It got serious for me at stage 4. I get inertia, I get the whole 'ball in the middle of a sheet' example, and I get that time is a series of snap shots, but WHY any of that stuff happens is totally beyond me.
3:20 is my favorite part because I love how he lists off the numerous observations that validate the model. It's the observations that make this a physics theory instead of just mathematics.
Trying to explain relativity to me In 7 levels In 6 minute video At 5 in the morning In 4 walled room In 3 dimensional world On 2 dimensional screen And in 1 dimensional BRAIN NICE TRY👍
I've been studying this for years. This is by far one of the most accurate videos on the field. Level seven is the strict construction of the equations and their solution throughout classical differential geometry, tensor calculus, complex analysis, linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, partial differential equations and special functions among the classical fields. This is simply a compendium of what this is in its entirety. This is the field of Riemann Manifolds.
This is the kind of stuff that originally bothered me about science: that you have to keep coming back to a topic in order to learn the next stage as your level of understanding increased. Now, as a biology teacher, it is one of the things that makes science, and learning in general, fun. "Remember how you learned in middle school that plants make energy from sunlight? Well it's actually more complicated than that." "Remember how you learned in high school that plants make monosaccharides from sunlight? Well it's actually more complicated than that."
I take the view that this is because everything in science is an approximation. The approximations get more accurate, Newtonian gravity, general relativity, whatever quantum gravity might be, etc. but they never become statements about the state of being of nature. Only nature itself a knows how nature is. And science merely concerns what we can say about nature.
@@Cosmalano completely agree with your statement about us never knowing the absolute truth/ exact way something works. Personally, I would switch "nature" for "God" but to each their own.
@@tattwa1 Aw c'mon. God is just the standard thing we stuff in all the gaps of our knowledge. Each time we learn something new, we yank the god out of that gap and stuff it into the next.
Words cannot express your talent and I'm so grateful. Thank you for all these insights and inspiration. It took me ~1000 hours to produce 17 hours of video explaining Special Relativity in just 3 levels of complexity …
I came here to say exactly that... #copypaste "One of the largest known supermassive black holes, M87* is located at the center of the gargantuan elliptical galaxy Messier 87, or M87, 53 million light-years (318 quintillion miles) away." Sagitarrius A* is the one in the middle of the Milky Way, it is about 20,000 light years away, but obscured by all the dust in between.
Not neccesarily. Anyone with a class in GR can understand most of it. PhD in Theoretical Physics is much more sophisticated it develops on already developed GR and Quantum fields theory for example trying to develop parts of string theory.
YEP. Came looking for this comment. (Tho MinutePhysics still does a great job!) "Further reading": M87* is the SMBH at the middle of the Virgo A galaxy (a.k.a. M87). Our own SMBH in the Milky Way is Sagittarius A*. And the "star" part is important to the name - one does not simply leave it off.
Just ignore the word salad and listen to the stuff he says after that, it makes more sense; I feel he shouldn't have led with the proper scientific name
Here I am finishing my Master Thesis on a Loop Quantum Gravity topic and trying to write a nice overview of what have brought us this far. This video is so perfect now I want to put the link to it in my thesis instead of writing chapter 1. Great work.
It’s been two years since this comment, but I’m curious to hear more from someone who has worked under a master’s program. To be frank, I’m a mathematician so sometimes I jump to the mathematical properties of these theories rather then the physical. Having glossed over a few papers on LQG, my sense is that the quantization of space challenges the Reimannian geometry of GR in a controversial way? At the end of the day, these theories come down to their predictive qualities (last I heard there were promising but inconclusive findings from gamma-ray bursts)… what’s the story on LQG today? Is it still alive and kicking?
Basic tenets of natural philosophy are; 1. Law of entropy is fundamental law and it is unification of gravotational force, electric force, black-body radiation law, divergence law, law of motion, structure of fundamental elements. 2. General theory of relativity and Quantum mechanics are description of phenomenon without entropy or no loss or perpetual motion. They are same and there is no need of reconcilation of these theories. 3. Phenomenon are in classical domain, general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are ideal case and thus not observable. Theory of relativity needs many assumptions which are contradictory or unprovable thus false theory. 4. There are no two types of charge like two types of matter which arises when one solve Laplace's equation, field without source but that lacks time component. In nature only force without energy loss is magnetic force. There is electric force but it like thermodynamic pressure eventually die out. 5. Entropy is decaying of force or ceasing motion. Only way to counter entropy is cyclic or periodic motion that negate volume expansion and restore system but introduce temporal component, frequency. More the frequency more the entropy. 6. Without force there is no continue motion, mechanical force is due to heat and electric due to charge. Conservation of energy is not correct but equality of power as it is product of force applied and rate. Both force and rate can increase entropy but in cyclic only rate.
this video makes you feel like it is explaining something, that you are just not getting. It is not honest in this matter. You're not supposed to understand what a Riemannian manifold is by hearing the term, don't feel bad about it.
Ricci tensors, curvature scalars, antisymmetric tensor fields, Grassmann variables, Christoffel coefficients, diffeomorphism invariance, isotropic pressure in vacuum states with cosmological energy densities, nonlinearity distinguishment from e.g. Schrodinger's equation and Levi-Civita symbols.
@@TheShamansQuestion He wants to understand the things which he doesn't understand while neglecting the others. You want to understand the things you already understand but in as much more depth as possible while neglecting others..
@@srajanverma9064 very nice 👌🏻 you're right my want is there but I'd de-emphasise "want" and say it's more once I get knowledge, I can understand it deeply (and because I want to/go for depth), plus a sceptical, Socratic element of "I know that I know nothing" (but that is probably more relevant to "understanding" in this case, so might be wrong on that)
This was SOOOOOO good! Hearing all the explanation after one another really helped me to understand it! It's also kind of funny when you realise that level 1-6 is only the first half of the video XD.
It takes at least a few hours to derive even the simplest solution (Schwarzschild solution) to the EFE by hand. A set of 10 highly coupled nonlinear differential equations makes even the most brilliant mathematicians cringe.
I once had a professor that said "Everyone should curl up with a warm drink and spend an evening deriving the Einstein Tensor for the FLRW metric by hand at some point in their life". Needless to say, I haven't done that yet.
When you're one of the most successful theories in the history of physics, but people only mention you to explain how you can't answer questions you weren't made to answer. It baffles me that educators always do that when they talk about GR (but not as much with Quantum Mechanics). 99.99% of the people don't know these theories when they do apply. Why are we so fixed on the cases they don't apply? Edit: I'm not saying to ignore the gap in our therories or that it is not important or interesting. I just meant to say that when first learning about relativity it's no use focusing TOO much of your attention there from the beggining. It's a great goal to work towards solving those mysteries. But realistically, you can't do much before you learn GR properly. Be informed about it and use it as a motivation to learn GR. You'll get there when you get there. And if you're already there, you're awsome! ;D
@@ngiorgos When I hear that quantum mechanics and GR still need more work to make the 2 compatible, I feel excited. It tells me that there is more to discover. It helps teach that science is in fluctuation. It changes and improves. There are questions left to solve and WE could be the ones to solve it.
@@ngiorgos every scientific theory from over 200ish years ago has been proven wrong one by one, our current theories are more right in more circumstances, but they're still wrong. In another 200 years we'll look back on some of this stuff the way we do phlogiston or the luminous aether. General relativity is the best tool we have to understand spacetime, but it'll be replaced eventually by something even more accurate!!
I went into this video thinking, oh, that's cool, he'll explain it in incrementally more complicated ways so I'll be able to understand it by the end! Me at difficulty 2: huh
I had a discussion with a friend who's into conspiracy stuff, for shits and giggles mostly mind you, about how in a very special way, yes, you can say that the earth is flat. Twas a fun talk haha
3:44 That is NOT "the black hole at the center of the Milky Way" (Sagittarius A*) that is the black hole at the center of galaxy M87. They did consider imaging Sagittarius A*, but that was ultimately not their target. Edit: It turns out I do not know how to spell "Sagittarius."
@@GrayLynch No, that is a correction to a mistake they made in the video. In no way did I suggest that the video wasn't worth watching or is otherwise "ruined" as a result of their mistake; but if it were me and I made a mistake in a science education video, I would hope I would be corrected.
@@ngiorgos I think Vsauce's "Which way is down" video does a pretty good job. It gets more obtuse near the end and doesn't even get as high-level as this, but I like it a lot.
@@TheBlueWizzrobe Yes, I loved that! And Veritasium's video "why gravity is not a force" is also an excellent presentation. But the best they can do is give an overview of the theory and some intuitive explanations. The maths are still untouchable, unfortunately.
Just finished taking general relativity this quarter that passed, and I can honestly say that this is the hardest topic I've seen so far in my physics career, but also the most enjoyable.
So good. I've tried so many times to explain the way the ground pushes you away from a straight line and I've never once passed understanding across. Now I can link to this video with the clear diagram, and maybe in future, I'll succeed in showing the beauty of this idea to others.
Cool concept for a video. I especially enjoyed the "level 1 again" explanation of people's personal experience of gravity on earth in terms of your GR explanation.
1:20 that's a nice globe you got there. Me, an intellectual: actually, it's a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with Lorentzian signature,... But thank you! 😊
Just picture space-time as water flowing towards a drain that is moving on the seabed below. Now picture the water as rainbow colors that never mix together (stripes maybe) as they flow towards the drain. Now picture the drain as a sphere. The 2D nature of its opening is the diameter and the edge is the equator. Now put a leaf anywhere in or on the water, near or far. What happens to the leaf in the different places you put it? That is space-time... with one exception... A drain sends the water somewhere else whereas space-time is fixed in place so it doesn't go anywhere. Space-time is literally pulled inward (or rather pinched) by the mass of a planet, star or blackhole as they move through it and it unpinches the farther away it gets from point A while heading to point B. Like walking on a memory foam mattress with stuff all over it. Your feet are the mass and the mattress is space-time and the stuff falls towards your feet depending on where you are on the bed.
Great video. Your videos got me interested in general relativity six years ago, and to this day I’m still trying to become a mathematical physicist so I can study quantum gravity. ❤️
Thanks for summing all that up in a short video. I've seen a lot of videos explaining GR/SR on different "levels" and this gives me a nice feel on where I stand in my understanding of the subject.
@Swastik Majumder nice! I also want to get into an IISER. I am going to give the entrance exam this year (again, as I didn't clear it last year), and I hope to get into an IISER!
@@pulkitmohta8964 I'm preparing for JEE Last year I qualified both exams but didn't took admission as I didn't got rank under 2000 I didn't took any formal coaching last time so I dropped and preparing
@0:44 gravity is curved spacetime (not caused by it). Gravity and Spacetime Curvature are basically the same and seem to be used interchangeably. The real cause of the spacetime curvature (aka gravity) is Mass/Energy localized in a specific place and time.
I have been subscribed to this channel for quite some time now, I initially got interested because of my great physics teacher in high school. Back then I did not understand most of the videos at a deeper level (so the primary target audience). After 3 1/2 years of studying physics, I have my GR exam on monday and can happily say: I knew everything in this video! And it makes me glad to finally be at a point where I do understand this stuff at a deeper level. It took quite some time, but I got there. Of course I am still just beginning to be a physicist and there is MUCH I don't know yet and MUCH and I don't know that I don't know yet. And I am excited and looking forward to finding it out!
@@aemmelpear5788 Thanks. I'll write a program that simulates a non-linear mechanical system and analyse it's behaviour. What system in precise isn't clear yet. Writing simulations in non-linear physics is pretty much the profession I want to finde myself in some day.
As a physics major heading into my sophomore year, the feeling I get watching this video is roughly akin to the feeling I get at the top of the first hill on a roller coaster as I stare down the straight-vertical track…
Ricci tensors, curvature scalars, antisymmetric tensor fields, Grassmann variables, Christoffel coefficients, diffeomorphism invariance, isotropic pressure in vacuum states with cosmological energy densities, pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, nonlinearity distinguishment from e.g. Schrodinger's equation and Levi-Civita symbols.
This is to show difference between classical relativity having galilean transformation and theory of relativity or relativity having lorentz transformation. The wave equation is given by, c² d²/dr² = d²/dt², where c is speed of wave. Its possible solution is sinusoidal function, omitting amplitude and type of function here stating its phase function □ which determine value of wave function at given time and distance coordintaes is, □ = kr - wt Frame S is at rest and S' moving with speed v relative to S. Then solution of wave equation having phase as, □ = kr' - wt', for S'. As phase is constant for wave moving in frame, then for r'1, t'1 and r'2, t'2 phase difference is, □2-□1 = k(r'2-r'1) - w(t'2-t'1) = k◇r' - w◇t'=0 => ◇r'/◇t' = w/k = c' For wave in S' observed by S according to classical relativity, k◇r - w◇t = k(◇r' + v◇t') - k(c' + v)◇t' = 0, where w = kc' and r = r' + vt', t = t' So, ◇r/◇t = ◇r'/◇t' = w/k = c' = c Thus speed of wave in S' observed by S' and S is same according to galilean transformation. Now if phase of wave from moving source S' emitted wave and observed in S is given by, □ = kr - kct = kr - k(c' + v)t, where c = c' + v, according to galilean transformation and c' is speed of wave in S' or with respect to source and c is speed of wave in S or to observer at rest. Thus, w = w' + kv, where w' is frequency of wave emitted from source and w is frequency of wave observed by observer, this is doppler effect. So classical relativity inherently have doppler effect. Now according to theory of relativity having lorentz transformation, phase difference of wave in S' observed by S' is given by, □2 - □1 = k◇r' - w◇t' = 0 ==> ◇r'/◇t' = w/k = c' Phase difference of wave in S' observed by S is given by, k◇r - w◇t = k(◇r' + v◇t') - kc'(◇t' + v◇r'/c²) This shows that speed of wave is not same for both observers and in case of light it is, c = c' - v. For phase difference of wave emitting from moving source S' and observed in S at rest is, k◇r - kc'◇t ==> c = c' Thus wavefront of wave in relative measurement is spherical in classical relativity and elliptical as per theory of relativity. But wavefront of wave for moving source is spherical in theory of relativity and elliptical in classical relativity. Important thing is that due to spherical wavefront inspite of moving source, relative speed doesnt remain constant and heavenly bodies seems receeding. While wave front is elliptical in classical relativity so, speed of source is accounted. Also this is the reason why circular orbit seems elliptical.
Cool Video It's pretty simple to illustrate that standing motionless on the surface of the earth, your "straightest line through space time" runs through the top of your head, out your feet and straight to the center of the core. The 'weight' you feel is your body being in constant deceleration from its fall being blocked by all the matter beneath your feet. Another interesting thing about general relativity; if you put a clock on the surface and one at the core, the clock at the core would run more slowly as it is at the deepest part of the gravity well. For a body in rotation, like the earth, this variance in clock time produces a core which tears free of the surrounding strata and spins ahead. We call it a 'super rotating core' and it's what produces our electromagnetic field. It's General Relativistic Acceleration in the spin direction.
I have been trying to understand it for a long time and this video put everything that I have found in a correct order and now I finally did understand it. AMAZING
You know what the insanely insane (and awesome) part of this video this? THERE'S MORE LEVELS! (For reference, I think I'm at 6.5, or at least between that and level 7. The idea of manifolds and tensors is something I have yet to understand, but I understood the rest of Level 7).
And this is why things get so specialized as you get higher in education. Monke brain no good at figuring everything out. Maybe one small thing, and have to spend a lifetime on it.
1. We have the o1 frame, with the observer standing in the center/origin of the train1 2. We have the o2 frame, with the observer standing in the center/origin of the train2 3. We have the o3 frame or rest frame, with the observer standing in the center/origin and where both o1 and o2 are moving in opposite directions with speed v 4. In each of the 3 frames, at t=0 , o1, o2 and o3 are crossing past each other 5. Train1 has front1 and tail1. Train2 has front2 and tail2 6. There are various points in the rest frame opposite front1, front2, tail1 and tail2 at t=0 7. Light from o1 and o2 will reach their respective front and tail at E2train1, E2train2, E3train1 and E3train2 8. The distances in the rest frame will be the same to E2train1 and E2train2 as will the distances in the rest frame to E3train1 and E3train2 9. The times in frame1 that E2train1 and E3train1 occur will be the same 10. The times in frame2 that E2train2 and E3train2 occur will be the same 11. The times in the rest frame that E2train1 and E2train2 occur will be the same 12. The times in the rest frame that E3train1 and E3train2 occur will be the same 13. Although there is a relative velocity between o1 and o2 as seen from o3 there are no differences in distance (8) or time (11, 12) to the events E2train1 and E2train2, E3train1 and E3train2 as seen from the rest frame 14. If m1 is the mass of train1 and m2 is the mass of train2 and are equal then m1=m2 15. The rest frame can be considered to be the same as a center-of-mass (COM) frame 16. If force F is applied to m1 in frame1 and force F is applied to m2 in frame2, the accelerations of m1 and m2 in the rest frame will be identical 17. In the rest frame, the clocks in frame1 and frame2 tick at the same rate. 18. Spacetime of E1 is ({d, +ve}, t) in frame1 and the spacetime of E2 is ({d, -ve}, t) in frame2. 19. Spacetime of E1 is ({d, +ve}, t) and the spacetime of E2 is ({d, -ve}, t), both in the rest frame 20. E2train1 and E3train1, E2train2 and E3train2 are examples of the paired events, E1 and E2, discussed above
5:00 I think unifying gravity and quantum mechanics would be easier if they would start with gauge theory gravity instead of GR. GTG is basically what Einstein tried to do first: model gravity as a gauge-invariant index of refraction in flat spacetime. Einstein went with curvature because Riemannian geometry was available at the time, whereas the math behind GTG wouldn't be developed until the 1990s. But I'm not aware of any theoretical or experimental evidence that favors GR.
This is amazing. I love seeing high level knowledge explained quick. I’ve had this idea for a while about predicting the future with all the variables of today. Ultimately it comes back the is anything actually random and to that quantum mechanics says yes
Yep. Our Sagittarius A* has similar apparent size (1500x smaller, 2000x closer), but M87* is easier to image, more active and the Milky Way is not photobombing it.
I listened to a Great Courses lesson back in the 90’s and they completely left out the spacetime concepts of the second half of the video but said that at the quantum level special relativity rules still applied. So much has changed since just the 90’s. (Hard to believe the course was recorded nearly 30 years ago)
idk what any of this fancy math stuff means so i'm just gonna leave the mixture of general relativity and quantum mechanics on "what in god's name do you mean they don't mix"
3:41, correction: the famous photo of a black hole was from the supermassive black hole in the center of galaxy Messier 87 in the Virgo cluster (the Milky Way is part of this cluster). The black hole in the center of the Milky Way is not directly observable, and about a 1000x smaller than the one photographed in M87. Great minute summary of general relativity though!
Just a small correction, we have not imaged the black hole at the centre of our milky way, as wrongly said here at 3:41 . The black hole imaged was M87, while the black hole at the centre of our milky way, is Sagittarius A*. And we are not really sure if it really is a black hole due to some of its weird properties, (according to recent research)
I love your videos! Please communicate to nebula creators that we NEED to be able to play videos at 2+x speed. I would spend so much more time there if I wasn't able to watch twice as much here in the same time.
To quote Enrico Fermi: "Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."
Man, if that quote doesn't describe my 400 level physics classes so well.
This captures my feeling precisely.
That's pretty much all learning though, just increasing the level you're confused at until you're the most confused one in the world
@@portobellomushroom5764 At that point, you're so confused that the only way for you to be not confused is to make new discoveries in your field.
@@YoshisaurUnderscore I think you mean the only way to be confused in new and interesting ways is to make new discoveries in your field.
You know it's going to get serious when you're on 7 and the video is only half over
Though, most of the latter part is sponsor fluffing these days anyways, so, it's not really that more serious.
Or... there are a lot of ads.
not to mention he was like "ima speak a little slower now"
It got serious for me at stage 4. I get inertia, I get the whole 'ball in the middle of a sheet' example, and I get that time is a series of snap shots, but WHY any of that stuff happens is totally beyond me.
Hunter Humphrey
Serious = good in this case.
"general relativity is a physics theory created by Albert Einstein"
Me: hold on smart guy, take it easy.
I must agree.
Gui
Let's start simpler...
a squared plus b squared equals c-squared.
@@ivoryas1696 woah there, shapes? i thought this was physics
@@fynexjeralt4186
Lmao, that's low-key how I felt entering Pre-calc 😂🤔😐
Hahahahahahahahahahaha 😂
3:20 is my favorite part because I love how he lists off the numerous observations that validate the model. It's the observations that make this a physics theory instead of just mathematics.
2:22 "Oh that isn't too bad"
2:24 "Oh it's actually 10 equations, ok"
2:25 "Oh god oh f*ck"
Even the 2:25 is still the shortened form...
hahaha man best comment ever
10 non-linear partial differential equations, I mean, good luck man
0:06 : What you study in class
1:53 : What you get for homework
4:30 : The exam
I can certify your comment. Its accurate
"You went over it briefly 3 years ago, so now in this class we only review it"
This is, indeed, correct.
This comment has to be pinned 😂
Its in the small text on the side that they never tell you to read or acknowledge at all in my experience
Thanks for recommending Vitamania Henry!
Sup my brotha 😂
BRO I LOVE YOU TWO GUYS
The check mark looks so suspicious I was about to report this account
Hey Derek, would you like to make a video explaining the differences between making curiositystream, TH-cam originals and casual veritasium videos
I was here
7 levels, in 6 minutes. Less than a minute per level. Truly living up to the name “minutephysics”
That's cool but also level 7 was about half of the video (2:58)
jan Melantu
"It's what I do."
Trying to explain relativity to me
In 7 levels
In 6 minute video
At 5 in the morning
In 4 walled room
In 3 dimensional world
On 2 dimensional screen
And in 1 dimensional BRAIN
NICE TRY👍
*In 4 dimensional world
@@TheBlueWizzrobe 3d +1 world
With 0% knowledge of nothing
@@nothing9220 no knowledge of nothing = knowledge of everything = infinity
sounds great!
p
I've been studying this for years. This is by far one of the most accurate videos on the field. Level seven is the strict construction of the equations and their solution throughout classical differential geometry, tensor calculus, complex analysis, linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, partial differential equations and special functions among the classical fields.
This is simply a compendium of what this is in its entirety. This is the field of Riemann Manifolds.
This is the kind of stuff that originally bothered me about science: that you have to keep coming back to a topic in order to learn the next stage as your level of understanding increased. Now, as a biology teacher, it is one of the things that makes science, and learning in general, fun. "Remember how you learned in middle school that plants make energy from sunlight? Well it's actually more complicated than that." "Remember how you learned in high school that plants make monosaccharides from sunlight? Well it's actually more complicated than that."
I take the view that this is because everything in science is an approximation. The approximations get more accurate, Newtonian gravity, general relativity, whatever quantum gravity might be, etc. but they never become statements about the state of being of nature. Only nature itself a knows how nature is. And science merely concerns what we can say about nature.
@@Cosmalano completely agree with your statement about us never knowing the absolute truth/ exact way something works. Personally, I would switch "nature" for "God" but to each their own.
@@adnanchinisi7871 God? lol
@@tattwa1 Aw c'mon. God is just the standard thing we stuff in all the gaps of our knowledge. Each time we learn something new, we yank the god out of that gap and stuff it into the next.
@@Cosmalano This is also one of the core tenets of Kants philosophy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism
my two brain cells have been stuck on level 2 since past 5 years
Lol You'll get it.
@@anoushka6439 Oh, lah-di-dah, look at you with your extra smart brain cell that can do twice the work of normal brain cells.
man! you got the same image as mine!
yes
i am a kid
My brain cell went "kablooy" 🤯
glad rest of them made it through
The algorithm has not been kind to your channel, this is the first of your videos that has popped up for me in probably a year.
@Pinco Palla yep that explains many things
Understanding you tube algorithms in 7 steps....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NO CHANCE
@@leeroy265 TRENDING
Then subscribe, and get all the notifications. Win-win, for you and henry.
Words cannot express your talent and I'm so grateful. Thank you for all these insights and inspiration. It took me ~1000 hours to produce 17 hours of video explaining Special Relativity in just 3 levels of complexity …
It is so confusing that me, my future and past self gathered together yet couldn't understand anything
🤣😂same 😅
The image of the black hole was not from the center of the Milky Way but rather from data collected observing the galaxy M87.
I came here to say this.
I came here to say exactly that... #copypaste
"One of the largest known supermassive black holes, M87* is located at the center of the gargantuan elliptical galaxy Messier 87, or M87, 53 million light-years (318 quintillion miles) away."
Sagitarrius A* is the one in the middle of the Milky Way, it is about 20,000 light years away, but obscured by all the dust in between.
Also was going to say this. Worth nothing that GR has been tested by other groups using the orbits of stars around Sagittarius A*
He corrected that in the video. 3:42
I made the same mistake myself when mentioning the 2020 nobel prize in physics and the 2019 photographed black hole
The time I spent watching pbs spacetime did not goes to waste. I manage to nod at the explanation up to level 3. 🎉🎉🎉
I felt that.
@Charles Clarke bruh that's literally just a full course on GR
@Charles Clarke actually I do know about the ScienceClic YT channel, and yeah it's great! Just the perfect level for me
Omg I love spacetime! I didn’t realize it was so popular
I understand Level 6.5 stuff.
But wait...THERE'S MORE!
That's why I love physics!
Level 14 of General Relativity: Obtaining a PhD in Theoretical Physics
Not neccesarily. Anyone with a class in GR can understand most of it. PhD in Theoretical Physics is much more sophisticated it develops on already developed GR and Quantum fields theory for example trying to develop parts of string theory.
I have a theoretical degree in physics
@@qazwerty41339 I have a physics in theoretical degree.
Nicee
@@denverbeek I have theoretical in degree physics
Danke!
3:42 That's not the black hole at the centre of the Milkyway. It literally says M87 on the picture!
YEP. Came looking for this comment.
(Tho MinutePhysics still does a great job!)
"Further reading":
M87* is the SMBH at the middle of the Virgo A galaxy (a.k.a. M87). Our own SMBH in the Milky Way is Sagittarius A*. And the "star" part is important to the name - one does not simply leave it off.
@@Alpinwolf5 so does that mean you do agree with me
@@dreadnoughtus2598 yeah, totally! I only added more detail for other passing readers. :)
@@Alpinwolf5 thanks for your support in this matter. It is greatly appreciated.
@@connorgolsong290 which was.......?
Level -1: falling Apple + head = ouch.
Newton level: fallin apple + head = gravitational universal law
@@Epilogue_04 Oh, what's Steven hawking Level then?
I like this level. And I'm hungry.
Lol
Level -1.5
ground = good
Not ground = ouch
Level 3: Okay, kinda get the main idea
Level 4: ｗｈａｔ
Not liked because number 69 likes
really
@@user-rc8bb7yb1e dude you have a cool name
Just ignore the word salad and listen to the stuff he says after that, it makes more sense; I feel he shouldn't have led with the proper scientific name
@@dsdy1205 Ikr but now I can show off to everyone by knowledge of a pseudo-riemannian manifold is
Here I am finishing my Master Thesis on a Loop Quantum Gravity topic and trying to write a nice overview of what have brought us this far. This video is so perfect now I want to put the link to it in my thesis instead of writing chapter 1.
Great work.
Hey I have some doubts about lqg . Can I ask you ?
@@Rickrolledhey Sure :)
It’s been two years since this comment, but I’m curious to hear more from someone who has worked under a master’s program. To be frank, I’m a mathematician so sometimes I jump to the mathematical properties of these theories rather then the physical. Having glossed over a few papers on LQG, my sense is that the quantization of space challenges the Reimannian geometry of GR in a controversial way? At the end of the day, these theories come down to their predictive qualities (last I heard there were promising but inconclusive findings from gamma-ray bursts)… what’s the story on LQG today? Is it still alive and kicking?
I leave this comment because I wanna hear his response
Basic tenets of natural philosophy are;
1. Law of entropy is fundamental law and it is unification of gravotational force, electric force, black-body radiation law, divergence law, law of motion, structure of fundamental elements.
2. General theory of relativity and Quantum mechanics are description of phenomenon without entropy or no loss or perpetual motion. They are same and there is no need of reconcilation of these theories.
3. Phenomenon are in classical domain, general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are ideal case and thus not observable. Theory of relativity needs many assumptions which are contradictory or unprovable thus false theory.
4. There are no two types of charge like two types of matter which arises when one solve Laplace's equation, field without source but that lacks time component. In nature only force without energy loss is magnetic force. There is electric force but it like thermodynamic pressure eventually die out.
5. Entropy is decaying of force or ceasing motion. Only way to counter entropy is cyclic or periodic motion that negate volume expansion and restore system but introduce temporal component, frequency. More the frequency more the entropy.
6. Without force there is no continue motion, mechanical force is due to heat and electric due to charge. Conservation of energy is not correct but equality of power as it is product of force applied and rate. Both force and rate can increase entropy but in cyclic only rate.
This is a brilliant idea! To present such an advanced subject in different levels next to each other, it really makes it easier to follow
and here I am trying to pretend that I understand
I j ow you’re joking but understanding is the easy part. The mathematics behind it is the hard parts, but as with anything practice makes perfect.
You don't invent a theory, do you?
Fake it until you make it
And here i am, trying to pretend that i relate to you.
this video makes you feel like it is explaining something, that you are just not getting. It is not honest in this matter. You're not supposed to understand what a Riemannian manifold is by hearing the term, don't feel bad about it.
I'm level 7 for things that I know.
I'm level 0 for things that I understand.
Ricci tensors, curvature scalars, antisymmetric tensor fields, Grassmann variables, Christoffel coefficients, diffeomorphism invariance, isotropic pressure in vacuum states with cosmological energy densities, nonlinearity distinguishment from e.g. Schrodinger's equation and Levi-Civita symbols.
Is it weird that I'm the exact opposite: Level 0 for things that I know; Level 7 for things that I understand?
@@TheShamansQuestion He wants to understand the things which he doesn't understand while neglecting the others.
You want to understand the things you already understand but in as much more depth as possible while neglecting others..
@@srajanverma9064 very nice 👌🏻 you're right my want is there but I'd de-emphasise "want" and say it's more once I get knowledge, I can understand it deeply (and because I want to/go for depth), plus a sceptical, Socratic element of "I know that I know nothing" (but that is probably more relevant to "understanding" in this case, so might be wrong on that)
You just summed up physics
Okay, time to change my LinkedIn description to “Physicist specialized in General Relativity”
same, I changed it to, "having a theoretical degree in physics"
05:09 „It is very high-level stuff“
Our math teacher when creating the tests: „Haha what did you say? Pathetic.“
I like your quotation marks
@@wellshit9489 I'm Russian so it explains everything
@@deadoira I wasn't being sarcastic dw, we have them in Iceland where I live too
@@wellshit9489 I know, just decided to explain :)
This was SOOOOOO good!
Hearing all the explanation after one another really helped me to understand it!
It's also kind of funny when you realise that level 1-6 is only the first half of the video XD.
Having solved the Einstein Field Equations for a physics final in college, fuck. That is all.
what topics do you go over before learning about Einstein's field equations?
@@abelnolan9378 differential geometry and differential equations, I believe
@@abelnolan9378 differential geometry, you will need tensors too, and a bit of classical mechanics and differential equations
It takes at least a few hours to derive even the simplest solution (Schwarzschild solution) to the EFE by hand. A set of 10 highly coupled nonlinear differential equations makes even the most brilliant mathematicians cringe.
I once had a professor that said "Everyone should curl up with a warm drink and spend an evening deriving the Einstein Tensor for the FLRW metric by hand at some point in their life". Needless to say, I haven't done that yet.
3:42 The image is of the black hole at the centre of M87, not the Milky Way, hence the picture being labelled M87* instead of Sagittarius A*
I think they tried imaging it too but there's a bunch of junk in the way and they're about the same angular size so yea.
Came to the comments looking for this, glad I'm not the only one who noticed that it's M87 and not Sagittarius A star
We did manage to image that one too eventually.
I am very glad he mentioned that GR is incomplete
I guess that should still not be the main take away from the video.
When you're one of the most successful theories in the history of physics, but people only mention you to explain how you can't answer questions you weren't made to answer.
It baffles me that educators always do that when they talk about GR (but not as much with Quantum Mechanics). 99.99% of the people don't know these theories when they do apply. Why are we so fixed on the cases they don't apply?
Edit: I'm not saying to ignore the gap in our therories or that it is not important or interesting. I just meant to say that when first learning about relativity it's no use focusing TOO much of your attention there from the beggining.
It's a great goal to work towards solving those mysteries. But realistically, you can't do much before you learn GR properly. Be informed about it and use it as a motivation to learn GR. You'll get there when you get there. And if you're already there, you're awsome! ;D
@@ngiorgos When I hear that quantum mechanics and GR still need more work to make the 2 compatible, I feel excited. It tells me that there is more to discover. It helps teach that science is in fluctuation. It changes and improves. There are questions left to solve and WE could be the ones to solve it.
@@ngiorgos every scientific theory from over 200ish years ago has been proven wrong one by one, our current theories are more right in more circumstances, but they're still wrong. In another 200 years we'll look back on some of this stuff the way we do phlogiston or the luminous aether. General relativity is the best tool we have to understand spacetime, but it'll be replaced eventually by something even more accurate!!
anyone else think this was Music is Win?
I like that you include geodesics, a major step in my learning.
I went into this video thinking, oh, that's cool, he'll explain it in incrementally more complicated ways so I'll be able to understand it by the end!
Me at difficulty 2: huh
This is the ultimate video to confuse flat-earthers even more :-D
and round-earthers too
I had a discussion with a friend who's into conspiracy stuff, for shits and giggles mostly mind you, about how in a very special way, yes, you can say that the earth is flat.
Twas a fun talk haha
No. Flat earthers are immune to facts.
You thought the *Earth* is flat?! Well guess what, even space and time aren't flat!
still stomping on those ants? lol
3:44 That is NOT "the black hole at the center of the Milky Way" (Sagittarius A*) that is the black hole at the center of galaxy M87. They did consider imaging Sagittarius A*, but that was ultimately not their target. Edit: It turns out I do not know how to spell "Sagittarius."
That’s what you got out of this?
@@GrayLynch No, that is a correction to a mistake they made in the video. In no way did I suggest that the video wasn't worth watching or is otherwise "ruined" as a result of their mistake; but if it were me and I made a mistake in a science education video, I would hope I would be corrected.
I immediately noticed that error as well.
Yeah but fan fuct: we do orbit the M87 black hole
@@alwaysdisputin9930 have you got a source on that?
the funny thing is, he's only explaining it for those who already know.
I wish it was possible to explain it for the ones who didn't know. I wish that every day
Skatheo
Well beyond around level 4, yeah, but it's seems pretty okay otherwise.
@@ngiorgos I think Vsauce's "Which way is down" video does a pretty good job. It gets more obtuse near the end and doesn't even get as high-level as this, but I like it a lot.
@@TheBlueWizzrobe Yes, I loved that! And Veritasium's video "why gravity is not a force" is also an excellent presentation.
But the best they can do is give an overview of the theory and some intuitive explanations. The maths are still untouchable, unfortunately.
I got to around level 5, then level 6 I only knew some of it.
Just finished taking general relativity this quarter that passed, and I can honestly say that this is the hardest topic I've seen so far in my physics career, but also the most enjoyable.
Thank you so much for all your work. I have used many of your physics videos for my classes. Little kids especially get a big kick out of them!
Remember when math and physics had numbers?
.... yeah me neither
indices !
I'm firmly convinced taking a maths/physics course is about the most roundabout way of learning the greek alphabet.
I think I saw an 8 somewhere in the video, but it might have been an illusion
@@FranciT98 Hey, you do learn it pretty quickly.
Non-mathematicians: wait, it's not about the numbers?
Me: never has been (points gun)
👀
👀
👀
👀
👀
👀
So good. I've tried so many times to explain the way the ground pushes you away from a straight line and I've never once passed understanding across. Now I can link to this video with the clear diagram, and maybe in future, I'll succeed in showing the beauty of this idea to others.
Cool concept for a video. I especially enjoyed the "level 1 again" explanation of people's personal experience of gravity on earth in terms of your GR explanation.
I love how equivalence principle is added in the subtitles.
1:20 that's a nice globe you got there.
Me, an intellectual: actually, it's a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with Lorentzian signature,... But thank you! 😊
..out of all of them......this made me laugh the most. Well done 😂
Nondegenerate symmetric metric tensor too. Establish the linear connection/Levi-Civita connection with use of Weyl spinors (helicity operators).
Dave P
_IQ +10_
The video hasn’t started yet and I’m already confused.
That's why there's this video! th-cam.com/video/wrwgIjBUYVc/w-d-xo.html
Just picture space-time as water flowing towards a drain that is moving on the seabed below.
Now picture the water as rainbow colors that never mix together (stripes maybe) as they flow towards the drain.
Now picture the drain as a sphere. The 2D nature of its opening is the diameter and the edge is the equator.
Now put a leaf anywhere in or on the water, near or far. What happens to the leaf in the different places you put it?
That is space-time... with one exception...
A drain sends the water somewhere else whereas space-time is fixed in place so it doesn't go anywhere. Space-time is literally pulled inward (or rather pinched) by the mass of a planet, star or blackhole as they move through it and it unpinches the farther away it gets from point A while heading to point B.
Like walking on a memory foam mattress with stuff all over it. Your feet are the mass and the mattress is space-time and the stuff falls towards your feet depending on where you are on the bed.
Great video. Your videos got me interested in general relativity six years ago, and to this day I’m still trying to become a mathematical physicist so I can study quantum gravity. ❤️
This is actually the best summary video I've ever seen on physics.
I've been a Nebula subscriber for at least a year and I've never seen Minutephysics mentioned on the site under you said to go looking for it.
Wow that was very quick but so educational! Thanks so much!
Thanks for summing all that up in a short video. I've seen a lot of videos explaining GR/SR on different "levels" and this gives me a nice feel on where I stand in my understanding of the subject.
"very high level stuff" - like nobody has figured out how to do it yet
Nobody literally nobody:
1st year Physics Undergraduates:I'm gonna unite GR&QM
I'm also a first year physics UG currently at hansraj college. Delhi university
Which college you are from
@Swastik Majumder nice! I also want to get into an IISER. I am going to give the entrance exam this year (again, as I didn't clear it last year), and I hope to get into an IISER!
@@yashkrishnatery9082 what are you studying there?
@@pulkitmohta8964 I'm preparing for JEE
Last year I qualified both exams but didn't took admission as I didn't got rank under 2000
I didn't took any formal coaching last time so I dropped and preparing
@@pulkitmohta8964 at hansraj I'm studying nothing. I'm just focusing on JEE. I just took admission there as I was getting in almost all DU colleges
@0:44 gravity is curved spacetime (not caused by it). Gravity and Spacetime Curvature are basically the same and seem to be used interchangeably. The real cause of the spacetime curvature (aka gravity) is Mass/Energy localized in a specific place and time.
Today we have a Rover landing and minute physics uploaded, blessed day
Truely.
It's not a question of "when? " my dear Reggie, but "where?"
It's the same thing with the concept of spacetime
No no both when n where n how much
It’s about whenere/ wheren.
Metaphysics: it's not a question of "what?" my dear Reggie, but "why?"
I have been subscribed to this channel for quite some time now, I initially got interested because of my great physics teacher in high school. Back then I did not understand most of the videos at a deeper level (so the primary target audience).
After 3 1/2 years of studying physics, I have my GR exam on monday and can happily say: I knew everything in this video! And it makes me glad to finally be at a point where I do understand this stuff at a deeper level. It took quite some time, but I got there.
Of course I am still just beginning to be a physicist and there is MUCH I don't know yet and MUCH and I don't know that I don't know yet. And I am excited and looking forward to finding it out!
Keep it up and thanks for your service to science :D
Same story here.
Such Videos brought me to physics. According to plan, I'll have my Bachelor in half a year.
@@fischmann1746 Then I wish you best of luck for your thesis! Do you already know in what area you will write it?
@@aemmelpear5788
Thanks.
I'll write a program that simulates a non-linear mechanical system and analyse it's behaviour. What system in precise isn't clear yet.
Writing simulations in non-linear physics is pretty much the profession I want to finde myself in some day.
@@fischmann1746 Sounds great! Computational Physics is also one of my favorite areas!
4:05 I finally understand how gravity works on our planet. Omg. That was the best explanation I’ve ever seen.
This the BEST video I've watched about General Relativity!!
This video: There are 7 levels of understanding gravity.
Me: I can make it to level three, take it or leave it.
DW thats pretty good
i'm gonna start calling the 90s the "nowdays"
I don't get it.
@@kennarajora6532 .
@@kennarajora6532 check the graph at 4:46
@@metametodo oh alright, thanks.
You got a too short of a time scale if you don't think of it as nowadays.
What is General Relativity?
Level 0 answer: "posts this youtube link"
This totally helped me understand. Great concept.
As a physics major heading into my sophomore year, the feeling I get watching this video is roughly akin to the feeling I get at the top of the first hill on a roller coaster as I stare down the straight-vertical track…
M87 is not at the center of the Milky Way! It’s in another galaxy about 50 million lightyears away.
Videos like this remind me of why I love physics.
Loved the level 0, something Einstein did 😂😂
Ricci tensors, curvature scalars, antisymmetric tensor fields, Grassmann variables, Christoffel coefficients, diffeomorphism invariance, isotropic pressure in vacuum states with cosmological energy densities, pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, nonlinearity distinguishment from e.g. Schrodinger's equation and Levi-Civita symbols.
Level 90:
Discovering a mathematical notation that encapsulates both General relativity and Quantum mechanics and winning the nobel prize
This is to show difference between classical relativity having galilean transformation and theory of relativity or relativity having lorentz transformation. The wave equation is given by,
c² d²/dr² = d²/dt², where c is speed of wave.
Its possible solution is sinusoidal function, omitting amplitude and type of function here stating its phase function □ which determine value of wave function at given time and distance coordintaes is, □ = kr - wt
Frame S is at rest and S' moving with speed v relative to S. Then solution of wave equation having phase as, □ = kr' - wt', for S'.
As phase is constant for wave moving in frame, then for r'1, t'1 and r'2, t'2 phase difference is,
□2-□1 = k(r'2-r'1) - w(t'2-t'1) = k◇r' - w◇t'=0 => ◇r'/◇t' = w/k = c'
For wave in S' observed by S according to classical relativity,
k◇r - w◇t = k(◇r' + v◇t') - k(c' + v)◇t' = 0,
where w = kc' and r = r' + vt', t = t'
So, ◇r/◇t = ◇r'/◇t' = w/k = c' = c
Thus speed of wave in S' observed by S' and S is same according to galilean transformation.
Now if phase of wave from moving source S' emitted wave and observed in S is given by,
□ = kr - kct = kr - k(c' + v)t,
where c = c' + v, according to galilean transformation and c' is speed of wave in S' or with respect to source and c is speed of wave in S or to observer at rest.
Thus, w = w' + kv, where w' is frequency of wave emitted from source and w is frequency of wave observed by observer, this is doppler effect. So classical relativity inherently have doppler effect.
Now according to theory of relativity having lorentz transformation, phase difference of wave in S' observed by S' is given by,
□2 - □1 = k◇r' - w◇t' = 0 ==> ◇r'/◇t' = w/k = c'
Phase difference of wave in S' observed by S is given by,
k◇r - w◇t = k(◇r' + v◇t') - kc'(◇t' + v◇r'/c²)
This shows that speed of wave is not same for both observers and in case of light it is, c = c' - v.
For phase difference of wave emitting from moving source S' and observed in S at rest is,
k◇r - kc'◇t ==> c = c'
Thus wavefront of wave in relative measurement is spherical in classical relativity and elliptical as per theory of relativity. But wavefront of wave for moving source is spherical in theory of relativity and elliptical in classical relativity. Important thing is that due to spherical wavefront inspite of moving source, relative speed doesnt remain constant and heavenly bodies seems receeding. While wave front is elliptical in classical relativity so, speed of source is accounted. Also this is the reason why circular orbit seems elliptical.
Finally, I knew taking a course in differential geometry would be useful someday.
I literally have to do a research paper on general relativity, thanks so much.
Cool Video
It's pretty simple to illustrate that standing motionless on the surface of the earth, your "straightest line through space time" runs through the top of your head, out your feet and straight to the center of the core. The 'weight' you feel is your body being in constant deceleration from its fall being blocked by all the matter beneath your feet.
Another interesting thing about general relativity; if you put a clock on the surface and one at the core, the clock at the core would run more slowly as it is at the deepest part of the gravity well.
For a body in rotation, like the earth, this variance in clock time produces a core which tears free of the surrounding strata and spins ahead. We call it a 'super rotating core' and it's what produces our electromagnetic field.
It's General Relativistic Acceleration in the spin direction.
I have just discovered your vids and they are unreal! The fast pace really suits hows racy my minds works its great 😁👍
I have been trying to understand it for a long time and this video put everything that I have found in a correct order and now I finally did understand it. AMAZING
Isn’t the black hole image from M87?
It is, I think he was just trying to represent black holes in general
@@eduardonegrao8364 He said "direct imagining of the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way".
Mass tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells mass how to move
John Wheeler said that.
I have heard this so much in my career and it excites me every single time.
Excuse me sir. I do believe it closer to something like:
"spacetime tells matter how to move matter tells spacetime how to curve"
Good day to you.
You know what the insanely insane (and awesome) part of this video this? THERE'S MORE LEVELS!
(For reference, I think I'm at 6.5, or at least between that and level 7. The idea of manifolds and tensors is something I have yet to understand, but I understood the rest of Level 7).
‘I’ll make you confused and make your brain melt at 7 levels in increasing levels’
Getting to level 5: "Oh Jesus".
"So if you combine both quantum theory and general relativity,you get Nobel Prize."🙄
I was sad to see that after all these years of studying I still can only explain the concept to others as level 2-3
And this is why things get so specialized as you get higher in education. Monke brain no good at figuring everything out. Maybe one small thing, and have to spend a lifetime on it.
1. We have the o1 frame, with the observer standing in the center/origin of the train1
2. We have the o2 frame, with the observer standing in the center/origin of the train2
3. We have the o3 frame or rest frame, with the observer standing in the center/origin and where both o1 and o2 are moving in opposite directions with speed v
4. In each of the 3 frames, at t=0 , o1, o2 and o3 are crossing past each other
5. Train1 has front1 and tail1. Train2 has front2 and tail2
6. There are various points in the rest frame opposite front1, front2, tail1 and tail2 at t=0
7. Light from o1 and o2 will reach their respective front and tail at E2train1, E2train2, E3train1 and E3train2
8. The distances in the rest frame will be the same to E2train1 and E2train2 as will the distances in the rest frame to E3train1 and E3train2
9. The times in frame1 that E2train1 and E3train1 occur will be the same
10. The times in frame2 that E2train2 and E3train2 occur will be the same
11. The times in the rest frame that E2train1 and E2train2 occur will be the same
12. The times in the rest frame that E3train1 and E3train2 occur will be the same
13. Although there is a relative velocity between o1 and o2 as seen from o3 there are no differences in distance (8) or time (11, 12) to the events E2train1 and E2train2, E3train1 and E3train2 as seen from the rest frame
14. If m1 is the mass of train1 and m2 is the mass of train2 and are equal then m1=m2
15. The rest frame can be considered to be the same as a center-of-mass (COM) frame
16. If force F is applied to m1 in frame1 and force F is applied to m2 in frame2, the accelerations of m1 and m2 in the rest frame will be identical
17. In the rest frame, the clocks in frame1 and frame2 tick at the same rate.
18. Spacetime of E1 is ({d, +ve}, t) in frame1 and the spacetime of E2 is ({d, -ve}, t) in frame2.
19. Spacetime of E1 is ({d, +ve}, t) and the spacetime of E2 is ({d, -ve}, t), both in the rest frame
20. E2train1 and E3train1, E2train2 and E3train2 are examples of the paired events, E1 and E2, discussed above
5:00 I think unifying gravity and quantum mechanics would be easier if they would start with gauge theory gravity instead of GR. GTG is basically what Einstein tried to do first: model gravity as a gauge-invariant index of refraction in flat spacetime. Einstein went with curvature because Riemannian geometry was available at the time, whereas the math behind GTG wouldn't be developed until the 1990s. But I'm not aware of any theoretical or experimental evidence that favors GR.
This is amazing. I love seeing high level knowledge explained quick. I’ve had this idea for a while about predicting the future with all the variables of today. Ultimately it comes back the is anything actually random and to that quantum mechanics says yes
Guess who's back , back again ...
3:41 This is the Black Hole in M87 tho...
Yeah, it is in another galaxy
Yep. Our Sagittarius A* has similar apparent size (1500x smaller, 2000x closer), but M87* is easier to image, more active and the Milky Way is not photobombing it.
@@srgtcolon1493 Nice one. I didnt know about these details. And remember: Photobombing isnt cool guys! At least in science. xD
I listened to a Great Courses lesson back in the 90’s and they completely left out the spacetime concepts of the second half of the video but said that at the quantum level special relativity rules still applied. So much has changed since just the 90’s. (Hard to believe the course was recorded nearly 30 years ago)
idk what any of this fancy math stuff means so i'm just gonna leave the mixture of general relativity and quantum mechanics on "what in god's name do you mean they don't mix"
Newton: hehe physics
*physics breaks*
Albert Einstein: hehe physics
*physics breaks*
Quantum me.... oh wait
*physics breaks*
So would combining general relativity and quantum mechanics get us the world formula?
T H E O R Y O F E V E R Y T H I N G
it will give us our world seed.
not even kidding, just revisited special relativity series a few minutes ago
Me: listening to this 🥴
Morty: now you know how I feel
3:41, correction: the famous photo of a black hole was from the supermassive black hole in the center of galaxy Messier 87 in the Virgo cluster (the Milky Way is part of this cluster). The black hole in the center of the Milky Way is not directly observable, and about a 1000x smaller than the one photographed in M87.
Great minute summary of general relativity though!
Just a small correction, we have not imaged the black hole at the centre of our milky way, as wrongly said here at 3:41 . The black hole imaged was M87, while the black hole at the centre of our milky way,
is Sagittarius A*. And we are not really sure if it really is a black hole due to some of its weird properties, (according to recent research)
3:41 *black hole of a distant galaxy
Thanks!
maybe another species of intelligent life already 4 parallel universes ahead of us, humans.
Ok so basically its gravity
😂😂
Really nice explanation of the equivalence principle and just a nice conceptual summary of GR.
I love your videos! Please communicate to nebula creators that we NEED to be able to play videos at 2+x speed. I would spend so much more time there if I wasn't able to watch twice as much here in the same time.
Me: Of course, it makes sense now. I don't know jack shit.