PBS spacetime and Fermilab uploaded a video in the same day. You guys just made my day.

@thedeemon

6 жыл бұрын

Not just same day, within 4 minutes.

@666nofun

6 жыл бұрын

To many guys made a day

@finnmatteo8763

3 жыл бұрын

Pro tip : watch series on Flixzone. Me and my gf have been using them for watching lots of of movies lately.

@solomonbowie5185

3 жыл бұрын

@Finn Matteo yup, have been watching on flixzone for since december myself :)

@truthphilic7938

3 жыл бұрын

they are like brothers

Love the colour coded formula. Makes it quite a bit easier to follow.

Those comments at 1:50 are hilarious. I was shocked by the 2nd, but delighted by the 3rd: " Sorry, we dont serve fundamental particles. A Tachyon walks into a bar." Great joke xD

@Tore_Lund

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe better: "Sorry, we dont serve hypothetical particles".

Where were you during my university days ? You're helping me understand stuff in my later retirement life where at this point only helps in my understanding of PBS Nova episodes ! That's good enough though. Thanks.

Your last few videos explaining the misconceptions of relativity have cleared up the misconceptions. These are great videos. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

@Newtspeare

2 жыл бұрын

If Ron is orbiting Alpha Centauri, and fires a bullet at virtually the speed of light towards Don, then Don will see the flash of the gun after 4 years, then an instant later the bullet will hit him. If the moment Ron fires the gun, Don heads towards Ron at virtually the speed of light, the bullet will hit him after only 2 years, but it will still hit him an instant after he sees the flash, so he must still measure the bullet's speed to be virtually the speed of light. It is just common sense, nothing to do with Einsteininanity. To make a 9 minute video about measured speeds without discussing how they are measured, just shows that Don Lincoln has no real idea what he is talking about, he is just blindly repeating nonsense he has been taught to believe.

The way u explain things is fantastic. Just want to say “thank you” sir

Wow, what a great explanation of such a fundamental and important point about how velocity works! Thanks so much for this great video!!!

@Stafus

8 ай бұрын

by putting c'2 into the equation the result is now RIGGED ! unbelievable dishonesty or stupidity by einstein and his dicsiples.

Geno got roasted lol

@lochestnut

6 жыл бұрын

he deserves to get roasted even more lol

@S1nwar

6 жыл бұрын

whats going on in this guys head anyway with comments like "time doesnt exist"

@ciaramoroney577

5 жыл бұрын

Geno's comment was inaccurate, but as a physicist myself I can tell you that the concept that 'time does not exit' is not completely ridiculous. There are many theory's (and variations on conventional theories such as the standard model) now, that do accept that time may not exist, and may just be a human invention/perception. However, this does not mean relativity stops applying.

@southernknight9983

4 жыл бұрын

I'm with Geno. Time is simply a human invention to measure movement. Nothing more.

@kerryfracasso

3 жыл бұрын

@@southernknight9983 if time is a human invention, how did time pass before humans existed?

That is disgustingly awesome especially when I collapsed the terms with you had me grinning at the simplicity of the final result like a punch line to a good joke. I had wondered back in school about this oddity but never got the answer since they don't teach the transformation let alone things like Prime, un-prime and the third observer. It didn't help they still call these things paradoxes.

Good time of the day to you Dr. Don Lincoln. First thank you and the Fermilab staff for all the videos you made, I finally got through all 92 of them in the playlist. Second, on the theme of relativity and speed: there are one question answer on which eludes me for some reason - 2 person travel on speeds near the speed of light towards each other, I am the un-primed observer, how do I see the combined speed they are closing? More precisely, how do I use the Lorenz transformation to calculate that?

@ANGRYpooCHUCKER

4 жыл бұрын

You would simply boost into either of their rest frames with the Lorentz transformation equations and calculate what speed they would see the other person moving at.

I love this channel!!!! Dr. Lincoln will always = #1 in my book no matter what speed we're going! :-) ~peace

I just came from a need-to-revisit Spacetime expose on Noether's theorem, and now this! The four dimensional divergence of an anti-symmetric second-rank tensor equals zero... and there was light. That was my celebratory tune.

@Bodyknock

6 жыл бұрын

That Noether's Theorem video is great. :)

The z boson thing at the very end left me really confused. Did you explain all the details of this in another video? Because what the z boson is doing and what the electrons are doing seem really disconnected.

Nice as always. Where were you when I was a lowly undergraduate in Physics? You, Dr. Lincoln, should have been a teaching Physicist, students would have loved your style.... Great video, thanks again...

@robertbrandywine

3 жыл бұрын

@Wacky Venky Dr. Nigel Stuart Lockyer is the director of Fermilab. Dr. Don Lincoln is "just" a researcher there.

@robertbrandywine

3 жыл бұрын

@Wacky Venky I'm slow. I'm riding on a turtle.

The equations are much easier to follow now, great work!

I wouldn’t even mention the previous comment by geno. He’s obviously someone who is entrenched in his world view adamantly unwilling to change. That type doesn’t come to these videos to comment because they misunderstood something in the video, they do so because they feel threatened by concepts they don’t understand and refuse to accept. You aren’t going to win them over, because they refuse to listen or look.

@rossthebesiegebuilder3563

6 жыл бұрын

But on the bright side, the screen cap of Geno's comment let me enjoy Toby London's funny comment after it.

Dude, you rock!!!

@iambiggus

6 жыл бұрын

You couldn't handle a ten second intro? You call that mindless entertainment? You even KZread?

Thank you for this video. It looks so simple, but I always get confusion on this subject and you helped to understand this.

Don Thank you for all the video's. What speed is the positron going when the boson decays?

Thanks for sharin' what your'e thinkin, Dr. Lincoln!

Great video as always . Looking forward to the next one.

So does that mean the Z boson, even though it is neutral, is actually charged (containing both an electron and positron's worth), only revealing so upon decay? Does that mean charge is a property of mass then or are there massless particles with charge? Tough wrapping my head around what charge is other than one of the several quantum properties like spin.

Relativity elongates the length of Fermilab videos

Thank you so much to make me to understand the concept of relative velocity. Before seeing this video , i used to think if a car is at rest and velocity of light from head light is c, then velocity of light from head light for moving car at velocity v, would be c+v

I have a question about electron jumps around the nucleus. When the electron absorbs a photon and goes to the next energy level, does the electron jump without being in between the energy levels?

5:45 This is a very important point. There is only one way to add velocities and it is the relativistic equation he derived. As he said, We don't use the complicated denominator in our everyday world because the speeds are so low that it is essentially one. All too often I hear people, even fellow physics instructors, who have marginal understandings of Special Relativity, talk about the relativistic addition of velocities equation like it was a separate equation that only applied to relativistic velocities. It doesn't, it is the ONLY way to correctly add velocities. In case you are interested, the denominator you would get for two cars moving toward each other at 60 MPH is 1 + 8.0 x 10^-15, or 1.000000000000008.

Sir, I have a doubt. If I move opposite to a ray of light with some velocity 'v'. Then, should I move forward in time?

thank you fermilab.

It wasn't mentioned in this video, but does absolute value play into velocity and relativity?

My favourite bit coming up, when I go from nodding along saying "yup, got that" to throwing a notepad full of broken equations onto the desk three hours later. Right, where's that pen?

@davidmurphy563

6 жыл бұрын

Sure enough, it's now a day later and I have concluded: V'=V+v/1+(v/c^2)V, the ramblings of an imbecile. Maybe I should join the flat earth society, their intellectual rigour might be more my speed.

@tylerdurden3722

4 жыл бұрын

I had an extra physics textbook (wasn't in use anymore) and it had a foreword at the start of the relativity chapter. I'm paraphrasing. "The first time you go through this chapter you will think you understand. The second time, you will realize you don't understand. The third time, you will begin to learn something."

Nice explanation. It's any energy lost during the decay of Z bosons into the electron and antielectron?

@dachew57

6 жыл бұрын

ScienceNinjaDude thanks!

Question: Assume there is one stationary observer A in the middle of straight line path between the two head on moving bodies, F and G, each at speed 0.6C. A does not know about G. He is just observing F. Also assume there is another stationary observer B away from the straight line path observing both moving bodies F and G. F starts off first, then after a little while G sets off. For observer A, would he notice a reduction in speed of F as G takes off? Would observer B record 0.6C for both F and G independently?

But why is c the limit though? (Not why we can't go faster, but simply why it is the limit.)

Here you used Lorentz inverse.... But why ? Or they must be same because all inertial frames are same.. I am confused please help

What happens when a blackhole loses mass? Does it convert into a neutron star or something else entirely or even explode?

But closing speed for distant observer(me watching 2guys trying to collide with speed of light each) is still double the speed of light(if v1 and v2 have their speed c)? Am i right? Also i get , that this doesnt violate any law.

I have a question.if a man on earth sent a message to a spaceship travelling 99.9% the speed of light if ron is in the ship and don is on earth can they interact?and if so would each know the other is seeing time different?

Love these videos

Can anyone explain how does that velocity equation work with speed that isn't parralel to the direction to other object?

I stand in the Middle and V1 flies away from me with speed of light. In the opposite direction V2 flies away with speed of light. The distance that grows between them is V1+V2, is this different then 2C?

@Goreuncle

6 жыл бұрын

+Fermioncool Fermioncool flies away *at* the speed of light * different *than* C2 * The distance between the two objects isn't a moving object itself, so it doesn't travel at any speed. Now, if you want to say that it increases at a rate of 2C, go ahead, but that doesn't really mean anything.

So, big V's and little v's are in the numerator, but all the V's get cancelled out, and so light speed is greater?

Don Thank you for all the video's. What speed boson decays?

@JanKentaur

6 жыл бұрын

I am not sure I understand your question correctly. If a particle decays it will decay no matter its speed. That's the fundamental principle of special relativity. The physics does not depend on the steady motion of the observer. In fact, the statement that something is moving is meaningless by itself. I think that what you are asking is the mean lifetime of a particle. That is the time it takes on average for a particle of a given type to decay. For example, the mean lifetime of a Z boson is about 3 x 10^-25 s, mean lifetime of a neutron 880 s etc. These numbers are the mean lifetime in the inertial frame of the particle. What is even more fascinating (at least for me) is that lifetime of a particle can be used to test special relativity. According to special relativity, time passes slower for fast moving objects. Let's consider for example a muon, whose mean lifetime is about 2.2 x 10^-6 s, moving at 99% of the speed of light. If the time passed the same for the muon as for the observer in the laboratory system, it would travel about 660 m before decaying. However, because of the relativistic effects, it will actually travel about 4700 m, which is about 7 times more! This is obviously can be tested and the experiments confirm the predictions of special relativity.

Dear Dr Don, as You speak about relativistic velocities, is it true the conclusion that very fast traveling baseball ball (fraction of c) would act similarly as elementary particles act, in double slit experiment?

@vzr314

6 жыл бұрын

ScienceNinjaDude Ok, how many baseballs one shoud fire through the double slit at low speed before difraction pattern start emerging?

So wats really happening when 2 ppl come at each other at the speed of light if they always see the other person as going no faster than the speed of light? If thats true are they really only going half the speed of light toward each other?? Or do the collide at twice the speed of light

Why your Lorentz Transform formula uses plus sign, while others use minus sign?

But what is the resistance to not having speed of light or more?(require logic)

That was very helpful understanding this problem.

A little deeper into the math than Dr. Lincoln wanted to take this (I can assure everyone that _he_ knows all this), starting from the formula at 5m27s: v[rel] = (v₁ + v₂)/(1 + v₁v₂/c²) This simplifies a little more when speeds are put in terms of fraction-of-c: β == v/c -- so that v can go from -c to +c, and β goes from -1 to +1. Then you have: β[rel] = (β₁ + β₂)/(1 + β₁β₂) Finally, there's a parameter that characterizes speed, and that can go from -∞ to +∞. And it's something that actually *does* add when combining velocities in the same direction. It's α = tanh⁻¹(β); that is, β = tanh(α) As v goes from -c to +c, β goes from -1 to +1, and α goes from -∞ to +∞. And the slope of α in terms of β is 1, at 0 velocity. So, e.g., when v = 0.01c, β = 0.01, and α = 0.01 - (about 0.00000033) And when combining v₁ and v₂ , the v's don't exactly add, the β's don't exactly add, but the α's *do:* α[rel] = α₁ + α₂ One thing this helps to conceptualize is that, while looking at v's makes us think there's a barrier of some sort that just won't allow v to get to c, let alone exceed it; when you look instead at α's, you see that there's no limit to that, and that accelerating really *does* keep you gaining steadily, not in terms of v, but in terms of α. IOW, *_trying to reach the speed of light is really exactly like trying to achieve infinite speed in Newtonian mechanics._* Fred

How does it work when they are traveling at an angle to one another

I think an eg. copper hoop accellerated from the inner half by a supperconductive magnetic accellerator in space , no resistance constant cohersion added by the momentum and centrifical force might exceed light speed.

Something screwy with the red “relative” curve at 7:06. It appears to rise briefly above y=1 around x=0.9 and then dips back down to end at 1. The equation doesn’t support such behavior, and neither does theory if I understand correctly.

The content of KZread has changed a lot in 10 years

Great vid ! Can we have one about delayed choice quantum eraser, delayed entanglement swapping...?

@esperancaemisterio

6 жыл бұрын

ScienceNinjaDude or maybe he just doesn't have a shirt with the picture of Bohr, Bell, Heisenberg... we should start a crowdfunding to buy him one!

And Tachions? They (supposedly) travel at velocities faster than light, don't they?

If two sun facing each other than their meeting point can before 4 minutes?

But is it the velocity seen in any reference frame? Ron according to you

4:50 Don and Ron observe a velocity of 0 for themselves. So the velocities v1 and v2 are a cosmic reference frame? But I thought that didn't exist.

@j.pabloargueta8808

3 жыл бұрын

Substitute v1=0 and v2=c and you end up with vrel=c/1, so its still c for both of them

@hareecionelson5875

3 жыл бұрын

Which is why v1 and v2 are entirely dependant on who is doing the observing: Ron is moving at 0.5C RELATIVE TO YOU, and Don is also moving at 0.5C RELATIVE TO YOU. Another observer travelling at some other speed will measure different values for Don and Ron, but they would still get the same result though, since the relative velocity that Ron sees Don approaching him at isn't going to change.

How is the speed of electron measured from Z boson's ref frame? Hope its not using relativity. Anyway great video

@mohiuddinamirrafsan8746

6 жыл бұрын

i asked how did we calculate the speed of e from z boson's frame?

@SuperMagnetizer

6 жыл бұрын

Good question. I suspect they use energies to calculate the speeds. In other words, special relativity is used to confirm special relativity.

what is the song music in the beginning of the video ,:intro one

@robertbrandywine

3 жыл бұрын

It sounds like a knock-off of "The Gael".

I'm troubled by this - you're talking about two observers moving toward each other at the speed of light, and what it would "look like" to each of them as to how fast the other seemed to be moving. Let's say they were each moving at only 50% the speed of light, so they are closing on each other at exactly the speed of light. Wouldn't this cause a Doppler effect, so that the distance between them seems to close at the speed of light, but the wavelength of light they are "seeing" is an extremely short wavelength as they approach, and extremely long as they part? Wouldn't they "see" or perceive themselves closing on each other more quickly and parting more slowly - but with a huge shift in the "color" of the light? I think I understand the math, but I don't understand thinking of it as what they'd be seeing. It seems to me that if I was one of those guys moving toward each other at the combined speed of light, it would "look" like the other guy was coming at me at twice the speed he moves away from me when he passes - IF I could see the wavelengths of light I'm receiving. But, instead, wouldn't I be receiving light with an incredibly short invisible wavelength as we approach, and then an incredibly long invisible wavelength as we recede from each other? Doesn't the whole premise of trying to express what it would "look like" make this a completely non-sensical exercise? Wouldn't it "look like" an intense flash of light above the visible spectrum coming at me on one side and then a flash of light below the visible spectrum on the other side? I guess maybe I'd be "seeing" the other guy's far-far infrared signature as visible light coming at me and his far-far ultraviolet signature as visible light going away from me? I guess I have to do the math on that - what's the Doppler effect on the received light?

@reacguru

5 жыл бұрын

I slept on it, and I'm struggling with it. Light reflected from or emitted by object A moving half the speed of light is going to have its wavelength shortened by half, no? Light with this halved wavelength is going to be received by object B moving headlong into that light with its wavelength halved again, no? So let's say it is starting as light at 390 THz in frequency or 430 nanometer wavelength - but this is compressed by the movement of its source to 780 THz or 215 nanometers. (I know the numbers don't work quite this way but I'm a total newbie to this, give me a break and explain it better if you can.) This wavelength is compressed again by the velocity of the object moving into it, receiving it to 1560 THz or 107.5 nanometers. That Doppler shift goes from visible light to (near) UV. As the objects part, the same effect stretches the wavelength to infrared.

Does it apply to all vectors

Is this reduction of closing speed a product of length contraction?

@Bodyknock

6 жыл бұрын

It's both length and time contraction. Time is ticking more slowly for you when you move quickly so events don't seem to last as long, and likewise the distances you think you have traveled in that time appear to be shorter. And mathematically it combines in such a way that you never perceive an incoming object at traveling faster than the speed of light.

If two spaceships travel towards each other at 0.75c as observed from Earth then the equation given in the video states that on board either spaceship they would both see the other travelling at 0.96c. That makes perfect sense. However, what about from the frame of reference of the stationary observer on Earth? At what speed does he/she see the ships approaching each other? Does it even make sense to ask this question in the context of relativity? Maybe it is not possible to measure this from a stationary reference frame? If anyone knows the answer please help!!

@hareecionelson5875

3 жыл бұрын

an observer on Earth would see both spaceships travelling at 0.75C. But an Observer stationary relative to the Sun would observe some other speed, and observer stationary relative to the Milky Way would observe another. The 0.75C speed which you defined is only measured as relative to the Earth.

Great video.

We all know we cannot treat an electron cloud around an atomic nucleus classically like a planet orbiting a star. Nevertheless, sometimes in basic physics college course homework exercises, we DO use the classical model as a useful approximation. So, what happens to Coulomb's Law: F =k* (q1q2/r^2) in vector form? Is that still a useful approximation? If so, then why aren't electron clouds ELLIPTICAL (like planetary orbits are) around atomic nuclei? Obviously, the chance is zero that the initial velocity of the electron around the nucleus just happened to be that singular value that made its orbit perfectly circular. All other initial momenta & distances from nucleus would yield an elliptical orbit. Furthermore, doesn't the concept of "spin" of electrons apply also to protons, neutrons, and all other particles? It seems strange to me if only electrons had spin.

@onehitpick9758

5 жыл бұрын

If you use classical physics to analyze the hydrogen atom (with a true center of mass and relativity included), you will derive the correct observed energy levels to many significant digits. You have to start incorporating nuclear spins for things like hyperfine splittings. Yes... the nucleons have spin too. Things also precess, meaning the the spin is tilted and progresses around another notional axis (for example in the presence of a magnetic field). It's all quantum mechanical "spin" quantities, but many of the properties are surprisingly perfectly modeled by classical processes with state transition rate equations.

Hey, I need your guy's help! I'm gonna get a tattoo that says "how to build a universe" and some relevant physics equations following. Which ones should I use?

@lastsilhouette85

6 жыл бұрын

ScienceNinjaDude sweet dude, thanks.

How do the two people moving toward each other measure their closing speed? By the redshift of light coming from the other?

@kantrzyn

2 жыл бұрын

Rather by sending impulses of light and comparing the times which lights need to go there and back. And if you imagine that there is a stationary structure of space in which light travels 300 km/s; against the assumption of Einstein, that there is no preferred reference frame and that light travels with c relativ to you; then the relativity theory is logic. Time dilation is the result of slower communication between elementary particles via photons, gluons etc.

@robertbrandywine

2 жыл бұрын

@@kantrzyn I was thinking of astronomical objects. How do we tell the speed another galaxy is coming toward us?

@kantrzyn

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertbrandywine the answer is in my first sentence in the previous post. I mean the theoretical way which explain way we will never measure higher speed than light.

I still don't quite get time dialation tough. Suppose a scenario: A and B are close to a black hole at the same height from it. A is orbiting the hole with constant (relativisticish) speed in an circular orbit and B uses rockets to hover in place. Who experiences the time dialation? (The dialation from the gravity well itself can be ignored since both are affected by it equally, right?) My quess would be A is affected more since it is actually moving. Then again acording to Einstein A is actually just moving in a straight line. B is accelerating constantly and if I had to judge, its B that is doing any reference frame hopping, tough that concept too is bit nebulous to me.

@Bodyknock

6 жыл бұрын

I will say that GPS satellites, for example, need to consider both their orbital velocities in terms of the effects of special relativity on their clocks and the effects of general relativity in terms of the weakened gravity in orbit. You do need to consider both effects combined to be truly precise, it's not one or the other. As far as your question goes, I believe both A and B experience the same dilation due to gravity relative to an outside observer but A also experiences additional dilation relative to an outside observer due to its relative velocity. So to the outside observer A has the slower clock.

I think it needs a simple explanation without equations that tells what is actually happening. It might be easier to say that the distance is changing or the time is changing.

Is the velocity here is negative? Because of which the equations are positive...

Hey Dr. Don. Give us some words abaut the sterile neutrino measurement

I don't get it. I am on earth, the stationary reference frame and space ship one is measured by me going 0.5c from right to left and space ship two is measured by me going 0.5c from left to right. Why don't I see ship one closing on ship two at the speed of light?

@donr7327

3 жыл бұрын

You do. It's just that the ships approaching one another see (or should I say compute?) it differently.

@richardcommins4926

3 жыл бұрын

@@donr7327 You are right, speed is just relative to the observer! LOL

02:10 Must be really _cool_ to drive a convertible rocket. :o)

Ah! Loves me some Doctor Don!

An observer might be moving with two velocities according to two different observers So if the statement 'faster u move heavier u get' is true What is the gravitational force created by that observer

@Spugler2

Жыл бұрын

You don’t get heavier the faster you go.

So... what I don't get is this: Suppose there is a light source and a stationary wall located one light year away. of course, it will take the light one year to reach the wall. Now, assume that the wall is moving with some speed towards the light source as the light takes its time reaching it... now, the total combined speeds of the light and wall are less than the speed of light... so... the light will reach the wall after more time has elapsed even though the wall is making progress towards it, compared to being stationary with a combined speed of the speed of light? I'd like an explaination because something must be wrong here!

@solospirit4212

6 жыл бұрын

Fact Sheet Not how it works. A light year is a unit ofvdustance, not time . The wall and the object are still at the same relative velocity (light speed) but you are decreasing the distance between them, so they will meet in less time , not more. The time taken for them to meet varying by the distance, not velocity.

What about relativistic mass? If you're traveling half the speed of light and an object is travelling head on towards you also at the speed of light, is your relativistic mass different relative to that object because you are approaching the speed of light relative to that object? Ok ok, .8 times the speed of light. Still enough for a relativistic effect. So what happens to your mass? Is it dependent on your reference frame and if not, then what? Space itself?

if a spaceship travelling at the speed of light, and projecting the light beam forward & backward respectively, what will happen to the time inside the spaceship from your observation ? still ? 2x of you ?

@hareecionelson5875

3 жыл бұрын

A space-ship travelling at light speed experiences no time and no distance. You couldn't measure anything, becuase from your point of view, you would not exist. Light would still travel at the speed of light, but you would not notice.

Third comment @1:52 is soooooo good

How I can write e-mail to author? Thanks.

Hi. I have never learnt physics but I love it, so I listen and read everything about it. I am a special education teacher. Nothing to do with physics. But I love "space", and the bible for astronomers is:e=mc2/Thanks for the videos.

Need to add something to this. Yes, you're absolutely right. However.....thought experiment. lets say the spaceships that is moving towards you has a very large rule attached and extending far in front of it, This rule moves past the windows of our spaceship and we are able to read the measurements of the rule at two times. We would find that at high speeds, the gradients of the ruler have actually shrank due to Lorentz contraction. So, even so if we were to calculate the speed using the distances expressed on the rule by, say by measuring the time that each 1 meter line went past us, we might end up with a result many times faster than C. This would be incorrect measurement, as travelling at this speed, the meter according to the moving rule is much smaller than what it would be at rest. The implications of this are that if it was possible to travel in a spacecraft able to move at such speed are that it might be possible to travel to any point in the visible universe in a relatively short amount of time (excluding effects of particles hitting the front of the spacecraft!). the universe shrinks in the direction you are travelling... 1000's of light year distance is compressed to much shorter distance, and this shorted distance appears to be passing you at a speed less than C. When you get to your destination the other side of the galaxy, in just a few hours, you marvel at the technology that has enabled you to get here in your own lifetime,. However. From an observer who watched your spacecraft depart, from his perspective, it has taken 1000's of years to travel. and if you traveled back, you would find a place 1000's of years into the future, even though for you, you'd have only been away for a few days.

Very-well presented. Not that I know what I'm talking about.

For c+c=c though, since lightlike world lines don't experience proper time, I suppose you cannot even talk about their relative speeds?

The calculations went a bit over my head. The graph helped make sense of the apparent "paradox". :)

I love that shirt!

Ah you explain it so well I understand where you're going why this is true before the halfway point even 😀👍

It's much simpler to explain. Lay down meter markers (rulers), slowly, taking your time. This is space to a stationary observer relative to you. Now, go back to the beginning and start applying acceleration with a constant experienced force. You will accelerate indefinitely, perfectly, according to regular old Newtonian F=ma, well exceeding "c" in terms of meter markers you see crossed per second. When you understand this, you will understand special relativity. It is this phenomenon that will allow space travel to remote locations without excessive aging for the traveller. It will be another story for the ones you left and returned to.

The far most galaxies are moving away from us faster than light. Does this have any impact for "special relativity" theory?

@robertbrandywine

3 жыл бұрын

No. They are not moving through space faster than light.

@will8641

3 жыл бұрын

@@robertbrandywine I never said they were. Their velocity is not faster than light speed or anything near to it but, they are moving away from us faster than light speed because of the expanding space between us. So, relative to us and them, is there any impact on the theory?

@robertbrandywine

3 жыл бұрын

@@will8641 Oh, okay.

Amazing

Einstein's big think that time was not fixed still blows me away, its goes against all our everyday experiences

Traveling faster then the speed of light is like getting information before it is available, you can't do it.

Lets say that in the far future mankind makes it to the stars with vessels that can reach near light speed. And humanity being the aggresive warlike assholes that we are, a war breaks out. Two battleships(1million ton vessels of death) of opposing sides is traveling headon to each other . They fire missles (100 ton torpedos of destruction) that can accelerate up to .95 light. The target battleship is cruising at a smooth .60 light while the missle comes screaming in head on at .95 light. Would the kinetic energy equal their closing velocities by mass? Are would the max kinetic energy be light by mass? I think i said it correctly but probably not.

I don't get it. If you are traveling at .4 C, and increase to .8 C, then you will reach your destination in half the time. However if someone is approaching you at .6 C, suddenly you can't go faster than .4 or else the combined velocity would exceed the speed of light? Even though on your ship it says you are going .8? Just because you can't appear to be going faster than light, that shouldn't change how fast you get to your destination as you increase your speed. If both of you are going .8 the speed of light, shouldn't you both get to your destinations twice as fast as if you were going at .4 the speed? And even if you both appear to be approaching each other at the speed of light, that shouldn't change when you get to your destination. also, if you are going .8 alone, are you perceived as going .8, but if someone starts going towards you at .4, suddenly you only appear to be going .6?

@Maggabugg

5 жыл бұрын

I believe that you have misunderstood some concepts in this video. First, speed is always relative, so it helps to say what the speed is relative to. If your ship is traveling .8c relative to a stationary observer, you are traveling .8c. If another spaceship is traveling towards you at a velocity of .6c relative to the stationary observer, this ship is still traveling .6c. If you wanted to calculate how fast the other ship is traveling relative to you, you would use the Equation given in this video to solve for added speed. You will find that the answer will not be 1.4c.

shouldn't you explain the time slowing to make it more understandable, or is this from another story?

AWESOME

In other words : when you move(locomote) even a little bit time slows down for you very very very less though l and just as you move faster and faster trying to match speed of light (which" you" can't). Time begins to slow down accordingly And that's why "you" can match that velocity because you just can't.... BTW that was just an intutive explanation... please do watch other videos on this channel regarding relativity.... especially lorentz factor one ...it's awesome xd

Thanks. ! !!!!

Awesome

I loved the dude commentary....LOL Physics always win....even if we don't know all...yet...^^