Watching these is like a blackhole. Time just disappears. Pop out the other side of a 15min video and feels like no time has passed. ANOTHER!

@ericfarina9609

3 жыл бұрын

I would argue, the reason that time "disappears" when you encounter a black hole, is because space and time exist infinitely in perfect symmetry. Because light has an observed speed limit (i.e. finite experience of spacetime) in our reality, we cannot observe time and space existing infinitely in perfect balance, because our observations of reality are dependant upon light having a finite experience of space in terms of finite passage of time. So when spacetime is warped such that the escape velocity of a gravitational body exceeds the speed of light (300,00o km/sec), true spacetime reveals itself in the form of infinite symmetrical spacetime characterized by finite properties of observation. The boundary of the event horizon, represents a barrier against viewing a reality not beholden to our finite observational sense of time.

@BenjaminCronce

3 жыл бұрын

@@ericfarina9609 I've thought about what if a blackhole is not actually a thing that consumes a volume of space in space-time, but literally space-time itself. So we cannot think of what is "inside" of it because it literally does not have an inside. And it's not so much that it has a "surface" as viewing the space-time from different directions gives a different perspective of the same space-time.

@ericfarina9609

3 жыл бұрын

@@BenjaminCronce it does have an "inside" but we can only contextualize what lies inside by our own finite properties of observation. I.e. finite rules of external observation characterize an infinity of relative states of infinity

@ericfarina9609

3 жыл бұрын

@@BenjaminCronce Hey! I gave this a re-read and realized I only focused on the one part I didn't like. Most of what you said is 100% accurate from my perspective

@chadbailey3623

3 жыл бұрын

Pizza was made to hold pineapple!!!

I love the ratio between the length of the explanation and Q&A portions of the video.

I just love it when Don uploads

@krisanderson997

3 жыл бұрын

Me too, he’s wicked cool!

@toonvank6165

3 жыл бұрын

Same same. I also love how he connects with his audience with the question round at the end every episode

@Bassotronics

3 жыл бұрын

Very down to Earth and humble guy. I never miss a vid.

@fershred

3 жыл бұрын

yeah, he makes me happy

Dr Don Lincoln, I have a question out of the topic: Let's assume we send a radio-wave of very long wavelength pointing at a small Black Hole. What's the problem? The wavelength of a radio-wave can be anywhere from shorter than a grain of rice to longer than the diameter of the Earth. At 30 Hz the corresponding wavelength is as big as 10,000 km. On the other hand: average Stellar Black Hole (10x mass of the Sun) has a radius of ~30 km. That's three orders of magnitude smaller than the wavelength of our radio signal. And here is an important info: if I make a hole in my microwave the size of my thumb, I can safely look threw it when it is working, and no damage to my eye would take place - the microwaves used in the oven have a wavelenght of ~14 cm, and my 2 cm hole is so small, microwaves don't even register the hole. So...even though, light cannot escape a Black Holes, would also our sent radio signal (that is many times bigger then the Black Hole), pass threw the Black Hole as if it were not there? On forums people say the radio-wave would be somehow split in half...

@jwplatt9233

3 жыл бұрын

I would think the energy is simply absorbed like anything else. But it makes me wonder if black holes will really evaporate from Hawking Radiation when the incident radiation of the visible Universe could overwhelm any loss from Hawking Radiation. Everything in the Universe would have to go cold before a net loss is achieved.

@ohanneskamerkoseyan3157

3 жыл бұрын

The 'size of the black hole' that you mention refers to the size of its event horizon. But the path of the light will be affected well outside the event horizon, since the spacetime is still curved there. The event horizon is just a point of no return. The size of the black hole that the radio wave 'sees' is determined by how much and how far the spacetime is curved outside the event horizon. A hole on a microwave oven however, doesn't curve the spacetime around it. Therefore the size of the aperture is just the visible size of the hole.

@TomLeg

3 жыл бұрын

@@ohanneskamerkoseyan3157 's answer inspires me. In ordinary situations, Ciekawostki o poranku would be right; a long wavelength wiggles around a small obstacle. But consider the bending of light around a mass, such as the 1919 verification of Enstein by observing a star at a position offset by the mass of the sun. The mass of a black hole is so large that it bends nearby light beams so they point right into the black hole, thus no "sneaking by unnoticed"

@pokerface9312

3 жыл бұрын

@@ohanneskamerkoseyan3157 also, won't there be blue shifting of the radio wave on approaching the black hole due to infinite bending of space time

Doc seems a little under the weather, hope he's ok, he' one of the good guys.

@Feelthefx

3 жыл бұрын

How so? He looks fine in the video

Hi Don, I am a consultant by profession but what keeps me going is physics really.. Love your videos and this series on subatomic stories is amazing.. Love from India!

Don, you cannot imagine how thankful I am for this series.

that was a short discussion on GR even though I have seen it numerous times in other channels, it is just amazing.

Hello Dr. Lincoln...always enjoy your videos, not necessarily because of the content itself but knowing that what you talk about is mostly a modern standpoint. The one point that I was glad to see from a modern (working) scientist was at around 4:30. You don't say that 'time' slows in a gravitational field but that 'clocks' do and that's an important difference. I have experienced many times that people identify a 'clock' with 'time' and will say that 'time' slows in a gravitational field. As you will know, nowadays 'time' is subject of much discussion, 'is it an illusion', 'is it real' etc etc. But whatever the arguments what we actually observe is the slowing of clocks and that is the evidence. To me it means 'the rate at which change occurs'.

Great content as always! Can you please tell something about the new particle they discovered LHC?

Hey Don, I'm really enjoying this series of videos. As an enthusiastic amateur I've learnt a lot about math and physics from KZread. However one gets to a point where even new content just seems to repeat stuff already covered. In your video's, though, I'm learning new points and insights that the other channels just gloss over. Keep'em coming, they're pitched just right.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

It's the questions that keep them fresh.

The strangest and most interesting thing you said about light: that to its perspective it is does not experience time, its everywhere at once, and (to it) the universe has zero thickness... I've heard this before, but for some reason it really sunk in this time... it's mind blowing to ponder💥

@XEinstein

3 жыл бұрын

It blew my mind as well the first time I realized it. But when I think of time in terms of causality it makes sense that at C one does not experience time anymore.

@silo_fx3182

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. This one fact leads to all sorts of different ways of thinking. Humans are so locked to our mass based space time, it is difficult to break out of that position and think of other ways the universe is built, i.e. not from a Human perspective. The thought that staggers me is that a photon from our Sun takes 8 minutes to reach 'my eyes', however that is TOTALLY based on my perspective - not the photon's. Weird for sure. Nice point. Edit: What the heck is a proton?

@kricketflyd111

3 жыл бұрын

I always though rotation and time were going together.

@ericfarina9609

3 жыл бұрын

"It certainly appears that massless particles experience no time and no distance." What is actually happening, is massless particles experience infinite time and infinite space in perfect balance. Light is massless in our reality precisely because it is what sets the parameters of our finite existence, by interacting with our finite reality in a relative expression if its infinite form.

@kricketflyd111

3 жыл бұрын

@@ericfarina9609 IMO,,,rotation is locked with time despite mass.

Don I love your book. Understanding the universe from quarks to cosmos

Great explanation Dr. Lincoln - as always! Thank you for sharing your brilliant insight into and knowledge about things

Great series! Keep it up!

Those were some great answers, pls keep asking questions. I like this program....

Your description of matter being a concentrated form of energy is probably making all of the physics post-docs who watch these videos roll their eyes in horror, but it definitely helped this humanities major better understand gravity's relationship to space-time. Thank you.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

Physics postdocs know it's true. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qmyb1LBsqrOek8o.html

THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!! The question & answer part was a bit speedy !

Hey Don ! Here's another question, not related to physics tho; I always loved particle physics and find it interesting. I wanted to know how you got the inspiration to become a particle physicist ?

I love this series. So, riddle me this: does the universe have angular momentum?

Hi Dr. Don: Since GR modifies spacetime, is it useful to try to think about the laws of physics apart from the concept of "time"? Along these lines, is it proper to think of "mass" as "the ability and/or act of an object to change configuration"? Thanks!

You are getting better and better at making videos, Keep it up

*General Relativity presidcts:* - Gravitational lensing, during an eclipse a beam of light from a distant star is deflected by the gravitational field of the sun. - Precise calculation of the precision in Mercury's orbit. - Results of Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar experiment, the loss of energy found in two neutron stars orbiting each other, is in exact agreement with the predictions of general relativity. - Detection of gravitational waves. Yep, it's definietely right!

@Sanntii7

3 жыл бұрын

I mean, it seems pretty accuarate but the fact that we need dark matter and that it doesn't work in quantum scales should tells us that's not quite right. Also, I'm not entirely sure that if GR is a bit off and we found out what's really going on it wouldn't also explain dark energy

@impCaesarAvg

3 жыл бұрын

@Mike Doonsebury Failed to predict the existence of Mike Doonsebury. Obviously an incomplete theory.

@Magma_Meteor

3 жыл бұрын

@@impCaesarAvg Maybe _incomplete_ but not _incorrect_

@Dragrath1

3 жыл бұрын

Also don't forget the Event Horizon Telescopes image of the photon sphere of M87* or the measurments of stars close to Sag A* in our own Milky Way. Also I have recently been looking into Wolfram's fundamental physics project and one of its computation based universe consequences is that the Feynman path integral behind Quantum Field Theory becomes equivalent to applying General relativity within a phase space of all possible outcomes referred to as Branchial space. In this context quantum weirdness is entirely dependent of Branchial reference frames and the curvature of Branchial space. Its too early to say whether it is right or not but if true General Relativity is more fundamental that Quantum mechanics though both do effectively become quantized in terms or relations between adjacent states. Note the choice of wording are key as if I am interpreting the technical papers right it seems to be meaningless in this context to say states of "what" as they are simply information packets that can interact/exchange information with space being an emergent quantity based on their degree of interconnectedness and the time it takes to update. An implication of this is that time and space are separate after all which space being dependent on time relative to the connections in the system. The point is if this hypothesis/model is true tit would imply GR was more right than Quantum mechanics in that the latter becomes the former acting within a phase space with a different causal interaction rate(analogous to a "speed of entanglement, which seems to be on the order of 5 solar masses per second). It is fascinating so far but it is clearly a work in progress making the validity hard to assess as there are areas of mathematics which haven't been developed yet needed to identifiable testable predictions. Apparently algebra extended to fractional dimensions doesn't exist yet but is needed for computations....

@andrewwells6323

3 жыл бұрын

@Mike Doonsebury - the Universe isn't perfectly homogenous and no one believes that. - angular velocity depends on mass which is a free parameter in GR. - see point 2. - see point 2. - see point 2. Ditto.

Clear, informative, awesome.

Hi Don! In case we find a way to discover them, can the axion and the graviton introduced by string theory actually be the same particle? and maybe also with the right-handed neutrino?

Recently I watched an excellent video by Fermilab that shows how particles are accelerated, including some awesome 3D animations. Is it possible to tell use more about how things work? For example, how do those clocks in Boulder, Colorado work? Don't even need to show us fancy 3D animations, simple diagrams would be fine.

So little time, so much to learn. I'm considering moving into an extreme gravitational field. Thank you Don!

I like where this is going and look forward to the IOU episodes :)

@scottmiller4295

3 жыл бұрын

yea is time discreet or not LULZ.

Hi Don! I was a bit late with the last episode, so if you don't mind, I'll put my question here about neutrinos. They should've escaped far earlier than photons after the big bang right? So there should be a cosmic neutrino background too? What would that look like, would we need a solarsystem-sized argontank to detect it? Is it even feasible to detect them? and for bonus a stupid question: would it help? :) Please never stop these videos!

If we are in loop hole space does we live or time again and again as space has been looped and so space and time is related?

Hi Dr Don, have a basic question on relativity.can you please explain the below questions 1. If I drop something why does it fall in a straight line considering space-time is curved 2. Can you please explain why objects move between 2 points in a curved path .

4:28 omg i was assuming you will talk about a clock in space vs here, 1 foot omg

Perhaps one more question. What determines the speed of propagation of gravitational waves?

@Fermilab At 11:26 I suspect you mixed up linear density with volumetric density. I'm pretty sure neutron stars have a density that is at least 10^14 times as much as lead, or something like that. And wouldn't the scattering probability be proportional to the cross sectional area (area density), and not the linear density?

Thank you for this great series. I have a question. Why does concentration of energy curves the space time? What is the property of energy which causes events to tick slower?

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

What is the property of spacetime that causes it to be bent by the presence of energy? Physics doesn't really answer "why?", it answers "how, and by how much, exactly?" We say "If space is like this, and energy is like that, then they should interact thus", why things are the way they are is a matter for philosophy or religion.

@thedeemon

3 жыл бұрын

GR doesn't answer this, unfortunately. It only says "how much", but not "why" or "by what means". Maybe the answer will come from quantum mechanics when we get to a good theory of quantum gravity.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@thedeemon "Why" is a bit of a tautology. "Why" do charged particles emit virtual photons? Basically, because charges and fields behave in such-and-such a manner, that can be quantified mathematically. Why do they behave thus? Because.

Would love to get some of the t-shirts you wear. Are they available online?

In a philosophy class I was asked to think of a response to Zeno's Dichotomy paradox. My response was that it was self-contradictory because it assumes space is quantized while time is not, and spacetime cannot be quantized and not quantized.

Thanks for providing us good information

Love your amazingly explained videos! Can you add me to the next vid?

if strong force is increases as per separated distance of quarks in atoms then how it works at black hole's force ?

The identity of massive don't change over distance. Before the breaking of electroweak symmetry could it be possible that those oscillates as well?

Dr. Lincoln I have a question about neutrinos. The fact that each type is a mix (superposition?) of masses and vice versa is the same phenomenon as a qubit measured in the computational base (|0>,|1>) being in a superposition in the diagonal base (|+>,|->) and vice versa?

Hi Don. I'm loving this series and I've learned so much so far! I have a question about antimatter. As you mentioned in Episode 7: Antimatter, the only difference between say an electron and positron is that they have opposite charge, all other properties are equal, then why do they annihilate when they come into contact? What is the actual process of these two equal particles with opposite charge converting into energy when colliding?

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

You should google "Dirac Sea"

Hi Don.. if energy is mass how come u can increase the energy (with an accelerator) lets say of a neutrino but it still keeps its (low) mass?

Science dad jokes? The difference between a total solar eclipse and a partial solar eclipse is like night and day.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

That's high grade humor right there.

@laurendoe168

2 жыл бұрын

The difference between a total lunar eclipse and a total solar eclipse is like night and day. :D

Thank you sir, for clearing up my doubt on that, that was really kind of you. ☺

What a fantastic episode! Thank you.

While I understand the four fundamental forces are similar in that they affect matter, why do we think gravity is "a force like the others"? Why would we expect a gravity particle, or that it can be unified with the known quantum forces? Yes it moves at c like the other forces, but it appears to have such a vastly different manifestation - bending spacetime vs moving/interacting with particles - that I can't figure out why it's always spoken about in the same way as the other three.

@scottmiller4295

3 жыл бұрын

i was building a universe in my head (for fun) and imagined a void of energy with a collapsing 0 vaccum into a 2d space, the 2d void creating G and T and t (twister field) in the collapse. the rest of the void energy rushing inward begins to form the rest of the fields of space and the rebound in our universe arises. bit of a mind game probably nonsense, but looking at it like that G and T are more fundamental than the forces that would follow. could be bs BUT since G and T and S are fundamental in ways the other forces and fields are not.

On electrovolts and mass: shouldn't you use an equation with m^2c^4 and p^2 instead of the one with mc^2? A charged particle as you've shown it will be moving, right?

@DANGJOS

3 жыл бұрын

@roblox hedgehog p^2 will be very small, unless the accelerated particle is moving at relativistic speeds. Also, it should be (pc)^2

Is there any relation between the wave function of a photon and the interpretation of that photon as an electromagnetic wave?

@tildessmoo

3 жыл бұрын

I believe they're pretty much the same thing, or if not one is the square of the other. (Caveat: I'm not a physicist, I'm just decent at math and watch a lot of Fermilab, PBS Space Time, and Kurzgesagt.)

@scottmiller4295

3 жыл бұрын

think if anyone can sort this duality and test it then you would be famous. there any number of theories out there though.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. The higher the energy, the shorter the wavelength. Photon wave packets of a given momentum do not fall apart and spread out like those of things with mass.

You briefly mentioned around 3:13 that not everyone believes in GR. Do they have compelling alternatives?

@User-ei2kw

3 жыл бұрын

No

Love your work I'm curious about an idea. Science considers mass to be the origin/cause of gravity (warped space) My idea is that gravity causes the phenomena we refer to as mass. That is, movement of fields of energy (relative to one another) create areas of space that are smaller and more "permanent". So the fields are moving into that small, fast moving area, resulting in what appears to be mass. The reason we "observe" particles is to do with our movement relative to the movement of the field. That is, we can only observe that part of the field whose movement corresponds to ours. As the velocity of the field increases, the energy reaches a point where the field shrinks even further, and the particle appears in a different valence shell. This is the reason the "particles" appear quantized. This idea, extrapolated, unifies the fundamental forces and explains dark matter/energy.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Put the idea into equations, make a quantified prediction, do an experiment, and then you are doing science. Until then, you are not.

Does light undergo spegatification when heading towards black hole? And we can observe? And dose it still within theory of relativit

Can you give us a tour of your bookshelf? Any recommendations?

Al device's that measure time are based on movement. Whether it is movement bij a spring and pendulum, vibration of a crystal or atoms. How do we know we really measure time, when all we do is measure movement? We assume that progressing of time equals the movement. But is this true ? And how do we know this ?

Hi Don, why does the time dimension have a direction (since you can't go back in time), while the other 3 (spatial) dimensions don't? Love your videos!

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

You should read Sean Carroll's book on the subject.

Dear Don Lincoln, could the 2nd or 3rd generations quarks and leptons form new pattern of "exotic atoms", and consequenly, new patterns of "exotic periodic tables" in regions of high gravity, such as Black holes or neutron/quark stars?

Dr Lincoln, been following you since the first series... My doubt being off topic, is about how our solar system, galaxies have nevertheless come to a single plane, though the primordial gas cloud had matter was swirling in different planes, and was chaotic.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

Conservation of angular momentum. The gas cloud had some eddy in it. That eddy defined the rotation axis of the solar system. Gravity could pull the gas down into the rotational plane, but angular momentum resisted contraction within the plane.

@meerarao3582

3 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 Thank you sir. How would there just be a single axis of rotation? Also won't particles collide with each other internally, making it still more chaotic...

This series is one of the best things coming out of this pandemic, love it. Also, on a side note, the new comment layout is mind bending

When we derive the equation for the potential energy of an electron in an electric field (integrating the field strength over distance and multiplying by the charge of the electron), we get that an electron can, and perhaps must always have negative electrostatic potential energy. My question is whether this counts as ‘negative energy’ in the relativistic sense, and by extension, if an electron in a strong enough field (I think it falls in the mega volt range) that it’s potential energy cancels out its mass energy, can we achieve negative energy density within a region , and by extension, negative space-time curvature?

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

Setting the zero point of potential energy is entirely arbitrary, because the only thing that is physically significant is potential differences. For example, when dealing with gravitational potential energy near the surface of the Earth, you usually pick the ground as the zero point, but if you are dealing with planetary orbits, you pick infinity as the zero point. You could say that the potential at the Earth's surface was a zillion and thirty-seven, but in practice you pick the zero point to make the math easier.

Sir ....one question... I understand that in CERN LHC the best vacuum ever possible is achieved but as it is not Absolute vacuum there are still about 2million atoms are present...so does the high spped proton collide with them before reaching set target?

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

Presumably, such collisions do occur, but there are lots and lots of protons in the beam.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

What Michael Sommers said. Some protons do collide.

i am confused with watch example at 4:30 timeline... Does watch represent time? or its mechanical movements were equivalent to time? if so what slows the time or its mechanical movements?.. sir i am not contradicting you or try to be disrespectful... can you please explain?

Is ozone layer is also rotate and revolve along with earth

Why do the clocks become slower with increasing gravity independent of their internal clocking mechanism? For example, a simple wall clock has mechanical movement producing the clockwork, while the atomic clocks that you mentioned in the lecture located at Colorado probably work on the basis of some spontaneous transition of electron from one quantum state to another, right.

Thank Dr Lincoln The massless particle question left me wondering how the good doctor sees some of Penrose's more outlandish ideas like CCC

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Yeah, its a weird one. Food for though, but I doubt its "true". Penrose is a bit of an oddball, but he does push the envelope.

@williamprior7831

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 it was specifically the wording related to "light not experiencing time" that reminded me of some very similar wording by Penrose in one of his videos trying to explain it . I'm certainly no judge of truthiness, but I have found trying to at least get my head around that envelope pushing interesting. I wondered if the Don saw any merits or even had any negative view of it / Penrose's approach!

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@williamprior7831 More than one "truth" has been discovered as a result of a "mathematical oddity", like antimatter and quarks.

Hi Don, I was looking Higgs field, Higgs boson. A question came to my mind if interaction with Higgs field is the reason particle have mass, so where does quantum excited of Higgs field i.e. Higgs boson gets its mass? p.s. I am in 12 grade and I was thinking of a career as a physicist because of you ,Dr. Sheldon Cooper and of course Richard Feynman

What are the units of G(μν). When the equation is solved what is might G look like - is it simply 1,0, or -1?

@4:32 you said the one clock that was raised a single foot moved faster but you did not say by how much. I calculated 3.326e-17 seconds faster per second than the clock that was a foot lower. But I didn't use relativity to do that calculation.

@DANGJOS

3 жыл бұрын

Then what did you use??

In the supersymetry theory of the standard model of particles physic, how do you predict the property of the bosons corresponding to each fermions?

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Supersymmetry is not part of the Standard Model. The next generation of particle accelerators may rule it out. The predictions of particle masses is heavy math. Start by looking up "Grassman Numbers."

@jordanpepin8285

3 жыл бұрын

Michael Bishop thank you for your answer

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

They are identical to the fermions except for spin.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 No. Different susy theories predict different masses for the super-partners of known particles, either boson or fermion. The selectron boson has several possible mass ranges.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

@@ozzymandius666 That's broken supersymmetry. Supersymmetry requires the masses be the same. It is true that we know that supersymmetry, if it exists, is broken. But then there are tons of different predictions, since there are tons of theories.

By Carlo Rovelli's perspective space and time are both quantized. The volume of the space derivates from loops, nodes (and spin nets) in the gravitational Faraday's lines of force. Space-time itself would be designated as a spin foam. Do you subscribe this perspective?

lovin' this stuff, good sir. thanks. thank you for a well presented, relatable channel that allows me think that even though i cannot spell phd, i could probably get one. and i agree, the worserer the joke the better. and pineapple pizza people prove the many-worlds hypothesis, cuz they're all from some other universe where good taste disappeared early on in their universe like the anti-matter did in ours. so these pizza-pineapple people must be made of pure anti-matter and puons(the sub-atomic particle that accounts for 100% of their pizza on pineapple problem)

What is the basic differences between Majarona and Wyel in terms of Neutrino

Hi doctor Don! Thanks for the video! I guess I have a quite good intuition on how matter bend the space, but I cant seen to have an intuition on how it bend time... Can you please help me?

@Magma_Meteor

3 жыл бұрын

It is never space and time, but just spacetime. Assume(Imagine) 3 dimensions of space as 1 or 2 dimensions and time being another dimension running perpendicular to space.

@thedeemon

3 жыл бұрын

Time bending just means at different points in space time ticks at different rates. Bending of space and time is encoded in the metric tensor, you need to learn how metric tensor works in order to grok the topic, all visual analogies are somewhat misleading.

@esperancaemisterio

3 жыл бұрын

@@Magma_Meteor thanks for the reply! It really helped a lot just imagining one dimension of space! =)

@esperancaemisterio

3 жыл бұрын

@@thedeemon thanks a lot for the reply! I'll look up about the tensors! Also, the insights about the clock ticking really helped!

A question, when we say space is flat, so how many flat layers are there one above the other or is it only one ?

@briandiehl9257

3 жыл бұрын

No others that we know of. Just one

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

'Flat' in this context means zero curvature, not two-dimensional.

Could momentum and inertia be due to mass trying to fall back into its own gravity well before the gravity waves from its acceleration have had time to propogate?

@OldGamerNoob

3 жыл бұрын

(I would assume such a situation would resist acceleration)

Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.

@charlesbrightman4237

3 жыл бұрын

And note: If numbers themselves do not exist in this universe by this or some similar way for math to do what math does in this universe, then how exactly would numbers exist in this universe for math to do what math does in this universe? 'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have).

Is the bending of the spacetime by mass similar to the bending of field lines by charges?

@OldGamerNoob

3 жыл бұрын

(in both cases, they tend to follow the curves that they, themselves, created)

Hello, I have a question. Can entropy be defined as a measure of uniformity of energy rather than a measure of disorder?

@mujdatdinc7265

3 жыл бұрын

Ask this question. Is energy more uniform now when u compare it to the big bang ?

@jasveerdhillon5456

3 жыл бұрын

@@mujdatdinc7265 but won't when maximum entropy is achieved in our universe, lead to a uniform distribution or energy?

@mujdatdinc7265

3 жыл бұрын

@@jasveerdhillon5456 Universe is expanding and cooling down. Entropy is data of universe. It is increasing hence universe creating more data(microstates). This will end when universe reaches 0 kelvin. This not related with changing uniformness of energy. Entropy is keeping energy uniform not changing it. When you put all energy in single point its still uniform and becase of increasin entropy its always stay uniform space expands.

This is a theory on how the universe started, I would appreciate it if you gave your feedback on it. How the universe started? Blank space with complex equations before Big Bang Complex equations could be mathematical rules that particles have to follow, spin, charge etc. The “Fabric of space” is just the dimension that the particles interact with “The fabric of Space” or in quantum field theory, a field that particles oscillate in. String theory says that these oscillations are just vibrating strings, quantum field theory says this is energy. With this in mind the only two things that are “reality” and can interact with “reality” are energy/movement/vibrations in strings/however you define the packets of energy that make up the fundamental particles. The other is space or the field that the particles can interact with. The field must contain information on how the particles interact with it; “complex equations” which are rules for how the particles interact with the field. The particles/energy in the field have the values (Eg. charge spin mass) that determine how the field acts on the particles or how the particles act on the field. With that in mind before the Big Bang the only thing that existed was space, which is just a field that gives rules on how particles act within it. The BigBang was a massive infinitely compressed ball of energy, the energy interacted with the field and “created” particles releasing more energy. The explosion was the rapid formations of particles producing energy. The bigbang was “energy” being added to space. This would mean that the point beyond space, the border where the universe has not expanded to, is just a field with no energy in it (no virtual particles either) This theory only has one field instead of the QFDs 9 fields, a particle is a packet of “energy”, different amounts of energy determine the particle. You do not need 9 fields to explain something that requires one. Dark energy causes the expansion of space that particles can travel within Dark energy may be a different kind of energy that interacts with the “energy field” (space). Although it is possible it occupies its on type of field, I believe the same could be true with Dark Matter.

@FractalFreedom

3 жыл бұрын

spaghettarius a The idea of the universe being a materialized projection is just a theory it has not been proven

@FractalFreedom

3 жыл бұрын

spaghettarius a I’m interested, can you explain it

@FractalFreedom

3 жыл бұрын

spaghettarius a interesting theory, I agree with the part about black holes having some other property and possibly containing extra dimensions at its core. The only thing I have to wonder is how you theorized that matter is a part of space time and vice versa. The Roche lobe overflow doesn’t prove that matter is a part of space time. Also light can be bent by gravity including the earth and other stellar bodies.

@FractalFreedom

3 жыл бұрын

spaghettarius a Some of what you explained was General Relatively and special relatively, but what general relativity says is that Gravity WARPS space time it is not the same as space and time. And like I said before light can be warped by gravity other than black holes. Also what do you mean by “Time is Ahead”, a moment in time is just a certain arrangement of particles if that is the case (which it is) how can time be “ahead before you like light is”?

@FractalFreedom

3 жыл бұрын

spaghettarius a Yes this is General and Special Relatively I’m not debating you on that, what I’m wondering is how you got the idea that Matter is the same thing as space time

is it possible to separate matter from mass? If mass is given by a field, then I would think it would be possible to. Also um so if you were traveling through the universe at just below the speed of light and the universe flattens at this point, what would that look like? And could that flat surface be considered a boundary into the bulk?

You have your own books behind you! I didn't know you were an author, I mean of books for the general populace. Nice.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

Yep. Several.

Is there any correlation between: - Light, which is pure energy, has no mass but can produce pairs with mass, experiences no time, and by its own viewpoint exists at all points in its path simulaneously and... - The big bang, which all known mass springs forth from, marks the beginning of time as we know it, and encompassed all points of the universe? It seems like there's some overlap in the relationship between space, mass, and time in these two concepts.

Hi Don👋👋👋 I have a question. I have read that energy is the capability to do work. If this is true I would like to know what gives this capability physically speaking. Thank you!!! I really love this channel!!!

@Anaesify

3 жыл бұрын

By nature of being energy, it has the potential to make some kind of a change to itself or its surroundings, so it can "work". The work could be anything that needs energy to function, for example: the heat energy from a fire could cook your meal, or, the electricity energy in your power grid could push your oscillating fan around, or, electrostatic energy in a collapsing galaxy could draw tiny bits of matter towards each other :D

@virgilioconti2561

3 жыл бұрын

Hope Krempa Thank you my friend for your reply!!! Thanks to it I have something to think about!!👍

11:30 I'm confused about the density of neutron stars. A density of 10^9 kg/m3 seems very low, and numbers I could find range between 3 and 6x10^17 kg/m3. With this density the mass of the sun would be compressed into a sphere with a diameter of some 20km, which sound reasonable.

@DANGJOS

3 жыл бұрын

@chi-wei shen I was looking for this comment. I noticed the same mistake.

@DANGJOS

3 жыл бұрын

@Dr Deuteron I thought he was mixing up linear density with volumetric density.

Is there any natural opposite force for gravitational force ? Created by universe/multiverse.

Dr. Lincoln: I have a question about gravity and black holes. How can a black hole have a charge, when charge is associated with electric field lines that need to escape outside the event horizon of the black hole? How can these field lines (in a classical electromagnetic sense) be detected outside the black hole?

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

A black hole will have a charge if unequal amounts of positive and negative charge fall into it. If I am not mistaken, the charge will appear to be smeared out over the event horizon.

Could you explain EM force in terms of geometry? Since the equations of gravitational force according Newton and electric force according to Coulomb are so similar, it makes sense that if gravity can be explained by geometry through Einstein's field equations than similar equations should be able to explain EM force. I read up on it before and did understand there is a way to do that, but I didn't quite understand. Would appreciate an explanation.

@thedeemon

3 жыл бұрын

With gravity we can say an apple falls because it moves along a "straight" path (geodesic) in a curved space, any small object moving at that place with that speed would repeat the same trajectory, it doesn't depend on the object, so we can say it's a property of space, the way it's bent. With EM force we've got two different charges, positive and negaive. In the same circumstances they will move very differently. So if one follows the geometry, then the other doesn't? We can't say the geometry is different for two charged particles. So we can't use geometry explanation this easy with EM. On a much more abstract mathematical level we can use some notions from differential geometry to talk about EM, how the gauge field relates to connections in space, but that's talking about quite abstract space, not the bending of our old 4D spacetime. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_(vector_bundle) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang%E2%80%93Mills_equations

@XEinstein

3 жыл бұрын

@@thedeemon thanks for the explanation and the link. However, despite having studied physics, I don't understand at all what this Wikipedia article is saying. I need a more Sesamestreet level explanation on this topic, I think.

@thedeemon

3 жыл бұрын

@@XEinstein kzread.info/head/PLPH7f_7ZlzxTi6kS4vCmv4ZKm9u8g5yic If you've got 40 spare hours. ;)

Hi Don. Love this series. Just one question : if mass is just concentrated energy (E=mc^2). Is energy-impulsion just concentrated space-time ? (G_{\mu, u}=8 \pi T_{\mu, u})

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

And the word of the day is "geometrodynamical exciton."

Could the small-scale/large-scale difference with gravity be due to gravitons having a very long wavelength? Similar to the "quantum push" for plates that are placed extremely close together, where only the waves that can fit between them manage to get in - maybe particles need to be at least one graviton-wavelength apart to be effected by gravity? Edit: Clarified wording.

At 12:00 you show a chart that shows cross section vs. neutrino energy. Could you elaborate on this chart more? Why are Big Bang neutrinos so low energy, expansion? I imagine it's part of your research but why are galactic and extra galactic neutrinos so high energy, even higher than accelerator ones, or at least what are some current theories?

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

Big Bang neutrinos arose early on with a range of energies, but many of them were from the nuclear realm. Then the universe expanded and their wavelengths lengthened and energy dropped. The high energy cosmic neutrinos arise from shooting protons in crazy-strong magnetic fields outside black holes and whatnot. Those protons interact with matter and can make neutrinos.

@CarBENbased

3 жыл бұрын

@@drdon5205 Oh wow, a reply from the man himself! Thank you! I guess I was right assuming expansion was responsible for the low energy of the big bang neutrinos. And if the extragalactic ones are still such high energy even after traveling all that distance the magnetic environments around black holes and I would also guess neutron stars/magnetars must be truly spectacular!

10^5 times more dense than lead is just a bit above white dwarf star density, not neutron star density (except in the upper crust).

Question: as time speeds up in areas with less gravitation, what would the maximum difference between a clock on the surface of the earth and one in an area of space with a negligible gravitational field?

@briandiehl9257

3 жыл бұрын

"without accounting for the effects of rotation, proximity to Earth's gravitational well will cause a clock on the planet's surface to accumulate around 0.0219 fewer seconds over a period of one year than would a distant observer's clock. In comparison, a clock on the surface of the sun will accumulate around 66.4 fewer seconds in one year. "

@PaulGreeve

3 жыл бұрын

Brian Diehl Thanks. So I’m assuming 0.0219 is for a clock in a zero gravity ‘well’ . Do you have a basic formula to calculate this? Just trying to get my head around a clock in a zero gravity well and then how it slows down as the gravity will become stronger. Also, if a clock is in free fall does its clock run faster?

What aspect of GR prevents you from treating the phenomenom as a field living in flat spacetime?

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

Accelerations caused by the curvature of time, and tidal forces caused by the curvature of space.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@Dr Deuteron An event horizon can exist without curved space, say under just special relativity. Actually, any accelerated observer will see an event horizon behind him, and still perceive spacetime to be flat.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@Dr Deuteron Whatever. Flat spacetime is the (1,-1,-1,-1) metric. Event horizons can exist in that metric. Tidal forces cannot.

@Lakrinir

3 жыл бұрын

GR predicts curved paths for photons. Photons are waves in the electro-magnetic field. If gravity is its own quantum field and spacetime is flat, then the electro-magnetic field is also flat, and then photons follow straight lines through space, as there is no curve to follow.

@ozzymandius666

3 жыл бұрын

@iiDarkFlowhistle Tidal forces are due to spatial curvature. Gravitational acceleration is due to time curvature. The equivalence principle holds in locally flat space.

Hey Doc! Is it safe to say that GR matters only for particles with mass? I.e. if hypothetical universe is filled with only massles particles than GR would be completely useless in such a scenario? Thx

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

No. Mass/Energy bends Space/Time. Mass is concentrated energy, but any energy will do.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

@spaghettarius a Light travels the curves of spacetime. If spacetime is bent, the path of light will be bent.

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

@spaghettarius a kzread.info/dash/bejne/dYme1pVvg6eZmA.html

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

@spaghettarius a kzread.info/dash/bejne/dYme1pVvg6eZmJs.html Oops. Cut off an "8" from the end.

Is there any chance that the speed of light is actually a speed slightly less than some higher limit on the speed of an object?

How do you explain the Biological changes in the body when the clocks slow down?

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

There are no such changes. In your own reference frame, your clocks always tick at the same rate.

Re: light has no mass. Consider this thought experiment: Suppose we have a star, surrounded by ideally reflective mirror sphere (not even neutrinos get out). The star goes supernova, releasing some percent of its mass as electromagnetic radiation, but all radiation is enclosed inside the sphere. Will the observer outside the sphere register any change in the mass? Suppose all energy of emitted radiation is absorbed to the supernova remnant, heating it by converting EM energy to kinetic energy of atoms. Do relativistic atoms have higher gravitational mass? In the end the question is, does energy corresponds to measurable gravitational mass?

Question If gravity should be carried by hypothetical gravitons, wouldn't it decrease when an obstacle is put between the two objects that we are measuring the force of, because of absorbing the particles for its own gravitational force? Thank you

@thedeemon

3 жыл бұрын

Does one positive electric charge decrease the field of another positive charge? No, they add up, so total electric field increases. Same with gravity. Unlike EM where there are negative charges too, in gravity there are only positive ones, so they can only add up.

One thing I've always wondered about is the ways in which physicists attempt to rectify general relativity with quantum physics (or, at least, the way they communicate that to us lay people). If gravity is an effect of the warping of spacetime, rather than an actual force, then why should we expect gravity to have a gauge boson, given that those are particles which carry a force? Is it just because relativity doesn't work on quantum scales, so it's easier to think of it as a quantum field? Are gravitons theorized to carry force between matter particles and spacetime itself? (Corollary: Are there any hypotheses that spacetime itself is the gravitational quantum field? Does that idea even make any sense?) Should gravitons even be theoretically possible, or as carriers of the "gravitational force," shouldn't they technically be point black holes? Are physicists just still in the "throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks" stage of figuring out a quantum theory of gravity? Maybe it's just because, as a lay person who can barely follow along with a differential equation, I don't have enough information to know where these hypotheses come from or tell the difference between a series of separate theories and one whole weird theory, but it feels like there's some contradiction going on here.

@tildessmoo

3 жыл бұрын

Ooh, I like the question about quantization of spacetime. I look forward to hearing your take on Zeno's paradox, the Planck length, and Planck time.

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

Sean Carroll did a video yesterday that covered that very question (along with a lot of other things). Basically, gravity can be treated as a gauge field theory, from which emerges the graviton. kzread.info/dash/bejne/c6mlrdV7gdGrYqQ.html

@tildessmoo

3 жыл бұрын

​@@michaelsommers2356 But does the fact that it _can_ be treated as a gauge field theory mean that it's appropriate? I mean, I feel a little like that's the same as saying electron holes are real particles just because the math works if you act like they are. Of course gravitons should exist if gravity really is a gauge field (or so I'm led to believe, since the math goes a bit beyond me), but if we have solid evidence that gravity is an emergent property of spacetime rather than a quantum field embedded in spacetime (or maybe I'm just misunderstanding QFT and GFT?), then I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would follow the math that far. Basically, it seems like, if GR is true, treating gravity as a GFT is nothing more than a useful analogy; but expecting gravitons sounds more like expecting that gravity really _is_ a GFT. But thanks for reminding me to catch up on Biggest Ideas in the Universe. I'm a few episodes behind. :D

@michaelsommers2356

3 жыл бұрын

@@tildessmoo Why follow the math that far? Because, historically it has often been the case that following the math that far has led to the "truth", even if that "truth" initially looked silly. As for GR versus field theory, I suspect that they will eventually be found to be equivalent, just as Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schroedinger's wave mechanics were show to be equivalent.

Would it be safe or practical to use neutrinos particles to communicate with other intelligent creatures?

@drdon5205

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. No.