So now that such small weights can demonstrate gravity, surely one can take a sensitive scale (.0001g), stand underneath "Excavator 288" which weights 14 000 tons or underwater beneath a 100 000 ton aircraft carrier and measure how much the gravitational attraction from it reduces the mass of 1KG wooden block. Has something similar been attempted? How much mass should an object have in order to have a .0001g effect? Thanks!
I thought you are the worth higher science channel in youtube, teaching like a scientist(how they discovered) rather than just saying"it is a law"". Beautiful and fascinaing channel. i love it😃
Can we measure the expansion of the universe by measuring if they happen at the plank dimension? And when gravity will be broken because of the expansion ?
masses attract not becaue they have mass. but because they have 'weight'. Weight is a product of being energised by the 'field' that the mass is within.
Some people are convinced that this experiment is a demonstration of the Casimir effect. Maybe you could explain why this could or couldn't be the case. Cheers!
Excellent question. It is possible that the casimir effect could play a role here. I haven't crunched the numbers but I think the seperation of the masses and the surface area wouldn't make this a very favourable answer. Particular when the results from these measurements agree with other measurements of gravity with significantly larger objects where the casimir effect can be safely neglected. Thanks for the great question.
@@ScienceDiscussed Thank you for taking that question seriously. I should add that there would be 2 types of shadow effect going on here - one due to the balls' shadowing of the air movement which would be due to ever present thermal fluctuations and the other which is officially known as the Casimir effect which is taken to be a consequence of quantum fluctuations. Needless to say, I would like to see this experiment done in a vacuum chamber with non-conducting materials. I don't have the technical knowledge to crunch such numbers but if you ever do, please share! Thank you!!
@@alexei4204 the experiment was performed under a vacuum otherwise charges and air glow would have had too much of an effect. But unfortunately vacuum fluctuations are always there.
@@ScienceDiscussed Ah! I missed that part. Okay, granted, you can't rid of quantum fluctuations but one could eliminate the effect they have on the spheres by using non-conducting materials, right?
@@alexei4204 You are right in principle. Placing it in a medium would likely reduce the effect of vacuum flucuations. However, whatever you put it in would likely have some fluid dynamics that would in turn make the measruement of gravity harder. Even super fluids have some fluid dynamics. I don't know if these dynamics would be small enough in a superfluid but it would for sure make the measurements more difficult.
Page 218 derivation of “G” from first principles; I.e. the hydrogen atom done in 2002/2010 in “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “,Mark McCutcheon.
@@ScienceDiscussed Gravity is the earth expanding at 16 feet per second constant acceleration: I.e. Galilean relative motion; d=1/2at^2. Covered in said book. These 4 forces cannot be unified because they are not real. The expanding electron has replaced “energy “ as cause of all matter and phenomena.
@@ScienceDiscussedThere's a free pdf review "FinalTheory" on the back issues query of the "bay-astronomers" site. Although it may cover local gravitation, the main issue seems that the theory cannot explain orbits, tides and so on. Apparently the author isn't schooled on the appropriate mathematics. Looks like it's saved me from wasting time & money. Good on them for being honest!
@@davidrandell2224The magnitude of gravitational acceleration on Earth is about 32 ft/s², not 16 ft/s which is just a speed. Also, Galilean relative motion is to do with relative velocities, not accelerations which are usually considered absolute. (i.e. the observer frame is not accelerating versus the target). A difference in velocity over space between two objects is not the same as a change in velocity for one object. The former is about where you put the spatially-relative frame origin in 3d space at some time instant; the latter is about the time-relative value of the next velocity for the particular object in an instant of time along it's trajectory.
It can be measured using an Atomic gravimeter, if you are interested here is how its experimentally realized. We first cool atoms to extremely low temperatures, since matter(atoms) at extremely low temperature has very less thermal broadening, they have like extremely narrow wavelength band. And for atoms like Rb, we can use a two counter propagating lasers to create an optical lattice that acts similar to a diffraction grating or beam splitter.. this optical beam splitter is able to put the atoms in a superposition of two States (for ex: |A> and |B>). Due to a nature of how the atoms are put in the superposition (ex: Raman Transition), each state has a well defined momentum,(ex: |A,p> then |B,p+h(k1+k2)>, where k1 and k2 are the momentum imparted by the optical Beam splitter. As we can see, the laser not only puts each atom in a superposition of states |A> and |B>, it also puts them in a superposition of momentum |p> and |p+h(k1 + k2)>. Since momentum is related to velocity, which can be affected by gravity, the superposition which has different momentums are affected differently, the first laser, put the atoms in a superposition of two momentum, then they are let to fall freely, the next pulse exchanges the momentum superposition, and then let the states evolve, then after same time interval another pulse brings the atoms together. In the absence of gravity the initial and the final phase difference remains same, as the phase change gained during the first and second laser is counteracted in the duration of second and third laser. But in the presence of gravity there is a relative phase difference between the initial and the final states.. by studying this phase difference, by measuring the atomic state which is directly corresponding to the momentum state, we can precisely measure gravity. Feel free to correct me, if there's an error..
@@Stopstalkingmenarokkurai I have provided you with a detailed overview on how actual precise measurement of Gravity is realized (both mathematical and experimental realization). If you have any doubts regarding the procedure, I am happy to clarify. But it is upto you, to interpret and analyze the procedure..
@Gsgm-hg5cj so where can we observe gravity? We can't see it in a bottle of water. We can't see gravity in an Olympic size swimming pool We can't see gravity in a lake. Where can we see gravity in full force. The mass of an aircraft carrier should be immense. Yet it floats no problems at all
@@Stopstalkingmenarokkurai In case of the precise measurement of gravity of an atomic gravimeter, which I described, the information about the gravity is stored in the relative phase shift. It's not exactly clear to me, by what you intended by saying gravity in a bottle of water, pool, etc.. so do elaborate. And in regards to the flight capabilities of an airplane, it can be explained with simple kinematics.. and Bernoulli's principle, and takes gravity into account as described by Newtonian mechanics. If gravity is not present as you have stated, then do provide me with a description of flight mechanics that doesn't involve gravity. Anybody could claim anything, but inorder for it to be accepted from a claim to a fact, you need to be able to provide a model that is able to describe and also be able to make future predictions.. The mechanism of flight can do so, and it does it by taking gravity into account. So the model you propose should be able to make accurate predictions of flight mechanism without involving gravity. I look forward to your model
![ILLSLICK - WINTER IS COMING [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dwTMeM1zIhQ/mqdefault.jpg)
So now that such small weights can demonstrate gravity, surely one can take a sensitive scale (.0001g), stand underneath "Excavator 288" which weights 14 000 tons or underwater beneath a 100 000 ton aircraft carrier and measure how much the gravitational attraction from it reduces the mass of 1KG wooden block. Has something similar been attempted? How much mass should an object have in order to have a .0001g effect? Thanks!
Do the enormously large paticle accelerators like cern provide much help with the remaining questions about gravity?
Thank You, for the excellent discussions. We need more excellent college professor like you
Thanks a lot. I am not a professor yet but maybe one day soon.
I thought you are the worth higher science channel in youtube, teaching like a scientist(how they discovered) rather than just saying"it is a law"". Beautiful and fascinaing channel. i love it😃
I am really glad you like the style.
Can we measure the expansion of the universe by measuring if they happen at the plank dimension? And when gravity will be broken because of the expansion ?
So, now the ratio of lowest mass that scientists measured is only 10^4 times bigger than the most massive object whose quantum effects were observed.
masses attract not becaue they have mass. but because they have 'weight'. Weight is a product of being energised by the 'field' that the mass is within.
Maybe it should be called the Michel-Cavendish experiment.
They should put this experiment on a satellite and a probe that travels to different parts of the solar system.
Some people are convinced that this experiment is a demonstration of the Casimir effect. Maybe you could explain why this could or couldn't be the case. Cheers!
Excellent question. It is possible that the casimir effect could play a role here. I haven't crunched the numbers but I think the seperation of the masses and the surface area wouldn't make this a very favourable answer. Particular when the results from these measurements agree with other measurements of gravity with significantly larger objects where the casimir effect can be safely neglected. Thanks for the great question.
@@ScienceDiscussed Thank you for taking that question seriously. I should add that there would be 2 types of shadow effect going on here - one due to the balls' shadowing of the air movement which would be due to ever present thermal fluctuations and the other which is officially known as the Casimir effect which is taken to be a consequence of quantum fluctuations. Needless to say, I would like to see this experiment done in a vacuum chamber with non-conducting materials. I don't have the technical knowledge to crunch such numbers but if you ever do, please share! Thank you!!
@@alexei4204 the experiment was performed under a vacuum otherwise charges and air glow would have had too much of an effect. But unfortunately vacuum fluctuations are always there.
@@ScienceDiscussed Ah! I missed that part. Okay, granted, you can't rid of quantum fluctuations but one could eliminate the effect they have on the spheres by using non-conducting materials, right?
@@alexei4204 You are right in principle. Placing it in a medium would likely reduce the effect of vacuum flucuations. However, whatever you put it in would likely have some fluid dynamics that would in turn make the measruement of gravity harder. Even super fluids have some fluid dynamics. I don't know if these dynamics would be small enough in a superfluid but it would for sure make the measurements more difficult.
Very interesting 👍
Glad you think so!
Why is the second 'L' in the title 'John Mitchell' a different style than the first?
wow you were paying close attention. A mask layer cut the end of the L off and I didn't notice.
Page 218 derivation of “G” from first principles; I.e. the hydrogen atom done in 2002/2010 in “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “,Mark McCutcheon.
I don't understand the reference
@@ScienceDiscussed Gravity is the earth expanding at 16 feet per second constant acceleration: I.e. Galilean relative motion; d=1/2at^2. Covered in said book. These 4 forces cannot be unified because they are not real. The expanding electron has replaced “energy “ as cause of all matter and phenomena.
@@ScienceDiscussedThere's a free pdf review "FinalTheory" on the back issues query of the "bay-astronomers" site.
Although it may cover local gravitation, the main issue seems that the theory cannot explain orbits, tides and so on.
Apparently the author isn't schooled on the appropriate mathematics.
Looks like it's saved me from wasting time & money. Good on them for being honest!
@@davidrandell2224The magnitude of gravitational acceleration on Earth is about 32 ft/s², not 16 ft/s which is just a speed.
Also, Galilean relative motion is to do with relative velocities, not accelerations which are usually considered absolute.
(i.e. the observer frame is not accelerating versus the target).
A difference in velocity over space between two objects is not the same as a change in velocity for one object.
The former is about where you put the spatially-relative frame origin in 3d space at some time instant; the latter is about the time-relative value of the next velocity for the particular object in an instant of time along it's trajectory.
@@The_Green_Man_OAP “He who will not read is no better than he who cannot read “, Mark Twain. Continue to ‘argue from ignorance.’ Laugh.
Gravity has to do with time space continuum .so this is illegal
Demonstrate and measure gravity. It's all bs
It can be measured using an Atomic gravimeter, if you are interested here is how its experimentally realized. We first cool atoms to extremely low temperatures, since matter(atoms) at extremely low temperature has very less thermal broadening, they have like extremely narrow wavelength band. And for atoms like Rb, we can use a two counter propagating lasers to create an optical lattice that acts similar to a diffraction grating or beam splitter.. this optical beam splitter is able to put the atoms in a superposition of two States (for ex: |A> and |B>). Due to a nature of how the atoms are put in the superposition (ex: Raman Transition), each state has a well defined momentum,(ex: |A,p> then |B,p+h(k1+k2)>, where k1 and k2 are the momentum imparted by the optical Beam splitter. As we can see, the laser not only puts each atom in a superposition of states |A> and |B>, it also puts them in a superposition of momentum |p> and |p+h(k1 + k2)>. Since momentum is related to velocity, which can be affected by gravity, the superposition which has different momentums are affected differently, the first laser, put the atoms in a superposition of two momentum, then they are let to fall freely, the next pulse exchanges the momentum superposition, and then let the states evolve, then after same time interval another pulse brings the atoms together. In the absence of gravity the initial and the final phase difference remains same, as the phase change gained during the first and second laser is counteracted in the duration of second and third laser. But in the presence of gravity there is a relative phase difference between the initial and the final states.. by studying this phase difference, by measuring the atomic state which is directly corresponding to the momentum state, we can precisely measure gravity. Feel free to correct me, if there's an error..
@Gsgm-hg5cj great show us gravity in full force
@@Stopstalkingmenarokkurai I have provided you with a detailed overview on how actual precise measurement of Gravity is realized (both mathematical and experimental realization). If you have any doubts regarding the procedure, I am happy to clarify. But it is upto you, to interpret and analyze the procedure..
@Gsgm-hg5cj so where can we observe gravity?
We can't see it in a bottle of water.
We can't see gravity in an Olympic size swimming pool
We can't see gravity in a lake.
Where can we see gravity in full force.
The mass of an aircraft carrier should be immense. Yet it floats no problems at all
@@Stopstalkingmenarokkurai In case of the precise measurement of gravity of an atomic gravimeter, which I described, the information about the gravity is stored in the relative phase shift.
It's not exactly clear to me, by what you intended by saying gravity in a bottle of water, pool, etc.. so do elaborate.
And in regards to the flight capabilities of an airplane, it can be explained with simple kinematics.. and Bernoulli's principle, and takes gravity into account as described by Newtonian mechanics. If gravity is not present as you have stated, then do provide me with a description of flight mechanics that doesn't involve gravity.
Anybody could claim anything, but inorder for it to be accepted from a claim to a fact, you need to be able to provide a model that is able to describe and also be able to make future predictions.. The mechanism of flight can do so, and it does it by taking gravity into account.
So the model you propose should be able to make accurate predictions of flight mechanism without involving gravity. I look forward to your model
Mumbling your way through a very interesting science experiment is very distracting. Enunciate!
It is very interesting isn't it. I will try to speak more clearly in the future. Thanks for the feedback.
Maybe clean the wax out of your ears. He speaks well and clear.