At first I thought it's going to be like "from perspective of light, we are moving backwards with the speed of light, so we can say we're moving at the speed of light relative to light itself", but no, this is super nice explanation! So basically, spending energy for acceleration is exchanging time movement for spatial movement, and when we decelerate, we stop moving spatially and move in time direction! Of course time movement slows down by very unnoticeable little amount at everyday speeds.
This video is an excellent supplement to the PBS space time videos. I think the notion of "we're always moving at exactly the speed of light" then suddenly makes more sense, and simultaneously explains why nothing else can accelerate to the speed of light.
Simple question. If something tries to travel at the speed of light, it gets ‘squashed’. But what about an object that’s spinning stationary almost at the speed of light. Does it get almost infinity small?
That's a nice Q. My 1st thought was length contraction's always something that you see happening to other people. & then I was thinking but what if Captain Picard's penis REALLY DOES get smaller? & now I'm thinking of hyperbolic crochet. Maybe a spinning BH is a ball of hyperbolic crochet?
A year late, but I think the object would thin out infinitely, as when an object spins, its outermost parts meet the most amount of inertia b/c centrifugal/centripetal force (i forget which one). This would squash out the object from the outer dimensions first, and then slowly thin the rest of the object as it meets resistance at a lesser rate compared to the outside.
@@Unhelpful It’s kinda mind boggling thinking of a spinning sphere which outer area is dealing with such crazy speeds while the axis is spinning much slower. A sphere is it’s own paradox.
It doesn't get "infinity small", but due to the lorentz contraction, observers on the disc edge will measure a circumference greater than 2π times the radius (2πr/√1−v^2), which does present a profoundly interesting problem! This is called the "Ehrenfest paradox" and it was an important clue for Einstein when he made the leap from special to general relativity.
Facts: Light speed in a vacuum doesn't change. It is a constant value. Interesting notes about this video: 0:11 This video claims, "we are ALL moving at light speed (which is a constant value)," and 0:47 "Now, Alice and Bob are in a drag race. Alice is moving faster than Bob." And 1:57 "This is called time dilation and it's really only noticeable when 2 objects are moving at very different speeds. And Alice and Bob ARE moving at very different speeds." Title of the video: "We are all moving AT the speed of light." Okay. So Light speed is moving faster than Light speed. I think I got it now! I suggest changing the title of the video to, "Light is always moving at the speed of light," because that's what you're actually saying in this video.
I could hardcore be wrong. But I think you're misunderstanding that speed does not exist. Speed only exists in relevance, is I think what he is saying. The relationship between the two, that causes an aspect ratio of time vs speed travel, is what I cannot grasp.
That's not correct. What you mean by "speed of causality" is the definition of time. But time is only one of the four dimensions of spacetime. What actually remains costant is the magnitude of the so called "4-velocity" and this can, ideally, be decomposed into a time velocity and space velocity. What changes is the "allocation of speed" to either time or space. We humans mostly move through time and little through space. Light, however, moves only through space (at the speed of light) and not time. Also, In general relativity, gravity converts time speed into spacial speed, so that, in a gravitational field, time "slows down" while you are being accelerated upwards.
There are plenty of deep dives into the notion of the speed of causality by the above video creator and others like PBS Spacetime. All things of matter and energy (that's everything, by the way) move through Spacetime at the speed of causality. Nothing is slower or faster. If one wants to trade spatial speed with time speed, they are free to do it. However, the ratio of the two remains fixed for everything -- the speed of causality. The notion of someone standing on the surface of a planet being accelerated upwards due to gravity is a rather peculiar model and suffers from a kind of reference frame problem. Folks do such a poor job of explaining what gravity is... Even individuals with large backgrounds in science tend to not understand it and flimflam with physics/math gibberish. I finally got around to explaining it as simply as possible with a minimum of jargon. Basically, gravity is the flow of Spacetime to the center of a mass (or energy density). It is much like water moves a rubber ducky to a drain grate and holds it there... Here's the full journey to get to the rubber ducky model in a Google Doc: tinyurl.com/y8qpdgwx
your videos are very good. easy to grasp.please continue making more. i wish to submit a challenging problem for you since you seem to be comfortable solving and explaining physical problems in a mathematical way, by using vectors. some mathematicians seem too allergic to touch physics problem: assume a 2-spool cassette tape arrangement (coplanar), spool1 and spool2 are connected by a tightly wound inelastic tape of constant thickness without slack. define spool1 to be the left spool centered at a fixed point1 and can rotate at an axis perpendicular to the plane of rotation define spool2 to be the right spool centered at fixed point2 and can rotate at an axis perpendicular to the plane of rotation define the minimum size of the spindle of the spool1 to be of radius r1 from point1 define the minimum size of the spindle of the spool2 to be of radius r2 from point2 define a fixed distance d between point1 and point2 define inelastic tape of constant thickness k define an arbitrary fixed length of tape to be L let the tape be wound around spool1 and spool2 and let the tape leave(wind/unwind) spool1 at some point p let the tape be wound around spool1 and spool2 and let the tape leave(wind/unwind) spool2 at some point q define the radius of the tape from spool1 at point p be R1 at some arbitrary time t define the radius of the tape from spool2 at point q be R2 at some arbitrary time t define Rmax to be the maximum radius of the spool when they are completely wound; Rmin = r1 or r2 if they are completely unwound define a constant frictional coefficient that the tape makes to be f initial conditions: let spool1 be completely wound with tape; it shall be the driven spool; R1=Rmax at time t=0 let spool2 be completely unwound with tape; it shall be the driver spool; it is to rotate clockwise at a constant angular velocity w2; R2=Rmin=r2 at time t=0 constraints: d > R1 + R2 define the vector V as the linear velocity of the tape at a point m between p and q define an angle alpha at m as the angle made by the tape relative to the axis of the containing point1 and point2 define the angular velocity of spool1 to be w1 define the angular acceleration of spool1 to be a1 define the angular acceleration of spool2 to be a2 find: V at any time t what is the angle alpha at any time t what is the angular velocity of alpha at any time t what is the angular acceleration of alpha at any time t calculate the length of L such that you can run your cassette for a total time of T; how many rotations theta2 will spool2 make to completely unwind spool1 what is the distance between p and q, is it always constant at any time t
This helps with the Twin Paradox, because from A's perspective B is taking 2.2 sec compared to her 2 sec, while from B's perspective A is taking 2.2 sec compared to his 2 sec. So which is it? I have not seen anyone thus far explain the Twin Paradox correctly, namely that the underlying explanation is that a THIRD perspective is required relative to both A and B. If this third perspective is stationary in space with regards A, then B will be the one moving in relation to the three point of view system. As the number of points of view increase, it becomes clear to see which object is moving relative to the others. But this is still relative to the local time and space relative proximities. The universe is too large to determine a universal view on absolute position in time and space relative to the universal. Nevertheless, every point of view is the centre of spacetime and the universe. The point above is that it is not acceleration that resolves the twin paradox, but a third perspective stationary relative to either A or B. Using acceleration already assumes a third perspective and which of the two is moving in terms of that relative three perspective system. The third perspective moves the time lines of A and B off of the origin, and it is this then that allows the third perspective to determine which of the other two is moving relative to it and thus to each other. When you perform the transformations between A and B in the coordinate system of the third perspective, you will see that relative differences then emerge between A and B, such that they will agree on their relative times when they meet again. They will both agree as to the younger and the older. Just as space requires at least three angles to form a closed object system, so time requires the same. At least three perspectives are necessary to resolve relative spacetime.
so, are you saying the opposite of what I've been taught from all other sources; specifically, that both observers see the other traveler as time dilated? This is at odds with everything I've studied or read. And care is supposed to be taken to identify the correct reference frame. You stopped short of saying it, but implied it in the discussion that begins around minute 2. Please explain. Thanks, Cate
A better use of geometry, is to combine with your usual Time and Space axes, a combination of a motion vector, and a length scalar. The motion vector represents your constant "c" motion within the 4D space-time environment. Tied to the end of that motion vector, is a scalar which represents the length of your object that is in motion within space-time. Change the direction of which the motion vector is pointing, and the objects length scalar will follow, and thus rotate. Using basic logic, one can then use this simple geometry to derive the special relativity mathematical equations, and complete this task in mere minutes. See for yourself if interested.
Hello! Very good video, but there is an error! In the Minkowski diagram, when Bob's time coordinate becomes below 90 degrees and Alice's coordinate approaches the light line below 45 degrees, Alice's spatial coordinate below also approaches the light line, at the same angle that it approached the light line and Alice's time coordinate.
Thanks, I'm working on being able to produce my own animations, since at the moment it looks a bit too much 3b1b! For the moment though its a fantastic piece of software that helps me make the videos I want to.
The problem of the nonL transformation or classical / Galileo transformation you cannot have time as the axis. Because their time is absolute. Hence by the time past 2 unit as in your diagram alice has to travel 2 time unit as well. Hence it is flat. Unless you draw time as a circle. Not as an axis.
Objects in relative motion are also always moving in opposite direction at 180 degrees from each other. Just draw a line between Alice and Bob. See how it gets longer as they move? You could view it as them moving in opposite directions with their heads and bodies angled 45 degrees toward each other. If Alice rotated herself 45 degrees to her right and Bob rotated himself 45 degrees to his left, they would realize they were moving 180 degrees from each other on a straight line, assuming they were in outer space with no other objects around them for reference. Thus, the Lorentz grid would be rendered meaningless, because they're not on x and y axes, they're both on the same axis. Not only that, but if they had each been moving from the intersection of the x and y axes at say 300,000 km/s, they're really each moving at slightly over 212,132 km/s from the center of the straight line between them.
the lorentz grid shows only one space dimension, it's not meaningless. the x axis (space) shows what you pointed out, only the distance between alice and bob. and hyperbolic rotation allows us to choose the observation frame.
Since you replied, I have something for you to think about. If a train was traveling at close to light speed and an observer on the ground watched a person in the train drop an object would they see it fall at the same rate as another object dropped from the same height on the ground? All objects fall at the same rate, right? But if time is slower in the train then the object should fall more slowly. It's the dropped object on a fast moving train paradox, which I created. Would the object obey the laws of gravity or the predictions of Special Relativity? It can't be both.@@monx
@@aliengrey1708 just a guess: an object falls faster than usual for the observer speeding above a massive body. the ground, relative to the train, undergoes lorentz contraction and exerts more g force. similar to how a moving electric charge experiences magnetism. this is gravitomagnetism.
Sounds doubtful. Show me one reference that states that a moving body experiences higher gravitational acceleration toward the earth, or other gravity source. Gravitomagnetism is about charged particles, which a train is not. There is no postulate of things in a moving frame falling at a different rate than things in another frame, from either observer's view. Einstein doomed his theory when he said that there's length contraction but no height contraction to compensate for gravity in a time dilated frame.@@monx
Maybe its just pov but... Consider the twin paradox. Earl stays on Earth and his twin brother Roy takes off in a rocket and travels at close to light speed. They meet up a decade later and Earl has aged 10 years while Roy has only aged 5 years. Since it took Earl 10 years to get to that meeting and it only took Roy 5 years, Roy must have been moving faster through time.
And since we all actually do move at the speed of light - Then we theoretically do not have something like "time". Past, present and future coexist. There is no time.
What is the exact relationship between speed through space and speed through time? Is it linear, their simple sum being a constant? Meaning: If I move at exactly 25% c, will I age 75% as fast as usual? Or is it a curve?
It's a circle, as I thought he explained. So you can use Pythagoras. If you move at 25% of c through space then you move at √(100² - 25²) = 96.82...% of c through time which is the same number you get by calculating the time dilation using t' = t√(1-V²/c²)
@@dinooldman6671 yeah but on that circle you can never go AT exactly the speed of light through just space or time right? You can only approach it right?
@@-_Nuke_- No, its a circle. If you travel at zero speed you move at 100% of c through time. if you travel at c speed you do not move through time. It is a space/time graph not an energy/velocity graph, there are no asymptotes.
@@dinooldman6671 yeah but light for example doesn't have a reference frame in special and general relativity, but this graph seems to be giving light a reference frame how so?
Points on the circle can be projected onto the hyperbola if you forget about cosh and sinh. If you imagine quantum particles on the circle as clocks then corresponding clocks on the hyperbola will be at the same times.
@@monx Beta = (v/c) the radius of the circle R = c. arctan(v/c) the angle on the hyperboloid say 45 degrees from the vertical, arccos(v/c) the angle on the circle say zero degrees from the horizontal then (v/c) = 1 and the clocks would be stopped. The horizontal represents infinity on the hyperboloid. t' = t ((1 - (v/c))/(1 + (v/c)))^(1/2)
The video makes sense but it was my understanding that the only things that can travel at the speed of light must be massless otherwise anything with mass that hits light speed would then have infinite mass. What am I missing here?
Yes, that description can be misleading. I prefer to call it a shared "c" magnitude of motion. In other words, photons of light move across space with a specific magnitude of motion that we refer to as "c". This "c" represents approximately 300,000 km/s. So if one object was at rest in time, such as a photon, its entire motion is across the dimension of space, thus in a one second time period it would travel across 300,000 km of space. Another object, that is at rest in space instead, will in that very same one second time period, travel across 1 second of the dimension of time. So both travel an equal distance across Space-Time, but one travelled across space only, and the other travelled across time only. So if you sat in a spaceship that was at true rest in space, you would still be moving just as much as photons move, but all of your motion would be across the dimension of time. Even if you got your spaceship moving at say 90% the speed of light across space, you are still moving just as much as photons move, and so the remainder of your "c" motion, is across the dimension of time.
The time that light feels are the tilted gridlines. If you tilt the gridlines all the way to 45 degrees you can see that all of them pass through the lightline itself, which means the passage of time for light is undefined
If we subdivide the dimensions into temporal and spatial, then the trade-off occurs just based on the angle. But aren't we just referencing velocity in the spatial coordinates versus velocity in the temporal coordinates? And to extend further into general relativity, we need to add the other dimension of mass/gravity? So now in a three-planar Cartesian coordinate system, one axis is velocity in all spatial dimensions, and then the velocity through time is another axis, and the third axis is gravity/mass. This would make a sphere instead of the circle demonstrating the light speed constant.
I think I'm on my way to a TOE. I don't have the missing pieces, but I have the top level conceptual view of what seems to be happening. Spacetime isn't actually distorting. Time isn't actually dilating. It's a quantum field, the vacuum energy, which has only so much energy density available for matter/particles. I can possibly even explain how black holes are not singularities in actuality, just our GR equations. GR is a good model, but clearly incomplete. Large mass pulls energy from the quantum fields, mostly for the gluons moving at high speed. That reduces the available energy density in the quantum field. That's actually the cause of the perceived distortion. Time dilates because time is the based on our measure of particle, particularly gluons, moving within this field. If the field is starved of available energy, it must wait longer for energy to become available through replenishment. This delay causes every subatomic processes to slow down. Therefore, at the atomic to macro level time appears to dilate. Light bends around large mass because the quantum field is starved of energy, so the photons cannot traverse it in a straightline path without deviating ever so slightly towards the area of the quantum field with available energy. Over a large distance, this becomes curvature.
The quantum field energy is the only constant. It's the speed limit for the universe and the responsible party for causing the flow of time. The arrow of time is caused by the entropy direction as evidenced in other discussions. The speed limit of light is not a speed limit of just light as indicated in this video, nor is it a speed limit for time. It is the speed of time at absolute rest, or the maximum speed for a massless particle. Time only exists for mass particles and it is an abstraction layer derived from the subatomic massless particles moving at their limitations, but eventually when broken down to the furthest particle size at light speed. And the speed limit isn't a speed limit, but really just a measure of the quantum energy field fluctuations versus the available energy density of the field itself.
05:12ff: >_The less we move through space the more we move through time._ No, the opposite is true because when my clock runs slower than e.g. that of Alice that means that my 'now' moves _faster_ along Alice's timeline than hers. It makes more than1 second Alice's time per second of my proper time. In a spatial / completely space-like rectangular triangle the squared hypotenuse is the sum of the squared catheti. At the other hand, within a rectangular triangle with one cathetus time-like, it's the difference.
Because we're moving at the speed of light in terms of space-time. When you're stationary, you're moving at light speed in time. And when you start to walk around, the speed in space dimension increases, while the speed in time dimension slows down. But the total speed of space and time remains as speed of light. Thus, when you're running near light speed in space, your speed in time decreases to near 0, you'll experience near 'stoppage' of time.
I think this video unnecessarily complicates things with the concept of "speed of light through time". It's better understood in the context of reference frames. Relative to yourself, you are always stationary, so you experience time at full speed. But relative to the universe, nothing is stationary. For any thing that you look at and say that's moving at light speed, it could say the same about you from its perspective.
I didn't go to too much high school as a child cuz I did not like what they were trying to force me to learn what I'd rather just go learn things I wanted to anyways cuz I am someone who loves learning and that's all I've ever done my whole life is read and and learn things but I never took any kind of high school mathematics or anything pass out basic algebra as a child I know what the other mathematics are but I don't know how their equations work really but I know the basics of most of the high mathematics and things like that I know a lot about set theory and and I know what the things that mathematics have accomplished cuz I've read the history and such so I didn't really even know the function of a hyperbola are done of that until he just explained it and that makes a lot of sense and I like this guy how good he explains things like that to where even people like me that don't know the math could understand exactly what he's saying. Well a lot of people might not understand it cuz they wouldn't even know where to begin because they're not interested in learning like we are. Thank you all and God bless you happy holidays and there's probably a lot of atheists here so go bless yourself then cuz that means you are God cuz you're the one that credit your own universe in your unconsciousness. And I mean that no disrespectful way either. I send you all my love and respect
If the Earth is moving around the sun and the solar system is moving along on a galactic band and the galaxy is moving around in the universe and nothing is really going in the same direction or at the same speed, how can you really know what direction or speed you are going, since everything was moving to begin with? I guess the speed of light would still be constant, but since light comes from stars, it would be moving in all directions. ??
QUESTION: I am familiar with the classic example of how Einstein thought of looking at a clock as he travelled away from the clock at the Speed of Light. This proved Time "slowed down" as you reached the Speed of Light, due to the fact that travelling at the Speed of Light would cause you to see the same image of the clock at all moments of Time. However, I would like to know what would happen if Einstein would have looked out the front window rather than the rear window. What if there was a clock in front of Einstein? At the Speed of Light, I realize Einstein would be seeing the clock remain at the exact same moment in Time. And travelling faster than the Speed of Light would cause Einstein to see that clock in the rear window travelling backwards in Time. But, if Einstein rotated 180 degrees and looked out the front window in order to see another clock, what would happen? Does this mean Einstein would be seeing the clock speed up? And if so, does this mean Einstein would be travelling into the future from the point of view of that clock in front? If so, how can you simultaneously be travelling both backwards in Time and forward in Time? I realize that this is easily explained based on the "relative" point of view of observers at each location of the "clock." However, from the point of view of the person on this ship that is looking at a clock in the rear window and a clock in the front window, the person would be seeing Time Travel into the Past from the rear window and seeing Time Travel into the Future from the front window - therefore apparently causing Time Travel into both the past and the future simultaneously. Is this correct? In fact, even if we limit this question to a speed limit of "The Speed of Light," if you looked out the back window, the image of the clock would constantly be frozen at that one moment in Time; however, if you looked out the front window, the image of the clock apparently would be moving forward at a rate that is twice as fast as the clock would be moving if the observer were standing still. This gets even more unusual if you stop and think about how Einstein could potentially look at a "mirror" of a reflection so that he could simultaneously watch both the clock in front and the clock in back while travelling at the speed of light. The clock in back would remain frozen and never move, while the clock in front would be moving twice as fast. And this gets even more unusual when you think about what would happen if Einstein were travelling "Faster than the Speed of Light" while looking at a mirror in order to see the reflection so that he could see both clocks simultaneously. The clock in front would travel forward in even faster, while the clock in back would actually start moving backwards! Is this correct? ... I think I "know" about these things, and I have an "understanding," but not as good of an "understanding" as I would like. If you could expand on this, and explain from multiple points of view, I would appreciate this.
In short you are saying that . If Einstein travelled at speed of light time would freeze and when he moves faster than light he would start travelling in past .
@@anmoljaswal7945 That is only half of what I'm saying. That is why I asked the "Question." I will paraphrase the situation and the Question below. Consider there is a ship that you and I are on. This ship has a front window and a rear window. There is a clock in front of us and a clock behind us. When we travel closer to the speed of light, the clock behind us starts to slow down. And when we travel at the speed of light, the clock behind us stops. And when we travel faster than the speed of light, the clock behind us actually starts moving in reverse - which indicates we are travelling backwards in time towards the past. I understand those things about the back window completely. ... What I don't understand is the front window. ... That is what I'm asking about. When we travel closer to the speed of light, the clock in front us apparently will start to speed up (the opposite of the clock behind us). And when we travel at the speed of light, the clock in front of us stops (just like the clock behind us). And when we travel faster than the speed of light, the clock in front of us apparently continues to speed up - which indicates we are travelling forward in time towards the future. Is that correct? If it is not correct, why not? If it is correct, how can we possibly look out the rear window and see the clock moving backwards into the past while simultaneously looking out the front window and see the clock moving forward into the future?
So, say V represents an object's rate of travel through a spatial dimension and T represents an object's rate of travel through the temporal dimension, would this mean C^2 = V^2 + T^2 ? If so, this would be a pretty cool way to nerf time travel from a sci-fi perspective. If the rate of travel through time cannot exceed the speed of light C, then there is no faster way to travel into the future than by just being a stationary object. In turn, if a hypothetical time machine was designed to take a person 5 years in the past, even at maximum backward velocity, you'd still have to wait five years to reach your destination. Once arriving in the past, there would be no quicker way to return to the future other than waiting.
I look at it like this, everything is moving at the speed of light when motionless. If you then accelerate you are adding your speed on top of lightspeed. We'll say your speed in your car is lightspeed+50mph. However, the universe says you can't go faster than the equivalent of lightspeed in a vacuum, so it imparts time dilation unto you, which slows you down enough in the time dimension so that your actual traveled distance is what it wouldve been at exactly lightspeed.
Very nice films you post here! Congrats! But I urge you to put a number for ever film you post here. Like a chapter number in a book. Having a number together with the title makes things much easier. Easier to track what you have already seen... Easier find new and old films... Easier to indicate to friends which films to see... Easier to find the order in which you have to see the films... Easier for you to point for another one of your own films! Easier for everything!
Even with that drawing I have difficulties to see how it is possible that if you come close to the speed of light (say very close!), still a photon will pass you with 300000 kilometers per hour! No matter if you travel in photons direction or against its direction, it will pass you with the same 300000 kilometers per hour, regardless of how close you come yourself to the speed of light!
Very interesting video, I was wondering why scientists explain light from stars as a certain number of light years away when surely given that galaxies, stars, our solar system and earth are moving at different very high speeds relatively and in different directions. Points in the universe moving in opposite directions at close to the speed of light would for sure slow time to almost a standstill.
So in Life, actually...there is no first or Last, only through perception and experience, but not overall. We are all are at the Starting Line, and Finish Line, regardless of what is occurring.
Great vid. But you’re making the assumption that space doesn’t exist and that there is no preferred reference frame. This is the same assumption Einstein made to preserve the principle of relativity and Lorentz invariance but this approach always leads to the unsolvable twin paradox. You’re vid shows the time-rate for one observer being 2s while it’s 2.2s for the other. You then change perspectives and reverse the time rates of the observers - and thereby creating the twin paradox. But the atomic clocks and jet airplane experiment done in the early seventies empirically proved the twin paradox does not exist. Does this mean there is something wrong with your math and graphs? Only if you hold to this no preferred reference frame argument. I’d argue Einstein made an incorrect assumption (all theoretical physicists make assumptions btw) when he developed SR and believed the principle of relativity/Lorentz invariance to be correct without any empirical evidence to support this cereberally deduced principle. Space exists and mass moves through it and most importantly - relative to it. The very foundation of GR is based on the notion that space exists independent and separate from baryonic matter. This means space has quantity too. The Shapiro time delay experiment proved empirically space exists, has quantity, is compressible, is movable, and is conservable. LIGO gravity waves also prove space exists. So my point is if space exists then we cannot continue to say there is no preferred reference frame for observers moving through it. If two observers (made of matter) are moving relative to each other they must also be moving relative to space - and of the two moving observers the one moving with the greatest speed relative to space will always have the slowest time-rate - synchronous GPS satellites empirically prove this everyday as well as refute the twin paradox. Here is my vid showing exactly why time runs slower for a moving observer than a stationary one. It’s because the amount of space (or distance if you want to just draw a line) between the two reflecting mirrors in a photon clock will increase when the photon clock begins moving relative to space. More space - more time. Same thing with gravity - gravity is is nothing more than nonlinearly compressed space which means the travel distance for light between the mirrors in a photon clock will increase (causing time dilation) as the clock falls downward in the gravity field. Again, the Shapiro time delay experiment proved empirically that gravity is nothing more than nonlinearly compressed space. One last thing - you should not believe the length contraction theory until it has been DIRECTLY proven. This theory was derived as an ad-hoc explanation to justify the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and meant to save the aether theory. th-cam.com/video/M5WqEab61UI/w-d-xo.html
I am a proponent of the constant 1g acceleration method for interstellar travel, relativity has a lot to do with this method. A ship using this method would achieve about .95 light speed after about 1 year and it would have gravity the whole way. I invite you to watch my video's "best method for interstellar travel" and "liquid plutonium rocket", the method is on wikipedia if your interested.
I'm pretty sure I did learn what I hyperbole was when I was in junior high school and geometry class but it's not something I've thought about in recent times or had any reason to and I never heard it explained the way he did and equated it to time like that it made so much perfect sense either but then again I probably read a book about Einstein where it did exactly that but was too remember it too. But you got to excuse me for that when you've done nothing but read and learn your whole life there's a little bit of stuff you got to forget every now and then which I know you guys understand yourself I remember there was a time when I was younger there wasn't a thing in my past that I couldn't remember I'm talking about almost today by day from the time I was a child of until I was a young adult and then got to be weak by week now I'm lucky if I remember a whole year or so it's not that bad but I still forget a lot now what was we talking about?
The less we move through space the more we move through time. Translation: Time moves fast if you're not changing location(i.e. not moving) The more we move through space the less we move through time. Translation: Time slows down when we are changing location(i.e. moving) But all this indicates is that we are moving through space time but NOT at the speed of light. A photon doesn't experience any time change and it never slows down relative to space time.
Yes. Because space (not universe) is expanding at the speed of light. In tandem with time. So, this makes the dimensions of space and time on the same platform. And, the reality of Spacetime is defined. Space is eternal, not absolute. It is absolute only at a particular time. So, at 1 sec after the big bang, space is absolute at a diameter of 300,000 km. And the size of space now, is about 14b light years. Then, certainly, still growing.
Space is expanding at a rate dictated by the Hubble parameter. And you should double-check your assumptions about the size of the Universe. Among other things, you are neglecting inflation.
Flashlights moving at the speed of light, in the dark. One day I was moving at the speed of light and shot my gun at a star. Missed, but broke relativity entirely.
Not really. Having a geometric identity such that the norm of the 4-velocity is always 1 doesn't mean the speed of every object is 1. If we accept that, then we'd have to accept that the sine of every angle is 1, since sin^2(theta) + cos^2(theta) = 1^2. Speed is just spatial displacement divided by time interval. For massive objects, it can never be 1.
This is at best a cute "hack" with not much meaning. The t axis is time. The speed of time in time is in seconds/seconds. To construct a 4D space, we need the units of all 4 axes to match, so we multiply the time axis with c. So the moral of the story is you travel through the time axis at the speed of time, when your time is multiplied by the speed of time. Cute, but meaningless.
Nice Video! Interesting and I like your animation styles! Yet, mixing the continuous animations with the low-framerate ones sometimes disturbed me a little, but ofc it's nit a big deal :D a little slower pace and one can almost lean back while enjoying this mind candy
Acceleration is the change in the angle, a force is what changes the angle, and mass is resistance to changing the angle
Holy crap. Mind = blown.
At first I thought it's going to be like "from perspective of light, we are moving backwards with the speed of light, so we can say we're moving at the speed of light relative to light itself", but no, this is super nice explanation!
So basically, spending energy for acceleration is exchanging time movement for spatial movement, and when we decelerate, we stop moving spatially and move in time direction! Of course time movement slows down by very unnoticeable little amount at everyday speeds.
exactly
The use of geometry to explain this was elegant. Keep the good work up! Expect to see more from you :)
This video is an excellent supplement to the PBS space time videos. I think the notion of "we're always moving at exactly the speed of light" then suddenly makes more sense, and simultaneously explains why nothing else can accelerate to the speed of light.
Simple question. If something tries to travel at the speed of light, it gets ‘squashed’. But what about an object that’s spinning stationary almost at the speed of light. Does it get almost infinity small?
That's a nice Q. My 1st thought was length contraction's always something that you see happening to other people.
& then I was thinking but what if Captain Picard's penis REALLY DOES get smaller?
& now I'm thinking of hyperbolic crochet. Maybe a spinning BH is a ball of hyperbolic crochet?
A year late, but I think the object would thin out infinitely, as when an object spins, its outermost parts meet the most amount of inertia b/c centrifugal/centripetal force (i forget which one). This would squash out the object from the outer dimensions first, and then slowly thin the rest of the object as it meets resistance at a lesser rate compared to the outside.
@@Unhelpful
It’s kinda mind boggling thinking of a spinning sphere which outer area is dealing with such crazy speeds while the axis is spinning much slower.
A sphere is it’s own paradox.
It doesn't get "infinity small", but due to the lorentz contraction, observers on the disc edge will measure a circumference greater than 2π times the radius (2πr/√1−v^2), which does present a profoundly interesting problem! This is called the "Ehrenfest paradox" and it was an important clue for Einstein when he made the leap from special to general relativity.
Does this guy have another channel or something?? I really hope he starts posting videos again!! They're incredible.
This is such an elegant explanation of this concept!
Everything moves at the same speed. 1 second per second.
Facts: Light speed in a vacuum doesn't change. It is a constant value. Interesting notes about this video: 0:11 This video claims, "we are ALL moving at light speed (which is a constant value)," and 0:47 "Now, Alice and Bob are in a drag race. Alice is moving faster than Bob." And 1:57 "This is called time dilation and it's really only noticeable when 2 objects are moving at very different speeds. And Alice and Bob ARE moving at very different speeds." Title of the video: "We are all moving AT the speed of light." Okay. So Light speed is moving faster than Light speed. I think I got it now! I suggest changing the title of the video to, "Light is always moving at the speed of light," because that's what you're actually saying in this video.
I could hardcore be wrong. But I think you're misunderstanding that speed does not exist. Speed only exists in relevance, is I think what he is saying. The relationship between the two, that causes an aspect ratio of time vs speed travel, is what I cannot grasp.
This thought came to my mind and I searched youtube and only could find this video. Its so well explained.
This is even better:
th-cam.com/video/au0QJYISe4c/w-d-xo.html
Search for science click
Science clic channel there is visually clear explanation
Then u need to see science asylum.
I do not like the usage of the doppler effect to explain time dilation. I do not like the usage of the doppler effect to explain time dilation.
Note, the axis where the video is referencing the direction of travel is time. We do not move through space at the speed of light. Only time.
Wtf man u deserve more subscribers
The Bing Bing Bing Bing was distracting . . .
In other words, *_nothing_* travels through spacetime at a different rate than the speed of causality -- nothing is faster or slower.
That's not correct. What you mean by "speed of causality" is the definition of time. But time is only one of the four dimensions of spacetime. What actually remains costant is the magnitude of the so called "4-velocity" and this can, ideally, be decomposed into a time velocity and space velocity. What changes is the "allocation of speed" to either time or space. We humans mostly move through time and little through space. Light, however, moves only through space (at the speed of light) and not time. Also, In general relativity, gravity converts time speed into spacial speed, so that, in a gravitational field, time "slows down" while you are being accelerated upwards.
There are plenty of deep dives into the notion of the speed of causality by the above video creator and others like PBS Spacetime. All things of matter and energy (that's everything, by the way) move through Spacetime at the speed of causality. Nothing is slower or faster. If one wants to trade spatial speed with time speed, they are free to do it. However, the ratio of the two remains fixed for everything -- the speed of causality.
The notion of someone standing on the surface of a planet being accelerated upwards due to gravity is a rather peculiar model and suffers from a kind of reference frame problem.
Folks do such a poor job of explaining what gravity is... Even individuals with large backgrounds in science tend to not understand it and flimflam with physics/math gibberish.
I finally got around to explaining it as simply as possible with a minimum of jargon. Basically, gravity is the flow of Spacetime to the center of a mass (or energy density). It is much like water moves a rubber ducky to a drain grate and holds it there...
Here's the full journey to get to the rubber ducky model in a Google Doc:
tinyurl.com/y8qpdgwx
@@russellstephan6844 i see what you mean. Thanks.
@@giuliogalletti793 Kwel!
Great stuff. Is there anyway we can convince spacetime to not flow towards the center of mass? Is there so to speak a way to undilate time?
your videos are very good. easy to grasp.please continue making more.
i wish to submit a challenging problem for you since you seem to be comfortable solving and explaining physical problems in a mathematical way, by using vectors. some mathematicians seem too allergic to touch physics problem:
assume a 2-spool cassette tape arrangement (coplanar), spool1 and spool2 are connected by a tightly wound inelastic tape of constant thickness without slack.
define spool1 to be the left spool centered at a fixed point1 and can rotate at an axis perpendicular to the plane of rotation
define spool2 to be the right spool centered at fixed point2 and can rotate at an axis perpendicular to the plane of rotation
define the minimum size of the spindle of the spool1 to be of radius r1 from point1
define the minimum size of the spindle of the spool2 to be of radius r2 from point2
define a fixed distance d between point1 and point2
define inelastic tape of constant thickness k
define an arbitrary fixed length of tape to be L
let the tape be wound around spool1 and spool2 and let the tape leave(wind/unwind) spool1 at some point p
let the tape be wound around spool1 and spool2 and let the tape leave(wind/unwind) spool2 at some point q
define the radius of the tape from spool1 at point p be R1 at some arbitrary time t
define the radius of the tape from spool2 at point q be R2 at some arbitrary time t
define Rmax to be the maximum radius of the spool when they are completely wound; Rmin = r1 or r2 if they are completely unwound
define a constant frictional coefficient that the tape makes to be f
initial conditions:
let spool1 be completely wound with tape; it shall be the driven spool; R1=Rmax at time t=0
let spool2 be completely unwound with tape; it shall be the driver spool; it is to rotate clockwise at a constant angular velocity w2; R2=Rmin=r2 at time t=0
constraints:
d > R1 + R2
define the vector V as the linear velocity of the tape at a point m between p and q
define an angle alpha at m as the angle made by the tape relative to the axis of the containing point1 and point2
define the angular velocity of spool1 to be w1
define the angular acceleration of spool1 to be a1
define the angular acceleration of spool2 to be a2
find:
V at any time t
what is the angle alpha at any time t
what is the angular velocity of alpha at any time t
what is the angular acceleration of alpha at any time t
calculate the length of L such that you can run your cassette for a total time of T; how many rotations theta2 will spool2 make to completely unwind spool1
what is the distance between p and q, is it always constant at any time t
That light sound -.-
Great Video anyway
You're right, it might get a bit grating after the 4th time in a row! :) Thanks though!
I love it 🤣
Sponsored by Microsoft -- search at the speed of light.
@@stemcell7200 I loved it
It really steals attention from the speech
Top quality content and great animations!
Your channel is seriously underrated.
It's because he has one of the worst channel names I've ever seen. He is completely unsearchable.
@@EpicMathTime umm have you heard of that kurzeghast (I don't even know if I wrote it right) channel? Their channel name is even worse.
Skipsotz Gaming yeah yeah yeah yeah like your mom opssssss lolol.
Why have you stopped posting
This helps with the Twin Paradox, because from A's perspective B is taking 2.2 sec compared to her 2 sec, while from B's perspective A is taking 2.2 sec compared to his 2 sec. So which is it?
I have not seen anyone thus far explain the Twin Paradox correctly, namely that the underlying explanation is that a THIRD perspective is required relative to both A and B.
If this third perspective is stationary in space with regards A, then B will be the one moving in relation to the three point of view system.
As the number of points of view increase, it becomes clear to see which object is moving relative to the others. But this is still relative to the local time and space relative proximities.
The universe is too large to determine a universal view on absolute position in time and space relative to the universal.
Nevertheless, every point of view is the centre of spacetime and the universe.
The point above is that it is not acceleration that resolves the twin paradox, but a third perspective stationary relative to either A or B.
Using acceleration already assumes a third perspective and which of the two is moving in terms of that relative three perspective system.
The third perspective moves the time lines of A and B off of the origin, and it is this then that allows the third perspective to determine which of the other two is moving relative to it and thus to each other.
When you perform the transformations between A and B in the coordinate system of the third perspective, you will see that relative differences then emerge between A and B, such that they will agree on their relative times when they meet again.
They will both agree as to the younger and the older.
Just as space requires at least three angles to form a closed object system, so time requires the same.
At least three perspectives are necessary to resolve relative spacetime.
Where is next video :( your content is so good.
Thank you very much for this video.I already knew that as the norm of 4 velocity of anything is always “c” ,but never found any video like that...
I love the combination of drawings and 3B1B-like animations, but it feels a bit silent. Maybe some background music would top it all off.
Hey, it's nice to hear this kind of feedback - I'll have some music playing under my next video!
@@stemcell7200 there's no next video 😔
Don't you produce any more content now ?
so, are you saying the opposite of what I've been taught from all other sources; specifically, that both observers see the other traveler as time dilated? This is at odds with everything I've studied or read. And care is supposed to be taken to identify the correct reference frame. You stopped short of saying it, but implied it in the discussion that begins around minute 2. Please explain. Thanks, Cate
A better use of geometry, is to combine with your usual Time and Space axes, a combination of a motion vector, and a length scalar. The motion vector represents your constant "c" motion within the 4D space-time environment. Tied to the end of that motion vector, is a scalar which represents the length of your object that is in motion within space-time. Change the direction of which the motion vector is pointing, and the objects length scalar will follow, and thus rotate. Using basic logic, one can then use this simple geometry to derive the special relativity mathematical equations, and complete this task in mere minutes. See for yourself if interested.
I really like your videos! You have a clear way to explain things.
Hello! Very good video, but there is an error! In the Minkowski diagram, when Bob's time coordinate becomes below 90 degrees and Alice's coordinate approaches the light line below 45 degrees, Alice's spatial coordinate below also approaches the light line, at the same angle that it approached the light line and Alice's time coordinate.
Woaah you're using 3b1b's manim! That's very cool
Thanks, I'm working on being able to produce my own animations, since at the moment it looks a bit too much 3b1b! For the moment though its a fantastic piece of software that helps me make the videos I want to.
The problem of the nonL transformation or classical / Galileo transformation you cannot have time as the axis. Because their time is absolute. Hence by the time past 2 unit as in your diagram alice has to travel 2 time unit as well. Hence it is flat. Unless you draw time as a circle. Not as an axis.
Of course you have time as an axis. The only difference between Einstein's geometry and Newton's is the metric.
So time has a rate? What is that rate -- 1 sec/sec?
So.... make sure you have all the angles, and use the correct one for the proper occasion?
Objects in relative motion are also always moving in opposite direction at 180 degrees from each other. Just draw a line between Alice and Bob. See how it gets longer as they move? You could view it as them moving in opposite directions with their heads and bodies angled 45 degrees toward each other. If Alice rotated herself 45 degrees to her right and Bob rotated himself 45 degrees to his left, they would realize they were moving 180 degrees from each other on a straight line, assuming they were in outer space with no other objects around them for reference. Thus, the Lorentz grid would be rendered meaningless, because they're not on x and y axes, they're both on the same axis. Not only that, but if they had each been moving from the intersection of the x and y axes at say 300,000 km/s, they're really each moving at slightly over 212,132 km/s from the center of the straight line between them.
the lorentz grid shows only one space dimension, it's not meaningless. the x axis (space) shows what you pointed out, only the distance between alice and bob. and hyperbolic rotation allows us to choose the observation frame.
Since you replied, I have something for you to think about. If a train was traveling at close to light speed and an observer on the ground watched a person in the train drop an object would they see it fall at the same rate as another object dropped from the same height on the ground? All objects fall at the same rate, right? But if time is slower in the train then the object should fall more slowly. It's the dropped object on a fast moving train paradox, which I created. Would the object obey the laws of gravity or the predictions of Special Relativity? It can't be both.@@monx
@@aliengrey1708 just a guess: an object falls faster than usual for the observer speeding above a massive body. the ground, relative to the train, undergoes lorentz contraction and exerts more g force. similar to how a moving electric charge experiences magnetism. this is gravitomagnetism.
Sounds doubtful. Show me one reference that states that a moving body experiences higher gravitational acceleration toward the earth, or other gravity source. Gravitomagnetism is about charged particles, which a train is not. There is no postulate of things in a moving frame falling at a different rate than things in another frame, from either observer's view. Einstein doomed his theory when he said that there's length contraction but no height contraction to compensate for gravity in a time dilated frame.@@monx
When you walk, each atom of your body is moving in a different speed, so each atom is in a different time? How can it work?
Different atoms experience ‘different rate of change of time’. Meaning they age at different rate, it’s not that they are in different times.
You need to be moving at relativistic speeds in order for time dilation to even be slightly noticable
Speed v and 4-velocity u are not the same! The magnitude of v is obviously not always c, but the magnitude of u is.
We are Light.
This was a great video. I just subscribed. Great job!
Beautifully explained.. Good use of Manim..
Maybe its just pov but...
Consider the twin paradox. Earl stays on Earth and his twin brother Roy takes off in a rocket and travels at close to light speed. They meet up a decade later and Earl has aged 10 years while Roy has only aged 5 years. Since it took Earl 10 years to get to that meeting and it only took Roy 5 years, Roy must have been moving faster through time.
If i turn on a light and throw a ball at the same time?
This Theory of Relativity has deleted every starting position. Now we can neither travel back in space or back in time.
🤯
Never could
So if you put that hiperbola in the origin, we are going back to the good old ancient times.
We used to move at the speed of light when things was alright, but now in the speed of dark
And since we all actually do move at the speed of light - Then we theoretically do not have something like "time".
Past, present and future coexist. There is no time.
*spends the entire video talking about how we travel at the speed of light but either through TIME or space*
"there is no time"
@@dsdy1205 Exactly. An absolutely bizarre non-sequitur of a conclusion to make.
What is the exact relationship between speed through space and speed through time?
Is it linear, their simple sum being a constant? Meaning: If I move at exactly 25% c, will I age 75% as fast as usual?
Or is it a curve?
It's a circle, as I thought he explained. So you can use Pythagoras. If you move at 25% of c through space then you move at √(100² - 25²) = 96.82...% of c through time which is the same number you get by calculating the time dilation using t' = t√(1-V²/c²)
@@dinooldman6671 Thank you!
@@dinooldman6671 yeah but on that circle you can never go AT exactly the speed of light through just space or time right? You can only approach it right?
@@-_Nuke_- No, its a circle. If you travel at zero speed you move at 100% of c through time. if you travel at c speed you do not move through time. It is a space/time graph not an energy/velocity graph, there are no asymptotes.
@@dinooldman6671 yeah but light for example doesn't have a reference frame in special and general relativity, but this graph seems to be giving light a reference frame how so?
I don't think that will get anyone out of a speeding ticket.
Points on the circle can be projected onto the hyperbola if you forget about cosh and sinh. If you imagine quantum particles on the circle as clocks then corresponding clocks on the hyperbola will be at the same times.
...huh?
@@monx Beta = (v/c) the radius of the circle R = c. arctan(v/c) the angle on the hyperboloid say 45 degrees from the vertical, arccos(v/c) the angle on the circle say zero degrees from the horizontal then (v/c) = 1 and the clocks would be stopped. The horizontal represents infinity on the hyperboloid. t' = t ((1 - (v/c))/(1 + (v/c)))^(1/2)
Does that mean all momentum is angular momentum?
The video makes sense but it was my understanding that the only things that can travel at the speed of light must be massless otherwise anything with mass that hits light speed would then have infinite mass. What am I missing here?
Yes, that description can be misleading. I prefer to call it a shared "c" magnitude of motion. In other words, photons of light move across space with a specific magnitude of motion that we refer to as "c". This "c" represents approximately 300,000 km/s. So if one object was at rest in time, such as a photon, its entire motion is across the dimension of space, thus in a one second time period it would travel across 300,000 km of space. Another object, that is at rest in space instead, will in that very same one second time period, travel across 1 second of the dimension of time. So both travel an equal distance across Space-Time, but one travelled across space only, and the other travelled across time only. So if you sat in a spaceship that was at true rest in space, you would still be moving just as much as photons move, but all of your motion would be across the dimension of time. Even if you got your spaceship moving at say 90% the speed of light across space, you are still moving just as much as photons move, and so the remainder of your "c" motion, is across the dimension of time.
We are all at rest to the light!
6:00 why the awkward silence after the dad joke 💀💀
if light dosent fell time then why u make 45° angle of light rays
The time that light feels are the tilted gridlines. If you tilt the gridlines all the way to 45 degrees you can see that all of them pass through the lightline itself, which means the passage of time for light is undefined
@@dsdy1205 thanks sir
Now apply this to all the bodies in outerspace. And think about how it’s possible it’s just our solar system over and over at different points.
Time and space are functions of ones conceptual scheme
Your Self is also just a concept. The mystery of existence is misunderstood by science.
Michal Petrilak science is an infant crawling around in a nappy
A money laundering scheme of the Zionists.
Einstein was an unwitting patsy of the banking cabal.
If we subdivide the dimensions into temporal and spatial, then the trade-off occurs just based on the angle.
But aren't we just referencing velocity in the spatial coordinates versus velocity in the temporal coordinates?
And to extend further into general relativity, we need to add the other dimension of mass/gravity?
So now in a three-planar Cartesian coordinate system, one axis is velocity in all spatial dimensions, and then the velocity through time is another axis, and the third axis is gravity/mass. This would make a sphere instead of the circle demonstrating the light speed constant.
I think I'm on my way to a TOE.
I don't have the missing pieces, but I have the top level conceptual view of what seems to be happening.
Spacetime isn't actually distorting. Time isn't actually dilating.
It's a quantum field, the vacuum energy, which has only so much energy density available for matter/particles.
I can possibly even explain how black holes are not singularities in actuality, just our GR equations.
GR is a good model, but clearly incomplete.
Large mass pulls energy from the quantum fields, mostly for the gluons moving at high speed.
That reduces the available energy density in the quantum field. That's actually the cause of the perceived distortion.
Time dilates because time is the based on our measure of particle, particularly gluons, moving within this field.
If the field is starved of available energy, it must wait longer for energy to become available through replenishment.
This delay causes every subatomic processes to slow down. Therefore, at the atomic to macro level time appears to dilate.
Light bends around large mass because the quantum field is starved of energy, so the photons cannot traverse it in a straightline path without deviating ever so slightly towards the area of the quantum field with available energy. Over a large distance, this becomes curvature.
The quantum field energy is the only constant. It's the speed limit for the universe and the responsible party for causing the flow of time.
The arrow of time is caused by the entropy direction as evidenced in other discussions.
The speed limit of light is not a speed limit of just light as indicated in this video, nor is it a speed limit for time.
It is the speed of time at absolute rest, or the maximum speed for a massless particle.
Time only exists for mass particles and it is an abstraction layer derived from the subatomic massless particles moving at their limitations, but eventually when broken down to the furthest particle size at light speed.
And the speed limit isn't a speed limit, but really just a measure of the quantum energy field fluctuations versus the available energy density of the field itself.
05:12ff: >_The less we move through space the more we move through time._
No, the opposite is true because when my clock runs slower than e.g. that of Alice that means that my 'now' moves _faster_ along Alice's timeline than hers.
It makes more than1 second Alice's time per second of my proper time.
In a spatial / completely space-like rectangular triangle the squared hypotenuse is the sum of the squared catheti.
At the other hand, within a rectangular triangle with one cathetus time-like, it's the difference.
Not true the more we move in space the less we move in time
@@Nestakun you both seem to be saying the same thing with different viewpoint. Less space, more time. More space, less time.
If we are all moving at the speed of light in totality, then why do we not experience the stoppage of time?
Because we're moving at the speed of light in terms of space-time. When you're stationary, you're moving at light speed in time. And when you start to walk around, the speed in space dimension increases, while the speed in time dimension slows down. But the total speed of space and time remains as speed of light.
Thus, when you're running near light speed in space, your speed in time decreases to near 0, you'll experience near 'stoppage' of time.
I think this video unnecessarily complicates things with the concept of "speed of light through time". It's better understood in the context of reference frames. Relative to yourself, you are always stationary, so you experience time at full speed. But relative to the universe, nothing is stationary. For any thing that you look at and say that's moving at light speed, it could say the same about you from its perspective.
I like the angle you’re taking
I didn't go to too much high school as a child cuz I did not like what they were trying to force me to learn what I'd rather just go learn things I wanted to anyways cuz I am someone who loves learning and that's all I've ever done my whole life is read and and learn things but I never took any kind of high school mathematics or anything pass out basic algebra as a child I know what the other mathematics are but I don't know how their equations work really but I know the basics of most of the high mathematics and things like that I know a lot about set theory and and I know what the things that mathematics have accomplished cuz I've read the history and such so I didn't really even know the function of a hyperbola are done of that until he just explained it and that makes a lot of sense and I like this guy how good he explains things like that to where even people like me that don't know the math could understand exactly what he's saying. Well a lot of people might not understand it cuz they wouldn't even know where to begin because they're not interested in learning like we are. Thank you all and God bless you happy holidays and there's probably a lot of atheists here so go bless yourself then cuz that means you are God cuz you're the one that credit your own universe in your unconsciousness. And I mean that no disrespectful way either. I send you all my love and respect
If the Earth is moving around the sun and the solar system is moving along on a galactic band and the galaxy is moving around in the universe and nothing is really going in the same direction or at the same speed, how can you really know what direction or speed you are going, since everything was moving to begin with? I guess the speed of light would still be constant, but since light comes from stars, it would be moving in all directions. ??
I’m feeling particularly speedy today, but time seems to be dragging by.
QUESTION: I am familiar with the classic example of how Einstein thought of looking at a clock as he travelled away from the clock at the Speed of Light. This proved Time "slowed down" as you reached the Speed of Light, due to the fact that travelling at the Speed of Light would cause you to see the same image of the clock at all moments of Time. However, I would like to know what would happen if Einstein would have looked out the front window rather than the rear window. What if there was a clock in front of Einstein?
At the Speed of Light, I realize Einstein would be seeing the clock remain at the exact same moment in Time. And travelling faster than the Speed of Light would cause Einstein to see that clock in the rear window travelling backwards in Time. But, if Einstein rotated 180 degrees and looked out the front window in order to see another clock, what would happen? Does this mean Einstein would be seeing the clock speed up? And if so, does this mean Einstein would be travelling into the future from the point of view of that clock in front?
If so, how can you simultaneously be travelling both backwards in Time and forward in Time? I realize that this is easily explained based on the "relative" point of view of observers at each location of the "clock." However, from the point of view of the person on this ship that is looking at a clock in the rear window and a clock in the front window, the person would be seeing Time Travel into the Past from the rear window and seeing Time Travel into the Future from the front window - therefore apparently causing Time Travel into both the past and the future simultaneously. Is this correct?
In fact, even if we limit this question to a speed limit of "The Speed of Light," if you looked out the back window, the image of the clock would constantly be frozen at that one moment in Time; however, if you looked out the front window, the image of the clock apparently would be moving forward at a rate that is twice as fast as the clock would be moving if the observer were standing still.
This gets even more unusual if you stop and think about how Einstein could potentially look at a "mirror" of a reflection so that he could simultaneously watch both the clock in front and the clock in back while travelling at the speed of light. The clock in back would remain frozen and never move, while the clock in front would be moving twice as fast.
And this gets even more unusual when you think about what would happen if Einstein were travelling "Faster than the Speed of Light" while looking at a mirror in order to see the reflection so that he could see both clocks simultaneously. The clock in front would travel forward in even faster, while the clock in back would actually start moving backwards!
Is this correct? ... I think I "know" about these things, and I have an "understanding," but not as good of an "understanding" as I would like. If you could expand on this, and explain from multiple points of view, I would appreciate this.
In short you are saying that . If Einstein travelled at speed of light time would freeze and when he moves faster than light he would start travelling in past .
But frame of reference too refers
th-cam.com/video/au0QJYISe4c/w-d-xo.html
@@anmoljaswal7945 That is only half of what I'm saying. That is why I asked the "Question." I will paraphrase the situation and the Question below.
Consider there is a ship that you and I are on. This ship has a front window and a rear window. There is a clock in front of us and a clock behind us.
When we travel closer to the speed of light, the clock behind us starts to slow down. And when we travel at the speed of light, the clock behind us stops. And when we travel faster than the speed of light, the clock behind us actually starts moving in reverse - which indicates we are travelling backwards in time towards the past.
I understand those things about the back window completely. ... What I don't understand is the front window. ... That is what I'm asking about.
When we travel closer to the speed of light, the clock in front us apparently will start to speed up (the opposite of the clock behind us). And when we travel at the speed of light, the clock in front of us stops (just like the clock behind us). And when we travel faster than the speed of light, the clock in front of us apparently continues to speed up - which indicates we are travelling forward in time towards the future.
Is that correct?
If it is not correct, why not?
If it is correct, how can we possibly look out the rear window and see the clock moving backwards into the past while simultaneously looking out the front window and see the clock moving forward into the future?
U just need to modify and analyse it. suppositions r correct
may be this can help u can jump to 6:30 th-cam.com/video/pTn6Ewhb27k/w-d-xo.html
Nice video. Thx
So, say V represents an object's rate of travel through a spatial dimension and T represents an object's rate of travel through the temporal dimension, would this mean C^2 = V^2 + T^2 ? If so, this would be a pretty cool way to nerf time travel from a sci-fi perspective. If the rate of travel through time cannot exceed the speed of light C, then there is no faster way to travel into the future than by just being a stationary object. In turn, if a hypothetical time machine was designed to take a person 5 years in the past, even at maximum backward velocity, you'd still have to wait five years to reach your destination. Once arriving in the past, there would be no quicker way to return to the future other than waiting.
I look at it like this, everything is moving at the speed of light when motionless. If you then accelerate you are adding your speed on top of lightspeed. We'll say your speed in your car is lightspeed+50mph. However, the universe says you can't go faster than the equivalent of lightspeed in a vacuum, so it imparts time dilation unto you, which slows you down enough in the time dimension so that your actual traveled distance is what it wouldve been at exactly lightspeed.
This is wonderful, thank you!
Very nice films you post here! Congrats!
But I urge you to put a number for ever film you post here.
Like a chapter number in a book.
Having a number together with the title makes things much easier.
Easier to track what you have already seen...
Easier find new and old films...
Easier to indicate to friends which films to see...
Easier to find the order in which you have to see the films...
Easier for you to point for another one of your own films!
Easier for everything!
Even with that drawing I have difficulties to see how it is possible that if you come close to the speed of light (say very close!), still a photon will pass you with 300000 kilometers per hour! No matter if you travel in photons direction or against its direction, it will pass you with the same 300000 kilometers per hour, regardless of how close you come yourself to the speed of light!
So I feel like there something being lost when you travel a certain direction...
Something abstract..
Very interesting video, I was wondering why scientists explain light from stars as a certain number of light years away when surely given that galaxies, stars, our solar system and earth are moving at different very high speeds relatively and in different directions. Points in the universe moving in opposite directions at close to the speed of light would for sure slow time to almost a standstill.
Alice need to refuel to start moving
So in Life, actually...there is no first or Last, only through perception and experience, but not overall. We are all are at the Starting Line, and Finish Line, regardless of what is occurring.
Great vid. But you’re making the assumption that space doesn’t exist and that there is no preferred reference frame. This is the same assumption Einstein made to preserve the principle of relativity and Lorentz invariance but this approach always leads to the unsolvable twin paradox. You’re vid shows the time-rate for one observer being 2s while it’s 2.2s for the other. You then change perspectives and reverse the time rates of the observers - and thereby creating the twin paradox. But the atomic clocks and jet airplane experiment done in the early seventies empirically proved the twin paradox does not exist. Does this mean there is something wrong with your math and graphs? Only if you hold to this no preferred reference frame argument. I’d argue Einstein made an incorrect assumption (all theoretical physicists make assumptions btw) when he developed SR and believed the principle of relativity/Lorentz invariance to be correct without any empirical evidence to support this cereberally deduced principle. Space exists and mass moves through it and most importantly - relative to it. The very foundation of GR is based on the notion that space exists independent and separate from baryonic matter. This means space has quantity too. The Shapiro time delay experiment proved empirically space exists, has quantity, is compressible, is movable, and is conservable. LIGO gravity waves also prove space exists. So my point is if space exists then we cannot continue to say there is no preferred reference frame for observers moving through it. If two observers (made of matter) are moving relative to each other they must also be moving relative to space - and of the two moving observers the one moving with the greatest speed relative to space will always have the slowest time-rate - synchronous GPS satellites empirically prove this everyday as well as refute the twin paradox. Here is my vid showing exactly why time runs slower for a moving observer than a stationary one. It’s because the amount of space (or distance if you want to just draw a line) between the two reflecting mirrors in a photon clock will increase when the photon clock begins moving relative to space. More space - more time. Same thing with gravity - gravity is is nothing more than nonlinearly compressed space which means the travel distance for light between the mirrors in a photon clock will increase (causing time dilation) as the clock falls downward in the gravity field. Again, the Shapiro time delay experiment proved empirically that gravity is nothing more than nonlinearly compressed space. One last thing - you should not believe the length contraction theory until it has been DIRECTLY proven. This theory was derived as an ad-hoc explanation to justify the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and meant to save the aether theory. th-cam.com/video/M5WqEab61UI/w-d-xo.html
Harry McLaughlin - 👍🏽
I am a proponent of the constant 1g acceleration method for interstellar travel, relativity has a lot to do with this method. A ship using this method would achieve about .95 light speed after about 1 year and it would have gravity the whole way. I invite you to watch my video's "best method for interstellar travel" and "liquid plutonium rocket", the method is on wikipedia if your interested.
God imagine if light made that bing sound all the time IRL 😭
Please tell me this channel isn't dead?
i don't understand what you mean
you lose me at about 1:29
Best explanation!
Awesome video keep making many more like that 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
great explanation! Love the intuition.
well I didn't ask for this but thanks a ton anyway
No problem! Thanks for watching!
Frankly speaking I got just 10 percent of what you described..... A curious citizen of earth
Me listening to the video with closed eyes and imagining all the stuff
Will Powell: "ping" "ping" "ping" "ping"
We move by the speed of Thoughts.
I'm pretty sure I did learn what I hyperbole was when I was in junior high school and geometry class but it's not something I've thought about in recent times or had any reason to and I never heard it explained the way he did and equated it to time like that it made so much perfect sense either but then again I probably read a book about Einstein where it did exactly that but was too remember it too. But you got to excuse me for that when you've done nothing but read and learn your whole life there's a little bit of stuff you got to forget every now and then which I know you guys understand yourself I remember there was a time when I was younger there wasn't a thing in my past that I couldn't remember I'm talking about almost today by day from the time I was a child of until I was a young adult and then got to be weak by week now I'm lucky if I remember a whole year or so it's not that bad but I still forget a lot now what was we talking about?
The less we move through space the more we move through time. Translation: Time moves fast if you're not changing location(i.e. not moving)
The more we move through space the less we move through time. Translation: Time slows down when we are changing location(i.e. moving)
But all this indicates is that we are moving through space time but NOT at the speed of light. A photon doesn't experience any time change and it never slows down relative to space time.
It doesn't indicate that at all, and there's no way to tell why you think that from your comment.
@@EpicMathTime Did you watch the video? That's what he said. If you can't tell from my comment then you can't tell from the vid either
Yes. Because space (not universe) is expanding at the speed of light. In tandem with time. So, this makes the dimensions of space and time on the same platform. And, the reality of Spacetime is defined.
Space is eternal, not absolute. It is absolute only at a particular time. So, at 1 sec after the big bang, space is absolute at a diameter of 300,000 km. And the size of space now, is about 14b light years. Then, certainly, still growing.
Space is expanding at a rate dictated by the Hubble parameter. And you should double-check your assumptions about the size of the Universe. Among other things, you are neglecting inflation.
Flashlights moving at the speed of light, in the dark.
One day I was moving at the speed of light and shot my gun at a star. Missed, but broke relativity entirely.
Mabee it's the space that is moving at the speed of light
Can some esteemed scientists confirm this hypothesis?
If I told the officer that I was travelling at a different angle in space-time, I might get arrested for DUI.
Now I am standing at speed of light
Not really. Having a geometric identity such that the norm of the 4-velocity is always 1 doesn't mean the speed of every object is 1. If we accept that, then we'd have to accept that the sine of every angle is 1, since sin^2(theta) + cos^2(theta) = 1^2.
Speed is just spatial displacement divided by time interval. For massive objects, it can never be 1.
More directly, speed is defined to be a variable. The norm of the 4-velocity is invariant, so it isn't a speed.
Alice and Bob are motionless...
😅😂😊
Oh keeper of secret knowledge, can you enlighten us as to how this relates to constant artificial acceleration?
This is at best a cute "hack" with not much meaning.
The t axis is time. The speed of time in time is in seconds/seconds.
To construct a 4D space, we need the units of all 4 axes to match, so we multiply the time axis with c.
So the moral of the story is you travel through the time axis at the speed of time, when your time is multiplied by the speed of time.
Cute, but meaningless.
No we don't it's bs
Simple things are too complicated.
Nice Video! Interesting and I like your animation styles! Yet, mixing the continuous animations with the low-framerate ones sometimes disturbed me a little, but ofc it's nit a big deal :D a little slower pace and one can almost lean back while enjoying this mind candy
Plot twist: We are light
It looks suspiciously like 3b1b with micro changes
3b1b's animation engine is called Manim. It's freely available. He's using it. Nothing suspicious about it.