Very cool. Your not just correcting Einstein's math he was wrong in his assumptions. Clearly he was thinking so hard about the light he didn't adequately consider the mirror. If I were in the sciences and this was my catch I would consider it one of the highlights of my career, congratulations!

@deandeann1541

2 жыл бұрын

I believe he was correct in his assumptions, but failed to state them. That was his error. One must take into account the reason for his example - what in particular was he intending to illustrate? I'll bet what he intended to show is unaffected by his error.

So what you are saying is the reflected photon will decrease in frequency and will be red-shifted. Fascinating point! It's hard to imagine no one noticed this before, since the laws of conservation of momentum and energy are very straightforward.

@uberRandom-9

5 жыл бұрын

People tend to overlook the simplest things

@Ozzy3333333

5 жыл бұрын

I am going to guess, the weight ratio of the photons to mirror has to be huge, then the same with speed of the mirror vs photons and not detectable red-shift in most labs. Sounds like a test in the ISS would help with the right setup.

@ivornworrell

Жыл бұрын

*Very good. We should always question, scrutinize, & double-check things for ourselves, because God created EACH of us with a UNIQUE brain in EACH head, & although a minute error may be found which may seem negligible/immaterial at first glance, it can have disastrous consequences on an astronomical scale, tantamount to rounding figures in a formula in financial statements, but if those rounded figures are employed repeatedly to calculate profit/loss, the profit/loss could be off by a significant amount! Only God Almighty Alone CANNOT make mistakes.Salaam.*

You should be very proud. Science inched forward because you had the confidence to trust your workings. You also explained the situation in incredibly clear terms. Would it be possible to read the paper?

@CoolWorldsLab

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks David! The paper is in the description and available here: arxiv.org/abs/1704.04310

I watched the whole video. How's that going for you? Has your conclusion of Einstein's (small) mistake been accepted?

@CoolWorldsLab

5 жыл бұрын

Ye I think so, I've had great responses when I've presented this at various colleges in scientific talks.

Amazing story. Thanks 2017, when it is possible to get informed about these results, calculations and insights so easy.

Hi! I just wanted to say, you are a great communicator of the knowledge you have. I really do enjoy the content on your channel so keep up the great work and I'll keep curious!

"Throwing shade at Einstein," LOL.

Great video. Needless to say I couldn't do the math. But I got the concept. Keep posting.

Impressive! So a simple calculation for someone who does physics, p and E conservation. Surprise, that no one ever before recognized this, I imagine the thousand of students coming to your result and then not believing and switching back to the "Einstein" error.

@CoolWorldsLab

7 жыл бұрын

Eduard Heindl yes exactly - this is literally an undergraduate-level problem but probably the law of reflection (a non-relativistic effect) was so ingrained at earlier age that this little mistake was missed. Thanks for kicking off the comments!

@THX..1138

7 жыл бұрын

Mark Twain said It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. Everyone else knew the wrong answer :)

@markuspfeifer8473

2 жыл бұрын

Similarly, no one ever recognized that falling objects don’t feel an acceleration, even though this is fairly obvious. Just ask yourself: where’s the counter-force for the falling object? By Newton’s third law, the force that the falling object feels should be matched by a force on some other object. Now you may think: „yes, it’s The Earth - but the pull is so small that you can’t measure it.“ But that’s actually wrong if you stand on the surface of the Earth. If you stand on the surface of the Earth, Earth isn’t moving *at all*. Hence, the force that the falling object feels *must* be fictitious. *You* are in an accelerated frame of reference, as becomes evident when you build a primitive accelerometer with springs in a frame. If on the other hand you are falling towards the earth and throw something away from you in any direction, it will keep moving in a straight line - a fact that can easily be inferred from the superposition principle known since Newton’s days. Getting a more proper understanding of the matter isn’t as hard as one may think: picture yourself in a secret lab at the center of the Earth. In what direction will you fall? Well, in none: all the mass is symmetrically spread in every direction. *locally*, you would make the same observations as a falling observer: if you throw something in any direction, it will keep moving in a straight line. This will only change as the object goes further and further away from the center of mass distribution. That means, we’re looking for a theory where Newton’s laws hold on an infinitesimal scale - a mathematical way of thinking that Newton himself invented. Now picture an apple dropping off a tree at the surface of the Earth. It is allowed to accelerate toward you because you’re not infinitesimally close to it - Newton’s laws need not apply. But why does it fall now? Well, „why“ is probably a bad question, we can’t answer that. But what we should be able to do is to change perspectives between the observer at the secret lab at the center of the Earth and the falling apple and still describe the same reality losslessly. The best way to think about that is to draw the apple in a diagram where on the y axis you have the distance to the Earth’s center and on the x axis you have time. Then, on a short time scale, the apple will describe an approximate parabola. In its own frame of reference though, it’ll move only along it’s time axis, while the Earth seems to move along a parabola. How are those diagrams related? Well, the only way to convert the Earth’s observation into the apple‘s observation is to assume that this parabola *is* the apple‘s time axis. After having this lightbulb moment, all you need to do is to find a suitable mathematical transformation between the two while taking into account a bunch of constraints from your observations. That means: Newton could have derived a curved spacetime where gravity is properly treated as a fictitious force! The only thing that he really couldn’t have done is to constrain his theory to be locally Lorentz invariant, because Newton didn’t know about a cosmic speed limit (even though he hypothesized about it). It would be interesting to see what such a „Newtonian relativity“ would have looked like and if this kind of derivation might lead to more straightforward mathematics that could *then* be corrected for Lorentz-invariance again.

@markuspfeifer8473

2 жыл бұрын

While the Newtonian relativity example is really only now emerging as a known lost opportunity, even more extreme examples exist throughout history. Aristotle‘s assertion that heavy objects fall faster didn’t need advanced high tech observations to be refuted, it just took one man with two equally shaped but different weight balls that he dropped to the ground (hmm… that sounds weird). Galileo certainly was a genius, but this little experiment of his was more a work of courage than if genius - ANYONE could have done it, had they just questioned ancient wisdom. An even more ludicrous case is Euclid’s parallel conjecture. Euclid conjectured that maybe the parallel axiom follows from the other axioms of his geometry. It took until the 19th (!!!) century to come up with a proof that this isn’t the case - and the most famous one is trivial: just take a globe and declare all circles on the surface that have their center at the center of the Earth to be „straight lines“. It is straightforward to work out that all of Euclid’s axioms are satisfied - except for the parallel axiom. This is so trivial that in hindsight we might think: Euclid could have done this! Yet, just a few decades before this discovery, Kant proclaimed that Euclid’s conjecture, while difficult to proof, is necessary for thinking („Denknotwendig“). To me, these examples raise fundamental questions about epistemology. It should be pointed out that counterexamples to Euclid’s conjecture were found multiple times *independently* in the 19th century. How can that be? Well, my best answer actually also dates back to the 19th century: Dialectic materialism. While we intuit to be free thinkers who can think about anything at any time, the stuff that we actually think is preconditioned on the material world around us. A civilization actually traveling the globe and in the process of making travel easy through railroads will have an incentive to think about geometry on the globe - totally unnecessary for ancient Greeks in their small city states who couldn’t really travel very far. Galileo conducted his experiments in the context of a broader era of criticism of ancient knowledge that had long been buried, then rediscovered but considered questionable because of the heathen origin and finally overthrown through actual technological innovations like the telescope. If you already think that the ancients made huge errors, you just want to know more. Finally, Einstein had access to elevators which Newton didn’t. This might have contributed to the recognition of the equivalence principle. We stand not only on the shoulders of giants, but on mountains of material innovations that didn’t exist before and that change our way of thinking on seemingly unrelated topics. Wider social contexts also play an important role.

@deandeann1541

2 жыл бұрын

I would love to have a physics lab at the center of the Earth. Free heat, free lighting, a weightless environment, and a perfect place for a neutrino telescope. If it were possible, physicists would be tripping over themselves in the rush to apply to work there.

This was really fascinating! Congrats on this discovery!

Gorgeous logic, humbly presented in a manner that Einstein would return with a warm smile and genuine “Danke!” I will never be a matriculating student in astrophysics, but I certainly feel privileged to be a viewer of David Kipping.

Your approach in your calculation is brilliant and essential, since the mirror is moving and movable. I just read Einstein’s paper and noticed he wrote: “Let there be a perfectly reflecting mirror at the coordinate-plane ξ = 0, from which the plane wave considered in the last paragraph is reflected.” I understood that he was referring to the mirror at the “stationary system” and that the mirror was fixed at ξ = 0. And later he stated his assumption that the incident and reflected light frequencies were the same, as you said. My interpretation is that he was implying some sort of perfectly “elastic” reflection, with no momentum transferred to the mirror, because the mirror was fixed as a reference, and therefore the conservation of energy would hold. In other words, Einstein’s mirror was not a sail, it was fixed. I’m I mistaken in my interpretation of Einstein’s mirror example calculation? Thanks!

@CoolWorldsLab

2 жыл бұрын

Well we can’t really ask him but it’s at best ambiguous, to my reading that’s establishing the initial condition, but not a requirement for the mirror to remain fixed post reflection

Amazing that you explained it in such layman terms. In Einstein's paper, the mirror was considered infinitely larger than the photon as an approximation, which is typical for illustrative examples. Otherwise, the parameter of the mass of the mirror has to be introduced. For example, textbooks are full of examples such as quantum infinite walls, objects falling into the infinitely large earth without the earth falling to the object, earth revolving around the infinitely large sun etc in Newtonian planetary motion illustrations. But for your application with the photon as the propulsion mechanism, that is clearly incorrect, and therefore, you corrected it. Kudos.

Hi David! Do you think your result about mirrors has any relevance for LIGO and VIRGO (…with the precision they operate at & how they reflect light off mirrors to detect the gravitational waves from NS & BH mergers)? Or is it not relevant for them as they’d be working with General Relativity’s equations and not Special Relativity (or some other reason)?

Honestly I’d love to see a re-production of some of these old videos!

You refer to Compton scatter as having a significant role in solar sails. If so, then do you have any thoughts on optimizing this by building a laser with the optimized average energy for the solar sail and vice versa?

@nigromj05

3 жыл бұрын

A solar mirror material thuat has maximum physical density to weight ratio and a laser with as lowest photon energy, in theory should optimize the acceleration

Hi prof, this comment might be very late; still one question. What are the repercussions/effects of this correction made by you? Many practical and theoretical works might already be using the other results today.

Do we have any light sailing technology proof (data)of the angular momentum conservation ?

You might not be Einstein but make no mistake, just producing a channel like this puts you in the upper end of the top quartile

Fascinating. What a discovery. Good for you.

Please do an in depth video on time dilation and how without moving the speed of light from the perspective of the moving object we can arrive in time thats less than the distance in light years? Im trying to comprehend it. Is light years an actual distance or is it about time? I'm sorry if this is a stupid question

@CoolWorldsLab

4 жыл бұрын

Light years is a distance! I’ll think about a good time dilation video...

@gzxmx94

4 жыл бұрын

@@CoolWorldsLab Wouldn't the term "light year" be reference-frame dependent? :p Or would time dilation essentially cancel it out?

Wow, very cool for Cool Worlds, indeed! So, what amount of time could we shave off in our trip to Alpha Centauri (with Starshot) using these new calculations, or is it only a matter of using less energy?

@CoolWorldsLab

7 жыл бұрын

Either, depends how you do it. If you use the same amount of energy, then you go ~10% faster so ~10% less time. If you want just want to reach 0.2c as cheaply as possible, then it's ~10% less energy. Thanks for watching!

@THX..1138

7 жыл бұрын

Or lot more mass gets to Alpha Centauri thanks to you!

@user-ky5dy5hl4d

8 ай бұрын

@@CoolWorldsLab Another aspect of this issue here is that a photon cannot bounce off the mirror instantaneously. When it hits the mirror perpedicularly it has to stop and reverse the direction or whatever the angle it hits the mirror the photon loses energy. Then the photon bouncing off the mirror has to accelerate to reach speed c - nothing happens in zero seconds. So, in my concept the equation looks like the following: V sub f = [v sub 1-(v sub2 x a)/1-cos theta)]/(mc^2/2).

I remain unconvinced that you're "not a genius."

@ivornworrell

Жыл бұрын

*Very good. We should always question, scrutinize, & double-check things for ourselves, because God created EACH of us with a UNIQUE brain in EACH head, & although a minute error may be found which may seem negligible/immaterial at first glance, it can have disastrous consequences on an astronomical scale, tantamount to rounding figures in a formula in financial statements, but if those rounded figures are employed repeatedly to calculate profit/loss, the profit/loss could be off by a significant amount! Only God Almighty Alone CANNOT make mistakes.Salaam.*

Do the scientists at LIGO have to compensate for mirror recoil when the photons constituting the infrared laser beam reflect off the mirrors at either end of the vacuum tubes?

Wow really exciting story! And even though it looks at a very physics-y topic, it still loops back to exoplanets:)

I absolutely love this story. Great job!

gratz! your the dude who found a flaw in such a towering theory :) Yes i find light itself so very enigmatic, many answers lie within us understanding it.

I'm studying Power Engineering. After watching this, I said to myself, damn, I should have become a physicist, Then I will get to do cool and exciting stuff like this. But I don't think I am smart enough to actually make a living out of physics in Australia. So Engineering it is. At least I get to cheer the smart guys like David who actually do science. So keep up the good work.

Wow!! Great work, in my eyes you are a genius.🤯

a longer video than usual David but very interesting and worthwhile. i wonder how einstein would respond to this. have you given that any thought?

@CoolWorldsLab

7 жыл бұрын

Russell Kaplan I have no idea! Ye this vid went longer to give this result the time it needed - what length video would you like to see typically?

@ruskap

7 жыл бұрын

Cool Worlds I have no issue with the length at all - was just saying that even though it was longer than usual it was definitely worth it and another well received and informative video!!! I think you should wear a GoPro so we can see what it's like when you're doing real physics! Except for when you need to solve PDEs, those guys still haunt me

@ivornworrell

Жыл бұрын

*Very good. We should always question, scrutinize, & double-check things for ourselves, because God created EACH of us with a UNIQUE brain in EACH head, & although a minute error may be found which may seem negligible/immaterial at first glance, it can have disastrous consequences on an astronomical scale, tantamount to rounding figures in a formula in financial statements, but if those rounded figures are employed repeatedly to calculate profit/loss, the profit/loss could be off by a significant amount! Only God Almighty Alone CANNOT make mistakes.Salaam.*

Well done mate, my hats off to you!!!

This is fascinating but very hard to get your head around if you're used to normal scale physics with Newton's laws, which perhaps are not so useful at particle scales - if a photon is not a particle, has no mass, how can it's momentum be defined, how can it apply a pressure or force? OK I looked up photon momentum: E = pc so it's defined by its energy which depends on its frequency... makes sense, but when I think what happens when light is reflected, it probably excites a few electrons and makes a few atoms vibrate then their vibration causes a fresh vibration to return the way the photon came from - is that the same photon or its 'mirror image' returning? Or is it indeed like a particle bouncing off a surface? And how long does the reflection process take? Curious questions. I thought photons were packets of wave energy that can sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves depending on how they are observed. Oh good. Some packets of IR energy from the hob have just cooked my dinner so I can eat a big "packet of calories" and get my brain waves going a bit more... (!)

I believe Einstein had to have known of the discrepancy in his equation - he assumed it was negligable and simplified his example for clarity. One must tae into account the purpose of his illustration, I am sure his reason for his e Making the example is unaffected by his simplification. Of course, he neglected to state his assumptions, which indeed is a violation of how it needs to be done. This is a perfect example for undergrads of why there is a formal way to do things - everyone initially questions formal methods and tries shortcuts.

Just marvellous!!

Symphony of science at the end, nice

I wish I could unhear that "zur" at around 5:40. But the rest of the video before and after is great nontheless!

I remember someone else coming up with this same assumption about 15 years ago stating that Einstein's equation was wrong and the + or - 2 was at the root of it .Cannot remember who it was now .sure if you google it you may find the answer ,lol...Great vids keep up the good work .cheers from NZ...

@jgunther3398

2 жыл бұрын

there are probably countless examples where people reached the same conclusions about something independently but it didn't take off for some reason. seeing the significance and then making it known is a thing in itself. somebody actually working on the energy transferred to the mirror missing it says that hadn't happened

Awesome Good work :-)

So cool!

So it was the tiniest of wrong assumption, I can sortof see how it could have been missed by so many for so long. Mirrors are usually static objects, e.g. bolted to a wall, so it's not obvious to think of them as dynamic objects that play into the conservation of energy

Nice!

Einstein was also a clerk when he published his work. There is no reason to look down on someone who is not in the field of relativity.

Brilliant.

It’s not often that anyone manages to correct even a small mistake by Einstein himself. That’s quite an accomplishment, even if only because of the specific context. Einstein’s ability to intuitively reach correct conclusions through thought experiments was and is unrivaled and unparalleled, but not entirely infallible.

Did matter travel faster than the speed of light before, and after the Big Bang? we all know that matter can’t be accelerated past light speed , but what was going on before, during and after the Big Bang? I hear this is one of the big questions scientists debate about. What’s your thoughts , data ect... on this?

So did you get the paper published and accepted by others?? Sure hope so! Making a discovery of any kind that contributes to the world and somewhere, I think deep down, is a dream that everybody has some version of :)

@CoolWorldsLab

4 жыл бұрын

Yes published here: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa729d

Even though this is just a minor topic, it does take balls to go „Einstein was wrong“. You’re such a refreshing character

@ivornworrell

Жыл бұрын

*Very good. We should always question, scrutinize, & double-check things for ourselves, because God created EACH of us with a UNIQUE brain in EACH head, & although a minute error may be found which may seem negligible/immaterial at first glance, it can have disastrous consequences on an astronomical scale, tantamount to rounding figures in a formula in financial statements, but if those rounded figures are employed repeatedly to calculate profit/loss, the profit/loss could be off by a significant amount! Only God Almighty Alone CANNOT make mistakes.Salaam.*

I'm not a physicist, but how this affect the science behind the "impossible" EM drive (RF resonant cavity thruster), that 'seems to work'?

@CoolWorldsLab

7 жыл бұрын

AlexKasper I have not studied that problem to be honest but if it ever assumes perfect reflections then that would be wrong

Light always travels with the speed of light. It cannot be faster or slower. This is the reason we get the red-shift for light coming from very far stars/galaxies? But what if during this millions of years between the starting of the lights journey until reaching us the speed of light changed? Would that produce a "red-shift" if the speed of light gets higher?

Would you believe me if I told you that I took a wild guess that the mistake would somehow be related to the mirror absorbing some of the energy from the photon, that my guess turned out to be partially correct? This is coming from a musician. Amazing video, thanks!

Was it plagiarizing the Theory of Relativity from Oletto di Prento?

Dope!:) keep it up :)

This Guy is a rock star professor. GO COOL WORLDS!!

Your discovery will certainly become very useful in the future. If nothing else, it’ll probably save the money of those building a spacecraft using the wrong equation. A truly historic discovery indeed.

Very interesting. I don't know physics, but I love space, so Einstein is very interesting, and you are too. Thanks for the video.

@yesnobody3102

3 жыл бұрын

Einstein was a fraud plagiarist

@ivornworrell

Жыл бұрын

*Very good. We should always question, scrutinize, & double-check things for ourselves, because God created EACH of us with a UNIQUE brain in EACH head, & although a minute error may be found which may seem negligible/immaterial at first glance, it can have disastrous consequences on an astronomical scale, tantamount to rounding figures in a formula in financial statements, but if those rounded figures are employed repeatedly to calculate profit/loss, the profit/loss could be off by a significant amount! Only God Almighty Alone CANNOT make mistakes.Salaam.*

Watch "Life Beyound".

He could not understand that the second postulate about the constancy of light is actually a consequence of the Relativity principle alone. It was proved by W. S. Ignatowski in 1910.

I beg to disagree. You are a genius.

A thick skin of protection, definitely exists. For instance, let's say that each of your school teachers thought that you were the dumbest person in the class, and that this eventually led to you dropping out of school, and thus in turn you never had the opportunity to acquire any knowledge about physics. But in your spare time many years later, you decided to investigate "Motion", and did so to obtain a more thorough understanding of it. Before you knew it, you had independently discovered the phenomena described via Einstein's theory of special relativity(SR), and at the same time you had independently derived the SR mathematical equations, and did so in a specific manner that no one else had even thought of as of yet on this planet. But thanks to your originality, and your angle of view of SR being different than what is being taught in schools, you will receive violent opposition by the thick skinned people.

reminded me of Einsteins cosmological constant ...

👍👽👍

E=Kipping's mass squared.

EINSTEIN II?

With a humongous difference

Einstein was a plagiarist. ''In 1875, four years before Albert Einstein was born, Samuel Tolver Preston published an amazing book entitled "Physics of the Ether". In it he set down the now famous formula E = mc2 and thoroughly explained its implications. Preston expressly stated that matter contains a store of energy which if fully utilized could create atomic bombs and atomic energy. He knew that atomic energy would someday replace coal. He also described superconductivity and asserted that gravity propagates at light speed. Long before Einstein, Preston completely relativized unipolar induction. His complete works are republished along with commentary and analysis by Christopher Jon Bjerknes who discovered the fact that Preston had anticipated Einstein by many decades and had a better understanding of E = mc2 than Einstein. Albert Einstein mistakenly believed that atomic bombs and atomic energy were impossible to produce.''

you should talk with Sheldon Cooper

What about Tesla

@jayd5081

4 жыл бұрын

What about him?

@Chicken_Little_Syndrome

2 жыл бұрын

@@jayd5081 “Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.” ― Nikola Tesla

Couldn't a space craft, propel itself using lasers at its own solar sail whereas there is no visible light from stars? if we turn a laser on now, and point it at alpha centari, by the time we build the star ship to follow it, there will have been enough laser to help it on its way? laser is only a fraction of the speed of light but it will still have a bow wave at its forward moving point.

Nice catch. Now somebody will steal your brain!

See? Einstein wasn't all that great. He made a mistake.

Einstein admitted that he struggled with Maths.

@yesnobody3102

3 жыл бұрын

He was fraud

Not a genius? Haha, yeah right. You don’t have to call yourself a genius, but you don’t have to say you’re not either.

You’re rather clever, aren’t you 😮

Einstein is dead to me now.

Einstein’s mistake was less bad as your German pronunciation

*Very good. We should always question, scrutinize, & double-check things for ourselves, because God created EACH of us with a UNIQUE brain in EACH head, & although a minute error may be found which may seem negligible/immaterial at first glance, it can have disastrous consequences on an astronomical scale, tantamount to rounding figures in a formula in financial statements, but if those rounded figures are employed repeated to calculate profit/loss, the profit/loss could be off by a significant amount! Only God Almighty Alone CANNOT make mistakes.Salaam.*