any frame just by virtue of their rotation, the effect is basically that the electric field is falling of faster on one direction vs the other, that means the electric field along the wire and out from the wire is different when there is a current, and the electrons do not change their density along the loop they change the amount of electric field that extrudes from the conductor, it is complicated to work out in detail but the same in-variance results. i don't like the space between the electrons changing picture i don't think it shows an appropriate physical situation. take for instance a modular space, a box that repeats over and over in space with the same identical physical content, a wire runs through the box and keeps on running forever box after box, forever, if the electrons actually get more dense then effectively you are changing the number of electrons in each box, while if the effect is that the electrons change the amount of electric field perpendicular and along the wire then no such addition of charges is required for the same effect. :)
_"if the electrons actually get more dense then effectively you are changing the number of electrons in each box"_ - the number of electrons that are simultaneously in each box indeed changes. That is due to relativity of simultaneity. It is pretty much the electronic variant of the pole-in-the-barn paradox.
Excellent video. Although I am missing "Don't forget about relativity of simultaneity" in your list of points. That is the point most people stumble on.
13:50 _"If you took the magnitude of the difference between these two velocities, you'd get the same answers in all frames of reference"_ - Unfortunately, not quit. If A has velocity -v and B has velocity +v wrt. the middle observer, then their relative velocity according to the middle observer would be 2v. But for each A and B, the relative speed would be 2v/(1 + v²/c²). Not a big difference when they are going 20 km/s. But if they are going close to c, they would appear to (that is: calculated by) the middle observer to move apart with a speed close to 2c.
Oh, maybe I didn't enphasized it enough but I was talking about the Galilean relativity at that point. In SR you can't make an invariant quantity this way but there is another way.
@@lukasrafajpps Why would there even be a difference between what we see and what we detect if time dilation and length contraction are real? If you claim that what we see and what we detect give different results you are basically implying that length contraction and time dilation are just optical illusions.
@@classicalmechanic8914 _"Why would there even be a difference between what we see and what we detect if time dilation and length contraction are real?"_ - I think that is explained in the video. What you SEE is what is in the light that arrives from the event. That is, what a physical camera that an observer holds would record. What you DETECT is what you calculate must have happened at the source to cause that recording to turn out that way. That is, the difference between the two is the effects due to the light travelling from the events to the camera.
Or, to say it another way, what you SEE is what a designated camera held by an observer records. What you DETECT is what a camera that is located at the source of the events would record, assuming that that local camera is fully time-synchronised with the observer camera.
What you SEE can be an optical illusion, what you DETECT is not.
@@renedekker9806 Let's say you have optical detector. What you see and what you detect will be the same because optical detector are detecting ie seeing light.
If you claim only a person can see the light and only detector can detect light you are introducing the observer problem which can only be solved with consciousness.
Relativity of simultaneity prevent you from knowing what actually happens outside your reference frame. If you claim there is difference between seeing and detecting, you are basically suggesting length contraction and time dilation are illusions because there is no length contraction or time dilation in your reference frame but you claim there is difference outside your reference frame.
@@renedekker9806 If you understand relativity of simultaneity you know you cannot make a distinction between optical illusions and detections, because both detections and observations are measured in your local reference frame.
Ship1 at rest on top:
T--------------------N
N--------------------T
Here we have 2 ships passing each other and each diagram shows one of the ships at rest and the other one moving and length contracted. There is 1 moment when T of ship1 is lined up with N of ship2. This moment must be the same moment for both ship1 and ship2. At this moment, N of ship1 is located on opposite sides of T of ship2 simultaneously which is clearly impossible.
Relativity is dope as f**k! Thank you, now I realize that I don’t understand anything about it 😂I’ve always believed that what I 'see' and what it truly is can differ, but relativity has made me question whether this perspective is even normal. You’ve made me hate the light postulate😂
Clocks have nothing to do with time. Current in conductive wire does not create length contracted electrons. Electric current in a conductive wire that is cooled to absolute zero should flow faster that the speed of light becuase of 0 resistance.
I really feel that Special Relativity courses should teach how to derive length contraction of a rod without switching reference frame.
You should ALWAYS be able to explain a phenomenon without switching frames. In this case it's about how the electromagnetic fields of the atoms in the rod are affected by their velocity.
If the student believes that something can _only_ be derived by switching frames, I think that can inadvertently strengthen the "optical illusion" misconception.
SR is junk science. Use Newton's Laws of Motion, F=ma.
Force equals Equals Acceleration.
Works for every frame of reference. Organic and inorganic.
To accelerate an atom requires a Force. Some of force used to accelerate an atom in space also goes into accelerating the atom in time. Aka it's oscillation rate increases and it's decay rate increases.
E=mc. Atomic Energy converts to Radiant Energy with Acceleration.
F=ma. The greater the mass of the atom (lower oscillation rate) the greater its achieved velocity in space before it converts to radiant energy.
That's why gold atoms are used in particle colliders. It's why gold film is used for mirrors on the JWST. Gold has a low oscillation atomic rate that requires a greater amount of force to accelerate it. How much force do infrared rays have compared to the gold atoms mass.
Electromagnetic waves are force carriers. F=ma. The Acceleration rate is the propagation rate and the mass is the carrier wave's wavelength. As wavelength (mass) increases so does the distance the photon has to travel. Since force decreases with distance, longer wavelength photon have less force.
If you want to understand physics, know Newton's F=ma inside and out. What is mass? What is Acceleration? What is the frame of reference. A greater force accelerates a lower force. Infrared rays have less force than gold atoms so they bounce right off the mirror.
Ditch Einstein’s relativity nonsense and stick to real physics. Relativity has never been proven and never will because Acceleration is what defines the universe. Not mass. Mass is just stored energy and energy is Acceleration. Atoms are packets of energy with a velocity < c. Not in space. But in time as Space and Time are TWO separate frames of reference. Accelerating an atom to c in Time means conversion to radiant energy. Accelerating an atom to c in space means spatial coordinates. Since a force is being applied to accelerate the atom in space, it is also being accelerated in time. The Acceleration factor is based on its mass factor. The lower the mass factor - oscillation rate- the greater the amount of force is required to accelerate it in Time.
Relativity is Einstein’s fantasy theory. It's akin to flat earth science. Something that somebody made up because they didn't understand what makes the world round.
Acceleration makes the world round. The Earth's mass is being accelerated outward in a forward direction. As the radius increases, the acceleration factor increases also causing a decrease in the mass factor (density of the Earth's atmosphere).
Want to understand the universe? Understand F=ma. The frame of reference being the acceleration factor.
Does that mean that a conductor in a vacuum maintains it's negative charge?
It depends on the conductor initial charge. If it is neutral without current it wont be neutral with the current in the same frame of reference.
@@lukasrafajpps I understand but in your example the reason the conductor is neutral is because after current starts the negative charge is balanced by nearby positive charges in the air. If we did this experiment in a vacuum would the current carrying wire maintain a negative charge?
@@Cromius771 yes
@@lukasrafajpps thank you very much for these videos and for taking the time to reply
@@Cromius771 What goes on when you turn on the current in a wire is generally more complicated than just attracting charges from the surroundings. The charges inside rearrange to neutral charge anyway. It is certainly possible to have a neutral wire in a vacuum with current inside.
the difference between a master frame interpretation of simultaneity and a universal one, is not physical as long as the physics has Lorentz symmetry, that is something most cranks fail to spot because they don't know math, but i just don't like the universal view because it is hard to extend to faster velocities without getting into trouble.
the normal view of special relativity is easy to understand, i don't think it is the most productive view to think that the relativity of simultaneity is a physical fact, i just think it is an empirical issue more so than a physical one, but that can't be decided unless Lorentz symmetry is broken. how the mathematics works in the normal text book version is very simple and easy to understand :). there is nothing wrong with it, but it is not the only view you can hold that is consistent with the causal absolute quantities in the theory formulated as such. that's all
We should talk about special relativity.
Its hamiltonian,choo choo train standardized time as if on a horizontal deterministic linear evolutionary space/ time line that usually causes the issues.
This is because of everything physicslism everything naturalism movement.
Instead of vertical gradient axis of time mass displacement of space by product of gravity the more political and ideological movements has hammered the maze drawn around manifolds that was pushed in usa and I suppose uk as well .
Wanting everything to be realism over anti realism to further line of thought measurements gets in the way.
this is not exact but it gives the rough answer. in a loop of wire for example moving in a direction of the plane it loops in, then the density changes depending on what side of the loop you are looking at, and it does do that in a loop of wire, but it is because of a difference in the electric field along the conductor when it is moving with respect to the chosen background. and it happens in a frame where you see the wire moving, so in the part of the wire where it moving in the same direction as the current, the length contraction of the e field is larger and where the current moves against the motion with respect to the background the electric field along the wire with be less length contracted, you can think of this as a sort of electron pressure that is causing a distortion in density of the electrons in response to the length contraction, and the change in density inside plus the length contraction effect on the field come together to form the field outside the conductor. roughly speaking. also there is the issue of the path a free charge would take next to a wire with a current, it is not straight or just in an arc towards the wire necessarily, it ranges from a small almost circle to a gently turn towards the wire depending on the mass/charge ratio and the radius of the wire, or more accurately the magnetic field on its surface, whether it has extent and therefore not an infinite magnetic field strength at the surface. if the moving charged particle has a tiny velocity with respect to the wire but the field is very strong then it will still loop in place, i always think that particular demonstration is not very clear because it does not attempt to tackle the confusing situations where it seems impossible to think about a pure electric field producing a little loop or close to a loop(because it is not a uniform magnetic field ofc. it is easier to solve it in another context where you are just using the relativistic form of the situation, but still, i think that demo is misleading, it is supposed to be a simplified version of the currents in two wires, but it doesn't quite work :). i think it would be much cooler, if you did the harder thing, computed the real effects in special relativity of two parallel wires with currents of attraction or repulsion, because then you get a much clearer picture of what is going on even if you need more mathematics, i think the audience can handle it honestly. :)
That is not the issue. The point is that space (x = vt) is not included in the equation to be solved for the "time dilation" equation.
(ct')^2 = (ct)^2 + (vt')^2 (solve it for t' for yourselve(s) to understand) and note that this equation cannot be generated from the "space" equation for length in first order (ct') = (ct) + (vt') (draw it on a piece of paper).
Hint: If space doesn't exist, the twins don't go anywhere; one of them (the imaginary one) just gets fat in his/her imagination (t'). Which is why Hawking hints that time must be imaginary, but never says why.
"Yesterday upon the stair
I saw a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I with he'd go away" - Ogden Nash
See my post at "From MM Experiment to STR"
That is, Fermat's Last Theorem is valid for the case n=2 for all positive real numbers
c^2 a^2 + b^2
since in second order (I repeat, sigh. ad infinitum, ad nauseam)
c= a + b
c^2 = [a^2 + b^2] + [2ab] (Binomial Expansion, proved by Newton)
[a^2 + b^2] (why) figure it out and you will be enlightened....😎
Any other conclusion is a fool's errand IMO,
Measurement vs observation.
Measurement = observation
I'm not really sure, but I don't think positive charges in an electric wire are protons... protons are part of the nucleus I think, and to strip them from the nucleus, you need a nuclear reaction... unless i'm wrong ^^'
_" I don't think positiv charges in an electric wire are protons"_ - that is correct, they are positive ions. That is, atoms that are missing one or more electrons.
@@renedekker9806 that makes me think of a bad joke... Universe is composed of neutrons, protons, electrons and morrons... okok I take the door x')
Since the protons are not moving, they remain securely fixed within the nuclei of the wire's crystal matrix: as noted, it is the electrons that move through the circuit. You _could_ use, in place of a wire, a hose with a salt solution in it; then both positively-charged ions (atoms missing an electron) and negatively-charged ions (atoms with an extra electron) would be moving, in opposite directions. The apparent magnetic field is the sum of the relativistic charge contributions of both negative and positive currents. It is usually harder to get positive charges moving than negative charges, because the positive charges are usually attached to bigger masses, but with ions in solution the masses differ by only 0.1%.
@@sciptick i always thought positive charges in an electric circuit were just a convention for calculations or whatever, and had no reel existence like electrons or other elementary particles...
@@kiloharabaka9589 That is just a matter of the sign convention for current. In our gracious host's animations, you see his "J" vector pointing to the left as the electrons move right, accounting for that sign convention. But sometimes carriers may really be positive, with motion matching the convention. In a p-type semiconductor, the "holes" move in that way; in physical fact, it is still electrons going the opposite way, but the "holes" behave like particles, and physicists talk about them that way without confusion. Positive ions in solution are positive just because they lack an electron, but in that case the whole nucleus really does come along, moving the same direction as the J vector. In the animations, when you pick the reference frame of the electrons, the electrons are then stationary in that frame, and the positive nuclei are treated as moving left, matching J. It really doesn't matter, in the abstract formulas, but you do need to keep track or get wrong answers.
th-cam.com/video/Sx-nzzofVlA/w-d-xo.html
Don’t understand TSR?
No, we do understand TSR
It is hypnotic argument and an illusion.
Relativity ...stands for constant time... meaning it does NOT matter how hard you fly ...who is where... TIME is ALWAYS constant for the observer self...
So even if you people are apart...or one is flying at ten times the speed of light...the time BETWEEN observers never change...because time for self NEVER changes...
time dialation is a hoax...
13:04 and you have made a common mistake in SR: "Picking a non-relativistic velocity". Why is that bad?: because it makes your following statements sound reasonable (the magnitude of the difference in velocities is the same in all frames). I know you know that the magnitude of the differences in _rapidities_ are invariant, velocities not so much, but since you picked v = 20 km/s, no one noticed.
Also: you didn't label the initial rest frame, it's just a picture of a guy on Earth, so I have to say, only in the frame of the guy on Earth is it true that:
|v_A - v_(frame of the guy on Earth)| = |v_B - v_(frame of the guy on Earth)|
awkward, but true.
Aldo, any time there are 3 frames, about 75% of noob make the velocity addition mistake.
I wanted to demonstrate a relative quantity outside of SR. You might even notice that I said that it is Galilean relativity not special relativity.
@@lukasrafajpps no, I completely missed that. Sometimes you have pay attention in these Zoom calls ;-).
So: Nevermind. good vid.
Answer to physics problems: what is usually learned in school and college about relativistic physics
When an object that moves at a relativistic speed approaches you, it suffers the doppler effect, because it is closer to being a wave than a particle, the universe shrinks for you because you stretch for the universe, your present increases of size. The electron is made up of a cloud of charges that, while it is not in orbits and sub-orbits, can spread out and travel at the speed of light in the electrosphere while it is not parked in levels and sub-levels, just for the record, if the universe is classical or quantum doesn't matter, this discussion is a waste of time. The lighter it is, the less mass a particle has, and the closer to the speed of light it can travel, so there is a speed limit between an object gaining mass and that object gaining enough range due to spaghettification to not interact or barely interact. interact with anything. It's a U-curve, one thing offsets the other. In other words, for an object with mass to reach the speed of light, the more it accelerates from a certain point it would disintegrate and turn into more and more energy to be able to continue accelerating at higher speeds, the effect of spaghettification can be observed in black holes and in all general physics, by gradually accelerating any object to increasingly higher speeds.
it is at the end of the day physics with a certain causal structure, and a bunch of coordinate systems in which the laws of motion look the same. nothing special.
Special relativity is SIMPLY the ultimate judgement machine - if your theory does not confirm to it then your theory is wrong... ):-)
Mistaking Special with Spacial is not one of them.
Dawg it's called special relativity use Google 😭😭😭
nice video, seen only 4 minutes so far :). time dilation and length contraction is just an optical illusion indeed, but also real effects, wut? hehe. I'm sure you know what i mean but i'll explain it anyway. special relativity if a simplified formalism for dealing with Lorentz symmetric physics. namely isotropic and an-isotropic light behavior gives the same observable consequences given the appropriate transformation of the equations of motion with respect to both kinds of basis :). for example, the view that only one inertial frame is really stationary with respect to the background, and that time dilation, and length contraction are physical effects on systems moving with respect to the background, gives the same results as special relativity. in such a description, you deal with everything as if you are a single observer sitting far away watching the show in the context of special relativity. if this master observer could see light travel around and knew how light really behaved, that it is isotropic with respect to one velocity only, and the master observer therefore knew exactly what choice of simultaneity was the correct one, then he would be able to decree that the people who shared his frame, or uses his basis are the ones that are describing physical real length contraction and time dilation. in that view all other length contraction and time dilation is a mixture of optical effects and real effects, of motion relative to the master frame. this gives exactly the same causal structure, and all the same observable effects as normal special relativity, and as long as the physics is Lorentz invariant, any frame could be chosen as master, but in each one, only the length contraction and time dilation according to that frame are the real effects of motion, while what other claim about it is the optical consequences of the symmetry. that is what is going on in the master frame, looks like another frame is master for that moving observer. who is right cannot be decided within Lorentz invariant physics, only chosen, but in all cases you can from whatever master frame you choose calculate why other people think the world is different as optical effects. the difference between real effects and optical effects is a matter of definition in Lorentz invariant physics, but all frames have them as either real or optical. this is more or less academic if we believe Lorentz in-variance is absolute, it can't be decided who is fooled by their velocity and who are not, or if you will in what frames light is actually isotropic and which they are not, because a change in linear velocity does not allow you to do so. but if we invent a magic laser pointer with a new special imaginary light emanating from it, we could check whether all frames are equal or not, we can check which frame agrees with the definition of the x coordinate. here there are two options, either we find a theory where there is one master frame, and it is just difficult or impossible to measure without such a pointer, or that simultaneity really depends upon velocity, and in that case we break causality with our laser pen. it is very clear, this is just a model for a single effect that breaks Lorentz symmetry without changing the physics of anything else, just by analyzing the behavior of an instant velocity laser we can probe simultaneity, and therefore decide whether the idea of a master frame that is un-observable is true, or the equality of frames is. ofc we do not have this pen right now but something similar can be made out of quantum mechanical effects :P. if we just do the experiment it is very easy, we have Alice remain in earth, and we give bob and charlie two of these laser pens, we tell them to shoot a laser pulse at earth from far far away, at the same time, from the same point on space, but at different velocities, lets say bob has a blue laser and charlie has a red one, if one of them arrives earlier than the other, then we have a split causal structure for instantaneous effects, and we know we can send messages back in time if we want to, for example telling our past selves about the results, and thereby we don't have to do the experiment. this is a funny joke, but weird, normal special relativity has no split causal structure, the causal structure aka the light cone structure is conserved when we transform form one frame to another. when we extend to any velocity with the same sub-light physics we obtain a weird broken causality by assuming the non hidden master frame interpretation. If our result is that even though bob's and charlie's signals were sent from the same event at different velocities, they arrive at the same time at earth. if this is true causality is fine, and the master frame view is right. notice that this distinction is olny important when stuff moves faster than light, for subluminal physics it is just an undecidable question if Lorentz symmetry is real. now we look more closely at the first case, where charlie and bob shoots their pulse at the same time and in the same place, in bobs frame he thinks both signals should arrive at earth as a given time, and charlie thinks they should also arrive at the same time at earth but at a different time from charlie, this is not what we intuitively assumed, now there seems to be a different definition, both think their master frame is correct, and either one is true or the other, hmmm, so, either we have to change physics such that instant means sending a signal according to the x coordinates of the observer sending them, no matter which frame you are calculating from, which seems not to be in the spirit of special relativity at all, so we are just right back at the master frame interpretation, for superluminal travel it is the only one that makes any sense at all it seems, and so if we want to extend relativity to higher velocities, we have to be careful, we have to realize that the master frame view and the non master frame view are not the same at all, either bob and charlies expectations contradict each other, or they have to use different definitions of instant for each observer able to use such a pen. in either case the master frame case, the incoherent case, or the velocity dependent time travel case, we have different theories with different physical consequences.
it is because i have worked on extensions of physics to arbitrary velocities that ii believe more in the master frame interpretations, that is; one of the frames is really physical at any given point in space and because of Lorentz symmetry we can't know which one very easily outside effects analogous to the laser pointer. because that view is both consistent with special relativity and experiment but is also easy to extend to any velocity without getting into trouble. :) sorry for the block of text. this is a complicated topic, there is no way to decide without a concrete symmetry breaking effect in normal physics, but for extensions of the theory to faster and richer causal structures, it really really matters a lot, and simultaneity basically has no choice than to be singular, or you will end up with problems with causality, doesn't means it is observable, for example if we extended to a causal structure with a lot of faster velocities than c, and the information transmitted to the Lorentz symmetric physics was random and didn't destroy the approximate Lorentz symmetry then we could not know, luckily that isn't the case in the real world, there are some entanglement experiments one could do to show it is not as simple as Lorentz symmetry like our laser pointer, but that can be discussed at another time.
anyway nice video i just thought i would explain why i think we will ultimately have a master frame interpretation of the symmetry, not a universal one. :) most objections to special relativity are dumb i agree with that, it is a coherent formalism describing a systems that has Lorentz symmetry. but that doesn't necessarily mean simultaneity is non absolute, it just means that as long as we don't have some effect that breaks the symmetry we would not know which one was right. :)
i think special relativity is easy to wrap your head around, you can take a master frame view, or a relativistic view it doesn't matter it gives the same answers. but as i explained in my first comment, it is no so simple once you introduce physics beyond the speed of light, then the relativity of simultaneity breaks down and you get several theories you have to choose from, applying the logic of the master frame view, and the relative view does not give you identical results, the master frame view gives you a clean simple theory, and the reality of all frames view gives you ambiguity in certain experiments about when instantaneous signals should arrive in a lab, or if you will, the two really become different theories instead of just different interpretations. :). relative quantities are really absolute quantities as well though, in a single frame proper time is just something i can observe and slap a coordinate system on it, that coordinate systems maps the events in some way from my perspective, and that map doesn't change under Lorentz transformations it just gets distorted :P. aka my coordinate time and coordinate distance exists perfectly well in your frame as well, we just disagree on what they should be interpreted as :). just check for yourself, take two frames and apply a transformation of one coordinate system to the other, it is still there, still attached to the exact same points in spacetime according to itself. i think therefore it is a bit cheap to call them relative quantities, it is the interpretation that is relative not the quantities :).
Since Einstein's relativity and light constancy postulates are false, there is no wonder that people don't understand a theory, based upon incorrect physics postulates and supported by incorrect mathematical deductions. Conclusions that time dilation, length contraction and relativity of simultaneity physically exist are based upon mathematical errors flowing from incorrect postulates. So no matter how hard videos like this try to explain relativity, they can not do so in a logically consistent manner. You can not make sense out of a theory that is founded upon incorrect postulates and mathematical errors of deduction.
Are you dumb
Have you seen the last Dialect video?
Hi I have. I was actually recording a reaction video but I got disrupted and didn't finish so I watched the rest of it later off the camera. Currently I work on video that maps Einstein's reasoning that led us from special relativity to general relativity. Then I plan to say something about dialect's new video :)
@@lukasrafajppsgive it up. The laws of physics are equally valid in ALL frames of reference. Space and Time are separate frames of reference. Since force equals Acceleration in the Space frame, the force equals Acceleration in the Time frame. Then there is the matter of light (electromagnetic waves) being an absolute. When you have an absolute reference marker, relativity is inconsequential.
Tesla once said the that Einstein’s relativity is mathematical nonsense. It's mathematical nonsense because ACCELERATION is the frame of reference. Not mass. Everything with relativity is 180 degrees from relativity which is why you are blind to the underlying errors. You are essentially looking in a mirror and confusing left with right.