this was beautiful. press mute and listen to good music while the full relativistic desert is unravelling.............Unless you don't already know relativity, then you should just pay normal attention and learn lol.
i understand the fact that it keeps travelling back in time (i think???) but if this is happening, how is it possible to achieve forward momentum????? headfucked
If you travel almost speed of light, than one second lasts longer for you, here you travel from 0:15 to 0:55 on this highway, and thats like 40 seconds. In so many seconds you could go round the univers couple of times. Thats why lightspeed is max speed, you could go anywhere instantly with it, cant get faster than that. So I doubt you'd see anything like shown in this vid, cuz you'd be all over the place.
@Biskawow the speed of light is far from instant. even if traveling at the speed of light, it would take well over four years to reach the next closest star to us, much less "anywhere."
@kuraiketsurui Time gets slower when you go faster. When you reach c, time stops, so if you were travelling at c and you collided with a star 4 light years away, it would still feel instantaneous for you.
@heavymetaldeath4life yes, of course, but that does not make implying that the speed of light is instant any less misleading. from your perspective, it would naturally SEEM instant, but when you arrived at your destination, you would find that time, relative to every single thing around you, would still have passed in such a way as to confirm the very finite rate of c. c != ∞.
@kuraiketsurui I'm not talking about my human perspective. I'm talking about the photon's point of view (it doesn't have any, but let's assume it does). Photons travelling at c experience 100% time dilation, so time is non-existent for photons.
What you've said about the observer is correct, but I wasn't talking about the observer.
The abberation effect is quite non-intuitive! Like the old saying "Your intuiton is Wrong, especially on very large or very small scales. Intuition only holds for the few facets of the Universe directly observed by lumps of organic matter on a rocky planet."
@HaoleSteel - It would still be cool to see result in a simulation where the rules of physics can be broken. Even if only to provide some inspiration for sci-fi visual effect artists. :)
@HaoleSteel Star Trek is using warp technology that doesnt violate the law of special relativty. It could also be possible in reality if we could find a source of a negative mass. Google a little about it.
@pdpax91 You'd be right if we were talking about waves measured relative to the medium through which they need to travel, such as sound waves through air or water, but in the context of this video we're talking about light waves.
In cases such as waves that need no medium, like light, only the relative difference in velocities between the observer and the object counts. IOW, as I said, it doesn't matter which of them is doing the moving.
Therefore you're still wrong, so take your own advice.
can anyone who disliked this video tell me why? i mean why would you come and watch an interesting hypothetical video and then say "you know what? I dont like this" ???
@Jax132 I didn't down vote it, but the voice modulation via a fake voice was at times hard to understand. Just using a normal voice and better graphical rendering would have made this a much better production.
@gangGreenproduction1 Stop being so meticulous. Whenever someone says atheist, it's generally accepted that they are using the definition that works under the confines of science. Less of "There is no God" and more of "There is no reason to believe there is a God." People like you are just here to annoy me, i swear.
@Skeithization If atheists do not believe God exists then why do they bring up God almost all of the time? Why do you try to prove God does not exist if you believe he does not exist? If God does not exist then you cannot prove or disprove he exists or not.
taking a while to get past that building at the speed of light... are you sure this video isn't meant to be showing what happens as you approach the top speed of a childs tricycle?
@Quinzio Actually, not at all. These effects only simulate what would happen at *near* lightspeed velocities. At lightspeed itself, the speed of a photon, there is no passage of time (from a photon's "POV", A to B is always instantaneous) and nothing to see.
@Sergeantsmeg Thank you for the reminder, I truely can remember that as a child I was closer to God, than now as a delusional adult .Some of us will lose touch with the spirit and tune into the world of man, and his desperate groping for truth. We seem as a fish who does not believe in water anymore...
@videotimesss1 Desperate groping for truth? Do you really need a deity for comfort? If so, then be that way, I do not have a problem with that. However, I find this 'desperate groping for truth' a very exciting thing to do when you realize how marvelous and how outrageous nature really is. Our curiosity is such an important element of being that we have come this far in our knowledge...I don't see a need to stop.
Unlimited energy sources are out there!But there are very powerfull forces that want to supress the technology,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
What I wonder about is, what would you actually see (in terms of aberration), if you were travelling close to the speed of light... and LOOKED BACK. What would the distortion be?
Just don't tell me I wouldn't see anything because the light always travels at the same speed, so emitted from the objects behind me it would catch up with me just the as me as if I stood in place.
this is one of the best videos I've seen. I've been thinking about this for a while and it's great to have my understanding of Special relativity confirmed.
You can not argue any point of view in relativistic terms unless all observers use a constant they all can agree on. As space and time are relative to 'ONLY' constant in the universe that can be agreed on is spacetime. So to talk about photons at one second intervals in misleading. You must convert all your measurements into spacetime then all observers can agree on what they see. Any argument based on any other measurement can not be agreed on by different observers due to relativistic effects.
Light speed is relative to the observer so why would you say it gets brighter in front of you and darker on the sides? Is this because there are fewer photons coming from the sides? I like your video it makes me think.
Light speed is constant, not relative. It's time and space that are relative. It gets brighter in front because you are rushing headlong not into just the photons that would have reached you, but the ones you wouldn't yet have reached at a slower speed. More speed = more photons hitting your eye = brighter.
@rkyeun a photon always travels at the speed, of light, you cannot hit into more photons as a photon approaching a photon will only be nearing that photon at the speed of light, no faster.
A photon does always travel the speed of light. From your perspective at high speeds you lose time, but the same amount of photons are in your path and hit you in that diminished time. Photons per second makes it brighter.
From an observer's perspective, you are traveling quickly and sideswiping into the light with your face at a faster rate that you would otherwise experience. The speed of light is a constant. The effect of brightness is due to time NOT being constant.
@rkyeun no, if you were walking, and their were 10 photons placed say 1 second apart, then you would recieve them all (at a side swipe), if you are travelling near C then you might only catch one photon. as for the photons travelling directy towards you from infront, again they can only travel at c relative to you, hence if they are sperated by 1 second each, then you will observe one photon a second.
Yes. You'll receive one photon per outside observer's second if you are moving at slow speed and the ten photons are one light-second apart.
However, when traveling near the speed of light, say a dilation factor of 10, your seconds come once every ten of the outside observer seconds, and the distance between the photons Lorentz contracts to 1/10th of a light-second. You get all ten photons in one of your seconds, making it ten times brighter.
@rkyeun ??? are you mad??? if i walk past a light source, i will see all 10 photons, because im in the way for long enough. if i move in a fast car, i will see a few. at light speed i may only see one. ie our paths will cross. from an outside observer, the laws of physics must also be obeyed, by your understanding, this is not so. ie all 10 photons are detected by the travelling body before all 10 have been emitted. ie they then become superluminal.
@daenumen a photon always travels at the speed, of light...in a vacuum. In other materials photons travel at a speed proportional to the refractive index of the material.
@podfunk a photon does always travel at the speed of light in free space, in this regard the video is wrong, let me explain:
doppler shift should be maximally observed infront of you, as you look to the side, it should decrease to a minimum of no doppler shift when looking perpendicular to the direction of motion.
intensity: directly infront, intensity will increase. to the side, an 'apparent' decrease (no actual change - since source infront is much brighter, 'looks' darker comparitively)
@podfunk abberation; objects infront would get closer, not futher away, and objects again, at 90 degrees from the direction of motion you would only see what has 'already happened', such that the photon you detect was emitted such that the light sphere intecepts the point you intecept when you reach it.
ie you would see 'the future' infront of you, and 'the past' either side of you, and nothingness behind you.
@podfunk one more point is that the intensity will only be an 'apparent' increase also. objects infront of the traveller will not actually get 'brighter'.
also, if you shone a head light beam infront of you, you would observe the beam to bend, but it would still be travelling at the speed of light.
Sagan's "Cosmos" had a segment that presented something similar to this, except the imaginary traveler was on a motorbike, and the effects were created without sophisticated computer imaging.
It is a tribute to Sagan's vision and deep understanding that Cosmos was made decades ago yet his representations of relativistic phenomena are so similar to these modern computer-generated images.
adaseth ... it's basically due to "light aberration" effect. if you have a rain guage and there's no wind, raindrops fall into the vertical guage. if you then run forward with the guage, you'll have to tilt it forwards because the raindrops appear to slant toward you - now just substitute photons & direction for raindrops & the orientation of the rain guage. relativistic contraction will lessen the effect, but for a while as you're accelerating, the building will get squished to the center
One thing doesn't add up here- when approoaching the speed of light, the distances get shortened, so why does the building seem to be moving away? Shouldn't it rather be getting closer?
dmanschaumbizzie is right oh my god it is the light at the end of the tunnel (3:17)!!! This explains it all, when you walk toward the light when you die you are rapidly accelerating and being converted into energy thus being able to move at the speed of light and once you reach that speed everything becomes dark and cold.
It takes time for the film to react to light, so if something is moving when you take it's picture the film 'sees' it over the entire time the shutter is open bluring it along the direction of motion
special relativity isnt very hard, you could learn it on your own with a decent book or paper. Hell, you could even learn it with the english wiki page.
The general rel. theory on the other hand is much harder, you would need several university math classes just to be able to start with it properly. There normally is one class just for this theory alone
Yeah, I figured out special relativity a while ago. All I had to do was imagine everything moving around my head instead of the other way around. Then, I imagined photons moving around at the same speed no matter what, almost as if they were on a separate layer from everything else. I was just having trouble with the visualization.
Well, General Relativity isn't very hard to understand from a purely conceptual basis, while I agree the math can get intense and one does need a background in tensor calculus, differential geometry, etc. to truly appreciate it. I myself took up studying special and then a bit of general rel in high school and I am by no stretch of the imagination a genius.
I wouldn't say that Gen Rel is easy to understand on any basis, unlike SR there aren't really any results you can derive from a "thought experiment", as for tensor calculus - people will only have a background in Tensor calculus if they HAVE studied GR... it's the reason it took 11 years to figure out GR after SR was published... tensor calculus had to be invented before anyone could even cope with the maths! :D
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dude, I have an IQ of 172 and I can't do simple algebra because I can't remember the rules. I can lecture you for hours about economics, psychology, mathematics, history and even understand (imaginatively) relativity and have my own ideas about relativity and strings and time and black holes and I love metaphysics and philosophy. I also play the piano, guitar, harmonica and drums, but I can't factor -42x10y8 - 35x7y10 for shit!
Then you must have been very ill served by your math teachers (or your main problem is that you are simply not interested in math, or you believe you cannot do it, and therefore you cannot)
I think that the first part of this video is wrong (wrong Lorentz transform). It should zoom in and not zoom out. If you consider an electron near the light speed, when it accelerates it emits isotropic radiation (Maxwell) in its frame, but in the lab frame, you got a thin ray along the trajectory (Synchrotron radiation). If we consider a small obstacle on the ray trajectory. The electron should "sees" this obstacle under a large solid angle. Not a small one as we can guess on this video.
It took me a while to get my head around this, and I first thought it should zoom in, but I finally concluded that they are correct after all. Space ahead of you contracts, which should at first sight produce a zooming in effect, but you are using rays of light to see, and they originated from where the objects were a little while ago. Since they are flying so fast, they "used to be" much farther away when light left there, and this optical effect more than undoes the Lorentz contraction.
I know that this view is the classic one but it seems strange. It means that if you fire with a laser on a fast particle, the orientation of the laser (according to the trajectory) should not affect much the Compton scattering of the laser against the particle. (The particle will see the laser almost in front of itself).
I'm still investigating on this, especially on the GRAAL experiment results (photon-relativistic electron collision).
I'm still not convinced that this view is the good one.
this was beautiful. press mute and listen to good music while the full relativistic desert is unravelling.............Unless you don't already know relativity, then you should just pay normal attention and learn lol.
BrandonFound 3 weeks ago
the light at the end of the tunnel...
jimmyeatskids 1 month ago
Very interesting video made slightly annoying to watch with the generated voice.
Unclevertitle 1 month ago
Juas que porquería de vídeo. Como el gran Santiago Camacho puede tener esta puta mierda en su blog. Eso sí es un misterio.
SrDavidRuiz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dont watch this when your high... O_o
taahbooba 2 months ago
Why is the speed of light distorting her voice? :p
Morpheus000777 2 months ago 4
i understand the fact that it keeps travelling back in time (i think???) but if this is happening, how is it possible to achieve forward momentum????? headfucked
gordthelord12 2 months ago
whaaaaaaaaaaa????
gordthelord12 2 months ago
Mind fuck.
mehfu263 2 months ago
What would a simulation of someone moving at a relativistic speed towards a mirror look like?
(Assuming that they can still see the Doppler-shifted light)
jimbobur 2 months ago
Comment removed
RAYPBCHZ 2 months ago
If you travel almost speed of light, than one second lasts longer for you, here you travel from 0:15 to 0:55 on this highway, and thats like 40 seconds. In so many seconds you could go round the univers couple of times. Thats why lightspeed is max speed, you could go anywhere instantly with it, cant get faster than that. So I doubt you'd see anything like shown in this vid, cuz you'd be all over the place.
Biskawow 3 months ago
@Biskawow What about those neutrinos that supposedly when 0.008% (or something like that) faster than the speed of light?
samrulz7 2 months ago
@samrulz7
Thats obviously cuz they are timetraveling.
Biskawow 2 months ago
@Biskawow the speed of light is far from instant. even if traveling at the speed of light, it would take well over four years to reach the next closest star to us, much less "anywhere."
kuraiketsurui 2 months ago
@kuraiketsurui From the point of view of the traveler, it WOULD be almost instant.
Keitaro2011 2 months ago
@kuraiketsurui Time gets slower when you go faster. When you reach c, time stops, so if you were travelling at c and you collided with a star 4 light years away, it would still feel instantaneous for you.
heavymetaldeath4life 1 month ago
@heavymetaldeath4life yes, of course, but that does not make implying that the speed of light is instant any less misleading. from your perspective, it would naturally SEEM instant, but when you arrived at your destination, you would find that time, relative to every single thing around you, would still have passed in such a way as to confirm the very finite rate of c. c != ∞.
kuraiketsurui 1 month ago
@kuraiketsurui I'm not talking about my human perspective. I'm talking about the photon's point of view (it doesn't have any, but let's assume it does). Photons travelling at c experience 100% time dilation, so time is non-existent for photons.
What you've said about the observer is correct, but I wasn't talking about the observer.
heavymetaldeath4life 1 month ago
The abberation effect is quite non-intuitive! Like the old saying "Your intuiton is Wrong, especially on very large or very small scales. Intuition only holds for the few facets of the Universe directly observed by lumps of organic matter on a rocky planet."
tzarius 3 months ago
light speed ain't what it use to be.
lightgearwire 3 months ago in playlist lightgearwire's favorites
i would trip. the fuck. out. if that actually happens. so cool
teentitans0789 3 months ago
this building must be very very big
taisentetsu 3 months ago
@HaoleSteel are you the head of comments department in here... or whats ur deal ?! just shut up and back off! nobody asked u nothin!!!
Hollyweed1 3 months ago
light at the end of the tunnel upon death"" .. i think i get it now! 3:18
pielover8888 3 months ago
@HaoleSteel - It would still be cool to see result in a simulation where the rules of physics can be broken. Even if only to provide some inspiration for sci-fi visual effect artists. :)
bencrossley36 3 months ago
Warp one, engage!
Quemical83 3 months ago
This is a damn boring video... couldnt you make a better one, or at least make some REAL human girl talk.
Hollyweed1 3 months ago
Does anyone know what the music for this video is? I really want to have this track, its very relaxing
Gotmilk26 3 months ago
@Gotmilk26
It appears to be 'Ocean Motion' from the album 'Hybrid' by Michael Brook and Brian Eno.
tzarius 3 months ago
The robotic narrator's voice sounds like Elisabeth Sladen
aroleid 3 months ago
This is real interesting stuff. But how will it help solve our nigger problem?
TurboRonin83 3 months ago
Space is scary.
lightgearwire 3 months ago in playlist lightgearwire's favorites
The woman voice is terrifying...
JawzPause 3 months ago
@JawzPause Not terrifying - sexy!
aroleid 3 months ago
@HaoleSteel Star Trek is using warp technology that doesnt violate the law of special relativty. It could also be possible in reality if we could find a source of a negative mass. Google a little about it.
RenesisII 3 months ago
like if Dr.Beach sent you here :D
MrNorbo95 3 months ago
Seriously???? isnt there a hi res link anywhere???
denxero 3 months ago
Nice video, but they could find some real speaker instead of this 'reading machine'.
max5250 3 months ago 10
@max5250 I kinda like the voice of the machine :D
Russel1110 3 months ago
What if real life were like this?
EmperorOfMars 3 months ago
Damn, they stopped each test before reaching the speed of light.
I wonder what faster-than-light travel would look like...
bencrossley36 3 months ago
"photorealistic"
*video start*
HAHAHAHAHA
Ultimaniacx4 3 months ago
Don't you get it, there is not more than 240p over the speed of light... ;-)
conse3000 3 months ago
Holy crap 240p? Aren't we able to do better than that? It's the 21rst Century after all...
dkrz123 3 months ago
Doppler effect?
Isn't it the observer who is moving?!!
pdpax91 3 months ago
@pdpax91 Makes no difference. You going towards an object is the same as the object coming towards you.
AlbertaNerd 3 months ago
@AlbertaNerd You need to study some Physics!
Doppler effect is only for the case when the source is moving and not the observer! Even a 17 years old Physics student knows this!
pdpax91 3 months ago
@pdpax91 You'd be right if we were talking about waves measured relative to the medium through which they need to travel, such as sound waves through air or water, but in the context of this video we're talking about light waves.
In cases such as waves that need no medium, like light, only the relative difference in velocities between the observer and the object counts. IOW, as I said, it doesn't matter which of them is doing the moving.
Therefore you're still wrong, so take your own advice.
AlbertaNerd 3 months ago
@pdpax91 Wrong.
Melthornal 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
please above 240p
please above 240p
please above 240p
please above 240p
hamoonful 3 months ago
Comment removed
DrPepper42yes 3 months ago
Oh please please repost above 240p!
senchirai 3 months ago
Robot speaking?
glupsamja 3 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
though speed of light is FAR beyond human's capability to sense/see anything, it's interesting, thanks
ytrnjdikzgt 3 months ago
Comment removed
ytrnjdikzgt 3 months ago
can anyone who disliked this video tell me why? i mean why would you come and watch an interesting hypothetical video and then say "you know what? I dont like this" ???
Jax132 3 months ago
@Jax132 I didn't down vote it, but the voice modulation via a fake voice was at times hard to understand. Just using a normal voice and better graphical rendering would have made this a much better production.
gdmv77 3 months ago 3
@Jax132 they probably disliked it because the production and rendering was shite
MegaWoodss 3 months ago 2
apod sent me
varo2471 3 months ago 3
wait... what
Rockthezeppelin 3 months ago
Is anyone else freaked out that it seems to be the light at the end of the tunnel when you die?
Locane256 3 months ago 2
This is proof that if god existed, he took LSD when he created the universe.
Thank god i'm an atheist...
Skeithization 3 months ago
@Skeithization you may be agnostic, but theres no such thing as an atheist. Thank God, huh.
gangGreenproduction1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gangGreenproduction1 Because everyone knows that when you say the word God, you believe in it.
ShiftyGray 3 months ago
Comment removed
GrumpyOldTroll 3 months ago
@gangGreenproduction1 Stop being so meticulous. Whenever someone says atheist, it's generally accepted that they are using the definition that works under the confines of science. Less of "There is no God" and more of "There is no reason to believe there is a God." People like you are just here to annoy me, i swear.
jessechisel126 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Skeithization If atheists do not believe God exists then why do they bring up God almost all of the time? Why do you try to prove God does not exist if you believe he does not exist? If God does not exist then you cannot prove or disprove he exists or not.
theonlylolking 3 months ago
I bet ya it's easier to paint your house when it's bending down towards the ground like that - if your quick enough!
I'm thinking this visualization is another false distortion of reality. Close but no cigar. What do you think Mr. Witten?
lightgearwire 3 months ago
taking a while to get past that building at the speed of light... are you sure this video isn't meant to be showing what happens as you approach the top speed of a childs tricycle?
zillionz 3 months ago
LUDICROUS SPEEEEEEED!!!
They've gone plaid!
Postal133 3 months ago 11
PROVE IT FAGGOT
IamMaximilianKohler 3 months ago
Mindfuck
Amat3uR84 3 months ago
So I'm pretty sure taking LSD slows down the speed of light.
mikestang420 3 months ago 2
@mikestang420 Haha and Salvia shatters the fabric of the universe! It's how we do it. No need for the Enterprise.
zyxy45 3 months ago
Ahhh 240p...we meet again...
BingyBingable 3 months ago 172
@BingyBingable LOL :D
WizzSpell 3 months ago
i only wish they had rendered above 240p!
reefsurfer226 3 months ago 54
''If we instead fly through the cube, the structures Terrell rotate independently, seeming to turn the cube inside out.''
I'm sorry. I don't understand why the cube rotates independently, seeming to turn the cube inside out.
rain71014 5 months ago
This was a triumph, I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. Look at me still talking when there's science to do...
TheCrazyCello 7 months ago
faces wow. that is so fascinating or is it me? loads of faces great x
karensheraton 8 months ago
This is how a photon feels like.
Quinzio 8 months ago
@Quinzio Actually, not at all. These effects only simulate what would happen at *near* lightspeed velocities. At lightspeed itself, the speed of a photon, there is no passage of time (from a photon's "POV", A to B is always instantaneous) and nothing to see.
AlbertaNerd 3 months ago
@gomobo2232 I agree!
mi9worm 9 months ago
Comment removed
mi9worm 9 months ago
Comment removed
mi9worm 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you can speak then why not speak?
mi9worm 9 months ago
If you can speak then why not speak?
mi9worm 9 months ago
This is weird and the sand looks really bright!
mi9worm 9 months ago
Comment removed
mi9worm 9 months ago
@Sergeantsmeg Thank you for the reminder, I truely can remember that as a child I was closer to God, than now as a delusional adult .Some of us will lose touch with the spirit and tune into the world of man, and his desperate groping for truth. We seem as a fish who does not believe in water anymore...
videotimesss1 10 months ago
@videotimesss1 Desperate groping for truth? Do you really need a deity for comfort? If so, then be that way, I do not have a problem with that. However, I find this 'desperate groping for truth' a very exciting thing to do when you realize how marvelous and how outrageous nature really is. Our curiosity is such an important element of being that we have come this far in our knowledge...I don't see a need to stop.
GunsNRosesbitches 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We hit it off so well after another visit busizz4me.info
sasinihsani 11 months ago
Thank you so much for posting this video. Can anyone tell me the original source of this video?
lopdebif 1 year ago
I like the rainbow effect and image distortion.
maleiva 1 year ago
You are right in God's backyard when you study the speed of light and it's affects on time and space.
videotimesss1 1 year ago
@videotimesss1 You are right in a delusional, child-like mindset when you believe in God and it's effects on anything.
sergeantsmeg 10 months ago
Am I wrong when I say that light, or better, fotons "see reality" as showed at 3:17?
caneboia 1 year ago
@caneboia You misspelled trolling.
derman077 11 months ago
@caneboia What do you mean?
SgtRevan 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sexy and Asian women Meet #lushfmlk.info#
ahmaketharim 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unlimited energy sources are out there!But there are very powerfull forces that want to supress the technology,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
Stgopena1212 1 year ago
Why the fuck was I linked this?
Kadual 1 year ago
this kind of stuff makes me want to go into a physics field and not mechanical engineering.
Peon547 1 year ago
What I wonder about is, what would you actually see (in terms of aberration), if you were travelling close to the speed of light... and LOOKED BACK. What would the distortion be?
Just don't tell me I wouldn't see anything because the light always travels at the same speed, so emitted from the objects behind me it would catch up with me just the as me as if I stood in place.
adaseth 1 year ago
Google "real time relativity" for a software program that simulates all of these effects.
MrRobotoToo 1 year ago
@MrRobotoToo BTW You'll need to have DivX 9.0c installed on your computer.
MrRobotoToo 1 year ago
I think I'll shit my pants if I see that.
bbsonjohn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ithme1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ithme1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ithme1 1 year ago
this is one of the best videos I've seen. I've been thinking about this for a while and it's great to have my understanding of Special relativity confirmed.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
I want the music! Haha... Interesting stuff. Love Special Relativity, but I'm more of a Biology person honestly.
Romaniangirl10 1 year ago
@Romaniangirl10
It's by Michael Brook and Brian Eno from the album Hybrid. Great listen.
podfunk 1 year ago
@podfunk
I checked on their website and found a sample of it... Thanks so much!
Romaniangirl10 1 year ago
mind-boggling
cziber 1 year ago
Awesome visual effects, hadn't seen computational modelling of this in a while. Thanks.
Blindastronomer 1 year ago
You can not argue any point of view in relativistic terms unless all observers use a constant they all can agree on. As space and time are relative to 'ONLY' constant in the universe that can be agreed on is spacetime. So to talk about photons at one second intervals in misleading. You must convert all your measurements into spacetime then all observers can agree on what they see. Any argument based on any other measurement can not be agreed on by different observers due to relativistic effects.
peterrodgersmoriarty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1.take a deep breath
2. think of someone u like
3. press F10 5 times
4. send this to 5 youtube videos
5. look at ur backround 1 ora fa 4 day
garciaking951 1 year ago
Feels like I'm entering another universe.
9906197439 1 year ago
now your thinking with portals :)
pupil8 1 year ago
Now do one with time compression as well.
rkyeun 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Boring...
obdami 2 years ago
any future video with english subtitles? cuz there are too many technical terms that i do not understand.
gl
Originaldanger7 2 years ago
Light speed is relative to the observer so why would you say it gets brighter in front of you and darker on the sides? Is this because there are fewer photons coming from the sides? I like your video it makes me think.
TimJSwan89 2 years ago
Light speed is constant, not relative. It's time and space that are relative. It gets brighter in front because you are rushing headlong not into just the photons that would have reached you, but the ones you wouldn't yet have reached at a slower speed. More speed = more photons hitting your eye = brighter.
rkyeun 2 years ago
@rkyeun a photon always travels at the speed, of light, you cannot hit into more photons as a photon approaching a photon will only be nearing that photon at the speed of light, no faster.
daenumen 1 year ago
@daenumen
A photon does always travel the speed of light. From your perspective at high speeds you lose time, but the same amount of photons are in your path and hit you in that diminished time. Photons per second makes it brighter.
From an observer's perspective, you are traveling quickly and sideswiping into the light with your face at a faster rate that you would otherwise experience. The speed of light is a constant. The effect of brightness is due to time NOT being constant.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun no, if you were walking, and their were 10 photons placed say 1 second apart, then you would recieve them all (at a side swipe), if you are travelling near C then you might only catch one photon. as for the photons travelling directy towards you from infront, again they can only travel at c relative to you, hence if they are sperated by 1 second each, then you will observe one photon a second.
daenumen 1 year ago
Yes. You'll receive one photon per outside observer's second if you are moving at slow speed and the ten photons are one light-second apart.
However, when traveling near the speed of light, say a dilation factor of 10, your seconds come once every ten of the outside observer seconds, and the distance between the photons Lorentz contracts to 1/10th of a light-second. You get all ten photons in one of your seconds, making it ten times brighter.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun ??? are you mad??? if i walk past a light source, i will see all 10 photons, because im in the way for long enough. if i move in a fast car, i will see a few. at light speed i may only see one. ie our paths will cross. from an outside observer, the laws of physics must also be obeyed, by your understanding, this is not so. ie all 10 photons are detected by the travelling body before all 10 have been emitted. ie they then become superluminal.
daenumen 1 year ago
@daenumen a photon always travels at the speed, of light...in a vacuum. In other materials photons travel at a speed proportional to the refractive index of the material.
podfunk 1 year ago
@podfunk a photon does always travel at the speed of light in free space, in this regard the video is wrong, let me explain:
doppler shift should be maximally observed infront of you, as you look to the side, it should decrease to a minimum of no doppler shift when looking perpendicular to the direction of motion.
intensity: directly infront, intensity will increase. to the side, an 'apparent' decrease (no actual change - since source infront is much brighter, 'looks' darker comparitively)
daenumen 1 year ago
@podfunk abberation; objects infront would get closer, not futher away, and objects again, at 90 degrees from the direction of motion you would only see what has 'already happened', such that the photon you detect was emitted such that the light sphere intecepts the point you intecept when you reach it.
ie you would see 'the future' infront of you, and 'the past' either side of you, and nothingness behind you.
daenumen 1 year ago
@podfunk one more point is that the intensity will only be an 'apparent' increase also. objects infront of the traveller will not actually get 'brighter'.
also, if you shone a head light beam infront of you, you would observe the beam to bend, but it would still be travelling at the speed of light.
daenumen 1 year ago
@podfunk ...and yes i have...
daenumen 1 year ago
nice demonstration of relativity and perspective
2012DarkKnight 2 years ago
Why can't u read that urself? The computer voice really sucks, I can't listen to it! Otherwise the video is fine.
MrNightLifeLover 2 years ago
PREPARE SHIP FOR LUDICROUS SPEED!
verxintRising 2 years ago 2
I didn't even think about blue shifting..... good video!
SBPAlphaGamma 2 years ago 2
Excellent!
DanteKidd 2 years ago
This is fascinating.
Sagan's "Cosmos" had a segment that presented something similar to this, except the imaginary traveler was on a motorbike, and the effects were created without sophisticated computer imaging.
It is a tribute to Sagan's vision and deep understanding that Cosmos was made decades ago yet his representations of relativistic phenomena are so similar to these modern computer-generated images.
OldSchoolSkill 2 years ago
adaseth ... it's basically due to "light aberration" effect. if you have a rain guage and there's no wind, raindrops fall into the vertical guage. if you then run forward with the guage, you'll have to tilt it forwards because the raindrops appear to slant toward you - now just substitute photons & direction for raindrops & the orientation of the rain guage. relativistic contraction will lessen the effect, but for a while as you're accelerating, the building will get squished to the center
thomashfly 2 years ago
One thing doesn't add up here- when approoaching the speed of light, the distances get shortened, so why does the building seem to be moving away? Shouldn't it rather be getting closer?
adaseth 2 years ago
dmanschaumbizzie is right oh my god it is the light at the end of the tunnel (3:17)!!! This explains it all, when you walk toward the light when you die you are rapidly accelerating and being converted into energy thus being able to move at the speed of light and once you reach that speed everything becomes dark and cold.
darkwave312 2 years ago
scary...
but interesting
rccx 2 years ago
3:17
the light at the end of the tunnel....
dmanschaumbizzie 2 years ago 10
when it comes to be theres a soothing light at the end of your tunnle. its just a fright train commin you way. (no leaf clover, metallica)
zenthex1234 2 years ago
...an interesting possibility....
Dhyanaman 2 years ago
@dmanschaumbizzie
Death = 1/mc2
eracer1111 3 months ago
lol Void rubik's 4x4 cube at 3:31.
CUB3FR34K 2 years ago
Great video, interesting and informative.
ThirstyonThursday 2 years ago
stuff like this really goes over my head :(
muffinman540 2 years ago
thank , this video just gave me a flashback
usernamesimpleflame 2 years ago
I recommend looking for better speech synthesizer... Try ReadPlease
Hairysteed 2 years ago 3
Whoa, freaky.
CabooseBE 2 years ago
I would enjpy this more if i didnt have to listen to that creepy cyborg woman narating it.
gomobo2232 2 years ago
Aperture Science would like to remind you that android hell is a REAL place where you WILL be sent at the first sign of defiance.
jakkbomb 2 years ago 4
Heh, yeah, she sounds kinda like GladOS.
thrash77581 2 years ago 26
the happens when your taking pictures of fast moving objects..due to the shutter speed or not..i've yet to figure that out..care to explain anyone?
kelvintwt 2 years ago
Explain what?
FCKEVRY1 2 years ago
It takes time for the film to react to light, so if something is moving when you take it's picture the film 'sees' it over the entire time the shutter is open bluring it along the direction of motion
spudd86 2 years ago
What about digital cameras?
perpetualflow8 2 years ago
same thing, digital cameras still have a shutter speed (the time the spend collecting light), but don't necessarily have the shutter.
So the same thing happens with them as with a film camera
spudd86 2 years ago
This stuff is trippy.
zombieiscool 3 years ago
jeeeze theres lots of smart people who give you big long scientific views.. :)
amandamartin6664 3 years ago
This just blew my mind.
jonleflar 3 years ago
1:58 is trippy
i'm desperately trying to understand special relativity. *sigh* i should wait until college to attempt to learn this.
tetavo 3 years ago
special relativity isnt very hard, you could learn it on your own with a decent book or paper. Hell, you could even learn it with the english wiki page.
The general rel. theory on the other hand is much harder, you would need several university math classes just to be able to start with it properly. There normally is one class just for this theory alone
LaNague 3 years ago
Yeah, I figured out special relativity a while ago. All I had to do was imagine everything moving around my head instead of the other way around. Then, I imagined photons moving around at the same speed no matter what, almost as if they were on a separate layer from everything else. I was just having trouble with the visualization.
tetavo 3 years ago
Well, General Relativity isn't very hard to understand from a purely conceptual basis, while I agree the math can get intense and one does need a background in tensor calculus, differential geometry, etc. to truly appreciate it. I myself took up studying special and then a bit of general rel in high school and I am by no stretch of the imagination a genius.
Jim1905 3 years ago
I wouldn't say that Gen Rel is easy to understand on any basis, unlike SR there aren't really any results you can derive from a "thought experiment", as for tensor calculus - people will only have a background in Tensor calculus if they HAVE studied GR... it's the reason it took 11 years to figure out GR after SR was published... tensor calculus had to be invented before anyone could even cope with the maths! :D
TheCrazyCello 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dude, I have an IQ of 172 and I can't do simple algebra because I can't remember the rules. I can lecture you for hours about economics, psychology, mathematics, history and even understand (imaginatively) relativity and have my own ideas about relativity and strings and time and black holes and I love metaphysics and philosophy. I also play the piano, guitar, harmonica and drums, but I can't factor -42x10y8 - 35x7y10 for shit!
FCKEVRY1 2 years ago
Then you must have been very ill served by your math teachers (or your main problem is that you are simply not interested in math, or you believe you cannot do it, and therefore you cannot)
spudd86 2 years ago 3
I think that the first part of this video is wrong (wrong Lorentz transform). It should zoom in and not zoom out. If you consider an electron near the light speed, when it accelerates it emits isotropic radiation (Maxwell) in its frame, but in the lab frame, you got a thin ray along the trajectory (Synchrotron radiation). If we consider a small obstacle on the ray trajectory. The electron should "sees" this obstacle under a large solid angle. Not a small one as we can guess on this video.
Je4nLuc 3 years ago
It took me a while to get my head around this, and I first thought it should zoom in, but I finally concluded that they are correct after all. Space ahead of you contracts, which should at first sight produce a zooming in effect, but you are using rays of light to see, and they originated from where the objects were a little while ago. Since they are flying so fast, they "used to be" much farther away when light left there, and this optical effect more than undoes the Lorentz contraction.
michelcolman 3 years ago
I know that this view is the classic one but it seems strange. It means that if you fire with a laser on a fast particle, the orientation of the laser (according to the trajectory) should not affect much the Compton scattering of the laser against the particle. (The particle will see the laser almost in front of itself).
I'm still investigating on this, especially on the GRAAL experiment results (photon-relativistic electron collision).
I'm still not convinced that this view is the good one.
Je4nLuc 3 years ago