"It doesn't much matter what either of them think. Physics is an empirical science, and answering the question requires a measurement." What a great quote that conveys the essence of science.
@@ada7180 “there's an Einstein cult” - I never heard of it, but am unsurprised. And then, there is also a Cargo cult... No, there is not a “why.” Ppl can create a cult of anything and anyone. Don't pay attention, not worth it. :)
Educated physicists recognize and properly attribute the contributions of Newton, Einstein, etc. Without exaggeration, elaboration, fabrication. The people who fixate "cults" onto these contributors are less educated.
@@pwnmeisterage Is this like a secret society? Never heard about such a cult. There isn't really a competition between Newton and Einstein. Einstein was born in a more advanced world and has modern science to bear in hindsight. Newton believed in transmutation, silly, Einstein believed the universe to be static and inserted a god coefficient in his equations, silly, again. Both were, sort of, vindicated in their assumptions. There you go, even when they are wrong, they are right 😀
This communicator is very, very good at what he does: short sentences, nice breakdown of concepts, good pace and soothing tone. Really happy I found this channel. Thank you.
Agreed. Too many presenters talk way too fast in long, convoluted sentences and then don't give you time to let the information even make sense and sink in before they're on to the next bit of information. They talk like they're just giving a review of something you already know and understand.
We have been told in University that Gravity is having the same speed of Light but we have never told how to measure it. This is a interesting video and I have learned a lot and thanks you !
But if gravity is everywhere, isn’t it at rest, except it’s effects on objects with mass. Maybe gravitational field strengths can be measured, but 0 g’s in space equals 0 G’s hear or there in space. Doesn’t only mass have speed and not the gravity itself?
@@kevindorsett728 The speed of light is a hard limit on the speed at which information can move - and the warping of spacetime(what gives rise to the phenomenon of gravity) is part of that information
Veritasium has a video explaining why you can’t directly measure anything traveling at the *Speed of Causality* (which, is the speed of light). Fundamental Forces, Photons, and the passage of time travel at the Speed of Causality.
@@angrymokyuu9475 «The speed of light is a hard limit on the speed at which information can move - and the warping of spacetime(what gives rise to the phenomenon of gravity) is part of that information» -- The Circus Of Flying Donkeys. They can fly because covered with a special fabric that warps spacetime around them. And they earn profits out of you sustaining, with your think-science-pink, the nonsense-matter filling the universe for the joy of expansion out of warping-caused gravity. Translation (if you can't understand the above): as you were aware of what you are talking about.
@@angrymokyuu9475 Einstein's special relativity is developed ASSUMING that the speed of light is constant. It never discovered that the speed light is constant or it is the maximum. Rather, special relativity is NEVER been experimentally proven. Heck, same goes for the general relativity. Do you "thinkers" even know why Pauli invented neutrino? I bet you never even given a second thought. LOL!
LIGO, VIRGO, KAGRA are all coming back online in March for observation run #4. They have undergone improvement so the distance they can detect an event will be upped the distance by 50%. That means the volume of space they will cover will be around 3 1/2 times as large as before. That will add a lot of detections. It's going to be quite interesting to follow.
@@jppagetoo I must be behind the times because I thought there was ONLY Ligo. I didn't know now there are more gravitational wave observatories outside of the US than in. It's amazing that we can finally study space and practice astrophysics without a telescope or detecting a form of EM radiation.
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Now, ON BALANCE, carefully consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON. E=MC2 IS F=MA. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great !!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! WHAT IS E=MC2 is F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky (ON BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. By Frank Martin DiMeglio The gravity of WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground is BALANCED WITH and by WHAT IS E=MC2 (AND TIME). Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Great. By Frank Martin DiMeglio TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank Martin DiMeglio WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Dr. Lincoln, I have a degree in Chemistry and am an amateur Astronomer. So I am not a know-nothing when it comes to the hard sciences. But you are about the best explainer of complex Scientific concepts on TH-cam and other video platforms. Keep up the good work.
except everything he touches told you it was a lie gravity does not exist is a effect of the curvature of space and sciences already concluded that space can expand faster than the speed of light this was necessary because many of the far galaxies that we observe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light and this concept of that gravity cannot move faster than the speed of light through space is absurd for A gravitational wave is a compression wave in the fabric of space time so we are measuring nothing but the movement of space itself and we already know it to move faster than the speed of light so everything he just said was observably fault other than yes we did Detective gravitational Wave but only two of the four detectors detected at these waves so were they really gravitational wave or just distortions in a gravitational field
@@JLaP What if a random online dude, a nobody, knows what is gravity? What if his answer agrees with and is based on observations, theory and the reality and has implications on everything, from transport to energy production and matter manipulation? I'm that guy & if I get 10k likes to my account, I will make a video explaining what gravity is, starting from The Beginning. Wondering why I want followers first? I've spent too much time and energy on this question to give the answer away for free.
Back in the 80's, I lived near Fermilab. A friend and I were discussing exactly this question, and after a while, I called the lab and actually got through to somebody who told me that nobody knows for sure, but it is assumed that it is the speed of light.
Gravity wave had two components 1) is the space change in object motion and second is time and thermo or sound change of angular momentum and result a value vector is the dot product of two of two vectors and direct vector of two is cross products and because 1 is model by sine function and Theo other is cosine function result a instantaneous wave breathing if proper is light and other is spectrum and it ís instantly felt but oscillated like pendulums a all over all space time because degree ofdark and light is amplitude and only local motion but propagate only in the flex of space time in unison all over space tim
You called in the 80's; without re-watching the video, the announcer said the measurement that yielded speed of gravity = speed of light within a quadrillionth of 1% was done about 2015 or 2017. So when you called, they didn't know.
Instantaneous means attracted to the same point, now! Not 8 minutes back or forth. Black holes and neutron stars are explanations for electrical phenomena. All our so - called measurements are twisted by our mental assumptions. A galaxy needs an electrical energy hub, this is known as a 'plasmoid' to plasma physicists. Since galaxies are electrically driven plasma systems that sounds about right! Neutron stars are really invented to explain pulsing radio sources, binary star pairs which have plasma oscillations. Simples!
That's right. The most important thing about teaching science should be the teacher's tone of voice, not the content. Who cares if it's scientific gibberish!
You're a great speaker and teacher Dr Lincoln. Even I hardly understand lets say the 50% of the subject, I listen to your explanations full of interest and enjoy a lot.
That's a lie, this channel is shill central, try The Thunderbolts Project on youtube. Gravity is a myth that cannot be conceptually explained or understood, it's not science
@@Condor512 What's funny is how hard you try to portray an air of sophistication with that sock puppet account yet lack elementary knowledge of punctuation. And for some reason you tried me with the most substandard, trite retort based on the contrived notion that I'm a gamer. What? My channel is public, unlike yours, so if you want to be critical, at least be accurate. It's always obvious when someone is projecting their own insecurities at you. The telltale sign is when someone makes completely fictitious and nebulous insults. So now I can safely assume why you operate a sockpuppet account that wields the diction of a 3rd grader. It's because you're a self loathing individual who watches Pewdiepie with cringeworthy material on your channel that you feel you have to hide. This channel is for adults? No, this channel is for unquestioning sheeple, those spineless, cowering, individuals unable to think for themselves. This channel is for those who are unable to question the existing masonic paradigm because, in reality, sheeple are not concerned with truth and knowledge, they just want to be liked and accepted, so they adopted this faux intellectualism and possess no knowledge of the nature of creation and their relationship to it. I mean, you probably think the moon landings were legit. Man, you sheeple are the ultimate clowns. I would laugh harder if you sheeple weren't causing the destruction of this great country. Research, "Michael Collins Gemini 8 space walk hoax photograph." And look up "Bill Cooper, NASA Mooned America." Of course, you'll do neither and continue down the path of cognitive dissonance, ignoring all of my points because you're a sheep boy who found sanctuary in his ignorance. Saying I don't understand this dogma is insane. Obviously, I understand it better than you because, unlike you, I was able to break from it. I was only 16 when I realized how illogical the current cosmological paradigm was. Prior to that, I was religiously obsessed with this pseudo-astromony. Even as a child, when I thought I was saturated with the best and most modern knowledge of the universe my collective civilization could garner, I knew it brought me no real understanding of the universe, Einstein shared that same sentiment on his deathbed. Now things are different, I do understand the nature of reality, mind, and matter. I understand how everything is intertwined. from the microverse to the macroverse. I can explain and illustrate my knowledge mathematically. And I can articulate my understanding with ease. But you must first break the programming if you want to learn the truth. Luckily, now I can reflect on how indoctrinated I was. I can't imagine being a grown adult and still swallowing and regurgitating the malarkey the establishment spoon feeds you. That's sad. What do you people do and think about all day? Whatever it might be, one thing is certain, you people are not doing research. Some people never wake up; it's not in their stars to be anything but drones. Being philosophical is a gift not everyone receives. And what I said about gravity was too abstract for your vegetative mind. Hopefully, someone reading this will actually research some of the material I told you about and question the overt lies. And if you believe in gravity and black holes, you also believe in the ability to divide by zero, so perhaps you deserve your fate as designed by cultural engineers.
WOW! That was just stellar - pun intended. Very well organized and understandable explanation of gravity and light speeds. I totally got it. Thank you for the great layman-term explanation. Much appreciated.
I asked my college physics professor that question in 1993. He told me at the time that it was supposed to be equal to the speed of light, but hadn't been proven yet. Thank you very much and greetings from Patagonia Argentina
The speed of light is a limitation on mass. Gravitons are supposed to be massless so the speed of gravity may exceed the speed of light just like the speed of space time.
@@Albtraum_TDDC I am not a scientist but I have read articles and listen to lectures that indicated that the expansion of space itself exceeds the speed of light. Since you clearly know more than me, can you tell me what “space” is made of? Because whatever it is moves faster than light. And yes, I know that photons have no mass and that is why they set the limit of causality for objects with mass. Maybe you can help me understand the relationship between gravity and the Hubble constant. Thanks in advance for your response and help.
@@sevenstarsofthedipper1047 space is not made of anything. It is space. Other stuff exist in space. Mass particles, electromagnetic fields, gravity fields, etc. You said Gravitons are massless and I pointed out that photons are also massless, but still "only" move at the speed of light. For the Hubble constant you need an entire lecture, so I won't waste my time in TH-cam comments.
It should just be called the speed of causality from now on, shouldn't it? It's the speed that all forces are communicated with, in the vacuum at least.
Except for information which can travel instantaneously whenever the wave function encompassing two entangled particles any distance apart also collapses. Since information can have an effect which constitutes a cause it breaks this speed limit of causality which in my opinion - and Einstein's - represents one of the greatest conundrums of quantum mechanics indeed modern physics.
@@matthewsheeran can those particles ever get so far apart that the information gleamed from them can be retrieved faster than the speed of light? I don't think it's ever been done experimentally, and my gut feeling is that it will prove impossible.
Dr. Lincoln, though I missed this when you first released it, I am so glad to see you making these informative messages. And supposedly said, you are wonderful at explaining these things and with the help that you get from staff and creating these graphics you managed to explain many things which might otherwise be quite challenging. I recall the series of videos that you made at the start of the Covid epidemic. However, you seemed to go silent and it is a great pleasure to see you back on some sort of a regular schedule.
The sun and Pluto travel through space at 200km/s and light travels from the sun to Pluto in 6h, including the gravitational field?. In that time, the sun travels 400,000 km. Does Pluto pass 400,000km behind the sun's midline?
@@pekkavirtanen5130 Yes including the distortion of space-time that is usually called gravity. What does the Sun's midline have to do with it? It too is subject the distortion of space-time that we call gravity.
I had this exact random toilet thought about a year ago and could only guess as to ways to test it. I'm ecstatic that it was actually tested, and we now have empirical data to support the theory it travels the same speed as light. This popped up on my suggested videos and I'm super thankful for it.
[12/04/22] Great presentation. Those LIGO's are phenomenal instruments. Imagine how much more our understanding of Gravity will progress over the next 100 years.
One thousandth of the diameter of a proton... 144 million light years... I once did a degree in physics but, now as then, the numbers involved completely do my head in. I can cheerfully do the sums involving them, but conceptualising this stuff is beyond mind-boggling. Thanks for a top-notch explanation of a fascinating topic.
The host says "Gravity can bend and twist the shape of space itself." I saw another video about gravity on youtube recently that said *sufficient mass [like a star, planet or large asteroid] bends the shape of space* and *the resultant bend is what we call gravity*. A careful reading of what I wrote will reveal that those are two apparently different positions, so which one is correct? One statement has mass bending spacetime [*resulting* in what we call 'gravity'] and the above video gives the impression that the massive object is somehow exuding gravity which in turn is bending spacetime.
@sandponics But doesn't physics sort of mean our understanding and interpretation of nature? The laws of nature probably won't ever change, not that the current physics knows of at least.
@sandponics No, he simply noticed, eventually, that a singularity is a problem. A quantum theory of gravity can remove that problem but limiting how small anything can be.
@sandponics There is no evidence that the properties of our universe vary with location. Likely there is variance with time but it should be minor after the first few seconds or even fractions of a second.
@sandponics Once the lighter particles, such as the up and down quarks, have begun to form that should be the end of the differences, though there is a possibility that the speed of light has changed over time, but that too should be nearly if not completely indetectable since the decoupling of matter and energy. Which is as far back as we can see.
I am not a physicist as such, but the title of this video grabbed me. I too had wondered about the speed of gravity, the speed of light is relevant to me in many ways but the propogation of gravity is a puzzle....thank you for making the video
Don seems always provide some of the most concise yet accessible answers for we laymen. Like most I already knew from his earlier work the answer would be the "speed of causality" identical to the "speed of light in a vacuum." The video did evoke a new deeper question for me: Can gravity waves, like light waves, be focused by a galactic collection of mass? And what type of effects would that have in the Universe? Could that type of gravitational foci caused the first collapse of clouds of still hot gas into the first stars? Or would sonic reverberations and resonance in the still roiling plasma been primary cause? Your thoughts??
@@johnfoley3633 Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Now, ON BALANCE, carefully consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON. E=MC2 IS F=MA. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great !!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! WHAT IS E=MC2 is F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky (ON BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. By Frank Martin DiMeglio The gravity of WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground is BALANCED WITH and by WHAT IS E=MC2 (AND TIME). Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Great. By Frank Martin DiMeglio TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank Martin DiMeglio WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank Martin DiMeglio
As always trying to prove a theory. They know the breakdown of this world. That’s why they claim to have to the hottest and coldest measurements in this system. They know they can’t measure anything in space so they try to mimic it here with cern and d wave quantum computers. They mimic absolute zero which is impossible. Mimic hell in their best way. Earth is flat. I seen clouds behind the sun 2 months ago. Sun is closer than you think. Super conducting magnetic system we live in. You have to understand the spirit behind your consciousness. We are eternal. We have been here before. Research before you listen to these focks. They lie to push an agenda. Jeferry Epsteink donated to Cern and other science institutions. Don’t trust the people who get paid to lie to you
@@johnfoley3633 Star formation triggered by gravity waves (converging to a focus at some distant point or not) seems pretty unlikely. The forces involved are far too minuscule-certainly in comparison to shock fronts.
@@marcmurison "Into the FIRST stars" is the key point. This would right after/during time Baron Acoustic Oscillation was forming bubbles in the plasma that would becomes the galaxies. The universe would have been millions of times smaller more dense. The first stars were true monsters thousands of times larger than the ones possible today, because there was no "metals" in the universe to cool down and condense the matter. No one really knows yet how they were able to collapse almost right after the recombination period.
Gosh, this channel consistently presents ultra-sophisticated stuff in an economical and crystal clear manner -- better than any other channel out there, IMO (well, Veritasium is good, too). Thanks for the great service you've done for us all.
“[Don] presents ultra-sophisticated stuff in an economical and crystal clear manner” - yeah, you've captured the essence in an economical and crystal clear manner! 👍 It's always hard to strike the right balance. Since you mention Veritasium, I want to add also @ScienceClick (in FR, EN, ES) with its 8 vid series on GR-popular but with essential math and _stunning_ animations, and then, a step up, @eigenchris with a full-blown, grad level but very accessible intro course to GR. No exercises or homework tho; there are MWT or Carrol's books for that.
As a listener that has some, but not a ton of knowledge of gravity, the cosmos, etc....this was so very understandable and made complete sense. (and no commercials!!!!!)
So, if the Sun were to suddenly vanish, we wouldn't notice for about 7 minutes. And, in those 7 minutes we would be in orbit around nothing but still seem like we were in orbit around the sun, right? That's just weird.
Space-time is warped by the gravity of the Sun. The Earth just passes straight through this space-time. If the sun disappeared, space-time would straighten out, but it would take time.
Nice presentation. I think Dr. Lincoln is getting better over the years. In the earliest videos I always felt the content was great, but the delivery was, well kinda 'stilted'. Now it seems a bit more relaxed and conversational, which I like. Thanks for all the great videos!
Wonderfully explained, thank you. Isn’t this the event that also generated the paper with the most co-authors? (Iirc, the first batch of papers on this one (GW170817?) were published together - and the publisher produced a kind of a “table of contents” paper, listing all the other papers and their authors in it, so it had thousands and thousands of authors.)
I figured the answer was probably "the speed of light", but it's neat to have some reason behind it, and for the 2 second delay. That was especially cool. Thanks for the great video! Subbed.
The delay is d/t the difference in size between the particles involved. Both are transmitted by the LCM at light-speed but one is slightly at variance with the particle size of the other which alters the speed of wave transmission slightly.
...I will never be anything less than amazed how physicists can take something like several black holes impacting each other and make it amazingly tedious. I guess it's just what happens when you don't spend much time with real people.
I'm pretty sure that I understood all of that. So, I'm both thrilled AND terrified! :) Whatever the result, thanks so much! That was took a lot of complicated topics and explained them so clearly. And made me laugh multiple times. So, there's that too.
Is it possible this is confusing the speed of gravity with the speed of propagating the effect gravity through space? - If gravity is the shape of space - And space is not restricted by causality, which concerns movement through space, the expansion of space itself. - In which case space can be created arbitrarily fast, and presumably by definition gravity with it. - The speed at which gravity propagates through space (for example, two merging black holes, happening behind the cosmic expansion with respect to the observer) would propagate at the speed of light. But if I'm right (please tell me if I'm already wrong): does it it make any difference whether the black hole merger happened before or after the cosmic expansion? - Light, on its way through the universe, stretches (resulting in cosmic redshift) - Do gravitational waves stretch? What is gravitational wave "redshift" ?
How did they decide which direction to align the pipes of the LIGO detectors? Are they just along the cardinal directions, or was there an optimized alignment that takes our spin(s) and maybe the milky way's plane into consideration?
I imagine the directionality of each leg only matters relative to one another. I would also suspect none of the other rotational speeds would be significant, even additively. My $0.02.
There should be gravitational waves expected from any and all directions🤔. Our north/south... is mute. The legs are at 90° to each other, but may deviate a few, or fraction of a mm if it takes earths rotation, inertia (It's own gravity) into account, as to how it effects the light beam at it's length. 🤓 So they very well may be oriented a specific way for good reason if they are. I would expect stronger signals from within our own galaxy, but I'm sure they want to cover as much of the universe and our galaxy as they can. 🧐
That's why there are several detectors, which measure different projections of the gravitational distortion field vector in 3D space. One detector alone would have to be lucky to be aligned with the gravitational wave and it would be impossible to tell anything about the direction.
There are no “pipes to align” in LIGO, it's a huge instrument with no moving parts. It just sits and listens (unless thrown out of alignment by an Earthly rumble; this happens daily). One interferometer cannot detect the direction the signal came from. But there are two LIGO detectors. A detection is considered only if it was sensed by both of them. By measuring the minuscule time difference of detections, you can triangulate a great circle on the celestial sphere, or, rather, a band, because of finite precision. If VIRGO is also online, then the ideal triangulation solves for a point on the celestial sphere, but really a blotch, because precision. It's similar to how GPS works: all GPS sats have their clocks in tight sync, and the receiver triangulates from the relative differences in time it took signal to reach it, and precisely known sat positions. And we have the same thing, only reverse signal direction: one signal source, multiple receivers in precisely known position. In the case of GW170817, it was piece of cake: all three detectors were online, so it pinpointed the source to the greatest extent possible. Unlike black hole mergers, which give “chirps” less than a second long, the terminal inspiralling of the two NS had been detected for whopping 2 _minutes._ Monitoring software automatically posted an alert for astronomers even before the merger occurred. Next thing, gamma detectors are also not very directional, there was no need to turn them toward the point. They improved the fix even further, adding to the triangulation. The event was extremely bright in the gamma range; it triggered a similar alert with an approximate location from the orbital gamma detectors independently. This is where the 2 seconds of difference were measured. Optical telescopes came next: people had to intervene and point them to the location. But the optical counterpart would be observable for weeks after the merger. IIRC, the first bleep in the optical range was taken just a few hours past GW and gamma flash detection. Think of it, two ~10km balls colliding half the Universe away produce a very hot but very localised explosion, with most of its energy concentrated in the very hard gamma range for a few first seconds. As the remnant of ionised gas expands, even if at a sizable fraction of the speed of light, it takes hours for it to blow up and cool down, shifting the peak of radiation toward optical range and at the same time expanding in volume, so that optical brightness keeps growing dramatically. But it's invisible in optical for the first few hours: the blob is too small, and emits most energy far above the optical range (UV to IR).
It's a teacher that doesn't answer your questions, but are we being bombarded by the Christian view, which has been controlling astronomy for 100 years, how else can you get the radiation from the big bang remnants with 97.5% redshift, which according to the Hubble constant was at 13.4 billion light-years when the radiation was emitted, now visible here, if you're in a big bang, then everything moves away from each other, but it seems that the radiation is just traveling to us at the speed of light has arrived and that light would have to travel at 1.975 times the speed of light relative to the source to arrive here in time, because those big bang remnants are now 26.4 billion light years away. The same applies to radiation that was emitted by us 13.4 billion years ago, which should now be visible at the big bang remnants at 26.4 billion light years away. The dark energy, which was invented to explain the problem of the current acceleration of the universe, shows that redshift cannot be explained with the big bang and that the redshift still forms the basis of the big bang theory and therefore does not seem to be the correct theory, because you cannot explain the acceleration, you can with the shrinking atom theory. If atoms shrink, the clock will run faster and we will get a higher frequency, if we then take a galaxy with 50% redshift, then those atoms there when the light was emitted, what we can now observe, have a diameter twice as large , then the electron shells are twice as large and you get a frequency that is only half as high as ours. If time then goes twice as fast, then the shrinking also goes twice as fast and you therefore see a redshift, which shows that something is accelerating and that therefore corresponds to the redshift that we perceive. With the big bang theory you assume that there was a gigantic bang and that the matter now has a certain speed, which would slow down slowly due to gravity and that is very different from what we observe now. Het is een leraar die geen antwoord geeft op je vragen, maar worden we bestookt door de christelijke zienswijze, die al 100 jaar de sterrenkunde onder controle houd, hoe kan je anders de straling van de oerknal restanten met 97,5% roodverschuiving, die volgens de constante van Hubble op 13,4 miljard lichtjaar stonden toen de straling werd uitgezonden, nu hier zichtbaar zijn, als je met een oerknal zit, dan verwijderd zich alles van elkaar, maar lijkt het er op dat de straling gewoon met de lichtsnelheid naar ons is toegekomen en zou dat licht ten opzichte van de bron met 1,975 maal de lichtsnelheid moeten gaan om hier op tijd aan te komen, omdat die oerknal restanten dan nu op 26,4 miljard lichtjaar afstand staan. Het zelfde geld voor straling wat bij ons 13,4 miljard jaar geleden werd uitgezonden, dat zou nu bij de oerknal restanten zichtbaar moeten zijn op 26,4 miljard lichtjaar afstand. De donkere energie, die is bedacht om het probleem van de huidige acceleratie van het heelal te kunnen verklaren, laat zien dat roodverschuiving niet met de oerknal is te verklaren en de roodverschuiving toch de basis vormt van de oerknal theorie en lijkt het daarmee toch niet de juiste theorie te zijn, omdat je de acceleratie niet kan verklaren, dat kan wel met de krimpende atomen theorie. Als atomen krimpen, dan gaat de klok sneller lopen en krijgen we een hogere frequentie, als we dan een sterrenstelsel nemen met 50% roodverschuiving, dan hebben die atomen daar toen het licht werd uitgezonden wat we nu waar kunnen nemen een 2 maal zo grote diameter, dan zijn de elektronenschillen 2 maal zo groot en krijg je een frequentie, die maar half zo hoog is, als bij ons. Als dan de tijd 2 maal zo snel gaat, dan gaat vervolgens het krimpen ook 2 maal zo snel en krijg je dus een roodverschuiving te zien, die laat zien dat er iets aan het versnellen is en dat komt dus wel overeen met de roodverschuiving die we waarnemen. Bij de oerknal theorie ga je er van uit dat er een gigantische knal was en de materie nu een bepaalde snelheid hebben, die langzaam af zou remmen door de zwaartekracht en dat is heel wat anders als we nu waarnemen.
I am totally fascinated by the world of physics, but I have little background in it. I was entranced by Brian Greene's books---it was as ifl a curtain would open & I'd catch a glimpse of something wonderful & b/c Greene is amazing at explaining things, I could at least marvel at the wonder of the universe. I have watched TH-cam science videos, & some are simply beyond me--they assume knowledge I don't have or that I have watched particular previous videos, which in turn refer to other previous videos & so on. Yours is one of 2 channels where I've been able to follow along well enough to get it! I thank you for your skilled summarizing, excellent graphics, and for not getting lost in the details (like, I don't need to know precisely how LIBOR works, just the basics). You have a new fan & subscriber!
Thank you. A question: The speed of light can be effected by the medium it travels through. I would expect that would not be the case for gravity as in a sense it is the medium. Is that correct? If so does that have some funky communication implications?
so how are we supposed to calculate gravity for earth/sun, when we're approx 8 light minutes from the barycentre? You can SAY it's not really different, until you attempt to model Oumuamua entering the solar system.
Very intriguing presentation! Your story telling and the way you educate the audience is so captivating and engaging and for a subject that many might find dry/boring. You're a great teacher!
My question is, if the speed of light changes depending on the medium it's travelling through, does that also affect the speed of gravity when travelling through different materials?
Speed of light will slow down in glass to 67% of its speed in empty space. This is because it is interacting with the charges in the atoms, essentially causing the charges to wobble and slow it down. Gravitational waves don’t carry any charge so don’t affect particles much when travelling through them. The slow down of gravitational waves through matter is negligible when compared with the slow down of light.
Great teaching, Super Jedi Master! I don't just like your videos. I LOVE them! Physics IS everything. Thank you. ........the only thing that confuses me is I thought teleportation was impractical. But I see from today's video that you super scientists at Fermilab have even figured that out!
What an excellent and concise explanation. I remember some years ago reading that the speed of gravity was instantaneous which seemed a bit other worldly to me at the time.
Your explanations and graphics are PERFECT! Please do more about gravity. This is the least understood of all the forces we know. EXCELLENT VIDEO! +1sub ❤❤❤
I have some questions for Dr. Lincoln. If objects emit gravitational waves, and objects distort space-time, doesn't that mean that they are constantly emitting gravitational energy and so should eventually evaporate? Is the rate of evaporation too slow for us to discern? Or am I just ignorant about this? Stars emit electromagnetic radiation, but I've not heard that they evaporate in a measurable way, and maybe the solar wind has a much greater mass reduction effect?
Gravitational waves are not how objects usually distort spacetime. Objects distort spacetime by existing in it. Gravitational waves are a particular way in which objects can distort spacetime. Similar to electromagnetic waves, this requires a change in the motion of the objects. Static objects do not emit gravitational waves. Two objects orbiting each other do. And these gravitational waves do carry energy and that is why these objects may eventually collide. For the solar system this effect is far too small to notice. And for the earth/moon system the tidal effects are way smaller and are actually causing the moon to move away from earth over time.
Now imagine the fact that the mass of your body adds to the mass of the Earth and to the solar system and to the galaxy. And that gravity from your mass reaches out and touches everything in the Universe just as much as the Universe reaches out and touches you.
Excuse me sir. There's the speed of gravity waves. But there's also the strength of gravity, that produces its own speed? As in the velocity of its force. So there are two types of speeds? It would seem Einstein speaks of the one you present and Newton of the other. That the speed of gravity is infinite, depending on the size of the object and how close you are to it. Clarification?
That is the right question. The agents of gravity are basically unknown, but since action at a distance is basically not possible, gravity cannot be "pulling" us down. The agents of gravity have to be tiny, as yet undetectable, and capable of flying through objects, but some hit tiny masses driving all things down toward earth by virtue of earth shielding us from the agents flying in from the opposite side of earth. This explains why in space we are weightless, the agents of gravity pommel us from all side equally, thus no directional impetus. It also describes the ability for atoms to exist: the electrons are constantly forced toward the oppositely charged nucleus until equilibrium is reached.
Well, gravity itself IS a manifestation of space-time so you'd expect they would be linked somehow. At least until someone comes up with a better theory.
@@CapaNoisyCapa Could it be another field or particle? like the Higgs boson and field? and if that would be the case, it should have 0 mass as it is going at the speed of light, it makes sense that it does not go faster than the speed of light (as spacetime does) because gravity is distorting spacetime but is not part of it, so gravity does not interact with the Higgs field, unless gravity is something entirely different. I'm Not a scientist nor physicist, but gravity seems amazing. I have this strange sensation that knowing about gravity will lead us to new and improved theories and thus, new technology, just a feeling.
That guy ... what's his name? Einstein or something, seems to pop up everywhere. Seems to have been correct about a lot of things too. 😂. Excellent video and thanks for the explanation (and comment about the error) of why light was delayed.
So happy I found this channel. I don't know why I never did before. I was a big fan of the collider there. 😪 Anyway, I'm here now! 😉 Hey! If you were close to a grav-wave inducing event, could your body feel it? Or would your body stretch along with the fabric of space-time? Just curious! 😎🤘☮️
Yes. Waves travel outward, away from gravity’s source. Gravity remains constant but changes an object with mass’s speed. Plus, the further away from anything with mass, gravity becomes weaker. The waves come from a sudden change of mass at its center traveling outward. Gravity alone, isn’t moving.
I've been wondering, if gravitational waves are distorting time and space, are they 4-dimensional? If so, they should make trailing waves just like when you throw a stone into a pond. Has this been observed? Btw, great video again.
This was very informative and clearly presented. So gravity travels at the speed of light. But have you ever pondered the speed of LINT?! th-cam.com/video/9c04HpVOe5M/w-d-xo.html
Just a question here about "theories" vs. "laws." You refer to Newton's "Theory of Gravity," but as I understand it, a theory is an explanation while a law is basically just a description with no explanatory power. Did Newton ever really come up with a "Theory" of Gravity? It seems like he formulated the Law of Gravity...the mathematical equations that *describe* the way gravity always seems to work, but as far as I know he didn't even TRY to *explain* why it works the way it does. I've never read Newton, so maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that an actual Theory of Gravity was...still up in the air. (See what I did there?)
There is not 'law' of gravity. It is still in a theoretical state. Never scientifically proven. Pseudoscience is not science. It is make believe. Like astrophysics.
I can’t get my head around how gravity actually acts on, say, an orbiting planet. Assume a planet orbiting a star a light hour out:does the gravitic attraction act directly towards the star or towards the position it was an hour ago, giving a “retrograde” component in the force? I’m probably all jumbled up in my thinking but can’t help wondering if the delay in attractive force due to the speed of gravitation waves plays an odd part somewhere.
@@Wol747 , none of it makes sense. None of it has ever been proven. No one has ever been to "outerspace", a sky vacuum. Defies our natural laws. Or we would all be dead.
As someone once told, it's not the speed of light than is the maximum speed... it's speed of causality :) Gravitation waves simply move with the max alloted speed of causuality allowed... The more interesting but philosophical question is why constants take values they take and not more or less... I'd also be quite interested to see what you think the link between quantum entanglement and gravity is and could it be than gravity is a consequence of quantum entanglement?
The anthropic principle isn't all that appealing but it does give a kind of answer: if the constants weren't what they are, the universe would be very different, or perhaps no longer here... so we wouldn't be here. That's a particularly unsatisfying answer if we only have the one universe to play with - but if our universe is one of many (I mean universes squeezing out into other dimensions here there and everywhere, not the Many Histories QT ones where Captain Kirk is evil and Mr Spock has got in touch with his feminine side), it's perhaps a /bit/ more palatable... Even then though... we want a specific reason, really - coming out of the theories. Maybe science will work it out one day - it's worked out a hell of a lot of other stuff that we previously had to relegate to hypothetical friends in the sky.
4:47 LIGO is short for Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. While Laser is short for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation😂
I think you mean "gravitational waves" (gravity waves are water waves), but yes, gravitational waves follow the geodesics of the gravitational field and so they are lensed just like light.
Incredibly interesting and not boring presentation!!! Thanks a lot! I am not a physicist, just likes it some 50 years ago ehwn I was a high school student. I could understand everything 100%. What a wonderful guy presented it! Subscribed. Liked.
I wish they would make a miniseries about Issac Newton. He's one of my hero's in the world of physics. In fact I admire Issac Newton more than I do Albert Einstein. I think when you compare advancements in physics vs the times in which they made their contributions, Issac Newton comes out on top. His work was revolutionary for the times in which he lived. Or better yet, a miniseries that spans the entire history of great scientists from Kepler all the thought to Steven Hawking. That would be a fascinating miniseries.
The only flow, in Newton's concept, is that he did not think at all about the possible changes that happens to the mass because of the moment of inertia.
You're right to feel this way about Newton. We have to judge someone's accomplishments in the context of what the world looked like before and after their insights. Newton took the scientific and mathematical world on a gigantic leap forward, explaining nearly all the known phenomenon of his day. In the process, he created calculus which is still the language of physics 400 years later. In contrast, Einstein took ideas that were already circulating and brought them to fruition. Mach had already came up with the insight of spacetime and Lorentz had already worked out the formulas. With regard to General Relativity, Riemann had worked out all the details of curved spaces and Weyl taught the mathematics to Einstein. Also, it appears that Hilbert may have beaten him to the theory by 5 days. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_dispute In any case, Einstein was not the lone genius that he has been portrayed to be. He also got many things wrong. His refusal to accept quantum mechanics for one and his lengthy and ultimately misguided search for a unified theory of GR and EM for another. By the end of his career, he was simultaneously viewed as a genius and a scientific anachronism. I think I speak for the majority of physicists in saying that Newton was the greatest physicist (or maybe scientist) of all time.
I gladly admit i understand about 5% of what Don is talking about, but i still find it so interesting and inspiring to listen to all the great wonders of the universe! By the age of 37 i guess my shipped has sailed for my dream on working with science, but i can at least keep beeing curious:)
It's never too late! Aged 38, I read an undergraduate engineering degree at a traditional university and I'm starting a PhD next year. I'm also enormously dim. If you are in the UK, there is always the Open University.
When I was an undergrad I went to a public lecture by Ronald Drever speaking on detecting gravitational waves. This was in about 1985 or so. It was so extremely fascinating. It was sad that he died prior to the big LIGO detections and prior to the Nobel befor it was awarded.
Or in a way isn't it good? We need people to continue science at every point, and there are always pioneers before hand, and plenty of people following along with it, spreads it and in the end leads to leaps in understanding/ confirming the leaps known for many many years mathematically. Each step of the ladder is important
@sioxernikita Agree. And didn't Sir Isaac Newton once state that: " I succeeded because I stood on the shoulders of giants" ? And this is how all progress is made. With honesty and humility from great minds ...
@@franceshorton918 Wow, all I said was it's too bad Drever didn't get to experience the realisation of his dreams that he devoted his life to. Of course science is progressive and relies on those before, did I deny that?
both light and gravity travel at the speed of causation. and the speed of causation is the limit for anything. so, maybe Issac was also kinda right?? if we interpret his "infinite" to mean "as fast a possible" or "as fast as it matters"...
well, Einstein is not the only person that contributes to General Relativity, there are many others like David Hilbert and Alexander Friedmann! also, there are mathematical discoveries that together help us develops the beautiful mathematics of general relativity.
Einstein and Niels Bohr began disputing Quantum Theory at the prestigious 1927 Solvay Conference, attended by top physicists of the day. By most accounts of this public debate, Bohr was the victor.
Fascinating. Could you explain what in Einstein’s theory lead to expect that gravitational waves have the speed of light? Thank you for the excellent videos!
If gravity isn't a classical force that is mediated by a particle or force carrier (spin, charge, mass, momentum) but is a distortion in space-time why would it then be subject to speed of light limit? If the actual expansion of the universe can exceed this limit why can't gravity?
I have an author friend that I have been trying to convince to co-write a book with me called, "Gravity: Is It Worth the Weight?" He is skeptical but I think it will pull in tons of readers.
@@cdprince768 Yes that is part of our problem. Book stores have voiced conCERNs about what would happen if they placed several copies in close proximity on one shelf.
A serious collision occurred 144 million years ago in the elliptical galaxy NGC 4993. Will anyone who witnessed the accident please contact your local police department. Thank you.
Thank you for videos. Just small note - locating source of gravitational waves is not precise, so even though we found gamma ray burst 2 seconds later after detection of grav. waves, there is still (a very low but still existing) chance, it was just a coincidence. Would be nice if we measure more of these events as it will add to certainty. Were there some similar detections later with same results? Thanks.
Now we need to establish if the speed of gravity changes in different mediums, like the speed of light does. Although gravity should be the change of space itself, and not within space. So perhaps it's always traveling at max speed? But I suppose that testing this will be extremely difficult xP
"It doesn't much matter what either of them think. Physics is an empirical science, and answering the question requires a measurement." What a great quote that conveys the essence of science.
That's why there's an Einstein cult?
@@ada7180 “there's an Einstein cult” - I never heard of it, but am unsurprised. And then, there is also a Cargo cult... No, there is not a “why.” Ppl can create a cult of anything and anyone. Don't pay attention, not worth it. :)
Educated physicists recognize and properly attribute the contributions of Newton, Einstein, etc. Without exaggeration, elaboration, fabrication.
The people who fixate "cults" onto these contributors are less educated.
@@pwnmeisterage Is this like a secret society? Never heard about such a cult. There isn't really a competition between Newton and Einstein. Einstein was born in a more advanced world and has modern science to bear in hindsight. Newton believed in transmutation, silly, Einstein believed the universe to be static and inserted a god coefficient in his equations, silly, again. Both were, sort of, vindicated in their assumptions. There you go, even when they are wrong, they are right 😀
@@ada7180 Never heard of a cult-like following of Eienstein, but there most certainly is an "Elon cult", and a "Tesla cult".....
This communicator is very, very good at what he does: short sentences, nice breakdown of concepts, good pace and soothing tone. Really happy I found this channel. Thank you.
Agreed. Too many presenters talk way too fast in long, convoluted sentences and then don't give you time to let the information even make sense and sink in before they're on to the next bit of information. They talk like they're just giving a review of something you already know and understand.
Excellent graphics, too.
Concepts of philosophy , great imagination ,
Gravity is a force, it doesn't have speed.
@sandponics (snigger)😂
We have been told in University that Gravity is having the same speed of Light but we have never told how to measure it. This is a interesting video and I have learned a lot and thanks you !
But if gravity is everywhere, isn’t it at rest, except it’s effects on objects with mass. Maybe gravitational field strengths can be measured, but 0 g’s in space equals 0 G’s hear or there in space. Doesn’t only mass have speed and not the gravity itself?
@@kevindorsett728 The speed of light is a hard limit on the speed at which information can move - and the warping of spacetime(what gives rise to the phenomenon of gravity) is part of that information
Veritasium has a video explaining why you can’t directly measure anything traveling at the *Speed of Causality* (which, is the speed of light).
Fundamental Forces, Photons, and the passage of time travel at the Speed of Causality.
@@angrymokyuu9475 «The speed of light is a hard limit on the speed at which information can move - and the warping of spacetime(what gives rise to the phenomenon of gravity) is part of that information»
--
The Circus Of Flying Donkeys. They can fly because covered with a special fabric that warps spacetime around them. And they earn profits out of you sustaining, with your think-science-pink, the nonsense-matter filling the universe for the joy of expansion out of warping-caused gravity.
Translation (if you can't understand the above): as you were aware of what you are talking about.
@@angrymokyuu9475 Einstein's special relativity is developed ASSUMING that the speed of light is constant.
It never discovered that the speed light is constant or it is the maximum.
Rather, special relativity is NEVER been experimentally proven.
Heck, same goes for the general relativity.
Do you "thinkers" even know why Pauli invented neutrino?
I bet you never even given a second thought.
LOL!
I like your presentations, not just because they are informative, but because you don’t talk fast and you don’t use daft music. Thank you.
LIGO, VIRGO, KAGRA are all coming back online in March for observation run #4. They have undergone improvement so the distance they can detect an event will be upped the distance by 50%. That means the volume of space they will cover will be around 3 1/2 times as large as before. That will add a lot of detections. It's going to be quite interesting to follow.
Interesting, they try to synchronize the opening times then?
@@nraynaud Yes, they will work together to triangulate locations. and confirm that it was not random noise.
Thank you very much
They will all show that they are all komplete krapp.
@@jppagetoo I must be behind the times because I thought there was ONLY Ligo. I didn't know now there are more gravitational wave observatories outside of the US than in.
It's amazing that we can finally study space and practice astrophysics without a telescope or detecting a form of EM radiation.
In high school physic we discussed the subject, but could not demonstrate with measurements. You made my day fifty-three years later.
Mine too...
🍷
Ditto!
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Now, ON BALANCE, carefully consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON. E=MC2 IS F=MA. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great !!!!
TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! WHAT IS E=MC2 is F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky (ON BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
The gravity of WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground is BALANCED WITH and by WHAT IS E=MC2 (AND TIME). Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Great.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven.
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE.
Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
No one can demonsrate the measurements
Dr. Lincoln, I have a degree in Chemistry and am an amateur Astronomer. So I am not a know-nothing when it comes to the hard sciences. But you are about the best explainer of complex Scientific concepts on TH-cam and other video platforms. Keep up the good work.
except everything he touches told you it was a lie gravity does not exist is a effect of the curvature of space and sciences already concluded that space can expand faster than the speed of light this was necessary because many of the far galaxies that we observe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light and this concept of that gravity cannot move faster than the speed of light through space is absurd for A gravitational wave is a compression wave in the fabric of space time so we are measuring nothing but the movement of space itself and we already know it to move faster than the speed of light so everything he just said was observably fault other than yes we did Detective gravitational Wave but only two of the four detectors detected at these waves so were they really gravitational wave or just distortions in a gravitational field
Agreed (but without all the letters after my last name.
@@OutOfTheBlue100 I AGREE!
@@JLaP What if a random online dude, a nobody, knows what is gravity? What if his answer agrees with and is based on observations, theory and the reality and has implications on everything, from transport to energy production and matter manipulation?
I'm that guy & if I get 10k likes to my account, I will make a video explaining what gravity is, starting from The Beginning.
Wondering why I want followers first? I've spent too much time and energy on this question to give the answer away for free.
@@to-rome I gave you the first like . . . hoping that you could change the very foundation of astronomy with your profound revelations.
One of the clearest explanations of complex physics I've ever heard.
This video is so well done. Not too long. Not too short. Explanation and the script is perfect. Visuals are good, too. Excellent job. Thank you.
Back in the 80's, I lived near Fermilab. A friend and I were discussing exactly this question, and after a while, I called the lab and actually got through to somebody who told me that nobody knows for sure, but it is assumed that it is the speed of light.
😊😅😅😮😢🎉😂
Gravity wave had two components 1) is the space change in object motion and second is time and thermo or sound change of angular momentum and result a value vector is the dot product of two of two vectors and direct vector of two is cross products and because 1 is model by sine function and Theo other is cosine function result a instantaneous wave breathing if proper is light and other is spectrum and it ís instantly felt but oscillated like pendulums a all over all space time because degree ofdark and light is amplitude and only local motion but propagate only in the flex of space time in unison all over space tim
@@TriPham-sn9jj nope not this, speed of light is answer
@@tatnallkennedy - More like "speed of causation" which happens to be the speed of light.
You called in the 80's; without re-watching the video, the announcer said the measurement that yielded speed of gravity = speed of light within a quadrillionth of 1% was done about 2015 or 2017. So when you called, they didn't know.
Dr. Don, you enjoyed saying "in a galaxy far, far away". I enjoyed the smile on your face and laughed with you. Thanks for the great video.
HIs glee is palpable!
May the gravitational force be with you!
Two Star War references in one video!
Galaxies do not exist so why do you trick people?
He's a bedtime story teller. "And suddenly the Sun imploded , and the light changed directions , and the Earth followed".
My favorite Physics channel. I have a master's in Physics from 30 years ago, no a single professor explained this so easy.
My compliments in explaining these concepts so clearly, calmly and with the right amount of detail. These videos are gems.
Instantaneous means attracted to the same point, now! Not 8 minutes back or forth.
Black holes and neutron stars are explanations for electrical phenomena. All our so - called measurements are twisted by our mental assumptions. A galaxy needs an electrical energy hub, this is known as a 'plasmoid' to plasma physicists. Since galaxies are electrically driven plasma systems that sounds about right!
Neutron stars are really invented to explain pulsing radio sources, binary star pairs which have plasma oscillations. Simples!
That's right. The most important thing about teaching science should be the teacher's tone of voice, not the content. Who cares if it's scientific gibberish!
Just because astronomers believe what they say is true does not make it FACT! Most Space theories will never be proven, they remain good (?) guesses.
You're a great speaker and teacher Dr Lincoln. Even I hardly understand lets say the 50% of the subject, I listen to your explanations full of interest and enjoy a lot.
Thanks once more, Dr. Don. Your videos are the best on TH-cam. 👍😁
That's a lie, this channel is shill central, try The Thunderbolts Project on youtube. Gravity is a myth that cannot be conceptually explained or understood, it's not science
@@Saturn-Matrix; "A lie", yeah, okay sonny, whatever you say. Now go back to your video game in mom's basement. This is a channel for adults.
@@Condor512 What's funny is how hard you try to portray an air of sophistication with that sock puppet account yet lack elementary knowledge of punctuation. And for some reason you tried me with the most substandard, trite retort based on the contrived notion that I'm a gamer. What? My channel is public, unlike yours, so if you want to be critical, at least be accurate. It's always obvious when someone is projecting their own insecurities at you. The telltale sign is when someone makes completely fictitious and nebulous insults.
So now I can safely assume why you operate a sockpuppet account that wields the diction of a 3rd grader. It's because you're a self loathing individual who watches Pewdiepie with cringeworthy material on your channel that you feel you have to hide.
This channel is for adults? No, this channel is for unquestioning sheeple, those spineless, cowering, individuals unable to think for themselves. This channel is for those who are unable to question the existing masonic paradigm because, in reality, sheeple are not concerned with truth and knowledge, they just want to be liked and accepted, so they adopted this faux intellectualism and possess no knowledge of the nature of creation and their relationship to it. I mean, you probably think the moon landings were legit. Man, you sheeple are the ultimate clowns. I would laugh harder if you sheeple weren't causing the destruction of this great country.
Research, "Michael Collins Gemini 8 space walk hoax photograph."
And look up "Bill Cooper, NASA Mooned America."
Of course, you'll do neither and continue down the path of cognitive dissonance, ignoring all of my points because you're a sheep boy who found sanctuary in his ignorance. Saying I don't understand this dogma is insane. Obviously, I understand it better than you because, unlike you, I was able to break from it. I was only 16 when I realized how illogical the current cosmological paradigm was. Prior to that, I was religiously obsessed with this pseudo-astromony. Even as a child, when I thought I was saturated with the best and most modern knowledge of the universe my collective civilization could garner, I knew it brought me no real understanding of the universe, Einstein shared that same sentiment on his deathbed.
Now things are different, I do understand the nature of reality, mind, and matter. I understand how everything is intertwined. from the microverse to the macroverse. I can explain and illustrate my knowledge mathematically. And I can articulate my understanding with ease. But you must first break the programming if you want to learn the truth.
Luckily, now I can reflect on how indoctrinated I was. I can't imagine being a grown adult and still swallowing and regurgitating the malarkey the establishment spoon feeds you. That's sad. What do you people do and think about all day? Whatever it might be, one thing is certain, you people are not doing research. Some people never wake up; it's not in their stars to be anything but drones. Being philosophical is a gift not everyone receives. And what I said about gravity was too abstract for your vegetative mind. Hopefully, someone reading this will actually research some of the material I told you about and question the overt lies.
And if you believe in gravity and black holes, you also believe in the ability to divide by zero, so perhaps you deserve your fate as designed by cultural engineers.
Thank you Dr Lincoln once again you have nailed down a tough concept and made it crystal clear. What a gift you have, and it is much appreciated.
WOW! That was just stellar - pun intended. Very well organized and understandable explanation of gravity and light speeds. I totally got it.
Thank you for the great layman-term explanation. Much appreciated.
I asked my college physics professor that question in 1993. He told me at the time that it was supposed to be equal to the speed of light, but hadn't been proven yet. Thank you very much and greetings from Patagonia Argentina
The speed of light is a limitation on mass. Gravitons are supposed to be massless so the speed of gravity may exceed the speed of light just like the speed of space time.
@@sevenstarsofthedipper1047 you mean like photons? ...
Did you even watch the video?
@@Albtraum_TDDC I am not a scientist but I have read articles and listen to lectures that indicated that the expansion of space itself exceeds the speed of light. Since you clearly know more than me, can you tell me what “space” is made of? Because whatever it is moves faster than light. And yes, I know that photons have no mass and that is why they set the limit of causality for objects with mass. Maybe you can help me understand the relationship between gravity and the Hubble constant. Thanks in advance for your response and help.
@@sevenstarsofthedipper1047 space is not made of anything. It is space. Other stuff exist in space. Mass particles, electromagnetic fields, gravity fields, etc.
You said Gravitons are massless and I pointed out that photons are also massless, but still "only" move at the speed of light.
For the Hubble constant you need an entire lecture, so I won't waste my time in TH-cam comments.
@@Albtraum_TDDC If Space is made of “nothing”, what is expanding that between the galaxies, and what is being curved by the presence of matter?
It should just be called the speed of causality from now on, shouldn't it? It's the speed that all forces are communicated with, in the vacuum at least.
Except for information which can travel instantaneously whenever the wave function encompassing two entangled particles any distance apart also collapses. Since information can have an effect which constitutes a cause it breaks this speed limit of causality which in my opinion - and Einstein's - represents one of the greatest conundrums of quantum mechanics indeed modern physics.
@@matthewsheeran What is meant by 'information'? Can the word information be described as something physical?
@@matthewsheeran can those particles ever get so far apart that the information gleamed from them can be retrieved faster than the speed of light? I don't think it's ever been done experimentally, and my gut feeling is that it will prove impossible.
Unless you're talking about a specific force then you just reference that force of course lol
@@matthewsheeran Never been able to retrieve useful information at any distance instantly
Dr. Lincoln, though I missed this when you first released it, I am so glad to see you making these informative messages. And supposedly said, you are wonderful at explaining these things and with the help that you get from staff and creating these graphics you managed to explain many things which might otherwise be quite challenging. I recall the series of videos that you made at the start of the Covid epidemic. However, you seemed to go silent and it is a great pleasure to see you back on some sort of a regular schedule.
The sun and Pluto travel through space at 200km/s and light travels from the sun to Pluto in 6h, including the gravitational field?. In that time, the sun travels 400,000 km. Does Pluto pass 400,000km behind the sun's midline?
@@pekkavirtanen5130
Yes including the distortion of space-time that is usually called gravity.
What does the Sun's midline have to do with it? It too is subject the distortion of space-time that we call gravity.
I had this exact random toilet thought about a year ago and could only guess as to ways to test it. I'm ecstatic that it was actually tested, and we now have empirical data to support the theory it travels the same speed as light. This popped up on my suggested videos and I'm super thankful for it.
I really don't want to ask what gravity experiment you ran in your toilet.
[12/04/22] Great presentation. Those LIGO's are phenomenal instruments. Imagine how much more our understanding of Gravity will progress over the next 100 years.
One thousandth of the diameter of a proton... 144 million light years... I once did a degree in physics but, now as then, the numbers involved completely do my head in. I can cheerfully do the sums involving them, but conceptualising this stuff is beyond mind-boggling. Thanks for a top-notch explanation of a fascinating topic.
Yes, I too have a degree in physics/astronomy. He said "length of a proton" for some reason.
@@BrianAdams-dt1ks A slip of the tongue, I dare say. The concept of the diameter of a proton is well established and it is put at 0.842fm.
0.842 what's fm?
@@robertgreen7430 femtometres (in this context)
@@rich8037 thanks but what is it in relation to the meter?
The host says "Gravity can bend and twist the shape of space itself."
I saw another video about gravity on youtube recently that said *sufficient mass [like a star, planet or large asteroid] bends the shape of space* and *the resultant bend is what we call gravity*.
A careful reading of what I wrote will reveal that those are two apparently different positions, so which one is correct?
One statement has mass bending spacetime [*resulting* in what we call 'gravity'] and the above video gives the impression that the massive object is somehow exuding gravity which in turn is bending spacetime.
Great voice, clarity, well presented. Very much appreciate the effort you have put into this accurate science communication.
Congratulations professor. Almost understood. This is not an easy subject to comprehend quickly, but the basis is done.
This is a ton of fun to watch. Physics has changed quite a bit since I was in school. This is really fascinating.
@sandponics But doesn't physics sort of mean our understanding and interpretation of nature? The laws of nature probably won't ever change, not that the current physics knows of at least.
@sandponics
Wrong, the properties of the universe have not changed. Physics has because physics is the study of those properties.
@sandponics
No, he simply noticed, eventually, that a singularity is a problem. A quantum theory of gravity can remove that problem but limiting how small anything can be.
@sandponics
There is no evidence that the properties of our universe vary with location. Likely there is variance with time but it should be minor after the first few seconds or even fractions of a second.
@sandponics
Once the lighter particles, such as the up and down quarks, have begun to form that should be the end of the differences, though there is a possibility that the speed of light has changed over time, but that too should be nearly if not completely indetectable since the decoupling of matter and energy. Which is as far back as we can see.
I am not a physicist as such, but the title of this video grabbed me. I too had wondered about the speed of gravity, the speed of light is relevant to me in many ways but the propogation of gravity is a puzzle....thank you for making the video
Can we appreciate the work done by Dr. Don in this video?
As always, a very informative, efficient, and superb video. You folks set the bar for science videos.
Don seems always provide some of the most concise yet accessible answers for we laymen. Like most I already knew from his earlier work the answer would be the "speed of causality" identical to the "speed of light in a vacuum." The video did evoke a new deeper question for me: Can gravity waves, like light waves, be focused by a galactic collection of mass? And what type of effects would that have in the Universe? Could that type of gravitational foci caused the first collapse of clouds of still hot gas into the first stars? Or would sonic reverberations and resonance in the still roiling plasma been primary cause? Your thoughts??
@@johnfoley3633 Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Now, ON BALANCE, carefully consider what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON. E=MC2 IS F=MA. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great !!!!
TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! WHAT IS E=MC2 is F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky (ON BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
The gravity of WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground is BALANCED WITH and by WHAT IS E=MC2 (AND TIME). Indeed, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Great.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven.
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE.
Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
As always trying to prove a theory. They know the breakdown of this world. That’s why they claim to have to the hottest and coldest measurements in this system. They know they can’t measure anything in space so they try to mimic it here with cern and d wave quantum computers. They mimic absolute zero which is impossible. Mimic hell in their best way. Earth is flat. I seen clouds behind the sun 2 months ago. Sun is closer than you think. Super conducting magnetic system we live in. You have to understand the spirit behind your consciousness. We are eternal. We have been here before. Research before you listen to these focks. They lie to push an agenda. Jeferry Epsteink donated to Cern and other science institutions. Don’t trust the people who get paid to lie to you
@@johnfoley3633 Star formation triggered by gravity waves (converging to a focus at some distant point or not) seems pretty unlikely. The forces involved are far too minuscule-certainly in comparison to shock fronts.
@@marcmurison "Into the FIRST stars" is the key point. This would right after/during time Baron Acoustic Oscillation was forming bubbles in the plasma that would becomes the galaxies. The universe would have been millions of times smaller more dense. The first stars were true monsters thousands of times larger than the ones possible today, because there was no "metals" in the universe to cool down and condense the matter. No one really knows yet how they were able to collapse almost right after the recombination period.
Gosh, this channel consistently presents ultra-sophisticated stuff in an economical and crystal clear manner -- better than any other channel out there, IMO (well, Veritasium is good, too). Thanks for the great service you've done for us all.
“[Don] presents ultra-sophisticated stuff in an economical and crystal clear manner” - yeah, you've captured the essence in an economical and crystal clear manner! 👍 It's always hard to strike the right balance.
Since you mention Veritasium, I want to add also @ScienceClick (in FR, EN, ES) with its 8 vid series on GR-popular but with essential math and _stunning_ animations, and then, a step up, @eigenchris with a full-blown, grad level but very accessible intro course to GR. No exercises or homework tho; there are MWT or Carrol's books for that.
@@cykkm If you're interested in animation, do check out 3blue1brown as well.
@@GetMeThere1 I doubt there's anyone not living under a rock and unaware of 3b1b. But thanks anyway! Spreading good stuff never hurts! :)
As a listener that has some, but not a ton of knowledge of gravity, the cosmos, etc....this was so very understandable and made complete sense. (and no commercials!!!!!)
Very, very cool observation and proof of a conjecture. You did a fantastic job explaining how all of these pieces fit together!
So, if the Sun were to suddenly vanish, we wouldn't notice for about 7 minutes. And, in those 7 minutes we would be in orbit around nothing but still seem like we were in orbit around the sun, right? That's just weird.
If this hypothesis is correct (it seems to be), then in fact we do not orbit the sun but where the sun was 7 minutes ago.
Space-time is warped by the gravity of the Sun. The Earth just passes straight through this space-time. If the sun disappeared, space-time would straighten out, but it would take time.
@@PeterBudaiAfter 7 minutes or instantly?
The Earth is round; but the solar system is flat.
The instant our sun disappeared, we would fall off the edge.
@@SuperFlyBoy There is a delay.
Nice presentation. I think Dr. Lincoln is getting better over the years. In the earliest videos I always felt the content was great, but the delivery was, well kinda 'stilted'. Now it seems a bit more relaxed and conversational, which I like. Thanks for all the great videos!
Apparently, as I get older, gravitational waves are stretching my width.
Don't worry. Nobody takes notice unless you plan on going supernova.
And all this time, your wife thought it was because you liked her food.
You might not want to share the truth ....lol
Thank you for the laugh
Wonderfully explained, thank you.
Isn’t this the event that also generated the paper with the most co-authors?
(Iirc, the first batch of papers on this one (GW170817?) were published together - and the publisher produced a kind of a “table of contents” paper, listing all the other papers and their authors in it, so it had thousands and thousands of authors.)
I'd like to see a paper on Many Worlds take the record for most co-authors by listing each author in each world.
I remember reading that over a third of the world's astronomers (professional I assume) were coauthors.
@@nmarbletoe8210 “a paper on Many Worlds take the record for most co-authors by listing each author in each world.” 😁👍
Screamer
Lppknb
I figured the answer was probably "the speed of light", but it's neat to have some reason behind it, and for the 2 second delay. That was especially cool. Thanks for the great video! Subbed.
The delay is d/t the difference in size between the particles involved. Both are transmitted by the LCM at light-speed but one is slightly at variance with the particle size of the other which alters the speed of wave transmission slightly.
I never get tired of hearing you explain physics!
...I will never be anything less than amazed how physicists can take something like several black holes impacting each other and make it amazingly tedious. I guess it's just what happens when you don't spend much time with real people.
I'm pretty sure that I understood all of that.
So, I'm both thrilled AND terrified! :)
Whatever the result, thanks so much! That was took a lot of complicated topics and explained them so clearly. And made me laugh multiple times. So, there's that too.
You gave the gift of explaining very difficult things very clearly. Thank you for it!
Love your content, Fermilab! Great questions, and nicely explained theories! Sending love from New Zealand!
Is it possible this is confusing the speed of gravity with the speed of propagating the effect gravity through space?
- If gravity is the shape of space
- And space is not restricted by causality, which concerns movement through space, the expansion of space itself.
- In which case space can be created arbitrarily fast, and presumably by definition gravity with it.
- The speed at which gravity propagates through space (for example, two merging black holes, happening behind the cosmic expansion with respect to the observer) would propagate at the speed of light.
But if I'm right (please tell me if I'm already wrong): does it it make any difference whether the black hole merger happened before or after the cosmic expansion?
- Light, on its way through the universe, stretches (resulting in cosmic redshift)
- Do gravitational waves stretch? What is gravitational wave "redshift" ?
How did they decide which direction to align the pipes of the LIGO detectors? Are they just along the cardinal directions, or was there an optimized alignment that takes our spin(s) and maybe the milky way's plane into consideration?
I imagine the directionality of each leg only matters relative to one another. I would also suspect none of the other rotational speeds would be significant, even additively. My $0.02.
great question! Probably want it different from the other detectors, but I want to hear more about this!
There should be gravitational waves expected from any and all directions🤔. Our north/south... is mute. The legs are at 90° to each other, but may deviate a few, or fraction of a mm if it takes earths rotation, inertia (It's own gravity) into account, as to how it effects the light beam at it's length. 🤓 So they very well may be oriented a specific way for good reason if they are. I would expect stronger signals from within our own galaxy, but I'm sure they want to cover as much of the universe and our galaxy as they can. 🧐
That's why there are several detectors, which measure different projections of the gravitational distortion field vector in 3D space. One detector alone would have to be lucky to be aligned with the gravitational wave and it would be impossible to tell anything about the direction.
There are no “pipes to align” in LIGO, it's a huge instrument with no moving parts. It just sits and listens (unless thrown out of alignment by an Earthly rumble; this happens daily). One interferometer cannot detect the direction the signal came from. But there are two LIGO detectors. A detection is considered only if it was sensed by both of them. By measuring the minuscule time difference of detections, you can triangulate a great circle on the celestial sphere, or, rather, a band, because of finite precision. If VIRGO is also online, then the ideal triangulation solves for a point on the celestial sphere, but really a blotch, because precision. It's similar to how GPS works: all GPS sats have their clocks in tight sync, and the receiver triangulates from the relative differences in time it took signal to reach it, and precisely known sat positions. And we have the same thing, only reverse signal direction: one signal source, multiple receivers in precisely known position. In the case of GW170817, it was piece of cake: all three detectors were online, so it pinpointed the source to the greatest extent possible. Unlike black hole mergers, which give “chirps” less than a second long, the terminal inspiralling of the two NS had been detected for whopping 2 _minutes._ Monitoring software automatically posted an alert for astronomers even before the merger occurred.
Next thing, gamma detectors are also not very directional, there was no need to turn them toward the point. They improved the fix even further, adding to the triangulation. The event was extremely bright in the gamma range; it triggered a similar alert with an approximate location from the orbital gamma detectors independently. This is where the 2 seconds of difference were measured.
Optical telescopes came next: people had to intervene and point them to the location. But the optical counterpart would be observable for weeks after the merger. IIRC, the first bleep in the optical range was taken just a few hours past GW and gamma flash detection. Think of it, two ~10km balls colliding half the Universe away produce a very hot but very localised explosion, with most of its energy concentrated in the very hard gamma range for a few first seconds. As the remnant of ionised gas expands, even if at a sizable fraction of the speed of light, it takes hours for it to blow up and cool down, shifting the peak of radiation toward optical range and at the same time expanding in volume, so that optical brightness keeps growing dramatically. But it's invisible in optical for the first few hours: the blob is too small, and emits most energy far above the optical range (UV to IR).
I had this question when I was in my 10th grade. Unfortunately, none of my teachers could answer it. Thank you so much for this explanation!
Thank you Dr. Lincoln and the Fermilab team for bringing us cool info
A great public service to develop and post these presentations! Thank you.
How I wish I could have had a teacher like you, a long time ago in a galaxy far away!
It's a teacher that doesn't answer your questions, but are we being bombarded by the Christian view, which has been controlling astronomy for 100 years, how else can you get the radiation from the big bang remnants with 97.5% redshift, which according to the Hubble constant was at 13.4 billion light-years when the radiation was emitted, now visible here, if you're in a big bang, then everything moves away from each other, but it seems that the radiation is just traveling to us at the speed of light has arrived and that light would have to travel at 1.975 times the speed of light relative to the source to arrive here in time, because those big bang remnants are now 26.4 billion light years away. The same applies to radiation that was emitted by us 13.4 billion years ago, which should now be visible at the big bang remnants at 26.4 billion light years away. The dark energy, which was invented to explain the problem of the current acceleration of the universe, shows that redshift cannot be explained with the big bang and that the redshift still forms the basis of the big bang theory and therefore does not seem to be the correct theory, because you cannot explain the acceleration, you can with the shrinking atom theory. If atoms shrink, the clock will run faster and we will get a higher frequency, if we then take a galaxy with 50% redshift, then those atoms there when the light was emitted, what we can now observe, have a diameter twice as large , then the electron shells are twice as large and you get a frequency that is only half as high as ours. If time then goes twice as fast, then the shrinking also goes twice as fast and you therefore see a redshift, which shows that something is accelerating and that therefore corresponds to the redshift that we perceive. With the big bang theory you assume that there was a gigantic bang and that the matter now has a certain speed, which would slow down slowly due to gravity and that is very different from what we observe now.
Het is een leraar die geen antwoord geeft op je vragen, maar worden we bestookt door de christelijke zienswijze, die al 100 jaar de sterrenkunde onder controle houd, hoe kan je anders de straling van de oerknal restanten met 97,5% roodverschuiving, die volgens de constante van Hubble op 13,4 miljard lichtjaar stonden toen de straling werd uitgezonden, nu hier zichtbaar zijn, als je met een oerknal zit, dan verwijderd zich alles van elkaar, maar lijkt het er op dat de straling gewoon met de lichtsnelheid naar ons is toegekomen en zou dat licht ten opzichte van de bron met 1,975 maal de lichtsnelheid moeten gaan om hier op tijd aan te komen, omdat die oerknal restanten dan nu op 26,4 miljard lichtjaar afstand staan. Het zelfde geld voor straling wat bij ons 13,4 miljard jaar geleden werd uitgezonden, dat zou nu bij de oerknal restanten zichtbaar moeten zijn op 26,4 miljard lichtjaar afstand. De donkere energie, die is bedacht om het probleem van de huidige acceleratie van het heelal te kunnen verklaren, laat zien dat roodverschuiving niet met de oerknal is te verklaren en de roodverschuiving toch de basis vormt van de oerknal theorie en lijkt het daarmee toch niet de juiste theorie te zijn, omdat je de acceleratie niet kan verklaren, dat kan wel met de krimpende atomen theorie. Als atomen krimpen, dan gaat de klok sneller lopen en krijgen we een hogere frequentie, als we dan een sterrenstelsel nemen met 50% roodverschuiving, dan hebben die atomen daar toen het licht werd uitgezonden wat we nu waar kunnen nemen een 2 maal zo grote diameter, dan zijn de elektronenschillen 2 maal zo groot en krijg je een frequentie, die maar half zo hoog is, als bij ons. Als dan de tijd 2 maal zo snel gaat, dan gaat vervolgens het krimpen ook 2 maal zo snel en krijg je dus een roodverschuiving te zien, die laat zien dat er iets aan het versnellen is en dat komt dus wel overeen met de roodverschuiving die we waarnemen. Bij de oerknal theorie ga je er van uit dat er een gigantische knal was en de materie nu een bepaalde snelheid hebben, die langzaam af zou remmen door de zwaartekracht en dat is heel wat anders als we nu waarnemen.
you have him now
@@martinwillemse8923 shoosh
I am totally fascinated by the world of physics, but I have little background in it. I was entranced by Brian Greene's books---it was as ifl a curtain would open & I'd catch a glimpse of something wonderful & b/c Greene is amazing at explaining things, I could at least marvel at the wonder of the universe. I have watched TH-cam science videos, & some are simply beyond me--they assume knowledge I don't have or that I have watched particular previous videos, which in turn refer to other previous videos & so on. Yours is one of 2 channels where I've been able to follow along well enough to get it! I thank you for your skilled summarizing, excellent graphics, and for not getting lost in the details (like, I don't need to know precisely how LIBOR works, just the basics). You have a new fan & subscriber!
Thank you.
A question: The speed of light can be effected by the medium it travels through. I would expect that would not be the case for gravity as in a sense it is the medium. Is that correct?
If so does that have some funky communication implications?
so how are we supposed to calculate gravity for earth/sun, when we're approx 8 light minutes from the barycentre?
You can SAY it's not really different, until you attempt to model Oumuamua entering the solar system.
Very intriguing presentation! Your story telling and the way you educate the audience is so captivating and engaging and for a subject that many might find dry/boring. You're a great teacher!
The goat himself, Don Lincoln
I always enjoy Dr. Don's videos and how he explains the gravity of the situation!👍💥
He needs to take a running jump at the moon.
Chuckle chuckle.
I see what you did there.......................................Nicely Done .
Yes it's nice that he was able to shine some light on the matter, even though it's quite a heavy subject.
Who could resist weighing their copy of MWT _Gravitation_ textbook? It weighs over 7lbs! Gravitation is not the subject to be taken lightly!
I've been watching you for a while. You are outstanding for the knowledge and the explaining method you have! Good work, sir!
My question is, if the speed of light changes depending on the medium it's travelling through, does that also affect the speed of gravity when travelling through different materials?
Speed of light will slow down in glass to 67% of its speed in empty space. This is because it is interacting with the charges in the atoms, essentially causing the charges to wobble and slow it down. Gravitational waves don’t carry any charge so don’t affect particles much when travelling through them. The slow down of gravitational waves through matter is negligible when compared with the slow down of light.
Great video
lmao why is this here and why doesn’t it have any comments
hey destin!
Great teaching, Super Jedi Master! I don't just like your videos. I LOVE them! Physics IS everything. Thank you. ........the only thing that confuses me is I thought teleportation was impractical. But I see from today's video that you super scientists at Fermilab have even figured that out!
What an excellent and concise explanation. I remember some years ago reading that the speed of gravity was instantaneous which seemed a bit other worldly to me at the time.
Don is an absolute (haha) treat to watch and listen to. Easy on the eye and ear, he puts the subject over very well. Long may these continue.
only for weirdos
Your explanations and graphics are PERFECT! Please do more about gravity. This is the least understood of all the forces we know. EXCELLENT VIDEO! +1sub ❤❤❤
Any chance you could make the videos longer?? Honestly it's so good I don't want it to end in 10-15 min.. thank you for making these videos
I have some questions for Dr. Lincoln. If objects emit gravitational waves, and objects distort space-time, doesn't that mean that they are constantly emitting gravitational energy and so should eventually evaporate? Is the rate of evaporation too slow for us to discern? Or am I just ignorant about this? Stars emit electromagnetic radiation, but I've not heard that they evaporate in a measurable way, and maybe the solar wind has a much greater mass reduction effect?
Gravitational waves are not how objects usually distort spacetime. Objects distort spacetime by existing in it. Gravitational waves are a particular way in which objects can distort spacetime.
Similar to electromagnetic waves, this requires a change in the motion of the objects.
Static objects do not emit gravitational waves. Two objects orbiting each other do.
And these gravitational waves do carry energy and that is why these objects may eventually collide.
For the solar system this effect is far too small to notice.
And for the earth/moon system the tidal effects are way smaller and are actually causing the moon to move away from earth over time.
I think its really cool how an event so far away in spacetime can be picked up by 2 different instruments
Now imagine the fact that the mass of your body adds to the mass of the Earth and to the solar system and to the galaxy. And that gravity from your mass reaches out and touches everything in the Universe just as much as the Universe reaches out and touches you.
Im very thankful for these videos. Clearly and very effectively communicated information about physics. Thanks!
Excuse me sir. There's the speed of gravity waves. But there's also the strength of gravity, that produces its own speed? As in the velocity of its force. So there are two types of speeds? It would seem Einstein speaks of the one you present and Newton of the other. That the speed of gravity is infinite, depending on the size of the object and how close you are to it. Clarification?
What would be the "velocity of the force" be other than how fast a change in the field is communicated? A "wave" is just a particular kind of change.
That is the right question. The agents of gravity are basically unknown, but since action at a distance is basically not possible, gravity cannot be "pulling" us down. The agents of gravity have to be tiny, as yet undetectable, and capable of flying through objects, but some hit tiny masses driving all things down toward earth by virtue of earth shielding us from the agents flying in from the opposite side of earth. This explains why in space we are weightless, the agents of gravity pommel us from all side equally, thus no directional impetus. It also describes the ability for atoms to exist: the electrons are constantly forced toward the oppositely charged nucleus until equilibrium is reached.
Amazing. The link between time and gravity is mind-bending.
And light as a mediator of sorts?
Well, gravity itself IS a manifestation of space-time so you'd expect they would be linked somehow. At least until someone comes up with a better theory.
@@CapaNoisyCapa Could it be another field or particle? like the Higgs boson and field? and if that would be the case, it should have 0 mass as it is going at the speed of light, it makes sense that it does not go faster than the speed of light (as spacetime does) because gravity is distorting spacetime but is not part of it, so gravity does not interact with the Higgs field, unless gravity is something entirely different. I'm Not a scientist nor physicist, but gravity seems amazing.
I have this strange sensation that knowing about gravity will lead us to new and improved theories and thus, new technology, just a feeling.
That guy ... what's his name? Einstein or something, seems to pop up everywhere. Seems to have been correct about a lot of things too. 😂. Excellent video and thanks for the explanation (and comment about the error) of why light was delayed.
Ok, Sabine. 😜
@@nmccw3245 You nailed it!! 👍 Happy holidays.
Einstein cheats. Einstein tricks the Universe into bending and contorting itself in order to ensure his theories are always correct.
So happy I found this channel. I don't know why I never did before. I was a big fan of the collider there. 😪 Anyway, I'm here now! 😉 Hey! If you were close to a grav-wave inducing event, could your body feel it? Or would your body stretch along with the fabric of space-time? Just curious! 😎🤘☮️
Professor Don, it may be a silly question but is there a difference between gravitational waves and gravity that isn't waving?
Yes. Waves travel outward, away from gravity’s source. Gravity remains constant but changes an object with mass’s speed. Plus, the further away from anything with mass, gravity becomes weaker. The waves come from a sudden change of mass at its center traveling outward. Gravity alone, isn’t moving.
I've been wondering, if gravitational waves are distorting time and space, are they 4-dimensional? If so, they should make trailing waves just like when you throw a stone into a pond. Has this been observed?
Btw, great video again.
This was very informative and clearly presented. So gravity travels at the speed of light.
But have you ever pondered the speed of LINT?!
th-cam.com/video/9c04HpVOe5M/w-d-xo.html
3 space and 1 time, yes. 4D of space... idk, interesting thought.
Gravitational waves are plane waves (similar to how Electromagnetic waves are plane waves).
@@juliavixen176 So, are EM waves 2D waves, and thus gravitational waves are 3D waves?
Just a question here about "theories" vs. "laws." You refer to Newton's "Theory of Gravity," but as I understand it, a theory is an explanation while a law is basically just a description with no explanatory power. Did Newton ever really come up with a "Theory" of Gravity? It seems like he formulated the Law of Gravity...the mathematical equations that *describe* the way gravity always seems to work, but as far as I know he didn't even TRY to *explain* why it works the way it does. I've never read Newton, so maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that an actual Theory of Gravity was...still up in the air. (See what I did there?)
You underestimate Newtown and his gravity theory which paved the way for Einstein
There is not 'law' of gravity. It is still in a theoretical state. Never scientifically proven. Pseudoscience is not science. It is make believe. Like astrophysics.
Great question! It's still just a theory.
I can’t get my head around how gravity actually acts on, say, an orbiting planet.
Assume a planet orbiting a star a light hour out:does the gravitic attraction act directly towards the star or towards the position it was an hour ago, giving a “retrograde” component in the force?
I’m probably all jumbled up in my thinking but can’t help wondering if the delay in attractive force due to the speed of gravitation waves plays an odd part somewhere.
@@Wol747 , none of it makes sense. None of it has ever been proven. No one has ever been to "outerspace", a sky vacuum. Defies our natural laws. Or we would all be dead.
As always, your instructional videos are excellent! Thank you, Dr. Don!
Another question I hadn't thought to ask was clearly explained, understandable. The method of science and its results are satisfying.
As someone once told, it's not the speed of light than is the maximum speed... it's speed of causality :) Gravitation waves simply move with the max alloted speed of causuality allowed... The more interesting but philosophical question is why constants take values they take and not more or less... I'd also be quite interested to see what you think the link between quantum entanglement and gravity is and could it be than gravity is a consequence of quantum entanglement?
The anthropic principle isn't all that appealing but it does give a kind of answer: if the constants weren't what they are, the universe would be very different, or perhaps no longer here... so we wouldn't be here. That's a particularly unsatisfying answer if we only have the one universe to play with - but if our universe is one of many (I mean universes squeezing out into other dimensions here there and everywhere, not the Many Histories QT ones where Captain Kirk is evil and Mr Spock has got in touch with his feminine side), it's perhaps a /bit/ more palatable... Even then though... we want a specific reason, really - coming out of the theories. Maybe science will work it out one day - it's worked out a hell of a lot of other stuff that we previously had to relegate to hypothetical friends in the sky.
4:47 LIGO is short for Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. While Laser is short for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation😂
Are gravity waves as affected by crossing large gravitational wells as light is? Such as being able to be gravitationally lensed?
I think you mean "gravitational waves" (gravity waves are water waves), but yes, gravitational waves follow the geodesics of the gravitational field and so they are lensed just like light.
@@kylelochlann5053 Right, yes. Brainfart.
Incredibly interesting and not boring presentation!!! Thanks a lot! I am not a physicist, just likes it some 50 years ago ehwn I was a high school student. I could understand everything 100%. What a wonderful guy presented it! Subscribed. Liked.
Absolutely awesome, made the concept and explanation simple to understand. Subscribed!
I wish they would make a miniseries about Issac Newton. He's one of my hero's in the world of physics. In fact I admire Issac Newton more than I do Albert Einstein. I think when you compare advancements in physics vs the times in which they made their contributions, Issac Newton comes out on top. His work was revolutionary for the times in which he lived. Or better yet, a miniseries that spans the entire history of great scientists from Kepler all the thought to Steven Hawking. That would be a fascinating miniseries.
The only flow, in Newton's concept, is that he did not think at all about the possible changes that happens to the mass because of the moment of inertia.
Is that the same man who tried to burn down his mother's house? While she was in it!
You're right to feel this way about Newton. We have to judge someone's accomplishments in the context of what the world looked like before and after their insights. Newton took the scientific and mathematical world on a gigantic leap forward, explaining nearly all the known phenomenon of his day. In the process, he created calculus which is still the language of physics 400 years later. In contrast, Einstein took ideas that were already circulating and brought them to fruition. Mach had already came up with the insight of spacetime and Lorentz had already worked out the formulas. With regard to General Relativity, Riemann had worked out all the details of curved spaces and Weyl taught the mathematics to Einstein. Also, it appears that Hilbert may have beaten him to the theory by 5 days. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity_priority_dispute In any case, Einstein was not the lone genius that he has been portrayed to be. He also got many things wrong. His refusal to accept quantum mechanics for one and his lengthy and ultimately misguided search for a unified theory of GR and EM for another. By the end of his career, he was simultaneously viewed as a genius and a scientific anachronism.
I think I speak for the majority of physicists in saying that Newton was the greatest physicist (or maybe scientist) of all time.
@@jonathanjackson7047 Well Done....
Yes to the miniseries! Especially if they include his alchemy etc.
I gladly admit i understand about 5% of what Don is talking about, but i still find it so interesting and inspiring to listen to all the great wonders of the universe! By the age of 37 i guess my shipped has sailed for my dream on working with science, but i can at least keep beeing curious:)
You can apply the scientific method to anything if you try ;)
It's never too late! Aged 38, I read an undergraduate engineering degree at a traditional university and I'm starting a PhD next year. I'm also enormously dim. If you are in the UK, there is always the Open University.
So light produces a gravitational standing wave if there is enough energy? What is the high frequency for gravity in this case?
Thank you sir as always! So very informative and so very enjoyable!...Please continue sir!
When I was an undergrad I went to a public lecture by Ronald Drever speaking on detecting gravitational waves. This was in about 1985 or so. It was so extremely fascinating. It was sad that he died prior to the big LIGO detections and prior to the Nobel befor it was awarded.
Or in a way isn't it good?
We need people to continue science at every point, and there are always pioneers before hand, and plenty of people following along with it, spreads it and in the end leads to leaps in understanding/ confirming the leaps known for many many years mathematically.
Each step of the ladder is important
@sioxernikita Agree. And didn't Sir Isaac Newton once state that: " I succeeded because I stood on the shoulders of giants" ?
And this is how all progress is made.
With honesty and humility from great minds ...
@@franceshorton918 Wow, all I said was it's too bad Drever didn't get to experience the realisation of his dreams that he devoted his life to. Of course science is progressive and relies on those before, did I deny that?
I’m so glad you exist and make these videos. I’ve really enjoyed watching over the years
Clean Energy by Proven New Energy Technology Animation Video th-cam.com/video/wfGjGqMfKNs/w-d-xo.html
both light and gravity travel at the speed of causation. and the speed of causation is the limit for anything. so, maybe Issac was also kinda right?? if we interpret his "infinite" to mean "as fast a possible" or "as fast as it matters"...
Day by day i always feel like Einstein's the most genius man who ever graced this universe
well, Einstein is not the only person that contributes to General Relativity, there are many others like David Hilbert and Alexander Friedmann!
also, there are mathematical discoveries that together help us develops the beautiful mathematics of general relativity.
No, it's Newton...
No, it's Nikola Tesla.
@@Mysoi123 Lorentz too..
Einstein and Niels Bohr began disputing Quantum Theory at the prestigious 1927 Solvay Conference, attended by top physicists of the day. By most accounts of this public debate, Bohr was the victor.
Fascinating. Could you explain what in Einstein’s theory lead to expect that gravitational waves have the speed of light?
Thank you for the excellent videos!
Check this short video out. It might explain your question... th-cam.com/video/pwh4wvXWRuA/w-d-xo.html
Great video. Very clear and concise for us laymen who enjoy physics but don't have the deep knowledge.
If gravity isn't a classical force that is mediated by a particle or force carrier (spin, charge, mass, momentum) but is a distortion in space-time why would it then be subject to speed of light limit? If the actual expansion of the universe can exceed this limit why can't gravity?
Which prompts my mind to ask, "what is the speed of DARK?" Thanks for the video!
The same as light but with a nice ROAST and Chocolatey notes.
@@allwaizeright9705 Love a nice Light Roast. 🙂
It must be orders of magnitude faster than that of light. Evidence: if you slowly open a drawer you see the light enter but not the dark leave
Speed of dark: th-cam.com/video/JTvcpdfGUtQ/w-d-xo.html
@@pXnTilde That was cool. Thanks!
I have an author friend that I have been trying to convince to co-write a book with me called, "Gravity: Is It Worth the Weight?"
He is skeptical but I think it will pull in tons of readers.
I foresee a black hole in your book sales revenue.
@@cdprince768 Yes that is part of our problem. Book stores have voiced conCERNs about what would happen if they placed several copies in close proximity on one shelf.
Wish you all the luck and I hope they fly off the shelf at the speed of light.
A serious collision occurred 144 million years ago in the elliptical galaxy NGC 4993. Will anyone who witnessed the accident please contact your local police department. Thank you.
Had a great discussion about this 6 months ago. Arrived at the same conclusion. Thanks for sharing.
Enjoyed this! Definitely not a physicist but I felt like I could follow the explanation.
Great video as always!! Lots of fun, and easy to understand. thank you!
Thank you for videos. Just small note - locating source of gravitational waves is not precise, so even though we found gamma ray burst 2 seconds later after detection of grav. waves, there is still (a very low but still existing) chance, it was just a coincidence. Would be nice if we measure more of these events as it will add to certainty. Were there some similar detections later with same results? Thanks.
Now we need to establish if the speed of gravity changes in different mediums, like the speed of light does. Although gravity should be the change of space itself, and not within space. So perhaps it's always traveling at max speed? But I suppose that testing this will be extremely difficult xP