I'm done with all those big channels, they just keep saying the same thing,it takes infinite energy...The wavelength thing is now I know why it is so. Saw another guys awesome video of general relativity in 3D spacetime and it had only 10k views..Man you guys deserve to have millions more
Sabine, ScienceClic English, PBS Spacetime, and Perth imho are absolutely the best places to visit. Some come close, those these 4 are my fav. "But why" is probably going to be the 5th as i see that even though small mistakes are there, explanation of the topics is pretty much one of the best i have seen. As far as GR goes ScienceClic English has the best series about it hands down. Masterpiece to say the least.
@You are correct But No argument there, also they are kings of Dad jokes. I would not consider them Average Joe friendly though. I am one of those Joes and still watch all their vids, so you are right, worth mentioning.
I have been watching physics videos on TH-cam for as long as I can remember but no one has ever bothered to explain these stuff wuite like you. You literally ask why to the most generally accepted notions in Physics realising that most ppl actually don't even understand the concepts. This is now my favourite Physics channel. Thank you. Keep up the good work
*puts on double pocket protector* Theoretically, you could travel to the speed of light if you were able to get rid of higgs Boson particles out of the atoms. You wouldn't have mass therefore nothing to slow you down. Don't ask me how to remove it that isn't my job. My job was simply to cause chaos.
I imagine quantum fields as kind of LCD screens. On those, lighting up tiny red, green and blue points can conjure any visible object. Quantum fields do that in 3D. Seems intuitive to me.
I would follow you on that way, there is just a little think that is hard to visualize : the space is not discrete, there is no "dot" like an LCD screen. As far as I know, space is continuous, and that's a pain to visualize !
@@kloakovalimonada I believe that quantum applies to energy levels, but not to spatial dimensions. Like having a 16 color tv with a magical pixelless screen
@@Technicotop you're probably right. What I was originally thinking is that the concept of quantum fields can be less abstract when you realize that you can get continuous image (or the illusion thereof, but it doesn't matter for our perception) with discrete units such as RGB pixels.
Whenever I keep asking why my teachers at some point can’t explain because they’re bad. This video is literally everything I asked for. That formula I don’t even need to remember in order to write because right now i know how waves and mass work
~7:30 You are making huuuge mistake. "If you traveled at the speed of light particles in your body couldn't communicate, because they also abide the same speed limit". The problem in the R in SRT (special relativity theory). In the frame of reference of the object moving at the speed of light, all of it's internal processes remain consistent with it being at rest, thus from your own perspective you body would retain it's original shape and properties regardless of the speed you are traveling at (speed according to which reference frame?). In other words, as you approach the speed of light, you'd see the entire universe collapse along the axis of travel, but nothing noticeable would happen to you. You could go and make tea, look out the window, read a book and look out the window again, and except the universe looking quite differently to what we are used to on earth everything would seem completely normal. btw, ONLY if you stopped would you notice, that multiple lifetimes of the universe have passed while you were making tea :P
I thought the exact same thing, and that makes me wonder on the rest of the content, but it made sense to me considering the fact that the equations require m = 0 in order to go up to c, and the higgs field explains mass.
@@joaquinbussio6733 higgs field explains mass but only in case of elemental particles. Sure, we are made of these, but the higgs interaction is responsible for a tiny fraction of the mass of the human body. Rest of the mass comes from e=mc^2 and insane amount of energy bound in nuclear forces - in other words, if photons could interact with one another, and this interaction could store energy, then a pair of photons could have mass, while singular photons wouldn't.
It got me in the video also. Other question that came in mind was the how the Higgs field deals with the relativity, once the field position is not relative to the observer?
its not like flies in cars, what youre saying is that if you were moving at the speed of light, those sub atomic particles could exceed the speed of light in order to move in the direction youre going. this means you arent /0 anymore, youre /-1. you would need more than infinite energy to achieve this.
The weird part is, YOU can go as fast as you want. If you put in twice the energy, you can get to any speed as long as you measure from your frame of reference. If you want to get from point a to point b and the two points are a lightyear apart, there is no limit for how fast you can get there. This is due to the time dilation from moving this fast, if you want to go faster, you can. But from an outsiders perspective you are just getting closer to the speed of light and thus they see you slowing down in time.
as my professor said before he started his semester class.."Physic is about WHY not WHAT"..keeping asking why,the physic will start explain it to you..i sub to ur channel for how easy to understand it and the topic really bring back memories from my Uni years..
If space has no gravity or resistance, can’t we keep applying thrust and it’ll continue to increase the speed up to the speed of light and beyond? The only problem is hitting space debre. I think I read once that there is very minimal resistance even in the vacuum of space, like the force that light from stars has upon objects floating in space. But even then, I feel like if a spaceship kept applying thrust, speed is boundless 😐
@@FlashRyu Check out the part about the Higgs field. All particles, except photons and gluons, are effected by, and interact with it, so there is resistance. The faster you go, the more the particle is effected until it reaches a point where infinite energy is required to accelerate further.
I mean, "why" implies intent, "how" seems the more accurate question to ask. An example: "Why did the apple fall off the tree?" Could be answered as "because it overslept" and it would be a logical answer to the question why. "How did the apple fall off the tree?" Can only be answered by an order of explanations. We can ask "why" those orders are the way the apple did fall off the tree, but there is no end to asking why, even though there could be an end to how something is done. Knowing when to ask "why" is when you get valid answers, otherwise, ask "how".
Congrats Roy! Im 60 years younger and would love to say the same. The journey of understanding the world to a deeper degreee thanks to our technology and all the amazing scientists over the centuries. May Reason and Criticical thinking prevail
This has become my new favourite channel. Awesome visualizations. Looking forward for a complete series on quantum physics and relativity. Keep up the good work.
@@Astrochronic I don't know if you're trolling, having a bad day or just like/ need to prick holes in other people's balloons to get off on their disappointment.. You know the way you act & treat people physically and measurably affects the way the world, in turn, treats you.. Most intelligent people know this.. It's usually whiny, 'victims' of the world, who can't grow up/ man up / suck it up, who feel the need to be mean-spirited to pull everyone else down to their self caused depressing level ( cos doesn't matter what the world does to you, You choose whether you mend it or let it crumble) Maybe no one in your life who cares enough has made you face it, & since you don't know me I don't expect you to even read this, but I can tell you need something to make your life a little less depressed, so best wishes for making the rest of your life more than it is.. 🌏☮️♾️
Also... 7:15 - The speed of light is One Planck Length divided by One Planck Time. So if spacetime were thought of as being granular, the speed of light is simply taking One Quantized Step.
I’m 43. When I was about 9 I read in a simple book the simple answer: that the faster things go the more massive they become.. so that you need more and more energy to accelerate the object…. eventually they get to infinite mass and you need infinite energy to accelerate it.
Speed doesn’t change the mass of an object. Friction as a result of speed at high enough levels can literally burn off part of that initial mass thus reducing mass.
But doesn’t time have to slow all the way down to allow for this? Its why a light clock would tick slower when it is moving faster relative to another light clock.
the explanation for this is generally that the light is 'absorbed and reemitted', and this is ok for a cursory explanation. but the reason light slows through mediums has to due with the calculation of the quantum field. the wave of the light interacts with the waves of the particles and this is observed as a 'slowing' of the light through a medium. this is worded incredibly poorly due to desire to keep this short, but the basic concept still holds
This is the best explanation of this phenomenon I have ever seen on TH-cam, not even the great physics channels have explained it in this level of detail! You certainly got my subscription!
Nothing can exceed the speed of light. That only applies to matter moving through space, but, according to general relativity, space itself has no boundaries to its upper limit and can do whatever it wants.
@@eliashansen2168 ha, u say that as if u know for certain. Truth is we have no idea and can only hypothesise fragile theories from fragmented evidence. Only thing I see expanding is my beer gut
Like some other people have written, I’ve watched LOTS of videos on physics subjects like this…. BUT, this is the FIRST one in a decade or more where it’s been taken beyond high school physics AND explained in a brilliant way that makes this understandable without making excuses about only REALLY being able to get the idea of you can think in mathematical equations. Love the graphics and the script is even better. Thank you. Please make more…. Like… what’s an electron volt, and what can you find out by smashing high velocity protons together?
Or just if you have extremely long hair that stretches across the distance from the Earth to the Moon. If you swing your hair towards the ground at the same time as you jump off the ground, with enough force you could probably pull yourself towards the moon, especially if your center of gravity is a little bit near the Moon than the Earth.
I like to think that we can travel at the speed of light. Or rather, we already are. We just aren't traveling through space very fast. But we are traveling through time very, very fast. Our perception of time arises from all the subatomic interactions occurring within our nervous systems. Every particle interaction in your body is a tiny little clock ticking away and driving the narrative of your timeline and conciseness. And those interactions occur very, very fast. Of course, we only experience the total sum of those interactions and are completely oblivious to them. So while we are moving slowly through space and very quickly through time, photons are moving only through space. They don't move through time at all. We find it fascinating that light can move so fast. But if light could be conscious, it would probably be fascinated by us and our strange ability to move through both time and space.
Another excellent video. You deserve millions of subscribers. I'm glad to be one of your early ones. I'm looking forward to watching your channel explode ...like you were jumping to the Moon.
Thank you for a great video. Just one note: dividing by zero is NOT infinity, it's undefined and impossible. If 1/0 = ∞, then ∞ x 0 = 1 causing all sorts of nonsensical results and basically breaking maths. So 1/0 is undefined.
Good point. Of course, that leads me more to believe the math is wrong. You can't go "undefined" number and just accept it as truth. Unfortunately, with our current level of mathematic understanding, this is the closest we have.
@@lescobrandon8443 yes you absolutely can. That's exactly how maths works: you define the axioms and rules, and throw out anything that doesn't fit the rules. In maths you don't accept something as true, you define something as true. In the rules we have accepted, it's impossible to divide by zero. If you define other rules and they're logically consistent, you can divide by zero in that system... because you've defined it as such.
@@mjmulenga3 You obviously don't understand what I am saying. If something is "undefined", it isn't an answer. It's just shrugging and saying oh well. That said, because of our current level of understanding in mathematics, the closest we have is this. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, but that it is beyond our grasp currently, and thus left "undefined". Maybe, if people question the theory, like they should be doing, we might come up with something even closer to the truth. I don't see it happening soon, especially with so many people refusing to challenge their own little world view like it is right now, but maybe in a few generations. Remember, the scientific method is always an on going process. It is designed to be challenged. That is why they are "theories", not laws.
@@lescobrandon8443 To divide you need some quantifiable value, division by zero just doesn't make any sense. Although there is infinitely small numbers which is like zero, but not exactly and you can throw them in any equation you like.
This was an amazing explanation. Most people know about the whole infinite energy thing etc but the way u explained about why infinite energy is required made it really good.
Outstanding video production: great topic, excellent graphics and superbly narrated (to the point, no promotional intonations like some others, not monotone). Really well done!
3:50 that is wrong. Interacting with the Higgs Field does NOT create resistance to motion. If that were the case electrons would slow down to a halt and there would be no motion. Which is not what we observe. The mechanism works otherwise. Particles have mass NOT because they interact with -something- that impedes their movement. In fact the actual reason the electron has mass, it is because it experiences Time. That is it. The fact that the electron experiences time, means it cannot be moving at light-speed, which means that it must have mass. The real 2012 ordeal with the Higgs Boson is that in order to prove the electron experiences time, you observe its chirality. Right handed electrons and Left handed electrons differ because R-electrons have outside of their electric charge, weak hypercharge too. And when one R-electron is converted to a L-electron, it CANNOT do so without losing its weak hypercharge in the form of a negative W Boson. The vice versa is also true, where a L-electron needs gain weak hypercharge to become a R-electron. A symmetry break. Anyway because this transformation happens, it means the electron experiences time. Now this is where the Higgs comes in. The Higgs Fields is a weak hypercharge condensate. Which means at any point in space it can aid the electrons in experiencing Chirality. How do you prove the Higgs Field exists? By inducing a disturbance in it so that you can create its associate Particle, the Higgs Boson. The Boson has a known mass and decay products observed at the LHC
Electrons are essentially photons trapped in a 720* spin. Photons have a 360* spin. Take high energy gamma photon and smash into a gold atom you get what's called pair production. The gamma photon splits into an electron and it's antimatter pair and opposite spin or chilarity the positron. My thought the spin of an electron is at the speed of light. Not only that but the electrons spin around the nucleus of atoms is occuring at the speed of light, also. In my opinion that is the reason we cannot determine an electrons exact position. It's location is spread out in it's temporal sphere that is created as the electron light orbits the area of the nucleus of the atom at the speed of light. I don't know exactly what's allowing it to happen. Could be the nucleuses' create a field that enables it.
Finally. I've been looking at videos which provide an explanation of why the speed of light can't be exceeded. This one made it clear to me. Thank you.
For all the times I've heard both the good old Newtonian laws and some variation of the "you need infinite energy to reach light speed" now I realize I've never actually asked the simple question "But why?". Great video.
Why is the speed of light what it is? We actually DO know. It's because that speed is equal to one planck length per one planck time. Basically, it's derived out of the time and space "resolution" of our universe. And afaik, we do know why sizes smaller than planck length are not a viable concept, same as we know why times smaller than planck length are not a viable concept. ...i might be mistaken or simplifying too much, but I think it's more understood than you give it credit for.
As an amateur dabbling in physics, I've thought that lightspeed means the limit of _everything,_ given its wavelenght is the Planck lenght, or the smallest unit of timespace there can be. In order to be anything, that anything would have to give up being everything in that moment, and enter the arrow of time (aka follow causality). While it might not be the smallest unit/distance _possible,_ for all frames of reference in our current reality _it is._ A photon is not traveling anywhere, _it is everywhere that is crossing the path of the photon._ For its frame of reference, not a single second has passed from the Milky Way to Andromeda, but from ours it's been a mind-boggling 5 million years for a round travel. Anything (conceptually) faster would simply fail to be registered by our instruments as they fall outside our realm of causality, which is what I believe the realm of dark energy, an energy that is invisible to us by all means except on its effects of expanding timespace faster than its own speed. So chances are good the photon is not the limit per se, but it is for anything that can be observed. Hyperlight travel would forcibly need to bend timespace itself as it would be impossible to reach the finish line without ever moving from the start line. Tl;Dr: God needs to upgrade the ram on his Micro Center built computer he made while drunk.
fun fact: the speed of light defines the meter, NOT the other way round! edit: That is why the speed of light is exactly 299'792'458m/s and thus has no fraction whatsoever. And one more thing: Out of the seven base units (SI base units), time (seconds) is also one of those. The more accurate we can define (measure) a second, the more accurate a meter becomes (see above). Luckily for us, atomic clocks achieve just that!
This is the first time I have seen the concept of wave/particle duality and the quantum fields explained and illustrated to a point that I get it. It's amazing to think we are all just made up of these. Vibrations in a field
Universe is actually expanding faster than lightspeed, space is not bound to "our" physics laws, there is a possibility of traveling way faster than light, some scientist are working on that, it is complicated and we don't have the technology yet, but basically is bend the space, shrink it in front of you and expand it behind, technically you are not moving, is the space who does it.
@@DiegoOrtiz-nf9fk for that, I think the energy requirements are that of the entire universe :D I guess they need to come up with some antimatter related energy generation or something like that.
The deBroglie equation describes the problem mathematically but doesn't explain it physically. The simplest explanation is that (a) the vacuum is responsible for both macroscopic motion and the quantum time-evolution of matter, and (b) the vacuum's capacity or activity level is a constant. So time slows down inside moving objects because their motion uses up some of the vacuum's processing power. At the speed of light, the vacuum is maxxed out by the object's motion, so the object doesn't evolve internally at all, i.e. time slows down all the way to a complete halt. And it's impossible for matter to go faster than the speed of light, for the same reason that it's impossible for sound waves to go faster than the speed of sound: the speed limit is based on the medium's capacity to support the wave phenomenon.
Great video. I learned a lot. The concept of a particle/wave's wavelength approaching 0 is great and very intuitive. That said, there is a lot of requisite knowledge needed to follow along with this video. Perhaps a video(s) going over the knowledge dependencies would be good?
It doesnt require infinte energy in this scenario because no physical object is actually traveling at the speed of light. the objects are still travelling at 1/2 the speed of light. instead the distance between the 2 objects is changing at the speed of light.
Light speed "c" and why it is that speed, was determined by Maxwell c=1/SQR(Mu x Eo) where Mu is the permeability of free space and Eo is the permittivity of free space both of which are easy to measure.
I would argue that while Maxwell certainly was aware of this fact, he didn't know how it applied. It was a speed, but in relation to what? the Earth, the Sun? At the time time a concept of a Luminiferous Aether was considered, the reference frame of light (an older concept that kept accumulating the baggage of newer observations). At the time it was not unreasonable to think you could obtain this speed, you just couldn't due to lack of means only. Work by Loorentz and Poincare resulting from experimentation by Michaelson/Morley is generally credited for bringing meaning to what the speed of c meant, at least before Einstein's 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies submited a more cohesive explanation free of the Luminiferous Aether. So c was old hat, the framework that better explained and predicted what c meant came a bit later.
@@gumbilicious1 All good. I was making the point that we know why light (and all other EM waves) have the velocity they have i.e. approx 300,000 kms/s and not some other velocity. Maxwell could not measure the permeability and permittivity in freespace but the difference between those measurements in earths atmosphere and freespace are insignificant. So Maxwell knew he had hit on something really big when he did his calculations for light velocity of the waves in my earlier comment. Thank you for your comments. Best wishes
While watching your videos (which I really like btw) I was wondering which software you use to create your 3D animations. Since the screenshot you used in this video is from Blender 2.8 I suspect you use Blender. So my question: Do you actually use Blender or did you just plug in that screenshot randomly? (I use Blender myself so I was quite intrigued about your animations and was constantly thinking: How would I achieve this effect?).
Yup it's all blender! I've got a secondary channel where I'll periodically upload tutorials or explanations of some things. Any effect in particlar thats stumping you?
@@ButWhySci You got a 2nd channel with tutorials? Awesome! I'm gonna check it out. No there wasn't a particular effect. It's more when you understand more about something (in this case 3D rendering), I tend to see more than just the end result. I think stuff like: How would I achieve this effect or which shaders would I use to create this material. This even happens in the real world: I see something and I think: How much Roughness & Specular that material in Blender would have. So not only are your videos educational - I also get ideas for my own 3D scenes.
I began with some of the black hole videos and now I'm here. For reference, I had Astrophysics, Quantum (Field) Theory lectures and a part of my work is related to Particle Physics, however I went more into Materials Physics. Your display of stuff seems unmatched to me. Not a single textbook or lecture delivers the knowledge of these topics that easy. I had the hard way going by foot like so many others. I'm really enjoying your explanations/lectures :) ... sometimes I asked this particular question. "But why?". To my professors. After I saw I started to embarras them I stopped that. Now I'm on the other side of the table and I'm really happy if one or another of the students is asking questions about how stuff works and we can discuss more deeply. But sadly, it seems to be increasingly rare as the time goes forward ...
Thank you for your thorough and lucid explanation of complex matters, I always enjoy listening to your lectures. Only one comment if may, I think it would be more effective to do away with the music in the background. It's a bit too loud and somewhat distracting. Thank you for all the good that you do, best of luck to you.
"Why is the speed of light 300000 km/s?" I think isn't the best phrasing given the speed of light being a fundamental whatchamacallit. Perhaps a better wording would be "Why do we experience a second when light moves 300000 kilometers?" And then the answer would be down to how many interactions can happen between our particles mediated by an electromagnetic field that sends information at that speed. Or I could be wrong. I don't know.
the reason why we experience the time like we do is most likely because of the speed our brain can computate informations without killing itself in a few months or years. and we do have an evolutional reason to it too. it is a good speed in there the things in our world change. it wouldn't make sense to have a fast brain but our body can't move fast enough to keep up. the next thing about that is that it takes more energy to think and move faster. that is the reason why small animals are thinking and moving faster than big animals. they are small enough to only need a bit of energy to "think" faster and so experiance the time faster. we as humans are technological so far that we already have cameras that can shoot so fast that it stretches a second to an hour or more with a relative good resolution. that is so fast that we can follow the breaking line of glas or let a bullet freez in space while the frames are running.
The answer is even more mundane. It's because the meter is defined by the distance light travels in a vacuum for exactly the amount of time necessary to make it this way. The meter was defined earlier by an arbitrary measurement but now we use the speed light to define what that distance is since it's invariant and observable but it was kept around the same size so we didn't have to redo the metric system.
I think I heard somewhere where they explained how c was calculated and the conclusion was - the one that was the easiest to understand for mere mortals - it is the max in the universe. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light and that is because it is the limit for our universe.
@@dovos8572 I dont think we can answer that question. It is the constraint of this particular universe. There is much we dont understand about the universe, how big it is, why it is expanding, why big bang happened, and so on. I dont think we will ever be able to explain and answer those questions. Thus why we just need to take the c being limited at 300 thousand km/s and stop questioning it :)
@@AMC2283 also you don't need endless supply of power, small bursts of power of one big burst of power is enough as space doesn't have any resistance hence your speed will never reduce unless you run into some gravitation influence of other stars.
@@AMC2283 although it's theoretically possible, our body cannot withstand sudden increase in speed hence our present selves cannot travel at that speed.
And also, this video does lend credence to the possibility of a warp-drive. If you could theoretically warp the space in front of you, and behind you, you could "theoretically" travel at the speed of light. Just we don't quite know yet how to warp spacetime hard enough for this to happen.. If at all times there was a "shorter distance" in front of you, and you traveled a "longer distance" than your speed would tell you, it would be theoretically possible to move faster than light. I think.....
Definitely Not me watching a mind boggling and fascinating video yet laughing and totally getting distracted by the Orange figure getting ready to knock out his “playfully” pushing friend at 3:00 😂😅
From what you say and visualized about matter moving through higgs field this comes to mind that there is some sort of friction with higgs field that resists change in momentum. But what if we increase speed gradually? Also when you say you can't jump to the moon since the force of such a jump will rip you apart, again what if we apply this force slowly to reduce the resistance of inertia as much as possible?
Refraction is not about light traveling slower, it’s information propagating at different speeds as the phase velocity becomes different from the group velocity. Light always travels at full speed by definition.
I ran to be healthy. I became so healthy, I became faster. I got so fast that I became super massive. That made me unhealthy and I began to slow down. My cycle of trying to run at the speed of light has now become cyclical. Just like a wavelength! Anyhow, have a good day! 😆
I was thinking of a way to demonstrate what it would look like going faster than the speed of light. Build an accurate model of the solar system in a long dark tunnel but have all the planets and moons in roughly a straight line. Then have a camera on a track. Then make the camera move from the sun to the earth in 8 minutes and Mars in 16 and Jupiter in 32 and so on. Then just speed up the playback to 16 minutes to Mars or 4 minutes to Earth. My guess it that nothing special will happen but it might prove to be a good visual aid and overall learning tool.
an easier reason for why we can't go the speed of light: no matter how fast Alice is moving in relation to Bob, both Bob and Alice will agree upon the speed of which light is moving (c). In other words, light moves the same speed regardless of your reference frame. if Alice is 'at rest' and Bob moves to 99% c in relation to Alice, from Bob's perspective light is still moving away from him at c. If Bob doubles his locally observed speed in an attempt to catch the light , then Alice sees him now moving something like 99.4% of c. Meanwhile from Bob's perspective light is still moving away at c, and from Alice's perspective that same light is also moving away at c. This is why you can't reach the speed of light, you don't need to invoke Higg's fields and The Standard Model of Particle Physics to explain it.
The answer to why the speed of light is around 300000km/s and not anything else is also simple in itself - light speed is defined by electric and magnetic permeability of the considered environment, and in pure vacuum those constants make us almost 300000km/s. They're different in various gases and liquids, which reduce the speed of light in those places and that's what causes light refraction in them. Those quantities simply define how quickly the electric field can transfer vibrations in itself. Now the question is why those two quantities have such values. :P
I agree with everything except the last part. Light always travels the same speed regardless of what speed you're traveling, because of time dilation. When you get to light speed, time freezes. So essentially nothing will happen anymore.
@7:15 The speed of light can be derived from the permittivity and permeability of free space. c=1/√(ε0μ0). So you can give an answer to why the speed of light is what it is, but then the next question is obviously why are the permittivity and permeability what they are...
@Roberto Vidal Garcia Why would this question be only something God can answer? You wouldn't say the same about the speed of sound would you? The speed of sound in a substance is determined by the rigidity of the substance, and the speed of light is determined by the permeability and permittivity of free space to the electromagnetic field. Just because one involves matter and is more directly familiar to us, and the other isn't so directly tangible, doesn't make it impossible to explain.
It makes sense that things, like light, which travel at high speeds do not have any form of bonding or form, it's because the very bonds dissipate because of the speed. So it' s like a downside, because travelling at the speed of light will make you formless as light is.
Good video and explanation 👍👍 With all this talk of quantum communication via entanglement going around, though, I've been wondering. Could "quantum speed" be "faster than light"? The information online is very mixed when it comes to this, and I'm trying to find out if there's truth to it, if its being considered at least in theory, or if the public/media is once again just misinterpreting scientific matters?
When you said that at infinity a wave length is 0 that reminds me of the man who took a school hostage and passed out his book “infinity=0”. I doubt his book would entail anything relevant to this but it is weird to think about.
I'm done with all those big channels, they just keep saying the same thing,it takes infinite energy...The wavelength thing is now I know why it is so. Saw another guys awesome video of general relativity in 3D spacetime and it had only 10k views..Man you guys deserve to have millions more
U r so right
Watch Sabine hossenfielder video's on youtube.. According to me it is the best science channel
@@shahbazansari2798 according to me I agree with Shahbaz
Sabine, ScienceClic English, PBS Spacetime, and Perth imho are absolutely the best places to visit. Some come close, those these 4 are my fav. "But why" is probably going to be the 5th as i see that even though small mistakes are there, explanation of the topics is pretty much one of the best i have seen.
As far as GR goes ScienceClic English has the best series about it hands down. Masterpiece to say the least.
@You are correct But No argument there, also they are kings of Dad jokes. I would not consider them Average Joe friendly though. I am one of those Joes and still watch all their vids, so you are right, worth mentioning.
I have been watching physics videos on TH-cam for as long as I can remember but no one has ever bothered to explain these stuff wuite like you. You literally ask why to the most generally accepted notions in Physics realising that most ppl actually don't even understand the concepts. This is now my favourite Physics channel. Thank you. Keep up the good work
you could watch an actual physics lecture, they are quite efficient
@@megusta9268 How are they different?
@@megusta9268 So u just shit on everything then?
@@jewishbunnyrabbits3963 dude I'm recommending something I watch to a guy who wants to watch that sort of stuff, whats wrong?
@@megusta9268 I'm not a potted plant. By ignoring me you are both shitting on me. Thanks for ruining my day.
*puts on double pocket protector*
Theoretically, you could travel to the speed of light if you were able to get rid of higgs Boson particles out of the atoms. You wouldn't have mass therefore nothing to slow you down. Don't ask me how to remove it that isn't my job. My job was simply to cause chaos.
It's not the Higgs particle, but the field, which is ubiquitous like all fields, that is the issue.
Not the particle, the field which is just as impossible as going the speed of light
But.. we are travelling the speed of light.
We’re traveling at the speed of light through time not through space.
I imagine quantum fields as kind of LCD screens. On those, lighting up tiny red, green and blue points can conjure any visible object. Quantum fields do that in 3D. Seems intuitive to me.
I would follow you on that way, there is just a little think that is hard to visualize : the space is not discrete, there is no "dot" like an LCD screen. As far as I know, space is continuous, and that's a pain to visualize !
i think they have made a 3D LED matrix, which all of the LED's can be individually controlled. I think that might do well explaining quantum feilds
@@Technicotop isn't that what quantum theory is ultimately about? That it is not in fact continuous, but divided into deterministic quantums?
@@kloakovalimonada I believe that quantum applies to energy levels, but not to spatial dimensions. Like having a 16 color tv with a magical pixelless screen
@@Technicotop you're probably right. What I was originally thinking is that the concept of quantum fields can be less abstract when you realize that you can get continuous image (or the illusion thereof, but it doesn't matter for our perception) with discrete units such as RGB pixels.
Whenever I keep asking why my teachers at some point can’t explain because they’re bad. This video is literally everything I asked for. That formula I don’t even need to remember in order to write because right now i know how waves and mass work
~7:30 You are making huuuge mistake. "If you traveled at the speed of light particles in your body couldn't communicate, because they also abide the same speed limit". The problem in the R in SRT (special relativity theory). In the frame of reference of the object moving at the speed of light, all of it's internal processes remain consistent with it being at rest, thus from your own perspective you body would retain it's original shape and properties regardless of the speed you are traveling at (speed according to which reference frame?). In other words, as you approach the speed of light, you'd see the entire universe collapse along the axis of travel, but nothing noticeable would happen to you. You could go and make tea, look out the window, read a book and look out the window again, and except the universe looking quite differently to what we are used to on earth everything would seem completely normal. btw, ONLY if you stopped would you notice, that multiple lifetimes of the universe have passed while you were making tea :P
I thought the exact same thing, and that makes me wonder on the rest of the content, but it made sense to me considering the fact that the equations require m = 0 in order to go up to c, and the higgs field explains mass.
@@joaquinbussio6733 higgs field explains mass but only in case of elemental particles. Sure, we are made of these, but the higgs interaction is responsible for a tiny fraction of the mass of the human body. Rest of the mass comes from e=mc^2 and insane amount of energy bound in nuclear forces - in other words, if photons could interact with one another, and this interaction could store energy, then a pair of photons could have mass, while singular photons wouldn't.
It got me in the video also. Other question that came in mind was the how the Higgs field deals with the relativity, once the field position is not relative to the observer?
exactly! c is constant in every frame of reference, no matter your velocity
its not like flies in cars, what youre saying is that if you were moving at the speed of light, those sub atomic particles could exceed the speed of light in order to move in the direction youre going. this means you arent /0 anymore, youre /-1. you would need more than infinite energy to achieve this.
The weird part is, YOU can go as fast as you want. If you put in twice the energy, you can get to any speed as long as you measure from your frame of reference. If you want to get from point a to point b and the two points are a lightyear apart, there is no limit for how fast you can get there. This is due to the time dilation from moving this fast, if you want to go faster, you can. But from an outsiders perspective you are just getting closer to the speed of light and thus they see you slowing down in time.
BW : Unfortunately, I'm going to change how you see the universe.
Me : Jokes on you, I'm into that shit.
Haha I love this comment
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I love it, that's my plejaaahhh!!!
as my professor said before he started his semester class.."Physic is about WHY not WHAT"..keeping asking why,the physic will start explain it to you..i sub to ur channel for how easy to understand it and the topic really bring back memories from my Uni years..
If space has no gravity or resistance, can’t we keep applying thrust and it’ll continue to increase the speed up to the speed of light and beyond? The only problem is hitting space debre. I think I read once that there is very minimal resistance even in the vacuum of space, like the force that light from stars has upon objects floating in space. But even then, I feel like if a spaceship kept applying thrust, speed is boundless 😐
@@FlashRyu Check out the part about the Higgs field. All particles, except photons and gluons, are effected by, and interact with it, so there is resistance. The faster you go, the more the particle is effected until it reaches a point where infinite energy is required to accelerate further.
I mean, "why" implies intent, "how" seems the more accurate question to ask.
An example:
"Why did the apple fall off the tree?" Could be answered as "because it overslept" and it would be a logical answer to the question why.
"How did the apple fall off the tree?" Can only be answered by an order of explanations.
We can ask "why" those orders are the way the apple did fall off the tree, but there is no end to asking why, even though there could be an end to how something is done.
Knowing when to ask "why" is when you get valid answers, otherwise, ask "how".
Suddenly, this 79 y/old starts to understand the inter-relationship and inter-dependance of things (I think!)
Congrats Roy! Im 60 years younger and would love to say the same. The journey of understanding the world to a deeper degreee thanks to our technology and all the amazing scientists over the centuries. May Reason and Criticical thinking prevail
Don't forget, when you were younger it was canon that the speed of sound would never be exceeded.
I love this comment Roy👍✌️
How do you know what I'm thinking? 🤗🤗🤗
I love finding videos that explain these complicated physics and concepts in terms I can understand.
This hardly explained anything. He pretty much said you can’t bec you’ll blow up. Horrible.
This has become my new favourite channel. Awesome visualizations. Looking forward for a complete series on quantum physics and relativity. Keep up the good work.
Lol. Raise your standards.
@@Astrochronic then why are you here? Just to act smart? Insecure enough?
@@FazedSoul Why are you triggered and virtue signaling? Insecure enough?
@@Astrochronic I don't know if you're trolling, having a bad day or just like/ need to prick holes in other people's balloons to get off on their disappointment.. You know the way you act & treat people physically and measurably affects the way the world, in turn, treats you.. Most intelligent people know this.. It's usually whiny, 'victims' of the world, who can't grow up/ man up / suck it up, who feel the need to be mean-spirited to pull everyone else down to their self caused depressing level ( cos doesn't matter what the world does to you, You choose whether you mend it or let it crumble)
Maybe no one in your life who cares enough has made you face it, & since you don't know me I don't expect you to even read this, but I can tell you need something to make your life a little less depressed, so best wishes for making the rest of your life more than it is.. 🌏☮️♾️
Never seen it explained quite like this, thank you
Also...
7:15 - The speed of light is One Planck Length divided by One Planck Time.
So if spacetime were thought of as being granular, the speed of light is simply taking One Quantized Step.
You're right. That's an interesting way of thinking about it.
Similar to using radians for trigonometry or e for logarithms
I'm blown away by your content. You might be my new favorite channel
I’m 43. When I was about 9 I read in a simple book the simple answer: that the faster things go the more massive they become.. so that you need more and more energy to accelerate the object…. eventually they get to infinite mass and you need infinite energy to accelerate it.
There is a certain reality to that.
@@joegagliardi3984 the book was for kids too! It had nice pictures of spaceships.
I'm 52 an the best books were from the book fair. I still have some in my collection. I bought a ton when the libraries started to close.
That is true but for particles with mass. Photons are massless
Speed doesn’t change the mass of an object. Friction as a result of speed at high enough levels can literally burn off part of that initial mass thus reducing mass.
07:00 I think it is not correct, photon speed within an atom at near speed of light still travel at speed of light between an electron and proton
But doesn’t time have to slow all the way down to allow for this? Its why a light clock would tick slower when it is moving faster relative to another light clock.
the explanation for this is generally that the light is 'absorbed and reemitted', and this is ok for a cursory explanation. but the reason light slows through mediums has to due with the calculation of the quantum field. the wave of the light interacts with the waves of the particles and this is observed as a 'slowing' of the light through a medium. this is worded incredibly poorly due to desire to keep this short, but the basic concept still holds
Someday I will mention you in my speech in Switzerland
You mean Sweden?
You mean Nigeria?
@@73THUNDERDOME73 why Nigeria?
You mean Poland?
you live in India
This is the best explanation of this phenomenon I have ever seen on TH-cam, not even the great physics channels have explained it in this level of detail! You certainly got my subscription!
Lmao
@user-ky5dy5hl4d Well good thing you stopped just short of being useful by not telling me what and why
Finally someone who truly addresses the WHY properly! So appreciated!
Nothing can exceed the speed of light. That only applies to matter moving through space, but, according to general relativity, space itself has no boundaries to its upper limit and can do whatever it wants.
Yes that's why space it self is moving faster than the speed of light
@@eliashansen2168 moving, “Where”?
@@DonRoyalX it's kinda expanding into itself. So it's not necessarily expanding into anything but it's expanding into itself
@@eliashansen2168 ha, u say that as if u know for certain. Truth is we have no idea and can only hypothesise fragile theories from fragmented evidence. Only thing I see expanding is my beer gut
Physics: intrinsic momentum
Cats: hold my catnip
Like some other people have written, I’ve watched LOTS of videos on physics subjects like this…. BUT, this is the FIRST one in a decade or more where it’s been taken beyond high school physics AND explained in a brilliant way that makes this understandable without making excuses about only REALLY being able to get the idea of you can think in mathematical equations. Love the graphics and the script is even better. Thank you. Please make more…. Like… what’s an electron volt, and what can you find out by smashing high velocity protons together?
I think you can jump from the moon to the earth, you just need to train so hard your hair falls out.
That's how Vector got back home.
Underrated
One punch man
100 pushups, 100 situps, 10KM run! Every day!
Or just if you have extremely long hair that stretches across the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
If you swing your hair towards the ground at the same time as you jump off the ground, with enough force you could probably pull yourself towards the moon, especially if your center of gravity is a little bit near the Moon than the Earth.
I'm an electronics engineer i have seen awesome engineers and professors..but sir you are it...a true master ...I salute 👏 you
2:58 it all fun and games till someone gets pissed off
Haa ha 😂😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣
I was looking for this comment
One punch man jumped from the moon to the Earth
In the future we'll probably be able to buy infinite energy at the local 7/11.
I like to think that we can travel at the speed of light. Or rather, we already are. We just aren't traveling through space very fast. But we are traveling through time very, very fast. Our perception of time arises from all the subatomic interactions occurring within our nervous systems. Every particle interaction in your body is a tiny little clock ticking away and driving the narrative of your timeline and conciseness. And those interactions occur very, very fast. Of course, we only experience the total sum of those interactions and are completely oblivious to them. So while we are moving slowly through space and very quickly through time, photons are moving only through space. They don't move through time at all. We find it fascinating that light can move so fast. But if light could be conscious, it would probably be fascinated by us and our strange ability to move through both time and space.
The speed of light is attainable, light has been doing it for billions of years.
@@syaralemyar1077
I know, I was just taking the piss.
2:55 I laughed for 5 minutes straight when the red guy punched the blue dude... and it cut off before he made contact which multiplied the hilarity
People said the absolute zero was not possible…then Germans didn’t gave a fuck.
Thanksto your comment I read a bit about that, this is quite fascinating !
I loved the parts about anti-gravity and dark matter :D
Your videos put such a different but intuitive spin to understanding concepts I've learned about many times in the past. Great work.
I watch science videos endlessly for years but I have learned new things here. Brovo!
Another excellent video. You deserve millions of subscribers. I'm glad to be one of your early ones.
I'm looking forward to watching your channel explode ...like you were jumping to the Moon.
Thank you for a great video. Just one note: dividing by zero is NOT infinity, it's undefined and impossible. If 1/0 = ∞, then ∞ x 0 = 1 causing all sorts of nonsensical results and basically breaking maths. So 1/0 is undefined.
💯
Good point. Of course, that leads me more to believe the math is wrong. You can't go "undefined" number and just accept it as truth. Unfortunately, with our current level of mathematic understanding, this is the closest we have.
@@lescobrandon8443 yes you absolutely can. That's exactly how maths works: you define the axioms and rules, and throw out anything that doesn't fit the rules. In maths you don't accept something as true, you define something as true. In the rules we have accepted, it's impossible to divide by zero. If you define other rules and they're logically consistent, you can divide by zero in that system... because you've defined it as such.
@@mjmulenga3 You obviously don't understand what I am saying. If something is "undefined", it isn't an answer. It's just shrugging and saying oh well. That said, because of our current level of understanding in mathematics, the closest we have is this. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong, but that it is beyond our grasp currently, and thus left "undefined". Maybe, if people question the theory, like they should be doing, we might come up with something even closer to the truth. I don't see it happening soon, especially with so many people refusing to challenge their own little world view like it is right now, but maybe in a few generations.
Remember, the scientific method is always an on going process. It is designed to be challenged. That is why they are "theories", not laws.
@@lescobrandon8443 To divide you need some quantifiable value, division by zero just doesn't make any sense. Although there is infinitely small numbers which is like zero, but not exactly and you can throw them in any equation you like.
best description of wave particle duality i've ever seen!
This was an amazing explanation. Most people know about the whole infinite energy thing etc but the way u explained about why infinite energy is required made it really good.
This channel is gonna explode.... I'm happy I found this
Outstanding video production: great topic, excellent graphics and superbly narrated (to the point, no promotional intonations like some others, not monotone). Really well done!
3:50 that is wrong. Interacting with the Higgs Field does NOT create resistance to motion. If that were the case electrons would slow down to a halt and there would be no motion. Which is not what we observe. The mechanism works otherwise. Particles have mass NOT because they interact with -something- that impedes their movement. In fact the actual reason the electron has mass, it is because it experiences Time. That is it. The fact that the electron experiences time, means it cannot be moving at light-speed, which means that it must have mass. The real 2012 ordeal with the Higgs Boson is that in order to prove the electron experiences time, you observe its chirality. Right handed electrons and Left handed electrons differ because R-electrons have outside of their electric charge, weak hypercharge too. And when one R-electron is converted to a L-electron, it CANNOT do so without losing its weak hypercharge in the form of a negative W Boson. The vice versa is also true, where a L-electron needs gain weak hypercharge to become a R-electron. A symmetry break. Anyway because this transformation happens, it means the electron experiences time. Now this is where the Higgs comes in. The Higgs Fields is a weak hypercharge condensate. Which means at any point in space it can aid the electrons in experiencing Chirality. How do you prove the Higgs Field exists? By inducing a disturbance in it so that you can create its associate Particle, the Higgs Boson. The Boson has a known mass and decay products observed at the LHC
Electrons are essentially photons trapped in a 720* spin. Photons have a 360* spin. Take high energy gamma photon and smash into a gold atom you get what's called pair production. The gamma photon splits into an electron and it's antimatter pair and opposite spin or chilarity the positron. My thought the spin of an electron is at the speed of light. Not only that but the electrons spin around the nucleus of atoms is occuring at the speed of light, also. In my opinion that is the reason we cannot determine an electrons exact position. It's location is spread out in it's temporal sphere that is created as the electron light orbits the area of the nucleus of the atom at the speed of light. I don't know exactly what's allowing it to happen. Could be the nucleuses' create a field that enables it.
That visual at 1:33 just changed my whole conception of reality
wow
Finally. I've been looking at videos which provide an explanation of why the speed of light can't be exceeded. This one made it clear to me. Thank you.
For all the times I've heard both the good old Newtonian laws and some variation of the "you need infinite energy to reach light speed" now I realize I've never actually asked the simple question "But why?". Great video.
Why is the speed of light what it is? We actually DO know.
It's because that speed is equal to one planck length per one planck time. Basically, it's derived out of the time and space "resolution" of our universe.
And afaik, we do know why sizes smaller than planck length are not a viable concept, same as we know why times smaller than planck length are not a viable concept.
...i might be mistaken or simplifying too much, but I think it's more understood than you give it credit for.
Fantastic explanation, illustration and production, will definitely be back for more
Man...you get right to the point in every vídeo. Amazing! You deserve much...much more subscribers!! Well done!
This channel is so underrated
holy how are you so good at explaining
Your animations are so fun and intuitive, I love it
As an amateur dabbling in physics, I've thought that lightspeed means the limit of _everything,_ given its wavelenght is the Planck lenght, or the smallest unit of timespace there can be. In order to be anything, that anything would have to give up being everything in that moment, and enter the arrow of time (aka follow causality). While it might not be the smallest unit/distance _possible,_ for all frames of reference in our current reality _it is._ A photon is not traveling anywhere, _it is everywhere that is crossing the path of the photon._ For its frame of reference, not a single second has passed from the Milky Way to Andromeda, but from ours it's been a mind-boggling 5 million years for a round travel.
Anything (conceptually) faster would simply fail to be registered by our instruments as they fall outside our realm of causality, which is what I believe the realm of dark energy, an energy that is invisible to us by all means except on its effects of expanding timespace faster than its own speed.
So chances are good the photon is not the limit per se, but it is for anything that can be observed. Hyperlight travel would forcibly need to bend timespace itself as it would be impossible to reach the finish line without ever moving from the start line.
Tl;Dr: God needs to upgrade the ram on his Micro Center built computer he made while drunk.
fun fact: the speed of light defines the meter, NOT the other way round!
edit: That is why the speed of light is exactly 299'792'458m/s and thus has no fraction whatsoever. And one more thing: Out of the seven base units (SI base units), time (seconds) is also one of those. The more accurate we can define (measure) a second, the more accurate a meter becomes (see above). Luckily for us, atomic clocks achieve just that!
Brain got denser, thank you
@@LastManYea you're welcome
This is the first time I have seen the concept of wave/particle duality and the quantum fields explained and illustrated to a point that I get it. It's amazing to think we are all just made up of these. Vibrations in a field
The sad part is, even if the speed of light was attainable, the universe is so big we still wouldn't be able to see even 1% of it.
Universe is actually expanding faster than lightspeed, space is not bound to "our" physics laws, there is a possibility of traveling way faster than light, some scientist are working on that, it is complicated and we don't have the technology yet, but basically is bend the space, shrink it in front of you and expand it behind, technically you are not moving, is the space who does it.
@@DiegoOrtiz-nf9fk for that, I think the energy requirements are that of the entire universe :D I guess they need to come up with some antimatter related energy generation or something like that.
The deBroglie equation describes the problem mathematically but doesn't explain it physically. The simplest explanation is that (a) the vacuum is responsible for both macroscopic motion and the quantum time-evolution of matter, and (b) the vacuum's capacity or activity level is a constant. So time slows down inside moving objects because their motion uses up some of the vacuum's processing power. At the speed of light, the vacuum is maxxed out by the object's motion, so the object doesn't evolve internally at all, i.e. time slows down all the way to a complete halt. And it's impossible for matter to go faster than the speed of light, for the same reason that it's impossible for sound waves to go faster than the speed of sound: the speed limit is based on the medium's capacity to support the wave phenomenon.
excellent video but flash warning would be a good idea
Oh my gosh I finally got it! Finally!!! Thanks! Keep up the good work!
Great video. I learned a lot. The concept of a particle/wave's wavelength approaching 0 is great and very intuitive. That said, there is a lot of requisite knowledge needed to follow along with this video. Perhaps a video(s) going over the knowledge dependencies would be good?
Thanks to the algorithm I’ve been on a marathon of your videos, super informative and underrated !!
Or , another scenario. Two objects travelling in oposite directions at 1/2 of speed of light. It doesn't require infinite energy to achive that.
Opposite outer visible area's of the universe seem to move away from eachother with much more speed than light...
@@manuell3505 no, they don't. Red shift can be explained by the age of the objects
@@verycoldhardybles790 Spacetime expands. Redshift / Doppler Effect indicates that a star or galaxy is moving away from us.
It doesnt require infinte energy in this scenario because no physical object is actually traveling at the speed of light. the objects are still travelling at 1/2 the speed of light. instead the distance between the 2 objects is changing at the speed of light.
@@tiggy7777 the same tging - they trsvrl away from each other or relative to each other at a speed of light :D
Light speed "c" and why it is that speed, was determined by Maxwell c=1/SQR(Mu x Eo) where Mu is the permeability of free space and Eo is the permittivity of free space both of which are easy to measure.
How can you measure free space when no human has ever been in free space. We are constantly affected by gravity among other things.
I would argue that while Maxwell certainly was aware of this fact, he didn't know how it applied. It was a speed, but in relation to what? the Earth, the Sun? At the time time a concept of a Luminiferous Aether was considered, the reference frame of light (an older concept that kept accumulating the baggage of newer observations).
At the time it was not unreasonable to think you could obtain this speed, you just couldn't due to lack of means only. Work by Loorentz and Poincare resulting from experimentation by Michaelson/Morley is generally credited for bringing meaning to what the speed of c meant, at least before Einstein's 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies submited a more cohesive explanation free of the Luminiferous Aether.
So c was old hat, the framework that better explained and predicted what c meant came a bit later.
@@gumbilicious1 All good. I was making the point that we know why light (and all other EM waves) have the velocity they have i.e. approx 300,000 kms/s and not some other velocity. Maxwell could not measure the permeability and permittivity in freespace but the difference between those measurements in earths atmosphere and freespace are insignificant. So Maxwell knew he had hit on something really big when he did his calculations for light velocity of the waves in my earlier comment. Thank you for your comments. Best wishes
@@danarrington2224 Hi Dan the difference between the permeability and permittivity in free space and earth's atmosphere is insignificant.
While watching your videos (which I really like btw) I was wondering which software you use to create your 3D animations. Since the screenshot you used in this video is from Blender 2.8 I suspect you use Blender. So my question: Do you actually use Blender or did you just plug in that screenshot randomly? (I use Blender myself so I was quite intrigued about your animations and was constantly thinking: How would I achieve this effect?).
Yup it's all blender! I've got a secondary channel where I'll periodically upload tutorials or explanations of some things. Any effect in particlar thats stumping you?
@@ButWhySci You got a 2nd channel with tutorials? Awesome! I'm gonna check it out.
No there wasn't a particular effect. It's more when you understand more about something (in this case 3D rendering), I tend to see more than just the end result.
I think stuff like: How would I achieve this effect or which shaders would I use to create this material.
This even happens in the real world: I see something and I think: How much Roughness & Specular that material in Blender would have.
So not only are your videos educational - I also get ideas for my own 3D scenes.
You, Sir, are, officially, my, new, favourite, YT, channel!! Yes, I’m in a bit of a coma...
I began with some of the black hole videos and now I'm here. For reference, I had Astrophysics, Quantum (Field) Theory lectures and a part of my work is related to Particle Physics, however I went more into Materials Physics.
Your display of stuff seems unmatched to me. Not a single textbook or lecture delivers the knowledge of these topics that easy. I had the hard way going by foot like so many others. I'm really enjoying your explanations/lectures :)
... sometimes I asked this particular question. "But why?". To my professors. After I saw I started to embarras them I stopped that. Now I'm on the other side of the table and I'm really happy if one or another of the students is asking questions about how stuff works and we can discuss more deeply. But sadly, it seems to be increasingly rare as the time goes forward ...
Thank you for your thorough and lucid explanation of complex matters, I always enjoy listening to your lectures. Only one comment if may, I think it would be more effective to do away with the music in the background. It's a bit too loud and somewhat distracting. Thank you for all the good that you do, best of luck to you.
Fantastic content. Thank you and keep it coming.
"Why is the speed of light 300000 km/s?" I think isn't the best phrasing given the speed of light being a fundamental whatchamacallit. Perhaps a better wording would be "Why do we experience a second when light moves 300000 kilometers?" And then the answer would be down to how many interactions can happen between our particles mediated by an electromagnetic field that sends information at that speed. Or I could be wrong. I don't know.
the reason why we experience the time like we do is most likely because of the speed our brain can computate informations without killing itself in a few months or years.
and we do have an evolutional reason to it too. it is a good speed in there the things in our world change. it wouldn't make sense to have a fast brain but our body can't move fast enough to keep up. the next thing about that is that it takes more energy to think and move faster. that is the reason why small animals are thinking and moving faster than big animals. they are small enough to only need a bit of energy to "think" faster and so experiance the time faster.
we as humans are technological so far that we already have cameras that can shoot so fast that it stretches a second to an hour or more with a relative good resolution. that is so fast that we can follow the breaking line of glas or let a bullet freez in space while the frames are running.
The answer is even more mundane. It's because the meter is defined by the distance light travels in a vacuum for exactly the amount of time necessary to make it this way. The meter was defined earlier by an arbitrary measurement but now we use the speed light to define what that distance is since it's invariant and observable but it was kept around the same size so we didn't have to redo the metric system.
I think I heard somewhere where they explained how c was calculated and the conclusion was - the one that was the easiest to understand for mere mortals - it is the max in the universe. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light and that is because it is the limit for our universe.
@@cobrachannel100 well that it is the "limit" is easy to understand. but WHY is it the limit? and why there?
@@dovos8572 I dont think we can answer that question. It is the constraint of this particular universe. There is much we dont understand about the universe, how big it is, why it is expanding, why big bang happened, and so on. I dont think we will ever be able to explain and answer those questions. Thus why we just need to take the c being limited at 300 thousand km/s and stop questioning it :)
"The Imagination Trap" by Colin Kapp. Excellent story illustrating infinite mass + infinite velocity.
I can't say enough how great your gift is. Wow.
This type of teaching is like watching toddlers feel around crawling in the dark opening your mind open your mind
Imagine, while I'm watching this, someone somewhere is watching a flat-earth video. People are so different
This video should have a huge caveat that says: *based on our current mathematical observations*
True of all science, which is why it is science and not faith or feeling.
That was explained beautifully. Thanks. Subbed.
Well speed of light is already attained naturally, hence it's not impossible.
It’s impossible to accelerate to
@@AMC2283 also you don't need endless supply of power, small bursts of power of one big burst of power is enough as space doesn't have any resistance hence your speed will never reduce unless you run into some gravitation influence of other stars.
@@AMC2283 although it's theoretically possible, our body cannot withstand sudden increase in speed hence our present selves cannot travel at that speed.
@@DhruvRed space has a great deal of resistance at relativistic speed from interstellar dust.
@@DhruvRed I know of no theory that says you can accelerate to it and any rate, do you?
And also, this video does lend credence to the possibility of a warp-drive. If you could theoretically warp the space in front of you, and behind you, you could "theoretically" travel at the speed of light. Just we don't quite know yet how to warp spacetime hard enough for this to happen.. If at all times there was a "shorter distance" in front of you, and you traveled a "longer distance" than your speed would tell you, it would be theoretically possible to move faster than light. I think.....
Outstanding video and narration.
Definitely Not me watching a mind boggling and fascinating video yet laughing and totally getting distracted by the Orange figure getting ready to knock out his “playfully” pushing friend at 3:00 😂😅
From what you say and visualized about matter moving through higgs field this comes to mind that there is some sort of friction with higgs field that resists change in momentum. But what if we increase speed gradually? Also when you say you can't jump to the moon since the force of such a jump will rip you apart, again what if we apply this force slowly to reduce the resistance of inertia as much as possible?
Refraction is not about light traveling slower, it’s information propagating at different speeds as the phase velocity becomes different from the group velocity.
Light always travels at full speed by definition.
The quoted speed of light is for in a vacuum however
@@ted1990 correct, and it still goes the speed of light through other materials. The information it carries goes slower.
Group v phase velocity
I ran to be healthy. I became so healthy, I became faster. I got so fast that I became super massive. That made me unhealthy and I began to slow down.
My cycle of trying to run at the speed of light has now become cyclical. Just like a wavelength!
Anyhow, have a good day!
😆
Good stuff I can use these explanations to explain to a customer why their car is broken
I was thinking of a way to demonstrate what it would look like going faster than the speed of light. Build an accurate model of the solar system in a long dark tunnel but have all the planets and moons in roughly a straight line. Then have a camera on a track. Then make the camera move from the sun to the earth in 8 minutes and Mars in 16 and Jupiter in 32 and so on. Then just speed up the playback to 16 minutes to Mars or 4 minutes to Earth. My guess it that nothing special will happen but it might prove to be a good visual aid and overall learning tool.
an easier reason for why we can't go the speed of light: no matter how fast Alice is moving in relation to Bob, both Bob and Alice will agree upon the speed of which light is moving (c). In other words, light moves the same speed regardless of your reference frame.
if Alice is 'at rest' and Bob moves to 99% c in relation to Alice, from Bob's perspective light is still moving away from him at c. If Bob doubles his locally observed speed in an attempt to catch the light , then Alice sees him now moving something like 99.4% of c. Meanwhile from Bob's perspective light is still moving away at c, and from Alice's perspective that same light is also moving away at c.
This is why you can't reach the speed of light, you don't need to invoke Higg's fields and The Standard Model of Particle Physics to explain it.
On the basis of this vid I've subscribed. Good work. Flaxen Saxon.
When considering the vastness of space the speed of light is really, really slow.
“It’s an interesting thing to think about, but also impossible and unnecessary.”
Same thing I said to my parents when they asked when I'm giving them grandkids lol
The answer to why the speed of light is around 300000km/s and not anything else is also simple in itself - light speed is defined by electric and magnetic permeability of the considered environment, and in pure vacuum those constants make us almost 300000km/s. They're different in various gases and liquids, which reduce the speed of light in those places and that's what causes light refraction in them. Those quantities simply define how quickly the electric field can transfer vibrations in itself.
Now the question is why those two quantities have such values. :P
Great videos! Love the channel. Do you use Blender for all your animations?
I agree with everything except the last part. Light always travels the same speed regardless of what speed you're traveling, because of time dilation. When you get to light speed, time freezes. So essentially nothing will happen anymore.
You sir, have just earned a subscriber
Nobody:
Sonic the hedgehog: sorry I dont speak slow mo
Loved it! BTW: You spelled “Increasing” wrong at 5:18. “Inceasing Wavelength”. 😉
At this current time and date it's not possible but in a couple of hundred years let's revisit this.
why does the universe have rules? is there a way to break free of these rules?
Imagine a universe without rules.
@7:15 The speed of light can be derived from the permittivity and permeability of free space. c=1/√(ε0μ0). So you can give an answer to why the speed of light is what it is, but then the next question is obviously why are the permittivity and permeability what they are...
@Roberto Vidal Garcia Why would this question be only something God can answer? You wouldn't say the same about the speed of sound would you? The speed of sound in a substance is determined by the rigidity of the substance, and the speed of light is determined by the permeability and permittivity of free space to the electromagnetic field. Just because one involves matter and is more directly familiar to us, and the other isn't so directly tangible, doesn't make it impossible to explain.
@Roberto Vidal Garcia If you say so.
It makes sense that things, like light, which travel at high speeds do not have any form of bonding or form, it's because the very bonds dissipate because of the speed. So it' s like a downside, because travelling at the speed of light will make you formless as light is.
Good video and explanation 👍👍 With all this talk of quantum communication via entanglement going around, though, I've been wondering. Could "quantum speed" be "faster than light"? The information online is very mixed when it comes to this, and I'm trying to find out if there's truth to it, if its being considered at least in theory, or if the public/media is once again just misinterpreting scientific matters?
A great simple explanation!
I learned something today. Thank you.
When you said that at infinity a wave length is 0 that reminds me of the man who took a school hostage and passed out his book “infinity=0”. I doubt his book would entail anything relevant to this but it is weird to think about.