Our Ignorance About Gravity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2019
- Thanks to the Heising Simons Foundation (www.hsfoundation.org/) for their support of this video, and of short range gravity research.
This video is about how little we know about the behavior of gravity at short length and distance scales, what the constraints are on the inverse square law/Newton's law of universal gravitation, at the human and microscopic and atomic scales. Only on solar system scales or larger do we have good constraints on Newton's law of gravitation.
REFERENCES
Review of short-range gravity experiments in the LHC era
arxiv.org/abs/1408.3588v2
Zeptonewton force sensing with nanospheres in an optical lattice
arxiv.org/abs/1603.02122
Large extra dimensions
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_e...
Search for Screened Interactions Associated with Dark Energy Below the 100 μm Length Scale
arxiv.org/abs/1604.04908
Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law below the Dark-Energy Length Scale
arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0611184v1
Photon Mass Experiment
dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.13149
Torsion balance experiments: A low-energy frontier of particle physics
E.G. Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, B.R. Heckel, S. Hoedl, S. Schlamminger
doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2008.08.002
TESTS OF THE GRAVITATIONAL INVERSE-SQUARE LAW
E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, and A.E. Nelson
Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2003. 53:77-121 doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.53.041002.110503
Physical Review A, Vol 33, No 1: Improved result for the accuracy of Coulomb's law: A review of the Williams, Faller, and Hill experiment.
Lewis P. Fulcher.
Support MinutePhysics on Patreon! / minutephysics
Link to Patreon Supporters: www.minutephysics.com/supporters/
MinutePhysics is on twitter - @minutephysics
And facebook - / minutephysics
And Google+ (does anyone use this any more?) - bit.ly/qzEwc6
Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!
Created by Henry Reich - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![คบซ้อน - วงL.กฮ. [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5MtesqJ0I1c/mqdefault.jpg)
"The Earth looks flat when..."
flat-earther: *say no more*
Observably, measurably, and demonstrably flat.
@@dmahar58 and dumb
@@moioyoyo848
I'd say, more along the line of simply 'stupid'.
@@dmahar58 It's very simple:
If the Earth is spherical, Science is right and the world has sense.
If the Earth is flat, the world is a conspirative masonic-judeo-reptilian cage of paranoid crickets.
Flat earthers best hope their airline pilot flies The Great Circle and not The False Flat:
www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-paths-and-great-circles-or-why-you-flew-over-greenland/
I wish we could just float around like we did before newton discovered gravity
Whos gonna tell him
@@tres-2b299 should I r/whoosh you orrr
Same I didn't have to worry about getting fat back then as the scales all read zero
what do you mean "discovered"?
@@Anonymous-zw8kx ah yes
He *i n v e n t e d*
5:00 be careful with that exclamation mark when dealing with a math problem
joseph jackson that's factorial ain't it?
✌🏻
hate it when my 5 becomes 120
Yes
or when my 50 becomes... you get the point
I've done many observations, and two sheep definitely attract.
very underrated comment :)
Lmao😂😂😂😂😂
well they certainly attract Welsh people
I am the 500th like
Well this wouldn't be a problem if Isaac Newton didn't invent gravity
Plot Twist: He Invented Discovering Gravity... By Inventing It. 🤦🏼♂️
Einstein handed Newton an instant L
Remember those good times when we were just floating around? Fucking Newton
Goddamit Newton. It was better when we didn't have gravity.
Gravity is a theory that has never been proven. How does a ballon escape fake gravity? Why do we not feel a constant pulling? Birds easily defeat this phony fucking theory.
Now IF ONLY some Hipster could have plucked the Bass while I was learning Physics back in High School... XD
Be that hipster
i agree. that's only thing i hear from the rest of the video
hipster? More like a nerd.. this is a jazzy double bass! :D
TÜRKÇE ALTYAZI LÜTFEN.
It helps so much
In other words:
Newtons law isnt wrong. Its imperfect, specialized, or misses factors that are ignorable in some cases but important in other cases.
But thats physics.
It's a really good approximation for most practical purposes. But so is relativity for that matter. It's more accurate than Newton, but we know even it likely isn't _completely_ right because we still haven't figured out how to reconcile its description of gravity with what particle physics predicts about gravity. I'm far from an expert, to be clear, but that's my understanding.
@Jedi Master what ??? Lol ..
@Jedi Master noone is trying to prove newtons laws correct bcz they are correct at. Right scales.. Newton's law of gravitation predict the path and behaviours of stars and planets so very very accurately..and electromagnetic universe what even the hell does that mean yes electromagnetism exist so what??
@Jedi Master what?? Have u every lessened physics gravitational law is very accurate and profound we can't find gravity at smalll scales bcz gravitational force is so weak we don't have that precise measurement investments any way u sound like a for rather u should be out of here "things fall bcz they have weight???" I mean yes bcz weight is valued force of gravity in scientific terms
@Jedi Master air filled balloon to to in water bcz sir it's light than water is as simple as that go and learn basics 4th grade physics, weight of water creates pressure in water that pressure pulls balloon up simple as that
Minute Physics: "Hair is actually 2D"
Uh excuse you, my hair has VOLUME.
Marcus Byrd he said "surface of a hair" is 2D, therefore he stands correct
@@MrMichalMalek You missed the joke.
[Looks at bald spot] My hair is trending towards 0D.
Non-dimensional hair!
I don't get that, hair is 3d like everything else on this Earth ;:/
@@frederickdietz3148 but what if I told you the earth is 4D becuase the universe is like movie flim stacked on top of each other, or like a flipbook but one dimension up?
still it seems to an excellent estimation by considering 1600's world
Absolutely!
Pretty remarkable.
Man is stupid his theories has caused him to have artificial intelligence and thats the only fact.
@@alberttorres4830 Ah yes, Isaac Newton, the pioneer of Artificial Intelligence
@@personhuman2239 and Albert Einstein the father of 2 dimensional thinking trying to explain 3D space with a 2D explanation. People fell for it right?
*According to Keeanu Reeves*
Gravity is the secret for staying down-to-Earth
Oh. Makes sense
Isnt that breathtaking?
Laws of Motion is just what goes around, comes around.
@@nicky_tdbp5353 No u!
He has IQ of more than 200 so of course he's smart
Scientist: How many dimension we need to discover you?
Gravity: Yes.
Hehehehe
The best part about these videos is that the step-by-step reasoning is always clear and eminently logical, even if how the math works may be hard to grasp for non-specialists and even if the proposed conclusions seem unimaginable. Like following a trusted friend through a jungle on an island, listening to him explain why we're taking a particular route, which all seems very logical until we come to a clearing and somehow we're in the Alps.
you could say we don't really understand the gravity of the situation
@@passthebutterrobot2600@@passthebutterrobot2600You pass butter stop being a smartass
Hehehehe
nice
This dude gave every test question the answer "We don't know". Yes, we don't know and that's why we should stay in the closet and cry because we cannot travel to black holes or be smaller than protons.
Ha
ZeptoNewtons. So small you never even heard of it
So small it barely nudges your attention.
I'm pretty sure that's just Isaac Newton's nephew.
@@Max_Matrix It's not commonly known that Isaac Newton's nephew was a Marx Brother
zepto newton =10^(-21)
Lol
Who knew you could make an epic depiction of a black hole with just a sharpie and some pencil crayon scribbles?
4:15 I heard this dialogue in the movie *INTERSTELLAR*
So?
@@peggyfranzen6159 its all to obvioUS in any atom. Why? proton and neutron both drawn together and pushing apart yet bound together forever! That is a lot of energy in a very small space add electrons And and the possibilities are almost endless.
@@henrystone5442 what's that got to do with gravity? those are the nuclear forces
*@minutephysics*
Henry, the graph at 3:25 is wonderful. This aspect of science is so poorly understood and I think leads to a large amount of pseudoscience. Could you please make a video with several different concepts showing how certain we are about each concept. This shows the danger of extrapolation so clearly!
Excellent video as usual.
Thanks, Ben - a mathematician.
Great Idea!
"Thanks, Ben - a mathematician."
...when did those damned mathematicians start taking over physics? should I be worried about my job?
Blox117 Don’t worry it was only a few centuries ago. Shouldn’t affect most people for a while yet.
In chemistry when measuring with GC(Gas chromatography) it is the same the thiner peaks are certain molecules as it is a precise boiling point and the wider it means a mixture of molecules and we chemist must use a different separating technique to be able to isolate that certain molecule for measurment.
Other similar graphs can be Infra red spectrum on the type of bondings. Have a nice day
wow a mathematician thanking a physicist
Me: *spends years and patience to understand physic laws
MinutePhysics: *ding dong what you knew is wrong*
My mind was blown and I was questioning myself 😂😂😂
Davide Facchini But like the video said, it’s not wrong, it’s only wrong under certain scales, just how classical mechanics “breaks” at a certain scale
@@Laura-Yu yah we just have wishy-washy explanations that change entirely depending on what b.s. we're trying to pass off as proven facts
What they know is wrong? Do you consider what you know is wrong also. The fool has said in their heart there is no God. To be a fool is to be eternally lost, utterly destroyed at the end of all things but consciously imprisoned in your own unbelief. Eternal Consciousness in there in a place called gehenna.
Jmm
Actually there is a very known Experiment "The Cavendish Experiment", where you calculate G just by measuring the attraction of two small lead balls to two big metall balls, with the help of an Torsion-Spring and a laser. I have done this experiment myself and its pretty accurate!
He mentions this experiment at 2:36. I haven't done the research, so I'm just taking his word for it, but his claim is that there is still a 0.01% margin of error, which is pretty bad for physics which relies on incredibly precise measurements.
@Norbert Kas i mean unless you want thermodynamics to screw your ass more, there's not much of profit there
The future always behaves like the past
That's what science is based on
Wacky stuff I tell you
That's electromagnetic force not g force ...
@@claudiosaldivia5646 Cavendish experiment measured Gravitation Constant - G.
Me: Watching video, pretending to understand everything
lol, same dw
Just keep watching you would not have to pretend anymore
That was me a year ago too
Lol
@@eve_avery what bout now!?
I'm reminded of what Klaatu told Professor Barnhart in The Day the Earth Stood Still. "It (Newtonian gravitation) works well enough to get me from one planet to another."
Joseph Cope that’s good to know!
Klaatu baraada nikito
"But what do you really look like"
"It would only frighten you."
I've got a physics exam tomorrow, and am taking a short break from studying. Aaaaand what do I decide to do in my break? Learn more physics... I think I'm doing this wrong.
Honestly though even though I don't understand them half the time, these videos are super engaging and fun and break complex topics down into understandable bits. Keep up the great work!
Forget the exams. You are going exactly the right way. Good luck
@@AelundTwitch Detail is not boring. Its the teacher's way that is boring. Don't just give us concept (Teacher!), question the concept (like our boi Henry).
@@AelundTwitch "into boring detail" lol bro then you probably have no idea of what actually makes physics interesting !
It's not the detail that is boring but teacher's way of teaching (as someone already pointed it out )
Maybe you are the only one doing it right. Good luck on the exam.
@@AelundTwitch and also it's not ALWAYS teacher's fault either . Sometimes it's just , even tough if someone likes physics doesn't mean he/she will have interest in each and every topic related to it !
The most known stuff are the easiest to overlook, its always good to have a lil reminder! nice vid!
At first, the video made me a bit unhappy at 0:31, when he said that for small masses we can't really measure the gravitational force. I was like "Does he not know about the 200 years old Cavendish experiment? What kind of a channel is this?" But as the video progressed, I realized that he does in fact know much more than I do, he just had to make shortcuts in order to make the video flow better. By the end I learned so much about our current understanding of gravity, that I can't help but love this channel :-)
0:54 for all the Flat-Earth believers, he just cleared it up
It's impossible to educate Ignorants my friend.
A Magic book , An imaginary Sky Daddy , life after death are the primary reasons behind that ignorance , like.....BRUH 😑
What about bumpy-earthers?
@@JNCressey you dare challenge our lord and savior mashed potatoes?
Now you need triceratops-earthers
@@Zeegoku1007 literally everybody was ignorant about everything until someone educated them.
It's just a matter of how much the ignorant person is willing to listen.
*minute physics... 5 minute video*
*wait, that’s illegal*
It's still a factor of a minute.
Well no cuz minute is singular. If it said *minutes* that would be understandable. But it doesn’t. So it’s not.
Well, Henry here seems to think a factor of 5 is good, so by my books it's good.
@@olliedylan1381 But, you say a "five minute video", not a "five minutes video".
My3dviews yes by you say 5 minuteS.
Again, *minute* physics implies there is a single minute video. The fact I have to explain what was merely a joke is pretty triggering
I think the earth looking round, flat or bumpy depending on how close you zoom in is a really good illustration for how physics laws change for different scales
the earth has 71% curved water on it. 😄
There is a large difference between knowing there is a potential inaccuracy and having it proven/ replaced.
Until it is proven we use what we have. That is the fundamental of science and why it is the study of discovering questions.
In this case the question are
When does Newtonian gravitational law become provably inaccurate?
What is the most accurate way of addressing this?
Thank you for the video. I liked it even though I was expecting you to cover more of how we are addressing these 2 questions. It is a good intro into making people question science. Without doing this we cannot improve it.
I'm so strong I can lift the entire earth. *proceeds to do a handstand*
And how high did you lift it exactly?
@@Attlanttizz about half meter (with accuracy to 1 meter)
You have to find the relative measuring point first since "down" applies to all bodies of gravity. AKA every single permutation of quanta in the entire universe. I'm guessing it's your centre of gravity, but even that is stupid since your body replaces like 2,000,000 cells every second. Also random particles get into your body.
@@FireyDeath4 the cells may be replaced but the mass of atoms and molecules don't leave that easily
If you can do a handstand , you are stronger than most of US population
Does anyone remember the first episode of minute physics
Man how time flies
I can't remember it 🙋
@@cube2fox i think it was about why objects attract each other.
Trurl I Klapalcjusz?
@@mimikal7548 :)
Really? It feels like 60 seconds ago.
You are great! Soon I can make my doctoral degree in Minute Physics. But really, you helped me a lot.
THANKYOU. Now I'm both certain and uncertain I know about these gravitational uncertainties.
But... I Googled for a recipe about GRAVY.
Only on a dried out turkey drumstick.(😒)
@EarthChild Prince No.Gravity exists, however, EM is the predominant force.
@EarthChild Prince lolololol
EarthChild Prince
Don’t know if you’re a troll but I hope you know that the earth isn’t flat...
5:00 "it remains pretty crazy to blindly apply newtons law of gravitation to things like protons..."
Pardon my ignorance, but does anybody actually do that? Aren't the Strong Nuclear Force and EM Force totally dominant at those scales? Even assuming the gravitational force is not well known at those scales, how much larger than assumed would it have to be to even show up on measurements when compared to the other forces?
That's what I thought and why "meh" might be the common approach. I'v never seen gravity to play a role at subatomic scales.
Yes, people actually think about gravity at the small scale and work on it quite a great deal.
Right now, we can not get general relativity to reconcile with observations at the quantum mechanics scale.
The discrepancy is driving a lot of work on string theory and quantum gravity and those go to the heart of the question of whether we have the nature of spacetime right.
Are space and time continuous, providing the reality upon which existence of matter and energy plays out? That could lead someday to validating string theory.
Or are space and time actually discrete, only divisible into elementary packets - quanta? That might eventually lead to falsifying string theory and lead to a leap beyond general relativity.
Either one would explain quantum gravity - but right now, the term _quantum gravity_ may imply the existence of the graviton. And _graviton_ doesn't necessarily mean the same thing in the two frameworks.
Is gravity truly a force? Or is it a quasi-force, a change in spacetime caused by the existence of reality? There are a great many implications hidden behind the results of the comparison.
EM may dominate at the small scale of an atom - but even so, why don't electrons bleed off energy in gravitational waves, exactly as general relativity predicts?
Yes. If it does not apply, it is certainly not much, much stronger. We would see its effects, especially at the mass limit of when stars go super nova or go from a neutron star to a black hole.
But you should try the inverse problem, Take Schoedinger's equation and apply it to an electron and a proton in "orbit" about each other. See what terms pop out.
@@Ni999 You mention "String theory" during a conversation over physics... very odd, as "String theory" isn't science at all, can't ever even be tested, and for which there is absolutely zero evidence. I find this very sad and part of the dumbing down of the America in specific and the world in general. I don't mean to imply you are dumb... quite to the contrary... you seem bright. But you have been badly deceived by teachers who should know better.
All i know is that that stick figure looked pretty exited to have two sheep at the end there.
A Welch stick figure
This explanation just opened my eyes this explanation is so clear much better than others I just don’t know from where such knowledge comes from.
seems odd to focus on the Newton equations here when they are just simplified versions of the more complex relativity ones. it doesn't really change the point that we don't know how accurate our model of gravity is on the small scale.
Newton's equations are a low-energy approximation of GR, and talking about GR was beyond the scope of this video. Newton's Law is mostly accurate for planetary scales, and GR doesn't have much to say about how things behave on small scales, other than spitting out Newton's Law. Attempting to model it in field equations is way out of the scope of a 5 minute video, especially one aimed at a layman or mostly layman audience.
Regardless, you'd mostly just get Newton's equations with extremely small corrections.
@@jacksonayres6326 My point was focusing on the equations at all other then the initial mention that this is how we think it approximately works. Everything after that just kind of perpetuating a half truth for no added benefit to the videos point that we don't have proof we know gravity works at extremely low mass.
@@Blackholefourspam Again, Newton's law is a very good approximation of general relativity at low energy scales and low masses. As these were the scales being considered, it makes sense to focus on the law that is known to accurately describe them (though with unknown accuracy below a certain mass), rather than a far more complicated series of equations that won't add any significant value to the discussion. This is further reinforced by the gravitational interaction on small scales seeming to at least approximate Newton's law, and the fact that it is a 5 minute long video aimed at laymen.
It is very unlikely that bringing up a tensors and spatial curvature would provide any benefit to the video, and it is therefore entirely necessary.
@@jacksonayres6326 "Again" my point wasn't that they should dive into general relativity, but that the focus on any specific equation was unnecessary for the topic other then to introduce the concepts and explain the compact dimension theory. I think we are done here.
"I think we've underestimated the life on this planet. The people have so much courage. Here they are hurling through space on a molten rock at 67000 miles an hour and the only thing that keeps them from flying out of their shoes is their misplaced faith in gravity." - Dick: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Their first mistake is using miles
Also relativity
Actually if there was no gravity, we would tend to keep moving in a straight line because of inertia, which means as the planet rotates, the ground will curve away beneath us. The planet itself would also completely fall apart in much the same way but details
And this is why you don't bother correcting the facts on a joke comment
@@snowthemegaabsol6819 but, if there is no gravity (everywhere), there wouldn't be a force pulling on the Earth, so the Earth will also travel in a straight line, while carrying us
@@Leonlion0305 But when we walk we exert a force on the ground. And since there is no gravity to pull us down, that small force that we exert would push us away from the earth.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
Edit: No actually we would just like the earth and the sun because of inertia (rotation of the earth) go in a straight line tangent to the earth into space.
This was one of the most informative, interesting and well structured explination videos that I have ever seen. I love it. Thank you! PErmission to use this in High School science classes?
your channel makes me love the bass
Science experiment : looks pointless, ends up very useful a few centuries later.
That definitely is true. It's mainly because we don't know what we don't know. Sounds "pointless and obvious," but a lot of our innovations right now wouldn't be possible if scientists aren't painstakingly verifying what we know and constantly asking questions.
*Gravity* pulled me here
gravity brought me to reply you
RotBotSkot More like, gravity directed us here.
i dare say density did!
otsisippi1 density is not a force
Lol
0:57 Flat earthers left the chat.
Earth is flat.
Earth is flat.
Earth is fkd up
It's 100% flat, immovable and established firm.
screw round earth, never mind flat earth, from now on I am a BUMPY EARTHER! i mean i have seen alot of the earth and it sure was bumpy
Great video, I really liked the parts about uncertainty. Still, I feel like a disservice was done to the viewers by not mentioning the unification of spacetime, Lorentz transformations, or the way in which the Lorentz factor scales so as to allow for classical equations to work at the sizes that you've illustrated here. An object's size and the strength of the 'force' of gravity between two black holes are two very different measurements being used to disqualify Newton's classical equations, when all you need is the difference between reference frames to see why the classical equations cease to apply accurately.
Could you please share the papers titles of some of the experiments that appear in the video as figures. I would love to grasp a read on them
See arxiv doi number in the top right corners
Wait a couple of years Murph and Alfred are working on it
@@stevenutter3614 which movie?
Btw how he ended up flowing in space next to Saturn (I think) even tough he was inside the black hole ?
Neil oppa interstellar
@@darkseid856 sci-fic things
@@neiloppa2620 wtf you don't know about "interstellar" movie😨
I'm not losing sleep over this. 0.01% precision for small objects 1 meter away is pretty good.
a good, simple, and reasonable explanation, thank you for sharing!
If newton hadn't invented gravity, we would be floating around right now!
@AmplifiedSilence Go away punk!
AmplifiedSilence what the heck is wrong with you
@AmplifiedSilence punk kid is easily triggered...
AmplifiedSilence you are one of those people who have joke dancing naked infront of you and you don’t recognise it
AmplifiedSilence r/whooosh
I have a masters in Engineering and I was unaware of the uncertainty about gravitational measurements wrt scale of distances. Thanks minute physics for enlightened video. I want to go back and study physics again.
I remember using this equation for atoms in school. Now I'm questioning if my degree is valid?
You are so smart 😘
Can't wait for the next
Наконец то подняли такой важный вопрос. Давно стоило в этом разобраться.
Thanks for clarifying our uncertainty about gravity. It's pretty clear how little the everyday person knows about gravity, too.
The other day, I was talking to my differential equations teacher after class, and he started spewing conspiracy theories at me about science and physics. I won't bore you with the details (unless someone replies and asks), but he's under the impression that NASA used anti-gravity technology to land on the Moon, and that electrons/protons get their energy from another dimension.
When a nutcase doesn't understand something, they come up with wild explanations for it that make Absolutely no sense. Maybe I can show this to him, and maybe it can give him some insight on the fact that No, Gravity Isn't Understood.
(... though with my luck, he'd just say "This is just another cover-up. Minutephysics is working for the government and is lying to us about the truth of gravity.")
Same. One of my HS physics teacher used to say that, CERN is actually trying to open a portal to hell and the devils are actually helping CERN scientists in order to do that (He cites that ritual hoax video when questioned). He also believes that, 5G is gonna fry our brain 😂
@@siddiki9778 Yowza.
How is he even a teacher ?
Yeah I remember the experiment at college to test out newton's gravitational law, it was bloody hard to get the heavy lead balls to stop moving so I could measure
Yes. General Relativity has Newtonian Gravity embedded into the equations. In Newton's theory, it acted instantaneously as a force. They both breakdown at the quantum level.
I answered and said, "If I have found favor in thy sight, O Lord, show this also to thy servant: whether after death, as soon as every one of us yields up his soul, we shall be kept in rest until those times come when thou wilt renew the creation, or whether we shall be tormented at once?" 76 He answered me and said, "I will show you that also, but do not be associated with those who have shown scorn, nor number yourself among those who are tormented. 77 For you have a treasure of works laid up with the Most High; but it will not be shown to you until the last times.
78 Now, concerning death, the teaching is: When the decisive decree has gone forth from the Most High that a man shall die, as the spirit leaves the body to return again to him who gave it, first of all it adores the glory of the Most High. 79 And if it is one of those who have shown scorn and have not kept the way of the Most High, and who have despised his law, and who have hated those who fear the Most High -- 80 such spirits shall not enter into habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments, ever grieving and sad, in seven ways.
81 The first way, because they have scorned the law of the Most High. 82 The second way, because they cannot now make a good repentance that they may live. 83 The third way, they shall see the reward laid up for those who have trusted the covenants of the Most High. 84 The fourth way, they shall consider the torment laid up for themselves in the last days. 85 The fifth way, they shall see how the habitations of the others are guarded by angels in profound quiet. 86 The sixth way, they shall see how some of them will pass over into torments. 87 The seventh way, which is worse than all the ways that have been mentioned, because they shall utterly waste away in confusion and be consumed with shame, and shall wither with fear at seeing the glory of the Most High before whom they sinned while they were alive, and before whom they are to be judged in the last times.
88 "Now this is the order of those who have kept the ways of the Most High, when they shall be separated from their mortal body. 89 During the time that they lived in it, they laboriously served the Most High, and withstood danger every hour, that they might keep the law of the Lawgiver perfectly. 90 Therefore this is the teaching concerning them: 91 First of all, they shall see with great joy the glory of him who receives them, for they shall have rest in seven orders.
92 The first order, because they have striven with great effort to overcome the evil thought which was formed with them, that it might not lead them astray from life into death. 93 The second order, because they see the perplexity in which the souls of the unrighteous wander, and the punishment that awaits them. 94 The third order, they see the witness which he who formed them bears concerning them, that while they were alive they kept the law which was given them in trust. 95 The fourth order, they understand the rest which they now enjoy, being gathered into their chambers and guarded by angels in profound quiet, and the glory which awaits them in the last days. 96 The fifth order, they rejoice that they have now escaped what is corruptible, and shall inherit what is to come;
and besides they see the straits and toil from which they have been delivered, and the spacious liberty which they are to receive and enjoy in immortality. 97 The sixth order, when it is shown to them how their face is to shine like the sun, and how they are to be made like the light of the stars, being incorruptible from then on. 98 The seventh order, which is greater than all that have been mentioned, because they shall rejoice with boldness, and shall be confident without confusion, and shall be glad without fear, for they hasten to behold the face of him whom they served in life and from whom they are to receive their reward when glorified.
99 This is the order of the souls of the righteous, as henceforth is announced; and the aforesaid are the ways of torment which those who would not give heed shall suffer hereafter." 100 I answered and said, "Will time therefore be given to the souls, after they have been separated from the bodies, to see what you have described to me?" 101 He said to me, "They shall have freedom for seven days, so that during these seven days they may see the things of which you have been told, and afterwards they shall be gathered in their habitations."
102 I answered and said, "If I have found favor in thy sight, show further to me, thy servant, whether on the day of judgment the righteous will be able to intercede for the unrighteous or to entreat the Most High for them, 103 fathers for sons or sons for parents, brothers for brothers, relatives for their kinsmen, or friends for those who are most dear." 104 He answered me and said, "Since you have found favor in my sight, I will show you this also. The day of judgment is decisive and displays to all the seal of truth. Just as now a father does not send his son, or a son his father, or a master his servant, or a friend his dearest friend, to be ill or sleep or eat or be healed in his stead, 105 so no one shall ever pray for another on that day, neither shall any one lay a burden on another; for then every one shall bear his own righteousness and unrighteousness." .....2 Esdras 7:75
//////////////
Thanks for this. Gravity is a tougher thing to measure than people give it credit for. Mathematical equations can only go so far, without real testing we cannot verify accuracy of the force of gravity on all scales.
"Do you believe in gravity?" - a gay blond vampire
Not where I thought I would find a JoJo reference
was looking for this, thank you.
Totally expected.
I wasn't expecting to see a reference here but good job
In general, we just ignore gravity at nuclear scales. It's so much weaker than the other three forces that it can be ignored.
When I was a kid I imagined gravity as everything expanding in size at the same ever accelerating rate. I think iy was my way of understanding the feather and hammer on the moon experiment.
We don't understand what Gravitation truly is.. So we speculate with formulas that define the relation of it but not the causes of it... It is like magnetism, we had to truly understand electricity to truly understand what Magnetism is... My opinion gravity is some sort of effect that acures like the effect of magnetism acures when electricity (flowing electrons) acures. If we could found a effect where you can convert gravity directly to electricity to measure gravitation then you could probably invert this effect and get gravitation from electricity like a peltier device
Found the electric universer
*’Occurs’, not ‘acures’
I think the short distance gravity problem is very important because we need to know this answer to understand how stars formed in the early universe.
Exhausted Elox D’oh! You’re right! How could we forget this?
I agree with your explantations and I have also some comments to add as the theory of non dependance of the mass in free falling subjects as Galilio experiments ; So if we implement the this law of gravity on each element macro or micro we will measure the difference on time between the subjects falling with different acceleration and non only the g=10 m/s² and each subject will have its added value on this formula to change the acceleration from 10 m/s² to 10+ni m/s²
I think my explanation need some details; if u like I could do in a long description.
Sir that is why we halt while on a very journey. In case of very far away object we may include a reference third object to study gravity between two object.To study attraction between atoms we have other theories at our disposal than gravity. Also in gravitational field only deal with attraction between two bodies. At atomic level both the forces of attraction and repulsion are at work.
I disagree that physicists are "ignorant" of gravity at short distances. Its not like they just choose to ignore it because they don't know enough about it. As you mentioned, the force is so weak compared to electric forces its a very very very safe assumption to ignore gravity because it has a negligible effect on calculations. The only usefulness to knowing gravity at small scales is to test the theory. But practically speaking, physicists ignore gravitational force between particles for the same reason they dont include the force of gravity from Pluto in their calculations. Its way too weak.
They are ignorant. They know it is weak, but they don't know how weak, even for non-quantum scale.
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "ignorant", as it has nothing to do with ignoring things.
Suggestions aside - (as if words that share a common root are not related)
- so much for the adage that if I just ignore it - it will go away.
I should clarify. I am only speaking of forces near the atomic level. There I am stating gravity is negligible and completely safe to ignore. And if this doesn't clarify my comments then there is a real lack of understanding of the scales of the forces at play by those in the comments.
If we calculate the gravitational force of an electron to its nucleus in the Hydrogen atom you get the force is 2x10^(-49) N. If you calculate the electrostatic force between the electron and its nucleus using Coulombs law you get the force is 2x10^(-8) N.
This video suggests that the uncertainty at the atomic scale for gravity is 10^(20). So in the most extreme cases, gravity is either 10^(21) times weaker or 10^(67) times weaker than the electrostatic force. Even if the law of gravity is as strong and as wrong as it can be, it is still 1000000000000000000000 times weaker than the electrostatic force.
If you are a physicist and try to claim that you need to take into account gravitational forces in a lattice or between charges separated by atomic lengths you will be be laughed at. It is absolutely ridiculous to state that "physicists are ignoring it and hopefully it will go away." They ignore it because it plays zero role in any dynamics. Gravity is never going to be measurable or relevant to atomic calculations.
Physicists are anything but ignorant. They are scrutinized for every calculation. Gravity is safely ignored at atomic scales, there is no ignorance.
Ryan /* "It's"
Just when I thought I was smart, TH-cam sent me this.
Yes they sent you this and now you know you're as dumb as they are, what happens if Dumb and Dumber breed? You end up with another dummy.
Um...no offense but this video should not be a measure of intelligence for anyone.
As Socrates reportedly said,
all I know is that I know everything (expletiiiiive)!
disclaimer: This is not the real quote
Did this video make you feel dumb?
Learn more and stay curious.
Then eventually it won't.
Something else will.
Your videos are great keep it up 😀
I think the answer is in a 4th spacial dimension. Your focus on scales is apt. I think we’re overlooking the obvious gravity at subatomic scales.
These are the things that ARE taught when the formulae is explained, but people forget all these other bits and just memorize the formula.
Luis - Nevermind understanding. That’s just for geeks. Formulas are easier to test for - get your ticket punched - and forget it.
The REAL problem is: There are TWO areas of Gravity, [Cosmological or Space, planets] and [effects of an object ON a planet] that Scientists want to jam together. HELLO.. They are DIFFERANT!
@@philip6419no they’re not.
A planet is composed of the same shite any object is. It is composed of dirt, rocks, minerals etc all which individually are modelled by gravitation models the same way. Why do you think clumping them together suddenly means an entirely different thing is going on?
You are like a child who sticks two lego bricks together and yells WOW WHERE DID THAT COME FROM THATD TOTALLY DIFFERENT 🤓🤓
Regarding distances larger than a light year, don't forget the expansion of space.
This concept troubles me. If it's expanding then it's expanding at every scale. It's not like 0.9 light years isn't expanding while 1.1 light years is.
Understand that I'm not correcting you or anything.
I just can't understand what different scale makes.
Couldn't the same thing be explained by atomic collapse (every atom getting smaller) (maybe the gluon field pulling quacks closer and closer)
We would never be able to detect it if it was universal.
My brain is melting.
@@KillaBitz The effect of expansion increases with distance. At small distances, the effect of expansion is much smaller than the effect of gravity. In my previous post, the distance of one light year was chosen arbitrarily as a lower boundary for a consideration of the effect.
The milky way has a diameter of 200,000 light years. I did some basic calculations based on the Hubble constant. In my opinion, the effect of expansion should not be neglected for such a distance. But so far, no astrophysicist wants to talk about the effect of expansion at a range of the diameter of the milky way. It seems, they only want to talk about expansion between galaxies but never about expansion on "smaller" scales. Yet, many say that space expands everywhere... Sometimes, I get the impression that they prefer talking about dark matter instead of taking consistently into account that space expands everywhere. The latter could have serious consequences.
So, regarding your question about how to detect expansion of space: Well, that would be situations, where the law of gravity alone could not explain the observation. For example, like the circular velocity of stars inside the milky way...
The Milky Way is gravitationally bound far far stronger than the expansion of space at that scale.
For very small objects, yes the gravitational pull is very small but the reason why they don't move towards one another is that this gravitational pull is smaller than the inertia needed to move the objects. If we were to put them in space with no gravitational fields, they will eventually move towards one another over time
Also the reason why Einstein's general relativity explains gravity better because it not only takes into account effects of very big masses (very big gravitational fields) like blackholes or very small objects but also for massless objects like light and how it bends around a gravitational field when Newton's law of universal gravitation requires objects with mass to be affected by gravity
But we can’t prove that they will come together like we predict. Just like the orbit of mercury didn’t line up for Newton, so to this might not line up for Einstein. It probably will, but uncertainty exists
Wow this is the first science resource I've EVER seen tackle this.
Well, I know the gravitational pull between a cheeseburger and my mouth is pretty damned strong.
That's why I think there is no need for dark matter in the universe. Gravity behaves differently when there are a lot of massive objects (Stars, Black holes, etc.) scattered around - like in galaxies. I know this is no mathematical description. ;)
This what I argued the most but no one believed me. And after this video I really can't explain my inner feelings
Henry: Makes well thought-out, informative, entertaining, great video overall.
People in the comments: The earth is flat, gravity is trash, I am gonna speak stupid things that sound sciencey because I have no idea about science.
sorry if I missed it in the video, how small is small when it comes to the uncertainty of the measurement?
This is fantastic! Good Job. I regularly watch your videos, but this one is the best one I´ve seen yet.
Thank you, a fast valuable lecture. Could you talk without the music, it sort of makes me nervous...
The Euler Number is approximately: 2.71828...
Newton’s law of gravitation: G = 6.67 x 10^-11 N.m^2/kg^2.
Golden number: 1.618ɸ
(2.71828 ^ 6.67) x 1.618 x 10 = 12,756.23
Earth’s equatorial diameter: 12,756 km.
Golden number: 1.618
Golden Angle: 137.5
Earth's equatorial radius: 6,378
Universal Gravitation G = 6.67 x 10^-11 N.m^2/kg^2.
(((1.618 ^137.5) / 6,378) / 6.67) x (10^-20) = 12,756.62
Earth’s equatorial diameter: 12,756 km.
Earth's equatorial diameter: 12,756 km.
Speed of light: 299,792,458 m/s.
Universal Gravitation G = 6.67 x 10^-11 N.m^2/kg^2.
(12,756 / 299,792,458) / 6.67 x (10^9) - 1 = 6,378.22
Earth's equatorial radius: 6,378 km.
Book: Orion: The Connection between Heaven and Earth eBook Kindle
I was surprised that photons weren't mentioned at the end. If I'm not mistaken, Newton's law only applied to objects with mass, so on that point, the law is not universal at any scale.
E=m(c^2)
You can convert the energy of photons into mass and then use that value in Newton's law. The term used for it when you don't care about the distinction between mass and energy (namely, high energy particle physics) is mass-energy.
The problem with gravity is that EVERYTHING attracts everything, we arent just point masses with some acceleration. At the atomic scale, the force of gravity may only extend to within the radius of a nuclei simply BECAUSE everything else is farther away than the earth is from the moon.
The other thing we have to remember, is gravity actually isnt newtonian, it is relativistic, the whole reason gravity works is it is a gradient in space-time, applying uneven forces to masses in the T dimension, because it warps space in the normal 3 dimensions.
So, we would be better off creating a new rule of universal relativistic gravitation, where the warping of space time is instead taken into account based on mass and distance.
Because who knows, maybe the reason gravity doesnt seem to work the same on small and large scales is merely because of the sheer amount of space warp created by black holes, and the sheer amount of space warp caused by atoms in literally every direction.
The force of gravity gets smaller the further away you are, so if gravity ITSELF affects space-time and affects how far away something IS, then that would change how much it attracts something.
We arent falling down, we are moving in the same direction we always were, but space has warped around us to change the vector angle to point towards the largest nearby mass.
Are you trying to be funny?
@@stefanschnabel2769 i take it from your sarcastic tone either you are confused or haughty, so to answer your question, no. I am responding to topics mentioned in the video, and talking about how gravity bends space-time. If these concepts are over your head, i believe Vsauce does a really good video explaining gravity.
@@drawapretzel6003 Sorry, that question wasn't sarcastic at all. I was honestly wondering whether this was a parody of all those inept recapitulations of half-understood concepts and ideas that you find online these days. It's a shame that it isn't.
@@stefanschnabel2769 why would you prefer it was a parody? the parts that are accurate are accurate, the parts that are speculation are speculation. i know full well that they havent been able to come up with a better gravitometric constant to explain galaxy wide gravity effects, but, theyve also not taken relativity and space warping into account either, and thats necessary to think about when thinking on inter galactic scales.
Just recently theyre finding inconsistent readings in the expansion of the universe based on different standard candles, and its entirely possible that instead of being constant, it is changing in some fashion, i have a very good theory on why galaxies are accelerating apart, not that anyone seems to care, but it goes back to space warping.
@@drawapretzel6003 I would like to imagine you as a reasonable person. That's why. Your entire initial post is a mess. Just one example "gravity (...) is a gradient in space-time". That is nonsense. Gravity is a phenomenon that is related to the curvature of space. There is no such thing as a "gradient in space-time". All the other sentences are as bad or worse. I will most certainly deeply regrett asking this question but let's do it anyways: What do you even mean by "warping of space time"? Please be as precise as possible. The more actual formulae the better.
P.S.: The singular of "nucleus" is "nucleus".
Newton: I can predict gravity
Mercury: LOOK AT ME!
I get distracted from the simple artwork that provides as much detail as a fine painting.
Fascinating. I must say, though, Newton serves me well day-to-day.
Over the years, minutephysics videos have bloated to over 500% of their original runtimes!
I'm kidding of course. I love the longer videos! :)
If you insist, you can watch the video in five sperate 1-minute-sessions for the full minutephysics experience
@@jonnynik7626 I'll watch them a week apart to enhance the experience.
This is why I left university.
My postulate is that gravity, I.e. warped space, interacts to cause the phenomena we refer to as mass.
Voids of space expand and collide. The place they collide involves 'relative' speeds that approach SOL, resulting in tiny 'permanent' areas of space. These combine to form neutrons protons etc.
The theory combines the fundamental forces, explains the dpuble slit conundrum and has been supported by the discovery of gravity waves.
I always questioned my teachers. “Gravity is when objects pull on eachother” well yeah but WHY? We’re being taught obsolete 17th century information.
3:50
We can't use these other formulae since they are dimensionally incorrect
You can simply change the constant of proportionality. Technically, if any of these laws applied at some scale, there would have to be a more general law that approximated both laws at the appropriate scales. That's why he said that if there is an extra hidden dimension, the force of gravity would technically only be _approximately_ proportional to the inverse square of the distance at large scales and the inverse cube at small scales.
Veritasium is running after views now but you are still precise and state to the point physics. Take love, sir.
Hi! Thank you for this good video. I saw Turkish subtitles in info but l couldnt find Turkish opsion. Please check it. Thank you again.
This video is basically a variation on the rhetorical question: How long is a piece of string? 1:45
There are no laws per se, only observations made at certain frequencies and densities.
Gravity is really strong until I lay on my back in the water...
'Gravity'
'Strong'
And then you find that the water is attracted to the centre of the earth as well, with similar force per unit volume, since it's of similar density. To think that gravity works sometimes and not others is one of the most bizarre ideas I can think of. It is basically assuming that we are individually and continuously being observed, and the laws of physics altered immediately depending on what we are doing at the time. It is such a narcissistic idea and egocentric as hell.
Breath.
@Another Random Cuber So? Breath again.Where does the air come from?
@@andywright8803 right
Wait, would factoring in the scale ratio to Newton’s “Universal Law” of Gravity give a better explanation of its workings at these inaccurate scales?
No. Before you formulate a law, you must first KNOW the effects of that law at all scales you are interested in. As he stated in the video, we simply don't know the magnitude of gravity at the quantum level, so we can't formulate a law.
There is a theory called Modified Newtonian Dynamics(MOND) which works on the principle that Law of Gravitation changes with the scale.
I think the reason why it's so immeasurable is because at the scale of which the gravitational pull of the small masses pull on eachother are so slim that the external forces surrounding the gravitational pull outweigh and thus make the calculation way too unpredictable and untrue. Because for you to be able to get a perfect calculation you need to have a perfect atmosphere (maybe a closed room) and then calculate the forces relative to earth's gravitational pull, the gravitational forces surrounding the small objects, the velocity of the earth around the sun relative to the small object, etc etc you can keep going on.
In Simple Human language: There's too much shit going on around it that are too significant to be able to measure it accurately
My head always hurts when I watch this channel
One of the big problems with measuring the gravitational attraction of two small objects (your yarn and tape) is noise or interference. Newton's Law is kind of an approximation, which holds most accurately when two massive objects are near each other within the same gravitational field, because gravity is not really the attraction between two masses, but between on mass and every other mass in the universe. So, the yarn and tape will have such a minimal attraction upon each other because the Earth produces much more gravitational force than them, and they're more attracted to the mass of your hands than to each other due to the larger mass. This confound of noise is part of why we have not and probably will not measure gravity to the same precision of other forces, because the only way to get a truly precise G constant is to measure the attraction between two neutrons in an otherwise massless universe. This is why the small scale is so uncertain, that and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a factor to consider at distances and masses that small. Adjusting for Gravitational Time Dilation using the Schwartzschild metric (whose effect is negligible at Newtonian Scales), it should be possible to extend Newton's law to relativistic masses.
How is this not popular??
you're kinda correct when you said that we require a massless universe to get the value of G constant but then that's why there are problems, that's the exact reason why people say that gravitational theory can be wrong. See if you say massless universe can tell the exact value or maybe then that universe can tell you totally otherwise and the results are exact opposite to what newton has given us. Maybe two bodies repel each other,,,, who knows ;p
@@jigyasapareek5486 at most scales, Gravity works fine, because the noise making exact measurement impossible is negligible. The phenomenon of gravity is still extremely observable.
Here I was thinking uncertainty was confined to the life and social sciences, now you tell me it's in the physical sciences too :P
If you read up about Heisenberg, his uncertainty principle tells us we can never be certain about what's going on in the quantum scale. It was something that Einstein disbelieved with his statement "God does not throw dice."
@@JamesDavy2009 - That's a slightly different kind of uncertainty but you're right that it exists.
I'm still on Einstein's side on that issue though. Heissenberg didn't seem to want to know what was going on at the small scale, only to make predictions (I'm bad at math so am going by his reasoning in words, in "physics and philosophy," which means I'm almost certainly missing a lot).
While simple hidden variable theories have been disprove, those with non-local hidden variables like Pilot wave theory supposedly were not. Linked channel has a lot of good videos on those theories, though even the video maker isn't sure if they're true.
th-cam.com/users/LookingGlassUniverse
Also worth mentioning that we don't even know what gravity is (no known force carrier). If we ever figure out why/how gravity even exists, a lot of these uncertainties will be likely be cleared up.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “,Mark McCutcheon.
We also assume that electrical and magnetic attraction can be ignored over interstellar or intergalactic distances.
And we may be wrong there, too.