sorry another question :P.. at 7:08 why is V considered the same in all four equations. like why is the Latin perception of the greeks' V the same as the greek perception of the Latins' V?
@robman8855 We know the velocities are the same in the low velocity limit (Galilean relativity = day-to-day experience). That takes care of the 1st and 3rd equations. For the 2nd and 4th equations it has to be the same v to make the speed of light be the same in both systems.
@ozmoroid thank you for the answers.. Your videos are very interesting and helpful however it isn't the same as someone explaining it to you in person. But this is as close as I can get to an in-person explanation so thank you very much!
same at 7:30, it seems to me that according to the Latin reference point that the distance that the event is away from the origin would be the greeks' observed distance plus the greeks' velocity (as obsever by the Latins) multiplied by the time (as observed by the Latins. I am confused why you use the greek time for the Latin's distance and vice versa.
@robman8855 The equations are written so that you can take Greek/Latin coordinates and translate them to Latin/Greek. xi = x-vt allows the Latin observer to take his coordinates (t,x) of an event and predict the Greek xi value.
@adapaevolved Apparently you can't keep track of which videos you comment on. This is #2. You were dumping comments on #3. Those are very much (unfortunately) still there. I'd never censor someone like you. Scientific illiteracy of that magnitude is just too amazing to behold. ;-)
if I'm illiterate,draw a space-time diagram for the box and the light beam,your light beam is falling faster than the box,it follows a curved path,the box a straight,same frame of reference?
Oh and a little bit of nit picking. For the speed of light to equal 1, you should use seconds for distance (if thats what you're using for time) not light seconds. If you're defining a light second to equal a second fair enough, but its a bit confussing as a light second is already used as a measure of distance. Otherwise very good!
You could do the video again from the Greeks point of view, meaning you use -v (the speed the Latins are moving away from them) and you would essentially get the same result because the contractions/dilations depend on v^2 ( (-v)^2 = v^2). So as long as the Greeks accept that Special Relativity is valid in all inertial frames of reference they're pretty much of the same stand point as the Latins, which is the idea of relativity.
... is it just me or does it simply make better sense to say the Greeks got it wrong, or am I over using Occam's razor / is there something I am missing?
Call me thick, but surely this is dimensionally wrong. The quantity v.x would have dimensions Length^2/Time, while x/v however would have dimensions time. Or am I missing something?
@probro9898 In the coordinates I used (see 1:36) distance is measured in time (time it takes light to travel that distance) and velocity is dimensionless (seconds of distance over seconds of time, or fraction of speed of light). So, both vx and x/v have the dimensions of time.
I didn't know it would be simple linear equations :p I thought special relativity would at least have something to do with differential equations. (or is that up ahead?)
@MrEduardKhil It would have to be replaced by a theory that accounts for both everything the theory of relativity explains as well as the neutrinos being faster than light.
@MrEduardKhil Not that I think neutrinos actually move faster than light btw.. I am not qualified enough to challenge the Opera observations, but I'm holding out for a few more independent replications before i change my mind.
If "there is no evidence for light being the oscillation of some material" what is waving? My understanding was empty space (the vacuum) is not empty but is supposed to have properties, and electromagnetic waves are manifestations of the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum (the vacuum is said to have "degrees of freedom" as to how it vibrates) I know this smacks of the aether revisited and i don't claim any expert knowledge of physics but i would be interested to hear your thoughts.
damn..i luv the way u explain all this. thanks for putting this stuff up here. i had no idea how cool some of this shit could be or that i could even come close to understanding any of this.
This video series is amazing Ozmoroid. I never really was a physics person, so I never made it this far follwoing the classical path of physics. I can say that at the very least you are doing *me* a good service. :)
Hey Ozmoroid, you should do another video explaining just how time dilation and length contraction make it impossible to reach the speed of light relative to another inertial frame (as is my understanding).
I'm sur he'll make a cool vid about this ... but just for fun .. The beta (dilatation factor, represent the factor by witch you multiply the time in your reference frame to adjust)
Notice that if you move v (speed) towards the value of c (light speed) (in the equation where c=/1 ) you get to
1/Sqrt(1-1) witch is 1/0 (impossible) !!! Witch means basically that at the speed of light time stops !! Or we dont know what happens ! It's the limit of the theory !!
To add to that, if you go at... lets say 0.999 times the speed of light ... Youe time frame is :
Beta= 1 / sqrt ( 1-0,999/1)
Beta= 31 !!
So, if you travel 0.999 times the speed of light, your time passes 31 times slower then lets say on earth !! Or any reference moving at a neglectable speed with reference to light !
@659851 I like your comment, but the way you use a space before every exclaimation mark displeases me lol, also I feel that you use them a little too frequently.
This has got to be the most elegant explanations of this i've ever seen. I think i understand this now. Years of university didn't do it, but a couple of minutes did!
The funny thing is if you can get your speed much faster than the speed of light you can be moving forward through time in one frame and backwards in time in the other.
Thank Einsteinian for GPS systems. With my life of crazy teenage partying, i will always find my way home.......but my iphone can't make calls.....dammit
usually when we set the speed of light we use meters for time and length this has the advantage of really breaking down the difference between time and space, also you can then make other constants 1 as well such as G allowing you measure everything in meters(time length energy ect), these are called geometric units.Also by using natural units setting h=1 allows you measure everything in ev and 1/ev, further you can than combine both to make Planck units which are useful and string theory.
If the moving observer traveled to what in the stationary observer's frame of reference would be the Hubble Distance, then even if the moving observer returned at the speed of light, he could never get back.
There must then be a distance less than that at which the twins would be the same age upon the return of the moving twin.
What dilates the entity of time or the measurement of time?
Is the speed of light in a vacuum constant or does the measurement simply render the same value regardless of the motion of the observer? That would make the speed of light nothing more than a correction factor for the motions of the observer.
What is physically happening that allows Relativity to work?
I am not sure what you mean when you say that we don't have every day experience of this time dilation. The LHC gives us such experiences. I read that particles which usually have a very short life are existing for many seconds due to their velocity being close to C.
PS: You need much better graphics, I found it very difficult to differentiate the overlaid grids in green/red.
Just finished reading 'Six Easy Pieces' and 'Six Not So Easy Pieces' last week. I already have a better understanding after watching this video once than after reading the Feynman bit on Relativity twice (and some parts of it more than that).
Wow! I'm very impressed! Again, I've learned so much, and this has helped me to understand concepts which I wished to understand before, but which were not adequately explained to me.
Before, I was saying that if I move away from light very fast, I should perceive the light as coming towards me at less than the speed of light. But you're saying that my time is running slower, so even though light would hit me more slowly, my time would be slower, too, and I'd see it as normal speed. Right?
sorry another question :P.. at 7:08 why is V considered the same in all four equations. like why is the Latin perception of the greeks' V the same as the greek perception of the Latins' V?
robman8855 1 week ago
@robman8855 We know the velocities are the same in the low velocity limit (Galilean relativity = day-to-day experience). That takes care of the 1st and 3rd equations. For the 2nd and 4th equations it has to be the same v to make the speed of light be the same in both systems.
ozmoroid 1 week ago
@ozmoroid thank you for the answers.. Your videos are very interesting and helpful however it isn't the same as someone explaining it to you in person. But this is as close as I can get to an in-person explanation so thank you very much!
robman8855 1 week ago
same at 7:30, it seems to me that according to the Latin reference point that the distance that the event is away from the origin would be the greeks' observed distance plus the greeks' velocity (as obsever by the Latins) multiplied by the time (as observed by the Latins. I am confused why you use the greek time for the Latin's distance and vice versa.
Maybe it doesn't even matter who knows
robman8855 1 week ago
@robman8855 The equations are written so that you can take Greek/Latin coordinates and translate them to Latin/Greek. xi = x-vt allows the Latin observer to take his coordinates (t,x) of an event and predict the Greek xi value.
ozmoroid 1 week ago
at 2:56 in the equation for x, why are you using the moving graphs perception of time rather than the stationary one's variable for time?
robman8855 1 week ago
@robman8855 In this case t and tau are the same. Using tau in the equations just makes it have Latin on the left, Greek on the right.
ozmoroid 1 week ago
You delete my objection? Pathetic.
Nice scientific discourse, trough censorship.
adapaevolved 1 week ago
@adapaevolved Apparently you can't keep track of which videos you comment on. This is #2. You were dumping comments on #3. Those are very much (unfortunately) still there. I'd never censor someone like you. Scientific illiteracy of that magnitude is just too amazing to behold. ;-)
ozmoroid 1 week ago 4
if I'm illiterate,draw a space-time diagram for the box and the light beam,your light beam is falling faster than the box,it follows a curved path,the box a straight,same frame of reference?
adapaevolved 1 week ago
so you deleted my comments and censored my opinion?
adapaevolved 1 week ago
The one dislike is done by Isaac Newton.
Amagusdrop 1 week ago 2
Oh and a little bit of nit picking. For the speed of light to equal 1, you should use seconds for distance (if thats what you're using for time) not light seconds. If you're defining a light second to equal a second fair enough, but its a bit confussing as a light second is already used as a measure of distance. Otherwise very good!
lfo98 3 weeks ago in playlist Physics
You could do the video again from the Greeks point of view, meaning you use -v (the speed the Latins are moving away from them) and you would essentially get the same result because the contractions/dilations depend on v^2 ( (-v)^2 = v^2). So as long as the Greeks accept that Special Relativity is valid in all inertial frames of reference they're pretty much of the same stand point as the Latins, which is the idea of relativity.
lfo98 3 weeks ago in playlist Physics
... is it just me or does it simply make better sense to say the Greeks got it wrong, or am I over using Occam's razor / is there something I am missing?
PestoPosta 3 weeks ago
More.
geneticepistomology 2 months ago
Call me thick, but surely this is dimensionally wrong. The quantity v.x would have dimensions Length^2/Time, while x/v however would have dimensions time. Or am I missing something?
probro9898 2 months ago
@probro9898 In the coordinates I used (see 1:36) distance is measured in time (time it takes light to travel that distance) and velocity is dimensionless (seconds of distance over seconds of time, or fraction of speed of light). So, both vx and x/v have the dimensions of time.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid Thanks - I thought it was probably something like that :)
probro9898 2 months ago
HOLY CRAP ALL OF THE DERIVATIONS OF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION THAT IVE SEEN ARE LIKE 30 LINES OF ALGEBRAIC WORK AND THIS WAS LIKE 6.
Tr3xKuro 2 months ago
I dont get it.
Is there a book you can recommend pls?
trixapete 2 months ago
I didn't know it would be simple linear equations :p I thought special relativity would at least have something to do with differential equations. (or is that up ahead?)
FHomeBrew 2 months ago in playlist Physics
@FHomeBrew That's up ahead.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
must not watch hungover
Escotch82 3 months ago
thanks
NateFosterSR 3 months ago
Excellent video, would the finding of the neutrinos speed being faster then light effect the theory of relativity?
MrEduardKhil 3 months ago
@MrEduardKhil It would have to be replaced by a theory that accounts for both everything the theory of relativity explains as well as the neutrinos being faster than light.
Turgor 3 months ago
@MrEduardKhil Not that I think neutrinos actually move faster than light btw.. I am not qualified enough to challenge the Opera observations, but I'm holding out for a few more independent replications before i change my mind.
Turgor 3 months ago
This series is possibly the best collection of science videos I have seen on Youtube.
Lbbhecht 6 months ago 9
@Lbbhecht I'm glad you found it worthwhile.
ozmoroid 6 months ago
I don't know what the fuck just happened. I wish physics wasn't so intertwined with mathematics.
Armageddon0mega 7 months ago
My brain just slid out my ear, I'm going to have to watch this again later!
rarrmonkey 7 months ago
Too difficult for me to grasp, but I find it really interesting. I don't know why I didn't find your channel before now. :)
xSilverPhinxx 7 months ago
Einstein would be proud of this :)
TheStigma 8 months ago
If "there is no evidence for light being the oscillation of some material" what is waving? My understanding was empty space (the vacuum) is not empty but is supposed to have properties, and electromagnetic waves are manifestations of the electromagnetic properties of the vacuum (the vacuum is said to have "degrees of freedom" as to how it vibrates) I know this smacks of the aether revisited and i don't claim any expert knowledge of physics but i would be interested to hear your thoughts.
timrice666 8 months ago
Excellent!
Benjuthula 9 months ago
damn..i luv the way u explain all this. thanks for putting this stuff up here. i had no idea how cool some of this shit could be or that i could even come close to understanding any of this.
awesome stuff :)
cyclo212 9 months ago
Is that v or nu?
thegillotine09 9 months ago
@thegillotine09 v for velocity
ozmoroid 9 months ago
Lol! Fact checking Einstein. :)
This video series is amazing Ozmoroid. I never really was a physics person, so I never made it this far follwoing the classical path of physics. I can say that at the very least you are doing *me* a good service. :)
websnarf 10 months ago
Hey Ozmoroid, you should do another video explaining just how time dilation and length contraction make it impossible to reach the speed of light relative to another inertial frame (as is my understanding).
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi In the works ...
ozmoroid 10 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
I'm sur he'll make a cool vid about this ... but just for fun .. The beta (dilatation factor, represent the factor by witch you multiply the time in your reference frame to adjust)
Notice that if you move v (speed) towards the value of c (light speed) (in the equation where c=/1 ) you get to
1/Sqrt(1-1) witch is 1/0 (impossible) !!! Witch means basically that at the speed of light time stops !! Or we dont know what happens ! It's the limit of the theory !!
659851 8 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
To add to that, if you go at... lets say 0.999 times the speed of light ... Youe time frame is :
Beta= 1 / sqrt ( 1-0,999/1)
Beta= 31 !!
So, if you travel 0.999 times the speed of light, your time passes 31 times slower then lets say on earth !! Or any reference moving at a neglectable speed with reference to light !
1 year to you = 31 years to earth !
Your traveling forward through time !
Im french ! So i hope i was clear enough !!
Cheers !
659851 8 months ago
@659851 I like your comment, but the way you use a space before every exclaimation mark displeases me lol, also I feel that you use them a little too frequently.
Th3Shadow0fDeath 7 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
these equations are used to ajust time on gps satelites's clocks so they give acurate position ! without this, gps does'nt work !
Same sort of thing happens for lenght and mass to make all the dynamics equations work !! and ultimatly explains the famous e=mc2 !!
Man this is beautiful !! I dont know your status but if you like this kinda stuff you should take physic classes !! It's just amazing !
Cheers!
659851 8 months ago
This has got to be the most elegant explanations of this i've ever seen. I think i understand this now. Years of university didn't do it, but a couple of minutes did!
ConradW 10 months ago
@ConradW I'm happy to hear that.
ozmoroid 10 months ago
These are excellent. }|:o)
werecow2003 10 months ago
@werecow2003 Thank you.
ozmoroid 10 months ago
The funny thing is if you can get your speed much faster than the speed of light you can be moving forward through time in one frame and backwards in time in the other.
Lulz
christoph2005 10 months ago
Thank Einsteinian for GPS systems. With my life of crazy teenage partying, i will always find my way home.......but my iphone can't make calls.....dammit
Modaragamage7 10 months ago
usually when we set the speed of light we use meters for time and length this has the advantage of really breaking down the difference between time and space, also you can then make other constants 1 as well such as G allowing you measure everything in meters(time length energy ect), these are called geometric units.Also by using natural units setting h=1 allows you measure everything in ev and 1/ev, further you can than combine both to make Planck units which are useful and string theory.
mage1over137 10 months ago
Has anyone ever tried to make a electricity generator by using the spinning iron at the center of the Earth?
wwickeddogg 10 months ago
I'm certainly out of my depth here....but the upside is it inspires me to want to understand it more completely...thank you for that :)
MasterOhSo 10 months ago
I'll have to watch this video again a dozen times :/
synsei1 10 months ago 2
Beautifully presented.
AuntieDiluvian 10 months ago
This is really great - gonna use it whenever I'm trying to explain relativity, since it far outstrips my usual approach.
Azremodehar 10 months ago
very nicely done
ForcaForte 10 months ago
This is just fantastic, oz. You are a great communicator. I wish I could bottle this up and sell it in vending machines.
C0nc0rdance 10 months ago 2
Was it one millionth or 11 millionths?
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
@Wrath0fKhan Count the zeros :)
Sgrunterundt 10 months ago
@Sgrunterundt
How about counting all the positions?
Wrath0fKhan 10 months ago
If the moving observer traveled to what in the stationary observer's frame of reference would be the Hubble Distance, then even if the moving observer returned at the speed of light, he could never get back.
There must then be a distance less than that at which the twins would be the same age upon the return of the moving twin.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
@DeathofSpeech
DOH... okay I'll put that down to senility...
All that would do is create a situation where time ceased for the moving twin from the perspective of the stationary twin's point of reference.
Even at SOL they would never meet again, even after infinite time had passed for the stationary twin.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
What dilates the entity of time or the measurement of time?
Is the speed of light in a vacuum constant or does the measurement simply render the same value regardless of the motion of the observer? That would make the speed of light nothing more than a correction factor for the motions of the observer.
What is physically happening that allows Relativity to work?
MsWanderer1 10 months ago
part 2 brilliant just brilliant
scatustherising 10 months ago
This sounds to become an awesome series.
Draugo 10 months ago
beautiful
dangasX 10 months ago
Ouch. Too fast. Brain hurts. I have to pause that table and study it for a few.
jacobreinvented 10 months ago
@jacobreinvented
"Ouch. Too fast. Brain hurts."
If that makes your brain hurt remember that space is expanding as they travel.
I think I hurt myself.
DeathofSpeech 10 months ago
I am not sure what you mean when you say that we don't have every day experience of this time dilation. The LHC gives us such experiences. I read that particles which usually have a very short life are existing for many seconds due to their velocity being close to C.
PS: You need much better graphics, I found it very difficult to differentiate the overlaid grids in green/red.
TheRationalizer 10 months ago
more please
darkdragonsoul99 10 months ago
ive heard that a lot of physicists think relativity is wrong and the reason is the big bang and quantum physics. what up with that?
keggerous 10 months ago
At this point I'm officially lost. You can have the math, I'll stick with chemistry.
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
@FranksVoice All of us are students of the unknown. ;-)
ozmoroid 10 months ago 8
Just finished reading 'Six Easy Pieces' and 'Six Not So Easy Pieces' last week. I already have a better understanding after watching this video once than after reading the Feynman bit on Relativity twice (and some parts of it more than that).
DavidMTRutten 10 months ago
@DavidMTRutten Thanks. Glad it was of help.
ozmoroid 10 months ago
Wow! I'm very impressed! Again, I've learned so much, and this has helped me to understand concepts which I wished to understand before, but which were not adequately explained to me.
Before, I was saying that if I move away from light very fast, I should perceive the light as coming towards me at less than the speed of light. But you're saying that my time is running slower, so even though light would hit me more slowly, my time would be slower, too, and I'd see it as normal speed. Right?
Rationalific 10 months ago
...and the dawning realization that I am a complete ignoramous just hit me...
chuckfaststrat 10 months ago
very cool stuff :)
sorrysonofa 10 months ago
(like * c)^c
odinsraven1000 10 months ago
Relativity isn't retarded, it's just "special."
TheIntolerantAtheist 10 months ago
@TheIntolerantAtheist In "general" relativity isn't "special" but in some cases it is. ;)
ozmoroid 10 months ago 2
@TheIntolerantAtheist Cool name.
purplederple 10 months ago
Everytime I hear this explained I have a new appreciation for Dr. Einstein.
Brilliant.
bobster451 10 months ago
I am totally having a nerdgasm all over my computer right now.
lhvinny 10 months ago 23
@lhvinny I'll get you some tissues -_-"
DemonAMVs 10 months ago
I look forward to Nephy pwning this video. His two year internet degree should give him significant math skillz.
Meatbag211 10 months ago 47
I'll make a prediction about the future! You're going to make another video, and I'm going to enjoy it.
handplanty 10 months ago 2
MOAR
RonBurgundy161 10 months ago 2