@@OrdenJust without any energy gradient, "energy" is meaningless. Remember, "energy" doesn't actually exist, it's a property. It's a number. It only has meaning in relation to a gradient.
Hi! I think it was a lot easier to show this using energy-momentum relation, using: since the mass term is 0 I wont write it out, and I take the sqrt and we get: E = pc (since the mass term is 0 I wont write it out) then using incredibly simple algebra, p = E/c
Fun fact: Mass doesn't require mass! A single photon has no rest mass, however if you have two photons with opposite momenta, the system of both photons together has rest mass.
The rest mass of the resulting particle in said collision isn't a photon, you've converted energy in the form of two photons temporarily (or permanently) into matter; mystery solved. Look up "Two photon physics" if you don't take my word on it (which you shouldn't)
@@dibyajyotibharadwaj8129 A better way to say it is that mass is an emergent property - not a property of individual things but of a system as a whole. While it might seem like a property of individual objects, that's only because what we think of as individual objects are actually incredibly complex systems of particles. It's the interactions between the particles that result in mass. If you're interested in how this happens, PBS Spacetime did a really amazing video about it a few years ago called "The Nature of Matter and Mass." Nick also did a video about it called something like "What if you were made of photons?!"
My understanding of this (in my crude understanding) was that photons do not have rest mass, but do have relativistic mass. A single photon can never be at rest, so the lack of rest mass can never be observed in reality. On the other hand, two photons moving in opposite directions, the velocity vectors cancel each other out, so the average mass of the pair is at rest even though none of the individual photons are actually at rest.
The full equation relating energy to momentum is: E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 Where: E is the total energy of the system. p is the momentum magnitude. c is the speed of light. m is the invariant (or rest) mass. If p (momentum) = 0, (pc)^2=0, and the equation simplifies to E=mc^2. If m (mass) = 0, (mc^2)^2=0, and the equation simplifies to E=pc. Rearranging for p gives p=E/c.
@@waynelin5916 But what about the gravitational field? The gravitational field exerts a force. Should not it then have momentum? And if that is the case, then what is the equation for gravitational momentum?
@@waynelin5916 Wait, never mind. Let us say that we have two objects attracted to each other by the gravitational force. When the gravitational field exerts a force F on one of the objects, it also exerts a force -F on the other object. The total change in momentum of the two objects is dp=dp_object 1+dp_object 2=F_object 1•dt+F_object 2•dt=F•dt-F•dt=0. According to conservation of momentum, the change of the momentum of the gravitational field is also 0. Thus the momentum of the gravitational field is constant, and then I guess it makes sense to let the momentum be zero always (i.e. the gravitational field has no momentum).
I actually remember learning in my engineering courses that F = ma is technically not the formal definition of Newton's Second Law, that the proper way of saying it is F = dp/dt. The reason we generally use F = ma is because d(mv)/dt = ma for objects of constant mass. Granted, the example they generally use to illustrate this discrepancy is objects with varying mass, like rockets, which would give d(mv)/dt = ma + v(dm/dt). The fact that light has momentum without mass may have been mentioned in passing, but brushed off as irrelevant for our purposes.
I’d love to see some quantum biology videos. Examples: how enzymes use quantum tunnelling, how smell may be triggered by the wave properties of molecules, how some birds use entanglement to coordinate while migrating. These are things that not a lot of science education youtubers have talked much about.
Ha! I never got it until now!! Its almost absurd hów totally cléar that man can teach! Even the most confusing things he can explain só totally clear and understandable! Yes, Nick Lucids Science Asylum ís a fenonem through wich thru knowledge did and dó wide spread over the internet, so over mankind!!
Our school teacher recommended to watch your video! Your way of explaining complicated things is so interesting to listen. Thank you, Nick! You got a new subscriber all the way from Kazakhstan!
Hehe, just watched this video on my own, countrymate (is there a word like that?). He could have summed it all up using this formula: (m*c^2)^2=(m0)^2*c^4+p^2*c^2, where m is referring to relative mass and m0 is rest mass. Since photon has no mass the first term on the right is zero and formula is reduced to the formula he showed for photon momentum.
I think you're mixing up two concepts that are difficultly intertwined. But there are several quantum fields that permeate through the universe and Bosons are seen as the force carriers that represent a change in the field, e.g. if you take an interaction between two electrons, the electromagnetic field is changing between them and a photon is the force carrier that represents the change in energy through their collision. To help you clear up how force is related to the momentum of light in his video if we take his equation for momentum of the speed of light p = E/c : E being energy which is Force times velocity then p = (F*v)/c and if we take the speed of light as v they cancel out and the momentum is equal to the force of the light particle: p = F
@@The_stone_Philosopher Except that you've replaced E, energy, with F•v, dot product of force & velocity, which is power = a rate of change of energy. Multiplying the RHS by ∆t (and converting momentum to change of momentum) remedies that dimensional mismatch: ∆p = (F•v/c) ∆t , then with v = c, ∆p = F ∆t which, in the limit as ∆t→0, becomes the more familiar F = dp/dt Fred
Thanks for another great video. I'm always impressed by how well you explain things. However, one thing I'm still unsure of is what the definition of momentum actually is. Is there a standard definition or is it different in different circumstances? What does it mean for something to have momentum? Is it ∫F dt?
Yes, ∫F dt is how I'd define momentum mathematically. We have to come up with names for measurements pretty early on. Unfortunately, that means we usually name things before we realize what they _actually_ are.
@@matthewking3326 Almost: For a _constant_ force, it would have to the size of the force applied in a given amount of time times the amount of time. You have to multiply by time in order for the units to work out. For non constant forces, we have to take the integral of force with respect to time instead of just multiplying.
This is good stuff! Might I suggest a video on the difference between energy and momentum? We learn conservation rules about both, so why do we need both concepts? Might marry up well with Noether's Theorem.
Graphene is simply a conductor. Not a good one like most metals are, but the word semiconductor points mostly to materials that can be doped to become P or N and, o its okay
**YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR OWN TV SHOW** Really good cheerful presentation. Contact the companies who make cartoons and the TV show syndicators and keep knocking on the door until you get your own show. Not sure a radio show would work. The performance is pretty visual. Greatest value is video. Until I watched your videos, it was not clear that science could be so entertaining. . . .
@@alexandrumoise1511 Probably depends on the demographic as to choosing the right venue. My point was, if you look at the other youtube science videos, it's pretty hard to find an entertaining undertone while still pulling off accurate science that is understandable for average person. If you look at his video on the Poynting vector, it's a great example of making an esoteric and mostly conceptual issue entertaining. I guess my main point was, he's got talent, is very good at making the science entertaining, especially when talking to his 'identical twin' and more people should benefit from it, and sure of course find the right venue. . . .
@@Greg_Chase yeah, I agree. But I also think that working in a more professional environment, although allowing for higher quality video/effects, and more content, would also decrease authenticity and free expression. I like his style and personality, and I like the free way he makes these videos. If he could make a living by doing this I think that would be ideal. I think by adhering to a network there will be more filters between his mind and mine. And I dislike that. Just my opinion.
@@JohnSmith-lf8ks I'd like to see a video on imposing order on the background field, aka 'coherent superposition', how the declining inertia gradient around planets (what we call gravity) works, and how to use a coherent superposition device to shield inertia, neutralize gravity, and hover. I'm building one, a very simple one, a small one, and he'd do a great job of presenting the nuts and bolts. He'd do a great job explaining how inertia is created when the atoms of matter objects interact with the background field. The video would start with the fact that accelerometers do not work in the 9.8m/s^2 acceleration due to gravity, and how Einstein in 1905 told everyone "inertia - mass - is variable, it is not fixed. The inertia (mass) of an object that is **accelerating** to light speed increases greatly. The MATTER, the atoms, of the object do NOT increase; the inertial mass increases. The acceleration results in increasing inertia, like all accelerating actions do, and inertial mass grows immensely and makes light speed the maximum velocity. Mass is not FIXED. Mass is variable." He would pull that off and a lot of problems on the planet would fall away. It's a rare person who can get rigorous explanations across with a humorous entertaining quality to it. Look at his video for the Poynting Vector *after* you've looked at some of the other Poynting Vector videos. . . .
Like, in light-years? Yeah, I've had that video on the list for a while, but it never gets made. I just keep getting _more_ excited about other topics.
@@ScienceAsylum There was another term for it aswell, parsecs. Brings that up aswell, if you do the video. Also, do any pet theory on how space navigation will work(you can make that a separate video if you want, possibly as a follow up to the previously mentioned one.) There's bound to be tons of trigonometry like for the globe there is the Haversine formula - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula , but for space I imagine it will be pretty tough even looking at constellations as they'll undoubtedly look pretty different from any other points in space that's isn't earth.
So if I shoot laser to a mirror, light that is reflected has lower energy than light that went in since it gave some of its energy as a push to the mirror? So if I will have a mirror at reletavistic speed, I will blueshift all the mirrored light?
Momentum is just the total energy or the total force. Force/energy hasn’t necessarily mass, so momentum hasn’t either, but if we want to measure that momentum we will have to interact with it and create mass...
@@benjaminmoszkowicz8149 Energy must have mass or momentum or both. The mass is not created by measuring it. It is just another way to express the total energy.
Ronald de Rooij no, otherwise photons would have mass, but they don’t, they do have energy.... Mass and energy are related, but they aren’t the same thing!
Momentum without moving. Collisions without touching. It sometimes seams that words are chosen poorly in physics. My brain is spinning and hurting but not moving.
I always found this helpful: E=.5mv^2 If you differentiate wrt v, you get that the rate of change of energy is the momentum. If its just rate of change of energy, then its easy to understand it exists in many forms and requires neither mass nor velocity. It also follows that the conservation of momentum must hold for the conservation of energy to be true. If the momentum isn't conserved, then neither is the energy. Same deal with force.
I'm interested in how a single photon carries momentum, particularly with regard to direction. Since the direction is quantized, it would seem momentum would need to be up or down (or right/left, etc.). This also seems needed to maintain causality since otherwise, a clever arrangement of lenses could send information into the past. (Momentum shifting light from a distant star would affect that star years ago when it emitted the light.) So is it only in aggregate that photons have reasonable directional momentum? Something weird seems to be happening.
Not really an explanation, i.e. 'If light exerts a force, it has momentum; if something has momentum, it can exert a force'. Circular definition. The upshot seems to be, 'energy = momentum'..and vice versa. Again, not really an explanation.
I agree. Since following Nick's logic, it would lead to momentum = delta energy field (DEF). So how does this momentum/DEF contain(container) and transfer(interaction mechanism)? To answer - Of course, must address what is DEF? Wait, what is energy anyway? circular soon....
@@ScienceAsylum Well what I like even more is that my 14 year old son understands this stuff and gets more clarity than some of the high school things he learns. Keep up the great on these complex areas!
Rest Mass isn't what you think it is either. It's mostly gluons which are gauge bosons...and have no rest mass, soooo... What about electrons... most of the rest mass there is from self interaction which is more photons which are gauge bosons...and have no rest mass, so... What about the higs? Ok that's got some rest mass thanks to broken symmetry but only around 10% of the rest mass of an atom... bottom line what you think you know about mass you don't... you (me) wouldn't know your mass from a hole in the ground. Famous saying it is.
How are orbits of stellar objects continuous collisions? What's the difference between momentum and inertia? Do we get better solar sails from mirrors or vantablack? This video raises more questions than it answers! Which I love. But also hate. I hope you have a lot of follow up videos planned.
The momentum of those orbiting objects is continuously changing. They are continuously exchanging momentum with each other. That exchange in momentum is related to the force of gravity between them.
Sometimes, but you'll run into a lot of trouble trying to do that. Relativistic mass isn't actually very useful because it makes most things more complicated.
So momentum is the integral of the sum of the forces on an object. Got it. But what exactly is a FORCE? I thought it was basically the application of energy, but I'm not sure that's right. This video really got me thinking about physics and calculus and now I really want precise definitions of force and power. I'm going to have to look into more, which is good because it'll give me head start for my physics class next semester.
@@ScienceAsylum link to the video? I have the same exact question I don't understand fundamentally the concepts of force and momentum, their definitions seem arbitrary to me
Will you cover electrodynamics in the near future? Everyone would enjoy your insights on basics like Electrostatics, Gauss' Law, Field, Dipoles, Current Electricity, AC, Capacitance, Conductors, Magnetism, etc
Still not clear... Because p=E/c Again E=mc^2 or E^2=m^2 * c^4 + (pc)^2 . What is this p ? How to find that or what is formula of it? It's in a loop now.. And these days you're not answering questions in comments section, I know you're busy and all and I ask on Twitter but Twitter is short and I've not checked Tumblr recently but you didn't reply in Tumblr the last time I checked
Yes most resources mentioned light energy as E=mc^2.. I got confused more.. What about compton effect experiment that mentioned that EM photon has dynamic mass..
The entire universe is _infinite._ However, given the light speed limit, we only have access to a finite amount of it. Thanos is an idiot though. Aside from not understanding how population growth and economies work, that finite part of the universe we have access to is so unimaginably large that we could _never_ use all it's resources.
@@ScienceAsylum A- are we sure that it's infinite and how! B- are you also talking about resources such as the ones necessary for survival or resources resources. PS- thanks for replying (fast fast)
A-- No, we're not sure that it's infinite. All we know _for sure_ is that it's at least 20 times larger than observable universe (the part we can see). B-- Yes, I mean all the resources/energy available in our corner of the universe is _astronomically_ more than we could ever use.
Important question What force pushes light particles from its source to its surroundings? Like the sun has light but what makes that light travel to us on earth?
*"What force pushes light particles from its source to its surroundings?"* Steady velocity is the natural state of motion. No force is necessary to move at a steady velocity. You only need forces to speed up, slow down, or change direction.
both are 2 completely independent equation derivatived from diferent places. p=E/c come from E=mc² or E²=(mc²)² (pc)² and there is another for quantum mechanics p=h/λ
True! When we review our highschool physics with college physics, concepts wise, young minds do get boggled by apparent contradictions; stupidity, really speaking. Your ingenious explanations across concepts and taking them to more fundamental levels should in fact be adopted by all college physics classes, to rid the young minds off such typically possible misconceptions.
Regarding that question at the end, to capture visible light with an antenna would require a very, very short antenna, right? I think iridescent butterfly wings and feathers have physical features that might be the appropriate scale.
Wow, I'm an energy engineer looking for a fun "what is momentum" video to add to my blog and I just learned something. This was a FANTASTIC video. I had bought a small radiometer for a friend of mine a while back and this explains why it works! SUBSCRIBE!!!!
Momentum: ability to exert a force
Energy: ability to do work
Indeed! This parallel is not a coincidence.
It seems to me that for a closed system in which entropy is at a maximum, the closed system can have energy, but no ability to do work.
@@OrdenJust no energy gradient though.
@@OrdenJust without any energy gradient, "energy" is meaningless. Remember, "energy" doesn't actually exist, it's a property. It's a number. It only has meaning in relation to a gradient.
Can we say that momentum and energy has the same abstract property?
I clicked fast fast.
So, lot's of momentum...
@@_Arminius but... Momentum doesn't requires velocity...
@@MTheoOA Yes, that was the joke.
@@_Arminius Yeah, i made a joke inside your joke
Whatever you clicked on felt a lot more umph! than usual
lol just learned this. btw I shouted you out to my teacher, he said your vids are great.
Awesome!
@@ScienceAsylum Hi, can you make a video about color charge? :)
Life is a lie
@@phamminhduc0609 ...and youtube comments are
@@diogoandre756 yea that wud be good
Once again you have taken a complex idea and made it easily understandable to most people .. from a retired Physics Teacher!! Awesome!
Hi! I think it was a lot easier to show this using energy-momentum relation, using:
since the mass term is 0 I wont write it out, and I take the sqrt and we get:
E = pc
(since the mass term is 0 I wont write it out)
then using incredibly simple algebra,
p = E/c
@@nahimafing amazing
"Momentum does NOT require Mass!!"
Therefore, momentum is not Catholic.
My logic is flawless...
you are everywhere.
But Momentum DOES require force!
Therefore, momentum is Jedi.
Checkmate
@@CaptTerrific You may think you have the high ground. But force times velocity is power. And you underestimate my power!
Come to the dark (matter) side!
Your logic is immaculate.
Fun fact: Mass doesn't require mass! A single photon has no rest mass, however if you have two photons with opposite momenta, the system of both photons together has rest mass.
Bro can you explain nicely
The rest mass of the resulting particle in said collision isn't a photon, you've converted energy in the form of two photons temporarily (or permanently) into matter; mystery solved. Look up "Two photon physics" if you don't take my word on it (which you shouldn't)
@@dibyajyotibharadwaj8129 A better way to say it is that mass is an emergent property - not a property of individual things but of a system as a whole. While it might seem like a property of individual objects, that's only because what we think of as individual objects are actually incredibly complex systems of particles. It's the interactions between the particles that result in mass. If you're interested in how this happens, PBS Spacetime did a really amazing video about it a few years ago called "The Nature of Matter and Mass." Nick also did a video about it called something like "What if you were made of photons?!"
WTF
My understanding of this (in my crude understanding) was that photons do not have rest mass, but do have relativistic mass. A single photon can never be at rest, so the lack of rest mass can never be observed in reality. On the other hand, two photons moving in opposite directions, the velocity vectors cancel each other out, so the average mass of the pair is at rest even though none of the individual photons are actually at rest.
3:13 I imagined a bunch of tiny people dressed like Isaac Newton running around and pushing things
HAHAHA
The full equation relating energy to momentum is:
E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
Where:
E is the total energy of the system.
p is the momentum magnitude.
c is the speed of light.
m is the invariant (or rest) mass.
If p (momentum) = 0, (pc)^2=0, and the equation simplifies to E=mc^2.
If m (mass) = 0, (mc^2)^2=0, and the equation simplifies to E=pc.
Rearranging for p gives p=E/c.
So, its defined the other way around.- anything that can exert a force has momentum. 🤔
Yes.
@Andrew H Spacetime doesn't exert force.
@@waynelin5916 But what about the gravitational field? The gravitational field exerts a force. Should not it then have momentum? And if that is the case, then what is the equation for gravitational momentum?
@@waynelin5916 Wait, never mind. Let us say that we have two objects attracted to each other by the gravitational force. When the gravitational field exerts a force F on one of the objects, it also exerts a force -F on the other object. The total change in momentum of the two objects is dp=dp_object 1+dp_object 2=F_object 1•dt+F_object 2•dt=F•dt-F•dt=0. According to conservation of momentum, the change of the momentum of the gravitational field is also 0. Thus the momentum of the gravitational field is constant, and then I guess it makes sense to let the momentum be zero always (i.e. the gravitational field has no momentum).
@@ScienceAsylum You do realize that force requires mass 'f=ma'
AAAHHHH!! the pointing vector video is back to haunt our dreams Crazies! ⏩👻⏩
and it's poi(/y)nting at YOU! :D
I actually remember learning in my engineering courses that F = ma is technically not the formal definition of Newton's Second Law, that the proper way of saying it is F = dp/dt. The reason we generally use F = ma is because d(mv)/dt = ma for objects of constant mass. Granted, the example they generally use to illustrate this discrepancy is objects with varying mass, like rockets, which would give d(mv)/dt = ma + v(dm/dt). The fact that light has momentum without mass may have been mentioned in passing, but brushed off as irrelevant for our purposes.
Me in middle school reading your comment
👁. 👁
👄
F = dp/dt is all well and good, but what is p then? Oh, I see ∫Fdt = ∫dp, but what is p then?
@@DumbledoreMcCracken p is the conventional symbol for momentum in physics. The p comes from Latin.
@@OptimusPhillip You see what I did? Work is ∫Fds. Momentum is ∫Fdt.
Might as well do momentum vs energy...
I’d love to see some quantum biology videos. Examples: how enzymes use quantum tunnelling, how smell may be triggered by the wave properties of molecules, how some birds use entanglement to coordinate while migrating. These are things that not a lot of science education youtubers have talked much about.
Ha! I never got it until now!!
Its almost absurd hów totally cléar that man can teach! Even the most confusing things he can explain só totally clear and understandable! Yes, Nick Lucids Science Asylum ís a fenonem through wich thru knowledge did and dó wide spread over the internet, so over mankind!!
Ah. "fenonem" = _phenomenon._
Our school teacher recommended to watch your video! Your way of explaining complicated things is so interesting to listen. Thank you, Nick! You got a new subscriber all the way from Kazakhstan!
Hehe, just watched this video on my own, countrymate (is there a word like that?). He could have summed it all up using this formula: (m*c^2)^2=(m0)^2*c^4+p^2*c^2, where m is referring to relative mass and m0 is rest mass. Since photon has no mass the first term on the right is zero and formula is reduced to the formula he showed for photon momentum.
Very nice! High five!
Me and my mom watch these videos every day at lunch, they are awesome!!!
That's great!
That's some nerdy mom in my opinion. I am trying to get my wife into science. But no she isn't even budging :(
A lot of mass and little momentum, sounds like my wife...
What are bosons and how are they "carrying a force" when the force is just change in the momentum
I think you like QED and QCD. Not easy stuff, though.
I think you're mixing up two concepts that are difficultly intertwined. But there are several quantum fields that permeate through the universe and Bosons are seen as the force carriers that represent a change in the field, e.g. if you take an interaction between two electrons, the electromagnetic field is changing between them and a photon is the force carrier that represents the change in energy through their collision.
To help you clear up how force is related to the momentum of light in his video if we take his equation for momentum of the speed of light p = E/c : E being energy which is Force times velocity then p = (F*v)/c and if we take the speed of light as v they cancel out and the momentum is equal to the force of the light particle: p = F
@@The_stone_Philosopher Except that you've replaced E, energy, with F•v, dot product of force & velocity, which is power = a rate of change of energy.
Multiplying the RHS by ∆t (and converting momentum to change of momentum) remedies that dimensional mismatch:
∆p = (F•v/c) ∆t , then with v = c,
∆p = F ∆t
which, in the limit as ∆t→0, becomes the more familiar
F = dp/dt
Fred
Bosons are quantum particles
Thanks for another great video. I'm always impressed by how well you explain things.
However, one thing I'm still unsure of is what the definition of momentum actually is.
Is there a standard definition or is it different in different circumstances?
What does it mean for something to have momentum?
Is it ∫F dt?
but then what is force? and can a massless particle change the momentum of another massless particle?
Yes, ∫F dt is how I'd define momentum mathematically. We have to come up with names for measurements pretty early on. Unfortunately, that means we usually name things before we realize what they _actually_ are.
@@ScienceAsylum So would it be reasonable to define momentum of an object as "the size of the force applied in a set time when the object 'collides'"?
@@matthewking3326 Almost: For a _constant_ force, it would have to the size of the force applied in a given amount of time times the amount of time. You have to multiply by time in order for the units to work out. For non constant forces, we have to take the integral of force with respect to time instead of just multiplying.
This is good stuff! Might I suggest a video on the difference between energy and momentum? We learn conservation rules about both, so why do we need both concepts? Might marry up well with Noether's Theorem.
Already working on it :-)
A new video? I couldn't click fast fast enough
Man,your talent is real,your videos really hook me up with physics!
Thanks!
Can you talk about super conductors?
@@burakanilince it conducts well if i remember
Graphene is simply a conductor. Not a good one like most metals are, but the word semiconductor points mostly to materials that can be doped to become P or N and, o its okay
atm12 You bet!
Leonard Bernstein, Leopold Stokowski, and Seiji Ozawa are all SUPER Conductors!
Three words: twisted graphene superconductors
Consider me motivated...by momentum. The Science Asylum is capable of exerting such force.
**YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR OWN TV SHOW**
Really good cheerful presentation. Contact the companies who make cartoons and the TV show syndicators and keep knocking on the door until you get your own show.
Not sure a radio show would work. The performance is pretty visual. Greatest value is video.
Until I watched your videos, it was not clear that science could be so entertaining.
.
.
.
TV is dead.
If he could have a well funded internet show... Now that would be ideal.
@@alexandrumoise1511 Probably depends on the demographic as to choosing the right venue. My point was, if you look at the other youtube science videos, it's pretty hard to find an entertaining undertone while still pulling off accurate science that is understandable for average person.
If you look at his video on the Poynting vector, it's a great example of making an esoteric and mostly conceptual issue entertaining.
I guess my main point was, he's got talent, is very good at making the science entertaining, especially when talking to his 'identical twin' and more people should benefit from it, and sure of course find the right venue.
.
.
.
@@Greg_Chase yeah, I agree. But I also think that working in a more professional environment, although allowing for higher quality video/effects, and more content, would also decrease authenticity and free expression.
I like his style and personality, and I like the free way he makes these videos. If he could make a living by doing this I think that would be ideal.
I think by adhering to a network there will be more filters between his mind and mine. And I dislike that.
Just my opinion.
His style does not work for me. Too much in your face. Also tired of all videos having the same sort of 'great edit and cut'.
@@JohnSmith-lf8ks I'd like to see a video on imposing order on the background field, aka 'coherent superposition', how the declining inertia gradient around planets (what we call gravity) works, and how to use a coherent superposition device to shield inertia, neutralize gravity, and hover.
I'm building one, a very simple one, a small one, and he'd do a great job of presenting the nuts and bolts. He'd do a great job explaining how inertia is created when the atoms of matter objects interact with the background field. The video would start with the fact that accelerometers do not work in the 9.8m/s^2 acceleration due to gravity, and how Einstein in 1905 told everyone "inertia - mass - is variable, it is not fixed. The inertia (mass) of an object that is **accelerating** to light speed increases greatly. The MATTER, the atoms, of the object do NOT increase; the inertial mass increases. The acceleration results in increasing inertia, like all accelerating actions do, and inertial mass grows immensely and makes light speed the maximum velocity. Mass is not FIXED. Mass is variable."
He would pull that off and a lot of problems on the planet would fall away.
It's a rare person who can get rigorous explanations across with a humorous entertaining quality to it.
Look at his video for the Poynting Vector *after* you've looked at some of the other Poynting Vector videos.
.
.
.
After watching this video if someone asks me what is momentum??
Me:Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Discovered your channel. Subscribed and digging the blackhole videos.
U kept digging until u made a black hole urself 😂
could you make a video on how to measure distances in space?
Like, in light-years? Yeah, I've had that video on the list for a while, but it never gets made. I just keep getting _more_ excited about other topics.
@@ScienceAsylum
There was another term for it aswell, parsecs. Brings that up aswell, if you do the video.
Also, do any pet theory on how space navigation will work(you can make that a separate video if you want, possibly as a follow up to the previously mentioned one.)
There's bound to be tons of trigonometry like for the globe there is the Haversine formula - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula , but for space I imagine it will be pretty tough even looking at constellations as they'll undoubtedly look pretty different from any other points in space that's isn't earth.
How about this? th-cam.com/video/QXfhGxZFcVE/w-d-xo.html
Cody th-cam.com/video/dCSIXLIzhzk/w-d-xo.html
So if I shoot laser to a mirror, light that is reflected has lower energy than light that went in since it gave some of its energy as a push to the mirror?
So if I will have a mirror at reletavistic speed, I will blueshift all the mirrored light?
yes, and redshift
less energy lower the frequency, lower the frequency goes to red light.
Thanks, very nice, clarifies very simply - complicated notions - for knowlegeable vewers!
Momentum doesn't require mass but inertia does and that's probably the trip up for most people.
Momentum is just the total energy or the total force. Force/energy hasn’t necessarily mass, so momentum hasn’t either, but if we want to measure that momentum we will have to interact with it and create mass...
@@benjaminmoszkowicz8149 Energy must have mass or momentum or both. The mass is not created by measuring it. It is just another way to express the total energy.
Ronald de Rooij
no, otherwise photons would have mass, but they don’t, they do have energy....
Mass and energy are related, but they aren’t the same thing!
You are really original. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
0:13 I'm getting SO ANGRY I'm gonna TEACH YOU SOMETHING!!!! >:O
Momentum without moving. Collisions without touching. It sometimes seams that words are chosen poorly in physics. My brain is spinning and hurting but not moving.
Yeah, we often name things before we realize what they actually are.
I always found this helpful:
E=.5mv^2
If you differentiate wrt v, you get that the rate of change of energy is the momentum.
If its just rate of change of energy, then its easy to understand it exists in many forms and requires neither mass nor velocity.
It also follows that the conservation of momentum must hold for the conservation of energy to be true. If the momentum isn't conserved, then neither is the energy.
Same deal with force.
☝
While we're kinda on the subject, I'm 48 years old and can't figure out why light has no mass yet abides by gravity's forces
Off-screen clones
Thanks 👍👍👍, I really enjoy the way you teach! Greetings from Buenos Aires!
It takes a crazy person to explain the world so clearly. Thank you for all your hard work! 8)
Momentum doesn't require mass( i heard this before) but it doesn't even require velocity, just simply my mind bust.
Thank you so much for this video! It really makes it easier to understand this, in my opinion, complex topic!
Despite your act as a dufus, you get an A in accuracy for your explanations.
hi, please reduce the volume of the background music, thanks
yeah I like the verlet alg aproach, the difference in the positions of an abject in time results of a force, very usefull in the game industry
why not talk about the formula for momentum the relativistic one which accounts for both mass and massless objects?
I believe he covered it here-
th-cam.com/video/XkPudRiWspc/w-d-xo.html
I'll have to add "burning my old physics textbooks" to my to-do list.
I've added my finest Hebrew Subtitles/CC yet again! I did it while traveling less than 10% of the speed of light.
Cheers. ^_^
Thank you for translating!
Hi bro you make awesome videos... Please I have been begging you to make a video explaining tachyonic particles
i love your energy
im late but still i have a question. how is impulse different from momentum since it is just change in momentum.
Thanks for your video, I find this subject intriguing.
Is it right then to think of momentum as a fundamental property separate from both mass and velocity?
Yes, in fact, that's a pretty _common_ thing to do... especially in quantum mechanics.
@@ScienceAsylum Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you a ton!
I was just wondering this last week and also why f equals ma instead of f equals mv
I was under the understanding thatight has relativistic mass but no rest mass. Please advise. Thanks
Thank you so much for the video cause this thing wouldn't let me sleep at night
I'm interested in how a single photon carries momentum, particularly with regard to direction. Since the direction is quantized, it would seem momentum would need to be up or down (or right/left, etc.). This also seems needed to maintain causality since otherwise, a clever arrangement of lenses could send information into the past. (Momentum shifting light from a distant star would affect that star years ago when it emitted the light.) So is it only in aggregate that photons have reasonable directional momentum? Something weird seems to be happening.
I loved this one...
Mass called ... it feels unloved and unappreciated.
......that's understandable.
Venky Wank hahahahaha! ... I’m sure that would make it feel better!
Can you do a video about electric potential and electrostatic?
I've been trying to figure out how to make that exact topic interesting.
lol thanks
this one messed with my head for a long time
Not really an explanation, i.e. 'If light exerts a force, it has momentum; if something has momentum, it can exert a force'. Circular definition. The upshot seems to be, 'energy = momentum'..and vice versa. Again, not really an explanation.
I agree. Since following Nick's logic, it would lead to momentum = delta energy field (DEF). So how does this momentum/DEF contain(container) and transfer(interaction mechanism)? To answer - Of course, must address what is DEF? Wait, what is energy anyway? circular soon....
Man I really love your videos! Crystal clear explanations. I bought the book :)
Thanks! 🤓 I work really hard on these, so it's nice to hear they work.
@@ScienceAsylum Well what I like even more is that my 14 year old son understands this stuff and gets more clarity than some of the high school things he learns. Keep up the great on these complex areas!
Just another reminder 99.9% of us do not understand reality one bit 😳
Rest Mass isn't what you think it is either. It's mostly gluons which are gauge bosons...and have no rest mass, soooo...
What about electrons... most of the rest mass there is from self interaction which is more photons which are gauge bosons...and have no rest mass, so...
What about the higs? Ok that's got some rest mass thanks to broken symmetry but only around 10% of the rest mass of an atom... bottom line what you think you know about mass you don't... you (me) wouldn't know your mass from a hole in the ground. Famous saying it is.
Indeed: th-cam.com/video/XkPudRiWspc/w-d-xo.html
Not exaggerating,but this video is life changing!
How are orbits of stellar objects continuous collisions? What's the difference between momentum and inertia? Do we get better solar sails from mirrors or vantablack? This video raises more questions than it answers! Which I love. But also hate. I hope you have a lot of follow up videos planned.
The momentum of those orbiting objects is continuously changing. They are continuously exchanging momentum with each other. That exchange in momentum is related to the force of gravity between them.
Ok. Light has no rest mass.
But, but, but... Could I use Its relativistic mass?
Just for the "m" term, on the equation, be not zero.
Sometimes, but you'll run into a lot of trouble trying to do that. Relativistic mass isn't actually very useful because it makes most things more complicated.
I m from INDIA. i love this utube channel.
This is helping me in my particle physics class. I was not quite understanding my photons had momentum.
Glad I could help.
Today YT Recommended your Channell Awseme stuff Keep It up...
Glad you found it!
Thanks😭😭
So momentum is the integral of the sum of the forces on an object. Got it. But what exactly is a FORCE? I thought it was basically the application of energy, but I'm not sure that's right. This video really got me thinking about physics and calculus and now I really want precise definitions of force and power. I'm going to have to look into more, which is good because it'll give me head start for my physics class next semester.
I'm working on a video that will hopefully answer this exact question. It's a tough one.
@@ScienceAsylum link to the video?
I have the same exact question
I don't understand fundamentally the concepts of force and momentum, their definitions seem arbitrary to me
So to get super technical, momentum is oomph?
wait, how does light exert a force? It has no mass. I am confused as heck.
Mass isn't required for exerting forces either. Let the mass go.
The best video I've found to explain what Momentum actually is, and why it doesn't require mass.
hey nick what is the best example of force
I posted your channel on PBS Spacetime and all the adult music channels so something has to happen.
Thanks for sharing my work :-) .....Matt (from PBS Space Time) and I actually know each other. He wore one of my t-shirts on the show a while back.
Will you cover electrodynamics in the near future?
Everyone would enjoy your insights on basics like Electrostatics, Gauss' Law, Field, Dipoles, Current Electricity, AC, Capacitance, Conductors, Magnetism, etc
I have a whole playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLOVL_fPox2K9MtRv68T_cmWwQUbg9YR4F.html
Does the light "lose" energy or something when hits an object, and pushes it?
Absolutely. The kinetic energy of the object had to come from somewhere. It came from the light (which is now _slightly_ redshifted).
What other unexpected things have momentum? A gravity field? The flow of time?
Ben the Ignorant time doesn’t exert a force therefore no momentum. Gravity does however!
Still not clear... Because p=E/c
Again E=mc^2 or E^2=m^2 * c^4 + (pc)^2 . What is this p ? How to find that or what is formula of it? It's in a loop now..
And these days you're not answering questions in comments section, I know you're busy and all and I ask on Twitter but Twitter is short and I've not checked Tumblr recently but you didn't reply in Tumblr the last time I checked
E=hf
Yes most resources mentioned light energy as E=mc^2..
I got confused more.. What about compton effect experiment that mentioned that EM photon has dynamic mass..
Liked before watching!!
End of story ? Really ? Such things are too complex for me....
I wish it was longer as well
And does light have density??
Is every ray type(eg: X-ray, gamma ray) moves the same speed and same momentum?
speed yes (c) momentum no as it depends on frequency.
Great energy, or momentum ;)
"Thanos- THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE,ITS RESOURCES ARE FINITE'
CAN YIU INTERPRETE THAT A BIT MORE SCIENTIFICALLY PLZZZZZ......
The entire universe is _infinite._ However, given the light speed limit, we only have access to a finite amount of it. Thanos is an idiot though. Aside from not understanding how population growth and economies work, that finite part of the universe we have access to is so unimaginably large that we could _never_ use all it's resources.
@@ScienceAsylum A- are we sure that it's infinite and how!
B- are you also talking about resources such as the ones necessary for survival or resources resources.
PS- thanks for replying (fast fast)
A-- No, we're not sure that it's infinite. All we know _for sure_ is that it's at least 20 times larger than observable universe (the part we can see).
B-- Yes, I mean all the resources/energy available in our corner of the universe is _astronomically_ more than we could ever use.
@@ScienceAsylum thanx man
@Burak Anıl İnce - just use your "oscillation overthruster" th-cam.com/video/8jK3RW6rSCM/w-d-xo.html
Important question
What force pushes light particles from its source to its surroundings? Like the sun has light but what makes that light travel to us on earth?
*"What force pushes light particles from its source to its surroundings?"*
Steady velocity is the natural state of motion. No force is necessary to move at a steady velocity. You only need forces to speed up, slow down, or change direction.
Curvature of space-time continuum 😜😜😜😜😜😜😜
Enjoyable, informative video on a subject not covered much. Well done.
Ok. momentum with no velocity is blowing me away.
Welcome to the weirdness of electrodynamics 😉
I feel enlightened yet again.
You actually marvelous
Is there a general version of the equation that reduces to either p=ymv or p=E/c depending on the rest mass?
both are 2 completely independent equation derivatived from diferent places.
p=E/c come from E=mc² or E²=(mc²)² (pc)²
and there is another for quantum mechanics p=h/λ
True! When we review our highschool physics with college physics, concepts wise, young minds do get boggled by apparent contradictions; stupidity, really speaking. Your ingenious explanations across concepts and taking them to more fundamental levels should in fact be adopted by all college physics classes, to rid the young minds off such typically possible misconceptions.
Agreed. Physics needs to be taught differently.
Amazing and awesome!
Regarding that question at the end, to capture visible light with an antenna would require a very, very short antenna, right? I think iridescent butterfly wings and feathers have physical features that might be the appropriate scale.
Momentum is a vector . Energy is a scalar
In special relatvity, energy is a vector.
In general relativity, energy is a tensor.
Wow, I'm an energy engineer looking for a fun "what is momentum" video to add to my blog and I just learned something. This was a FANTASTIC video. I had bought a small radiometer for a friend of mine a while back and this explains why it works! SUBSCRIBE!!!!
There is a much easier way to do this,
E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m(c^2))^2
m = 0,
E^2 = (pc)^2,
E = pc,
p = E/c
No problem if you didn't understand the video :D