Episode 2 : Special Relativity - Chunk 3 of 3

[good4usoul]

Nicely done, dharma. Maybe you could lend your enthusiastic voice to narrate some of my demonstrations at spoonfedrelativity 

[MegaCrazyBOSS]

According to the video, about the first one minute, the video show one photon stand still and going up and down. Another one moving up and down also going to right.

the problem is photon must move with 186282mile per hour.The photon which moves with right dierection have a same rate of up down as the photon that stand still. That means the speed of the upper photon is faster than the lower one. you are wrong then.

the change should be the frequency of the photon not the movement of photon.

[cLADYification]

waow, i lost it at the first second

[AMC2283]

@cLADYification but be assured, it's true--you can take Einstein's word for it

[eme456]

Does this mean that if the earth was not rotating at 1000 miles per hour with is its basic rotational speed, and instead not rotating at all, then we would live shorter lives?

[AMC2283]

@eme456 by a few seconds maybe, and only from someone else's perspective

[MegaCrazyBOSS]

@eme456

You asked a good question. According to general relativity, the more gravity you take, the slower time you travel. If the Earth rotate slower or not rotating, there is a difference. But as the general relativity tells you that the speed of Earth going around the sun and the gravity also affect the speed of the time.

Therefore the difference between rotate and stop is less than one second.

I hope I can answer your question.

[BulgarianBoy92]

you have a sexy voice lollolo

[lamrof]

I don't get it.

[lamrof]

Let's assume it takes a second to take the light to bounce back. Both the moving and stationary perspectives observe it takes a second for the light to bounce on the moving clock. The difference comes in the duration of time represented in a second. A second represents a longer period of time to the stationary observer, because of the longer distance travel observed at a given constant velocity. Is that a correct understanding?

[lamrof]

In other words if Jane and Joe see a car take off and they agree its speed is constant however if Jane sees the car traveled 20ft in a second but Joe sees the car traveled 30 feet in a second then what they call a second doesn't represent the same duration of time for each of them.  Joe's second is longer.

I am struggling with this but is this what is happening?

[TimJSwan89]

Great job, but your forgot to point out that the perspective of the one moving on the one not moving also sees them as slower... in fact both bodies in relative motion see each other as slower than themselves. Wrap your brains around that people.

[you1tube2009]

that doesn't explain though too simple too simple but makes it easy to visualize

[bardistass]

simple but very effective

good work :)

[JUNIORMICH]

yeah, what she said is the same as saying E=mc➁

[22necromancer]

thanks a lot! love you!!

[PensiveLimeTree]

Thankyou, I found that very helpful. :)

[GaryKoji]

Love it! A big help with my understanding!

x

[Bmeson]

love your presentation and voice

[simplyxtrippin]

Im confused about the speed of light being constant. A question come to mind:

If 2 light particles goes at the speed of light in the same direction, does 1 light separate from the other at the speed of light? which one?

[independence8]

the particles will never appear to go at the speed of light to someone watching the two particles. if light is release from the particle, to the particle "eye" it will see it go away at the speed to light. to someone watching the particle it will ALSO see it at the speed of light, its always the same speed.

[rashanazer]

Great videos ...keep it up

[pliskinn0089]

ok if a travel a speed light a would live normal ( lets say 80 yeas ) but from ohter perspective i would be like 80 hundred years ? ¿ is that right please answer in really curious ?

[notToast]

If you had a twin he would be older than you when you come back, so he concludes that time went slower for you, but for you, you still lived 80 years, unlike your twin who lived hundreds of years.

[independence8]

I tell you what, "relative optics" can be the harded thing on earth to understand

[iomis2001]

So in a sense the faster you go the slower you age relative to someone standing still. So if I fly from Philly to Ireland when I land a will be slightly younger then if I had stayed in Philly for the 6 hours?

Does that mean all moving things age at different rates? Or do you have to be moving really fast for this to happen?

[independence8]

YES, ageing is at different rates, but heres a thing for you to think about jomis2001. If I am moving a certain speed, say 300m/s, they i age less. But arent you also moving at 300m/s away from me?? why don't you age less as well??????

[Taxi502]

Einstein answered that question 90 years ago when it was posed to him. The answer is very very very simple. Why dont you age less as well(twin on earth)? Simple becaues it depends on motion. And only one twin is actually moving, the one actually moving at 300m/s, So the one actually moving through space time at 300m/s will age slower than the twin on earth. It's the actual motion that matters.

[independence8]

actually, this is incorrect!!!! Yes Einstein explained it in his theory of "general relativity". saying that one is "actually" moving is merely not enough, as one can't "feel" his movemment, unless, he/she is undergoing ACCELERATION!!! then this CAN be felt!!! but, if one is going at a CONSTANT velocity to the other, then BOTH age less in the other's reference frame, as nature does not distinguish between inertial (constant velocty) frames of references!!!!!

[Taxi502]

O.K., I like your competitive spirit and I can tell from your diction you are smart. You are wrong twice. First, it was Einstein's theory of "special relativity" not "general relativity" that we are talking about.(General Relativity deals with large masses warping and bending space)Second, we are not talking about each other's reference frame or nature's, we are talking about(for sake of arguement) a third observer's reference frame. You have the two observers and let's say me. I see the... cont

[independence8]

then both, the 1st and the third observer will age less in the second (one that is undergoing motion in a space -ship lets say) referencae frame. nature has no reference frame and i never mentioned this! general relativity provides the theory of gravity, but only by consideration if accelerated frames of references!!! its relevent here. special relativity is restricted to travelling at constant speed annd explaines nothing about acceleration of objects. thrust me on this i study physics!!!

[Taxi502]

twin on earth age 100 years, and I see the twin who travels at 90% the speed of light through space age only 1 month. This is not my opinion, this has been proven over and over and over by placing atomic clocks in orbiting spacecrafts moving around earth at 17-24,000 mph. When the clocks return to earth, they are behing the clocks that never left the ground on earth.(Not much, fractions of a second). But it is scientific fact, the twin actually moving ages slower than the twin on earth.

[independence8]

yes but those clock arounjd the orbit are ACCELERATING!!!!! they are in a non-inertial frames of reference!!!!!!!!!!! when the clock travels at a CONSTANT speed, then a paradox is introduced, when BOTH earth and space clock tick slowly!!!

[Taxi502]

The acceleration does not matter. If it does, than I am wrong, Albert Einstein is wrong, and thousands of heralded physicists are wrong and you are right. I guess its possible. But no, in the spaceship, life cycles slow down, space compresses, and time does in fact slow down the faster you move through space time.

[independence8]

if u were in a ship moving a constant speed and i was standing on a planet and u pass by me! then, what will i see and what will u see when u look at me outside your ship! i will see time go slowly when I look in to your ship becasue it is moving, thats true! But u will also see me and the planet moving. Everything it at a constant speed, nither of us can feel our movement and its impossible to tell who is moving with respect to who in space, hence u will my time go slowly as well.

[independence8]

when the clocks are in space orbiting the earth, they are undergoing uniform circular motion - which is acceleration!!!!! the velocity has a constant magnitude (no change is speed of clock) but its DIRECTION is constantly changing, resulting in acceleration.

[independence8]

"length contraction" and "time dilation" are a consequence if the invariance of speed of light in ANY reference frame! the concept of simultanity comes into play as well. a photon bouncing up and down on earth will take a longer path in your reference frame trhan in mine, and vice versa, time will slow for both, a PARADOX! search "light clocks" in google or here!!!!

[LeonSzillard]

You said: From the muon's point of view, time has passed as usual, and therefore as far as he's concerned anything outside his frame the time for them must have been speeded up. OK..

- Therefore we conclude that this muon can plainly see that the speed of light outside him must become sped up along with everything-else.

And so the speed of light viewed from any moving object is also faster than the speed of light...

[raulaassis]

I have a question: If i look from the perspective of the moving photon clock, then the clock ON the table is moving, so it should tick slower.

Wich one is tick slower? From what I get from the video, we can't tell. Right?

I can't understand relativity lol...

Never studied it in detail, but I will...soon.

[]'s for everyone!

Ah! Congrats or the video, nice sense of humor! but I do agrre that you speak too fast!

[preeshcode]

for an observer inside the clock moving at the speed of light, the photons tick like any light clock...for an observer outside the clock moving at the speed of light, the photons tick slower (relatively speaking that is). This is because for an external observer, the photons have to travel long distances at the same speed of light. Therefore the time slows down to keep the velocity constant.

[rantendo]

very good vid. thanks but try to talk slower next time and the recording tends to have some noises. :D

[Electromagnet]

lol "Yay! No."

[maik1evers]

truely amazing, thanx a lot

[amersi]

fuck off

[mjdoyza]

That was a sensational vid series. Just goes to show that education can be fun. And to the guy below (paulo)... I didn't think the dialogue was too quick, if you learnt to travel away from your speakers at 670 mill mph you might just get it.

[JammyLegend]

this is great! i will watch again 2morrow to help some bits sink in!

u tube front page!!

[paologeminiani]

I think that not the clock but you should slow down. For John sake are you trying to share some knowledge? Then make yourself understood, half of what you say goes down the drain. Speak slow.

[SillyBucky]

One thing still plagues me; if I move away from something close to the speed of light, does't what I move away from also move at the speed of light relative to me? Who contracts? WHo gets the time dilation? If the energy of the inertia(to make the speed) causes the dilation of the "speeding away" person causes these things, is it the speed or the energy itself? Maybe it's the actual acceleration. Whoever made these vids should get some kind of utube award, also. 5/5 *'s

[tomahawk465]

very good set of videos... If i run around the world at lightspeed...Then after a few minutes (of my time) I stop running ... years have passed for everyone who was not running at light speed... Yey - I can time travel - only forwards though =[

[Schublade45]

Amazing.

[Geotriger]

it does, but not for ourside observers, only for itself. outside observers will see it staying the same without changing(if someone is reading a book and is at lightspeed, it will seem he just stands still)

[Themaskedpenguin87]

LOL @ harry potter

This video explained it so well thanks :)

[basarg13]

i understood everything but why harry potter is related to einstein?

[adhikesavan]

very good job. kuuddooss :)

[geraldpringle]

If there is no way to determine whether u are in motion there is no way to determine which of 2 light clocks passing each other is the one, if any, that is in motion and therefore ticking slower.

[AOCPopo]

I enjoyed these video's. Thx.

[BOWINGA]

thanx again

[livesoft]

I get it now but one question on all this: WHYYYY the speed of light is constant, no mather what frame of reference...

[timberman78]

wow! u did all this urself, dharma? :) thanx!!

[grunt3]

this girls voice is extremely annoying, though the video is good.

[bluebeard2]

Yay! Shoot that alien!