@LeconsdAnalyse I used Google to try to understand your answer but I couldn't, can you possibly explain it in plain English for us uninitiated, please?
misleading title.... should be ignorant people there is more to the original equation, its omitted the space time description of momentum so that you can cope with the concept better
Islam is the truth!....... Islam already predicted about speed of light long before corrupted western scientist.read AL quran and you will understand physics well.
E=mc^2 is not wrong then, because scientist know it is only a simplification of the correct equation for the normies(normal average IQ people) who will never use it, it's just for show.
People, stop bashing Einstein for this simplification, even if he was incorrect, he is still a genius, more than you all will ever be.
Overlooking Einstein's plagiarism for stealing E = mc^2 from Olinto De Pretto, you're 100% correct in saying E = mc^2 is not incorrect, but as for E = m what is 100% incorrect is the v/c.
According to Einstein the v/c of E = m is 6.71 • 10^8 ≡ 1.86 • 10^5 thus L can circle the Earth over 7 times in 1 sec, but due to quantum enthalpy, entropy & E = m oscillations, the v/c of L (= √1- v^2/c^2 = ½) in E = m was timed at 5.77475 • 10^7
Hold on now.... if e=mc2 then how much energy does a black hole contain?! I'd imagine if a black hole were entirely converted into energy it would probably just destroy the entire universe with THAT kind of power! XD
Actually, no. The universe is pretty big. What exactly do you mean by "destroy the universe"?
Even if there was an explosion big enough to reach every corner of the universe, there would still be matter in existence. Everything would be destroyed, but it will all be recreated. Therefor, the universe wouldn't be destroyed.
Plus, even traveling at the speed of light, it would take a very long time for the explosion to reach most of the universe.
Well the guy was asking if a black hole, converted into energy could destroy the universe. That's what I was talking about.
It really depends on what you mean by destroy. An explosion doesn't completely dismantle everything it his, but in a liberal sense, you could say it destroys it.
You don't need all the mass in the universe to make an explosion big enough to interact with everything in the universe. Just look at the atom bomb. Something that small can level an entire city.
@chadd990 lol, by destroy I really mean change. It's not like all matter would be wiped from existence (as that would be impossible anyway), but lets say a black hole with a solar mass of 1,000,000 (1.98892x10^36) was converted into pure energy
E=(1.98892x10^36)(900000000)=1.790028x10^45
to give you an idea of how fucking massive that number is
1790028000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Thermonuclear bomb
42630000000
the explosion would be equal to 4.2x10^34 nukes, big bang shit right there.
@LeconsdAnalyse well, by solar mass i mean it's weight in terms of solar mass, one unit of solar mass is approximately the mass of the sun. As for how I determined that a black hole has a solar mass of 1,000,000 i just search "mass of a black hole" and went with the first thing I found.
Wiki states that black holes can FORM when (say) "..very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle..", producing "..Black holes of stellar mass..".
They mean that the black hole`s interior envelops the collapsed star`s residual mass. BUT, the collapsed star`s mass is NOT the black hole itself!
The black hole ITSELF is just a distorted "..region of spacetime.." (according to GR). Its NOT a material object.
@commetsmasher actually a black hole is technically separate from the rest of the universe cause it would take an infinite amount of energy for anything to escape it... :/
@du1eq It's not really separate because it still has an effect on the rest of the universe. Also, technically particles can escape a black hole through Hawking radiation.
so light/ a photon has energy so it should have a gravitational field just a really really really small one. so if you shoot out two parallel beams of light say a micron apart, if they are acted on my no other forces will they eventually come together?
Don't be so douchy little man, E=mc² is not wrong... E=mc² is totally valid but in certain conditions (for matter at rest). It's like saying F=m*a is wrong because de real form is F = dp/dt, since not just the speed can change but also the mass. Everytime you have a constant mass F=m*a is a pretty good expression.
@eleutheromaniac I'm not sure if he was being an elitist or not, but he was right. The public also can't cope with fixing their automobiles or anything else that specialists do. That's because everybody is too concerned with their particular job and life to think about physics or fixing cars or whatever. To understand physics you have to understand math which takes even smart people years and years. Nobody has time to learn everything about everything.
just wondering, what units are used in the equation. eg, the numbers would look very different if you measured the mass in g or kg or lbs or if you measured the speed of light in km/m or mi/m or energy in joules or calories
@imamadmad1 You can use what system you like in the equation. The order of 10 to the 17 conversion factor quote was using SI. Yes, the "numbers" can be anything depending on your units, but the point is that the energies associated with a given mass are much larger than energies Newton would calculate so your used to dealing with because c is large. Even if c is small for your units like 1, speeds in Newtonian energy calculations are much less than 1 and the energy is still comparatively large.
Please don't tar all of us as joe public with an IQ of a used tea bag,and even from memory the speed of light is 299.792458 m/S and no I didn't bloody Google it every Ham operator knows it off by heart..understanding Science/Physics would be easy if you credited us with the ability to understand, so FFS don't dumb it down.
"The public can't cope" OMG such arrogance? the public either have interest in it and they will cope like it's no tomorrow, or they're simply not interested.
@DrMadolite Children arn't interested in world news as its too beyond them. Adults aren't interested in Barney because its too beneath them. Which do you think is the case with the publics aversion to the real mathematical nature of the physics?
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics Well, first off there is no such thing as "children" or "adults". People are different. Lots of kids watch news and lots of adults watch kids cartoons. Finally, you're asking me to answer a question that is based on your assumption that the public has an aversion to math. Simplest answer: people are bored by it, it's not fun.
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics No, I know perfectly well that you're referring to statistics, which is exactly the mistake you're making. A lot of people cannot cope with the truth, but a lot of people CAN cope with it, it's just that they've never been presented to it because there are these elites presenting bullshit to people out of feard that "they" can't cope. Question is, who are "they"? who are the "public"? Am I not part of the public then, since I am fully able to cope?
@DrMadolite Also, the statistics are wrong, because these type of statistics are typically done under extremely biased and predetermining conditions.
Secondly, something isn't a statistical fact just because it's puplar for a lot of people to agree on it. Show me some actual statistical data that explicitly and verifiably states that "the public can't cope" then we're getting somewhere.
@DrMadolite If you can cope with the real math then no, you are not a part of the public as he was using the term. The public as he was using the term are the intellectually inferior masses whose average IQ is only 100 and therefor can't comprehend much more than eat sleep fight sex and though they can speak, certainly don't progress from conctrete to the abstract reasoning stage where they would have to be in order to understand enough to appreaciate any of this. Sports is as deep as they get,
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics That's an incredibly arrogant attitude you got towards people of 100 IQ, I must say. I also think it's arrogant to think that the actions of most people are due to the lack of IQ, or (vice versa) that even the lack of IQ has much effect on how smart you are - something that is predominantly defined by personal experience and knowledge and only "boosted" by the IQ of a person. Also, you being an optimist or a pessimist also factors in quite fundamentally.
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics Well, yes and no. I just thought I'd bring it up, because everywhere I go I see people over-generalizing absolutely everything in life - the very reason why wars, racism, religious fanaticism etc exist to begin with. So maybe you're right after all, statistically.
It's when we judge each individual based on their individual here-and-now actions that we'll ever get somewhere constructive. I guess that's my point.
@petertrast No, they didn't get the relative simultaneity right. The times for the labs were out of sink for a ground appropriate frame. They were in sync for the local satallite frame but doing the experiment from that frame there is a component of the length between the labs along the direction of satallite motion that has to be length contracted they didn't then account for. In terms you can understand. They screwed up.
@petertrast I thought I just explained what they missed. I'd give a link to a research paper giving the details but youtube doesn't allow it so google: Measuring Time of Flight Using Satellite-Based Clocks
then click on the first arxiv link. The paper derives the correction for the leg from the satelite to one lab of 32ns. Theres two for the two labs giving a total correction of 64ns
@mattyalanjones427 for they way i am understanding it depends if you and the NUKE is in motion or not and also put into factor the charistics of what you doing and the 50kg NUKE. but yes you can be stronger then a NUKE. but to grasp that kind of energy thats another factor lol :)
@mattyalanjones427 Well it depends on how fast you are. You have to be faster than the nuke bomb. But the speed the atoms have (when they collapse) is just so fast that (even so they have a very little mass) they have an incredible amount of energy. Then you have to concidere that the bomb expands in every direction for a few moments and in this time it sets even more energy free.
@mattyalanjones427 it does, actually. but unless the atoms in your body become unstable (assuming that your mass reaches the critical mass then) you don't have to worry about fission :P
@mattyalanjones427 If you do weigh more than 50kg, yes, but due to the nuclear forces that constitute the insides of the bomb, their energy is much easier to extract, even though the amount extracted in nuclear explosions is a low percentage of the bomb's weight.
@mattyalanjones427 no you dont , mass has a new definition , releasing all that energie of 50Kg Plutonium , you will need 500 tonnes of your mass. Mass is relativ in makroversum and mikroversum.
@mattyalanjones427 yea i think that the formula is not exact but the one for kinetic energy would be more exact as the bomb doesn't have to account for the additional nuclear energy
@mattyalanjones427 tecnically yes, however the material from which a nuclear bomb is made allows that energy (only 1% of it actually) to be released, whereas your body is made up of a material taht does not allow that transformation to be done in practice (you'll have to employ more energy than what you get...)
@mattyalanjones427 It means that if all of your mass were converted into energy, the energy output would be much greater than any nuclear bomb we can build. Our nuclear bombs actually only convert a few grams of matter into energy, (For example, the 21 kiloton bomb the USA dropped on Nagasaki converted 1.0 grams of matter into energy.)
However, this probably won't happen anytime soon. One way it could happen is if you encountered a bunch of anti-particles. You won't, though. ;)
@jakeedmans as a matter of fact it does store all the energy of the explosion in the form of nuclear bonds which are broken in a chain reaction. These bonds contribute to the rest mass of the nucleus and when they are broken the total system gets lighter, the difference in mass being radiated away as energy. When these bonds are broken in a non-chain reaction, it is observed to be radioactivity.
@mattyalanjones427 It depends. But, if you were to assume a 100% conversion from matter to energy, and you had more than 50kg of mass within your body then, yes, if we were to convert you to energy, you would yield more energy than a nuclear bomb of 50kg. In 100% conversion of mass to energy, fissionability of the bomb wouldn't matter. The bomb releases energy because the daughter elements weigh less than the original fissionable fuel.
You are wrong. The mass of a nuclear bomb is not converted into pure energy. The Little Boy (bomb that hit) hiroshima contained 64 kg (140 lb) of uranium, of which was less than a kilogram underwent nuclear fission, and of this mass only 0.6 g (0.021 oz) was transformed into energy. So if you manage to convert 50kg of mass into pure energy you will end up with an energy 70 000 times bigger than Little Boy.
@dlbattle100 matter-antimatter annihilation converts ALL the mass of both interacting matter and antimatter into pure energy :) getting the antimatter is the hard bit...
@SajjadRockzAlwayz So you are saying sound is without mass? If you want people to take anything you say seriously try improving your grammar. I had to read it twice
electromagnetic radiation is the vibration of the aether, what the einstein freaks did was to remove the aether from the equation and replaced it imaginary photon particles that are also a wave suposedly whick makes no sense because a wave is motion of a something not a thing by itself , again mixing concepts with objects to trick you
@chan00chap ok so the ether is dark matter. Not electromagnetic waves or photons or any of that. The ether is dark matter. Which actually would explain why lights velocity changes when passing through a planets atmosphere because it is interacting with non-dark matter molecules. Ok so this is how it works. All molecules are attracted together in the vaccuum of space and any stray molecules or objects are also atracted to these clusters because of the attraction of protons to electrons
@MrDyinbreed and vice versa which means that gravity and electromagnetic fields are basically the same thing because eectroMAGNETIC come on magnetation is caused by the attraction of electric currents. However this would suggest that light have an electric charge or a molecular composition which is something that is only theoretical for me at this point because we cant even measure light's speed yet, we're measuring radio waves. Com now im SEVENTEEN. You guys are all overthinking this too much..
@chan00chap ok so if what youre saying is true then there's no basis for reality and EVERYONES work in the fields of both chemistry AND quantum physics, all of their work means nothing? am i understanding this correctly? well just so you know this channel "sixty symbols" also has a video explaining neutrinos and probably other particles too. Sub-atomic particles do exist and if you're attempting to prove ALL quantum scientists wrong INCLUDING our dear friend einstein. Well best of luck to you...
@chan00chap well thats what im saying is thayt energy is mass. energy is produced by these positive and negative particles. I'm creating a theory based off of what i have learned from other scientists research. Which is exactly what every other scientist including Einstein has done. So before you go preaching about beliefs just consider that whatever you're saying is your personal belief. Not minbe and my belief is that these sub-atomic particles exist and form our current idea of gravity.. js..
but seriously, you can't expect to prove them all wrong. These particles do exist and these particles are the basis for all reaLITY. yEAH, MAYBE THEIR EXPLANATIONS ARE WRONG AND MAYBE their equations were wrong but trust me guy, einstein knew what he was talking about. Moreso than you.
trust me einstein was a liar and stole alot of other ppl ideas when he worked at the patent office in berlin. his cousin who was also his lover wrote alot of his stuff too.
ok perhaps you're all wrong. We're all forgetting that universal law that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Atoms and energy are both one in the same for joules are a measurement of electrical current and negative joules would just be negative energy. Electric currnt is determined by the variation of electrons in an atom from the number of protons. Mass->energy? Not possible. To be honest im thouroughly convinced eveyone is overthinking it. Im 17 and i still outdo the greats. Hahaha.. Reply
@chan00chap Since when did Einstein confuse the model or concept with reality?
Science is just a conceptual model to describe how the universe works... no scientist (Einstein included) will ever talk about what something actually "is", only how it appears to our instruments and how our models can describe it. Relativity is just another model.
The fact is, though, that these models WORK, even though they are just concepts... GPS would be nothing without Einstein and relativity.
For a (free) material object moving with speed `v`, p:=mv is its 3-momentum. Where m:=m₀/√(1-v²/c²).
Now, if light (as you say) had mass it would (must) have 3-momentum given by, p=mc OR equivalently pc=mc². But we know (for a fact) that, E²=m₀²c⁴ + p²c²≡m²c⁴ (!). Hence, p≠mc.
@LeconsdAnalyse thank you :D and, if tachyons could be faster than light and that they existed at the time of the big bang then could they be older than the universe ?
@IvanderHaisley The physics in the neighborhood of the so-called `Planck epoch` of the `Big Bang` is unknown. All that`s known is that a singularity (according to GR) existed in the finite past. Assuming the existence of `tachyons` on top of this only adds insult to injury. That is, i don`t know.
If I was watching this video, it means I DON'T find equations boring. Equations involve symbols. This YouTube series is called Sixty Symbols. Problem?
@katulobotomia I'll try. Atoms bind themselves together through the electromagnetic force, which by itself is energy. What he says is that if you were to measure two atoms separately and then them as a molecule, you would find that the first one is heavier than the latter, because the energy of the bond makes the whole mass drop, as energy is related to mass according to Einstein's equation. I'm not sure I helped you at all, but I tried :P
Well, if we can cope with pythagora's theorem, we can handle more than E=mc^2. I personally dabble in linear algebra, for example. Just lay it on us! :)
who are these "people like you"......I wonder how accurate your guess is of the viewership, and there understanding of math and physics. I personally come here hoping to get a deeper understanding, and would like see the videos go deeper into explanation. I will continue to watch, as I like that the info is credible, and I am entertained, but I would like to see the vids get deeper into the math and physics cause I feel the surface is barely scratched and I don't think I'm the only one.
@bnew241 Not viewership, a reference to Brady, the videographer. Equations slow down the video because you are forced to explain the equation as you go, obviously the more complicated and contrived equations will require a lengthier explanation, making the video seem plodding and like a lecture. What he is trying to do is to make the most esoteric of scientific ideas accessible to the general populace. As to getting more in depth, would you ask a plumber to clean your drain for free?
@bnew241 He probably thinks the sort of people that watch these videos are the sort who don't know how to use the words "their", "there" and "they're" correctly.
I definitely learnt something new today. However, i don't think it's fair to just say the equation is wrong. The equation is just not complete, but even to come up with an idea that mass and energy are the same is the greatest discovery of man. Einstein's ideas were correct. just not complete.
Very cool. I didn't know this, but from what exposure I have had to relativistic physics (which is very little), it makes sense.
auirc 14 hours ago
a) brady, please let them explain exations sometime
b) so... why c²?
The5T1N9R4Y 1 day ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 3 days ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 3 days ago
I still didn't get why Einstein picked the square of the speed of light, was there a physical reason for this or could he choose any random number?
Bugside 4 days ago
@Bugside Because of the form of the `Lagrangian` for the relativistic free (material) particle.
LeconsdAnalyse 3 days ago
@LeconsdAnalyse I used Google to try to understand your answer but I couldn't, can you possibly explain it in plain English for us uninitiated, please?
Bugside 3 days ago
@Bugside "in plain English"
You can`t ! You gotta use math.
LeconsdAnalyse 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bugside The c^2 is for various measurements.
Since the v/c in a vacuum = 186,282.397 mps & circumference of the
Earth = 25,000 mi. Thus, the distance that L can travel in
a specific space Δ time can now be calculated via dividing c by the circumference (1.86 • 10^5 / 25,000 = 7.45129588).
Thus, we also know anyone that is suspended above the circumference
of the Earth without moving will see 25,000 mi. travel by in 24 hours
at the v of 25,000 / 24 or (1,041) just over 1,000 mph.
RonPaulCantWin 2 days ago
@Bugside Well he definitely couldn't just pick a random number and it works lol
anticorncob6 1 hour ago
misleading title.... should be ignorant people there is more to the original equation, its omitted the space time description of momentum so that you can cope with the concept better
proffesor98 5 days ago
Islam is the truth!....... Islam already predicted about speed of light long before corrupted western scientist.read AL quran and you will understand physics well.
excsa62 5 days ago
@excsa62 alright... these are some strange claims that I'll have to disagree with.
what exactly was predicted about the speed of light in the Quran? and where is physics explained?
jorritschulte 5 days ago
@excsa62 Ok, give me a quote explaining how gravity works in the Quran.
shnibly12 5 days ago
Fuck yeah, condescension!
philophos 5 days ago
E=mc^2 is not wrong then, because scientist know it is only a simplification of the correct equation for the normies(normal average IQ people) who will never use it, it's just for show.
People, stop bashing Einstein for this simplification, even if he was incorrect, he is still a genius, more than you all will ever be.
publiusdg 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@publiusdg Speaking as a physicist, etc I say...
Overlooking Einstein's plagiarism for stealing E = mc^2 from Olinto De Pretto, you're 100% correct in saying E = mc^2 is not incorrect, but as for E = m what is 100% incorrect is the v/c.
According to Einstein the v/c of E = m is 6.71 • 10^8 ≡ 1.86 • 10^5 thus L can circle the Earth over 7 times in 1 sec, but due to quantum enthalpy, entropy & E = m oscillations, the v/c of L (= √1- v^2/c^2 = ½) in E = m was timed at 5.77475 • 10^7
RonPaulCantWin 1 week ago
Comment removed
Exfenestracide 1 week ago
I am sociopath and physics is how I gonna roll
ObjectiveImpact 1 week ago
Comment removed
zajec11 1 week ago
i wish there was a youtube channel like this but for biology
ray1351 1 week ago
Comment removed
ObjectiveImpact 1 week ago
My new theory is........E=MC2...plus Vat.
gasgas270 1 week ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
Hold on now.... if e=mc2 then how much energy does a black hole contain?! I'd imagine if a black hole were entirely converted into energy it would probably just destroy the entire universe with THAT kind of power! XD
commetsmasher 2 weeks ago
@commetsmasher
Actually, no. The universe is pretty big. What exactly do you mean by "destroy the universe"?
Even if there was an explosion big enough to reach every corner of the universe, there would still be matter in existence. Everything would be destroyed, but it will all be recreated. Therefor, the universe wouldn't be destroyed.
Plus, even traveling at the speed of light, it would take a very long time for the explosion to reach most of the universe.
Still, it would be a huge explosion.
chadd990 2 weeks ago
@chadd990 what would be there to destroy? you would need all the mass in the universe and convert it to pure energy to create an explosion that big
Suxicekk 2 weeks ago
@Suxicekk
Well the guy was asking if a black hole, converted into energy could destroy the universe. That's what I was talking about.
It really depends on what you mean by destroy. An explosion doesn't completely dismantle everything it his, but in a liberal sense, you could say it destroys it.
You don't need all the mass in the universe to make an explosion big enough to interact with everything in the universe. Just look at the atom bomb. Something that small can level an entire city.
chadd990 2 weeks ago
@chadd990
"An explosion doesn't completely dismantle everything it his"
meant to say, "everything it interacts with"
chadd990 2 weeks ago
@chadd990 lol, by destroy I really mean change. It's not like all matter would be wiped from existence (as that would be impossible anyway), but lets say a black hole with a solar mass of 1,000,000 (1.98892x10^36) was converted into pure energy
E=(1.98892x10^36)(900000000)=1.790028x10^45
to give you an idea of how fucking massive that number is
1790028000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Thermonuclear bomb
42630000000
the explosion would be equal to 4.2x10^34 nukes, big bang shit right there.
commetsmasher 2 weeks ago 12
@commetsmasher you've given big numbers but assigned no value to them.
42630000000 what??
swilson3d 1 week ago
@swilson3d
I ran out of characters :(
It's in joules.
commetsmasher 1 week ago
@commetsmasher What do you mean by, "..a black hole with a solar mass of .." ? Where did you read this ??
LeconsdAnalyse 1 week ago
@LeconsdAnalyse well, by solar mass i mean it's weight in terms of solar mass, one unit of solar mass is approximately the mass of the sun. As for how I determined that a black hole has a solar mass of 1,000,000 i just search "mass of a black hole" and went with the first thing I found.
commetsmasher 1 week ago
@commetsmasher Hi. OH, ok.
Wiki states that black holes can FORM when (say) "..very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle..", producing "..Black holes of stellar mass..".
They mean that the black hole`s interior envelops the collapsed star`s residual mass. BUT, the collapsed star`s mass is NOT the black hole itself!
The black hole ITSELF is just a distorted "..region of spacetime.." (according to GR). Its NOT a material object.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 week ago
@commetsmasher Speaking as a bibliotist, etc I say...
As I was reading your comment, I've discovered that you've (knowingly, or unknowingly) contradicted yourself &, or made a serious error pertaining to
E = m (i.e., E = m ≡ m = E).
E = m can easily be viewed as protean (e.g., multiformity).
Did you forget *The First Law of Thermodynamics* declares that energy
(or, E = m) can not be created, or destroyed (by mankind) it can only be changed from one form of E = m into another form of E = m?
RonPaulCantWin 1 week ago
@commetsmasher actually a black hole is technically separate from the rest of the universe cause it would take an infinite amount of energy for anything to escape it... :/
du1eq 1 week ago
@du1eq It's not really separate because it still has an effect on the rest of the universe. Also, technically particles can escape a black hole through Hawking radiation.
MKirro 1 week ago
The man at the end of the video is awfully presumptuous...borderline arrogant actually.
Stuartsaves 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrJepcats 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
so light/ a photon has energy so it should have a gravitational field just a really really really small one. so if you shoot out two parallel beams of light say a micron apart, if they are acted on my no other forces will they eventually come together?
stardude692001 2 weeks ago
@stardude692001 YES.
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
Don't be so douchy little man, E=mc² is not wrong... E=mc² is totally valid but in certain conditions (for matter at rest). It's like saying F=m*a is wrong because de real form is F = dp/dt, since not just the speed can change but also the mass. Everytime you have a constant mass F=m*a is a pretty good expression.
MrOvipare 2 weeks ago
It is actually E=± mc^2
This accounts for anti-matter as well.
tonyri123 3 weeks ago
@tonyri123 No, because antimatter does not have negative mass.
therealEmpyre 2 weeks ago
pause at 00.26
gamerzguide00 3 weeks ago
@eleutheromaniac I'm not sure if he was being an elitist or not, but he was right. The public also can't cope with fixing their automobiles or anything else that specialists do. That's because everybody is too concerned with their particular job and life to think about physics or fixing cars or whatever. To understand physics you have to understand math which takes even smart people years and years. Nobody has time to learn everything about everything.
culwin 3 weeks ago
just wondering, what units are used in the equation. eg, the numbers would look very different if you measured the mass in g or kg or lbs or if you measured the speed of light in km/m or mi/m or energy in joules or calories
imamadmad1 3 weeks ago
@imamadmad1 You can use what system you like in the equation. The order of 10 to the 17 conversion factor quote was using SI. Yes, the "numbers" can be anything depending on your units, but the point is that the energies associated with a given mass are much larger than energies Newton would calculate so your used to dealing with because c is large. Even if c is small for your units like 1, speeds in Newtonian energy calculations are much less than 1 and the energy is still comparatively large.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 3 weeks ago
Please don't tar all of us as joe public with an IQ of a used tea bag,and even from memory the speed of light is 299.792458 m/S and no I didn't bloody Google it every Ham operator knows it off by heart..understanding Science/Physics would be easy if you credited us with the ability to understand, so FFS don't dumb it down.
redeyesinthedark 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 3 weeks ago
Energy = Mass x Clight
BornAgainEngineer 4 weeks ago
@BornAgainEngineer See, this guy's comment as exemplifying what I'm talking about.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 3 weeks ago
"The public can't cope" OMG such arrogance? the public either have interest in it and they will cope like it's no tomorrow, or they're simply not interested.
DrMadolite 4 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Children arn't interested in world news as its too beyond them. Adults aren't interested in Barney because its too beneath them. Which do you think is the case with the publics aversion to the real mathematical nature of the physics?
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 4 weeks ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics Well, first off there is no such thing as "children" or "adults". People are different. Lots of kids watch news and lots of adults watch kids cartoons. Finally, you're asking me to answer a question that is based on your assumption that the public has an aversion to math. Simplest answer: people are bored by it, it's not fun.
DrMadolite 4 weeks ago
@DrMadolite Aside from ignoring the statistical nature of the descriptions, what you are not getting is that I just told you WHY that it.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 4 weeks ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics typo, why that is not why that it.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 4 weeks ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics No, I know perfectly well that you're referring to statistics, which is exactly the mistake you're making. A lot of people cannot cope with the truth, but a lot of people CAN cope with it, it's just that they've never been presented to it because there are these elites presenting bullshit to people out of feard that "they" can't cope. Question is, who are "they"? who are the "public"? Am I not part of the public then, since I am fully able to cope?
DrMadolite 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
DrMadolite 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrMadolite Also, the statistics are wrong, because these type of statistics are typically done under extremely biased and predetermining conditions.
Secondly, something isn't a statistical fact just because it's puplar for a lot of people to agree on it. Show me some actual statistical data that explicitly and verifiably states that "the public can't cope" then we're getting somewhere.
DrMadolite 4 weeks ago
@DrMadolite If you can cope with the real math then no, you are not a part of the public as he was using the term. The public as he was using the term are the intellectually inferior masses whose average IQ is only 100 and therefor can't comprehend much more than eat sleep fight sex and though they can speak, certainly don't progress from conctrete to the abstract reasoning stage where they would have to be in order to understand enough to appreaciate any of this. Sports is as deep as they get,
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 3 weeks ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics That's an incredibly arrogant attitude you got towards people of 100 IQ, I must say. I also think it's arrogant to think that the actions of most people are due to the lack of IQ, or (vice versa) that even the lack of IQ has much effect on how smart you are - something that is predominantly defined by personal experience and knowledge and only "boosted" by the IQ of a person. Also, you being an optimist or a pessimist also factors in quite fundamentally.
DrMadolite 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite so... do you have any real point?
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 3 weeks ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics Well, yes and no. I just thought I'd bring it up, because everywhere I go I see people over-generalizing absolutely everything in life - the very reason why wars, racism, religious fanaticism etc exist to begin with. So maybe you're right after all, statistically.
It's when we judge each individual based on their individual here-and-now actions that we'll ever get somewhere constructive. I guess that's my point.
DrMadolite 3 weeks ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics You must think you're very special.
falubii 3 weeks ago
@DrMadolite tangent much?
jackoadeetayo1 3 weeks ago
I feel retarded watching this even after my Chemistry Degree exams.
mattyalanjones427 1 month ago
It's not full, that's what it is.
Dice3000 1 month ago
Comment removed
MyStuff774 1 month ago
And the LHC just recently proved that Einstein was probably wrong because neutrinos have been recorded at faster than light speeds now.
The standard model is broken.
petertrast 1 month ago
@petertrast No, they didn't get the relative simultaneity right. The times for the labs were out of sink for a ground appropriate frame. They were in sync for the local satallite frame but doing the experiment from that frame there is a component of the length between the labs along the direction of satallite motion that has to be length contracted they didn't then account for. In terms you can understand. They screwed up.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 1 month ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics So they were able to account for the 60 nanosecond disparity?
petertrast 1 month ago
@petertrast The correction they missed accounts for 64ns, more than enough.
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 1 month ago
@WaiteDavidMSPhysics What did they miss? Is this discussed on any websites? I would like to read more about it. Thanks.
petertrast 1 month ago
@petertrast I thought I just explained what they missed. I'd give a link to a research paper giving the details but youtube doesn't allow it so google: Measuring Time of Flight Using Satellite-Based Clocks
then click on the first arxiv link. The paper derives the correction for the leg from the satelite to one lab of 32ns. Theres two for the two labs giving a total correction of 64ns
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
If E=mc^2 does that mean that I have more energy than say a nuclear bomb that weighs 50kg?
mattyalanjones427 1 month ago in playlist More videos from sixtysymbols 19
@mattyalanjones427 Yes, but it is harder to harness your energy! :)
robelirobban 1 month ago
@mattyalanjones427 for they way i am understanding it depends if you and the NUKE is in motion or not and also put into factor the charistics of what you doing and the 50kg NUKE. but yes you can be stronger then a NUKE. but to grasp that kind of energy thats another factor lol :)
swissbeats23 1 month ago
@mattyalanjones427 Well it depends on how fast you are. You have to be faster than the nuke bomb. But the speed the atoms have (when they collapse) is just so fast that (even so they have a very little mass) they have an incredible amount of energy. Then you have to concidere that the bomb expands in every direction for a few moments and in this time it sets even more energy free.
jsa0804 1 month ago
@mattyalanjones427 it does, actually. but unless the atoms in your body become unstable (assuming that your mass reaches the critical mass then) you don't have to worry about fission :P
TheGrannda 1 month ago
Comment removed
MyStuff774 1 month ago
Comment removed
MyStuff774 1 month ago
@mattyalanjones427 If you do weigh more than 50kg, yes, but due to the nuclear forces that constitute the insides of the bomb, their energy is much easier to extract, even though the amount extracted in nuclear explosions is a low percentage of the bomb's weight.
jabajabajaba12345678 1 month ago
@mattyalanjones427 no you dont , mass has a new definition , releasing all that energie of 50Kg Plutonium , you will need 500 tonnes of your mass. Mass is relativ in makroversum and mikroversum.
Slup10000 4 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 yea i think that the formula is not exact but the one for kinetic energy would be more exact as the bomb doesn't have to account for the additional nuclear energy
iamgood321 4 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 tecnically yes, however the material from which a nuclear bomb is made allows that energy (only 1% of it actually) to be released, whereas your body is made up of a material taht does not allow that transformation to be done in practice (you'll have to employ more energy than what you get...)
kajakpaddler92 4 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 Weight and mass are not the same
saharSA1 3 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 It means that if all of your mass were converted into energy, the energy output would be much greater than any nuclear bomb we can build. Our nuclear bombs actually only convert a few grams of matter into energy, (For example, the 21 kiloton bomb the USA dropped on Nagasaki converted 1.0 grams of matter into energy.)
However, this probably won't happen anytime soon. One way it could happen is if you encountered a bunch of anti-particles. You won't, though. ;)
DoctorFastest 3 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 depends if you weigh more or less than 50kg doesn't it?
paulfeakins 3 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 maybe. A nuclear bomb causes a chain reaction; it does not store all the energy of the explosion.
jakeedmans 3 weeks ago
@jakeedmans as a matter of fact it does store all the energy of the explosion in the form of nuclear bonds which are broken in a chain reaction. These bonds contribute to the rest mass of the nucleus and when they are broken the total system gets lighter, the difference in mass being radiated away as energy. When these bonds are broken in a non-chain reaction, it is observed to be radioactivity.
binaryblade2 3 weeks ago
@binaryblade2 Touché.
For some reason I thought the reaction continued into naturally occurring elements outside the system.
jakeedmans 3 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 It depends. But, if you were to assume a 100% conversion from matter to energy, and you had more than 50kg of mass within your body then, yes, if we were to convert you to energy, you would yield more energy than a nuclear bomb of 50kg. In 100% conversion of mass to energy, fissionability of the bomb wouldn't matter. The bomb releases energy because the daughter elements weigh less than the original fissionable fuel.
k0namiman 3 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427
No, because 50kg is 50kg. Annihilate either of you with 50kg of antimatter and the boom would be the same.
sferrin2 3 weeks ago
@sferrin2 Hello.
The `boom` is due to fission/fusion not annihilation.
LeconsdAnalyse 3 weeks ago
@LeconsdAnalyse No it isn't.
nilbud 3 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427
Inactive nuclear bomb:D
4gtg4 3 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 if you are more than 50kg and were converted 100% mass to energy then yes
Ecdub984 2 weeks ago 12
@Ecdub984 Fucking Burn
jameshehe 2 weeks ago
@Ecdub984
You are wrong. The mass of a nuclear bomb is not converted into pure energy. The Little Boy (bomb that hit) hiroshima contained 64 kg (140 lb) of uranium, of which was less than a kilogram underwent nuclear fission, and of this mass only 0.6 g (0.021 oz) was transformed into energy. So if you manage to convert 50kg of mass into pure energy you will end up with an energy 70 000 times bigger than Little Boy.
DestroManiak 6 days ago
@mattyalanjones427 Yes but there is no known way of completely converting you to energy. If we could, the rest of us would be be set for life.
dlbattle100 2 weeks ago
@dlbattle100 matter-antimatter annihilation converts ALL the mass of both interacting matter and antimatter into pure energy :) getting the antimatter is the hard bit...
calamariattack 2 weeks ago
@mattyalanjones427 good luck going to c^2
ProfeshenulRedneck 2 weeks ago
this video earned my subscribe
EZtrollin 1 month ago
Fucking nerds. -_-
dan4boi 1 month ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
@dan4boi Go live in a cave, it's where we'd all be without those horrible " fucking nerds".
DaneEVA 1 month ago
@DaneEVA Don't call nerds "horrible". That's mean.
dan4boi 1 month ago
Doesn't that equation also open up the possibility of a particle possessing a negative mass?
ba3cool 1 month ago
@ba3cool NO.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Care to explain why not?
Since e^2 = m^2 x (a constant), both E and M could technically be negative.
ba3cool 1 month ago
@ba3cool Hello.
Because, that`s NOT what Dirac did!
The Dirac equation for a free relativistic particle assumes a POSITIVE rest mass. The expression E=±√(m₀²c⁴ + p²c²) gives the eigenvalues.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
@ba3cool One more remark before concluding.
When one speaks of a `particle` QM is involved. Otherwise, we speak of a continuous stream of such particles. END.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
stupid brother it took SPEED OF LIGHT bcuz light is ONLY thing he got wich does not hav mass
SajjadRockzAlwayz 1 month ago
@SajjadRockzAlwayz So you are saying sound is without mass? If you want people to take anything you say seriously try improving your grammar. I had to read it twice
SargentLimpDick 1 month ago
That guys a prick
Gmen2004 1 month ago
@motionapplied
first of all aether is not a concept its real
electromagnetic radiation is the vibration of the aether, what the einstein freaks did was to remove the aether from the equation and replaced it imaginary photon particles that are also a wave suposedly whick makes no sense because a wave is motion of a something not a thing by itself , again mixing concepts with objects to trick you
its just word games these hoaxters play,
trust me on this
chan00chap 1 month ago
@chan00chap ok so the ether is dark matter. Not electromagnetic waves or photons or any of that. The ether is dark matter. Which actually would explain why lights velocity changes when passing through a planets atmosphere because it is interacting with non-dark matter molecules. Ok so this is how it works. All molecules are attracted together in the vaccuum of space and any stray molecules or objects are also atracted to these clusters because of the attraction of protons to electrons
MrDyinbreed 1 month ago
@MrDyinbreed and vice versa which means that gravity and electromagnetic fields are basically the same thing because eectroMAGNETIC come on magnetation is caused by the attraction of electric currents. However this would suggest that light have an electric charge or a molecular composition which is something that is only theoretical for me at this point because we cant even measure light's speed yet, we're measuring radio waves. Com now im SEVENTEEN. You guys are all overthinking this too much..
MrDyinbreed 1 month ago
@MrDyinbreed
no aether is not dark matter and forget everything you learned about electrons and protons,
no particle has ever been shown to exist these are just mathematical models,
meaning there is no such thing as these balls spinning around each other with positive and negative charge,
forget atoms,paticles etc its not real
chan00chap 1 month ago
@chan00chap ok so if what youre saying is true then there's no basis for reality and EVERYONES work in the fields of both chemistry AND quantum physics, all of their work means nothing? am i understanding this correctly? well just so you know this channel "sixty symbols" also has a video explaining neutrinos and probably other particles too. Sub-atomic particles do exist and if you're attempting to prove ALL quantum scientists wrong INCLUDING our dear friend einstein. Well best of luck to you...
MrDyinbreed 1 month ago
@MrDyinbreed
particles are mathmatical models thats all im saying,
sure particles exist as an idea/concept in ppl minds just like god.
im saying its important to distinguish between ideas and the physical world.
for example enegry is not a thing and can never become anything with mass
chan00chap 1 month ago
Comment removed
chan00chap 1 month ago
@chan00chap well thats what im saying is thayt energy is mass. energy is produced by these positive and negative particles. I'm creating a theory based off of what i have learned from other scientists research. Which is exactly what every other scientist including Einstein has done. So before you go preaching about beliefs just consider that whatever you're saying is your personal belief. Not minbe and my belief is that these sub-atomic particles exist and form our current idea of gravity.. js..
MrDyinbreed 1 month ago
@MrDyinbreed
einstein was not a scientist lol
ok if particles are real show me a picture of 1
you actually think they are round balls?
chan00chap 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDyinbreed
einstein was not a scientist lol
ok if particles are real show me a picture of 1
you actually think they are round balls?
chan00chap 1 month ago
@MrDyinbreed
ok if particles are real what do they look like?
round balls?
chan00chap 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDyinbreed
ok if particles are real what do they look like?
round balls?
chan00chap 1 month ago
but seriously, you can't expect to prove them all wrong. These particles do exist and these particles are the basis for all reaLITY. yEAH, MAYBE THEIR EXPLANATIONS ARE WRONG AND MAYBE their equations were wrong but trust me guy, einstein knew what he was talking about. Moreso than you.
MrDyinbreed 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrDyinbreed
trust me einstein was a liar and stole alot of other ppl ideas when he worked at the patent office in berlin. his cousin who was also his lover wrote alot of his stuff too.
chan00chap 1 month ago
ok perhaps you're all wrong. We're all forgetting that universal law that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Atoms and energy are both one in the same for joules are a measurement of electrical current and negative joules would just be negative energy. Electric currnt is determined by the variation of electrons in an atom from the number of protons. Mass->energy? Not possible. To be honest im thouroughly convinced eveyone is overthinking it. Im 17 and i still outdo the greats. Hahaha.. Reply
MrDyinbreed 1 month ago
@motionapplied
in hypnosys u can control someone through trigger words that you implant in their mind,
religion and theoritical "physics" works the same way, they make up words to create a story , words like:
god,energy,time,space,spirit,soul etc these words/ideas have absolutely no meaning but "scientists" and priest have used them to scam ppl for years.
sure we can say something is a unit to measure something, but to create some metaphysical bullshit about it is just retarded
chan00chap 1 month ago
only a moron would equate a concept to an object, which is exactly what einstein did
energy is a concept and cant be or transform to mass
time is a concept , you cant slow it down or speed it up cuz its not real its just an idea,
chan00chap 1 month ago
@chan00chap Since when did Einstein confuse the model or concept with reality?
Science is just a conceptual model to describe how the universe works... no scientist (Einstein included) will ever talk about what something actually "is", only how it appears to our instruments and how our models can describe it. Relativity is just another model.
The fact is, though, that these models WORK, even though they are just concepts... GPS would be nothing without Einstein and relativity.
ryanDV87 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
E=1/2 mv2 : oldies but goldies: bye bye Einstein, welcome back Dr. Tesla !!!
HorizonDelta 1 month ago
I wonder how they feel about Neutrinos...
jeniusjj 1 month ago
could light get mass??? since it contains energy then it can be transformed to mass ??? right ??? wrong ??? im confused -_-
IvanderHaisley 1 month ago
@IvanderHaisley Hello.
For a (free) material object moving with speed `v`, p:=mv is its 3-momentum. Where m:=m₀/√(1-v²/c²).
Now, if light (as you say) had mass it would (must) have 3-momentum given by, p=mc OR equivalently pc=mc². But we know (for a fact) that, E²=m₀²c⁴ + p²c²≡m²c⁴ (!). Hence, p≠mc.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
@LeconsdAnalyse thank you :D and, if tachyons could be faster than light and that they existed at the time of the big bang then could they be older than the universe ?
IvanderHaisley 1 month ago
@IvanderHaisley The physics in the neighborhood of the so-called `Planck epoch` of the `Big Bang` is unknown. All that`s known is that a singularity (according to GR) existed in the finite past. Assuming the existence of `tachyons` on top of this only adds insult to injury. That is, i don`t know.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
If I was watching this video, it means I DON'T find equations boring. Equations involve symbols. This YouTube series is called Sixty Symbols. Problem?
shield543 1 month ago
Can someone explain what he means exactly when he says 4:00? :o
katulobotomia 1 month ago
@katulobotomia I'll try. Atoms bind themselves together through the electromagnetic force, which by itself is energy. What he says is that if you were to measure two atoms separately and then them as a molecule, you would find that the first one is heavier than the latter, because the energy of the bond makes the whole mass drop, as energy is related to mass according to Einstein's equation. I'm not sure I helped you at all, but I tried :P
talesac 1 month ago
I like how he just squares speed of light like I square 13
Arwiiss 1 month ago
Comment removed
Arwiiss 1 month ago
And, in case you guys didn't know, 1=2.
antiHUMANDesigns 1 month ago
Well, if we can cope with pythagora's theorem, we can handle more than E=mc^2. I personally dabble in linear algebra, for example. Just lay it on us! :)
antiHUMANDesigns 1 month ago
@antiHUMANDesigns like the old saying...you cant handle the truth....the real truth....
amennuramen99 2 weeks ago
@amennuramen99 :)
antiHUMANDesigns 2 weeks ago
E=MC2 = ERROR!!!!
andalutown 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andalutown
"E=MC2 = ERROR!!!!"
NO it's right
if P (momentum) is Zero (that means if its perfectly still)
E²=P² C² + m² C^4
E²= 0² C² + m² C^4
E²=m² C^4
E=m C²
-> so its not wrong, more like incomplete
unamaxify 1 month ago
@andalutown Can't have two equals signs in an equation, ERROR!
MrMultiGamer 1 month ago
@MrMultiGamer yeah you can. eg: 5=2+3=1+4
imamadmad1 3 weeks ago
Wow ur clever lol
5h1V3skY14 1 month ago
Comment removed
spintronic2 2 months ago
And the moving mass in a constant field is;
E^2 = m^2C^4+p^2C^2
spintronic2 2 months ago
who are these "people like you"......I wonder how accurate your guess is of the viewership, and there understanding of math and physics. I personally come here hoping to get a deeper understanding, and would like see the videos go deeper into explanation. I will continue to watch, as I like that the info is credible, and I am entertained, but I would like to see the vids get deeper into the math and physics cause I feel the surface is barely scratched and I don't think I'm the only one.
bnew241 2 months ago 54
@bnew241 Not viewership, a reference to Brady, the videographer. Equations slow down the video because you are forced to explain the equation as you go, obviously the more complicated and contrived equations will require a lengthier explanation, making the video seem plodding and like a lecture. What he is trying to do is to make the most esoteric of scientific ideas accessible to the general populace. As to getting more in depth, would you ask a plumber to clean your drain for free?
baadshepherd 1 month ago 32
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Thanks.
bnew241 1 month ago
@bnew241 There are some lectures on relativity by MIT on youtube that you can watch.
xenoepist 1 month ago
@bnew241 He probably thinks the sort of people that watch these videos are the sort who don't know how to use the words "their", "there" and "they're" correctly.
jamma246 1 month ago
@bnew241 that's why I prefer khanacademy. Sal kicks ass.
twostepRMX 1 month ago
@bnew241 You should look at my vids then. The one that most closely matches the topic of this video is
watch?v=ODI6BL-qWzg
WaiteDavidMSPhysics 1 month ago
I definitely learnt something new today. However, i don't think it's fair to just say the equation is wrong. The equation is just not complete, but even to come up with an idea that mass and energy are the same is the greatest discovery of man. Einstein's ideas were correct. just not complete.
nomnom112 2 months ago
Thanks 60symbols, I learned something new.
sm0kingJay 2 months ago