Видео

Hey, It is a good field. Can you please be more specific and then I can answer much better? You can contact me here: timebeforespace17@gmail.com

I'm glad you liked it. Stay tuned for more!

Yes, he is great. He thinks in a very interesting way and has an amazing physics intuition. As for your question, I did a BS-MS dual degree from India and then applied to the PhD program here at the Ohio State University. If you have further questions, I would be happy to answer them at timebeforespace17@gmail.com

Thanks for your comment. Maybe the paradox can be altered by using the laws of quantum mechanics. Nature has surprised us more often than not!

Glad you liked it.

He's undeniably intelligent but remarkably humble. It's a quality we can all take a lesson from!

Thank you for your comment! Yes, definitely. I will soon approach them and try to get them here. Stay tuned for other videos and more interviews!

Thanks for your comment! Stay tuned for many more video interviews, physics advice and other interesting videos!

Glad you enjoyed it!

So nice of you! If you have any person in mind that you'd like to listen, feel free to let me know! Stay tuned for many more such interesting interviews.

Glad you like them! Stay tuned for more such interviews. Let me know if you want someone to be interviewed

Kindly email me your questions at timebeforespace17@gmail.com. I'll try my best to help. All the best for your exam!

Thanks for sharing. I plan to make a video about curvature, black holes and how light gets affected. I will try to include these in them...

Thanks for your comment. I'm glad it was helpful. Check out other videos of this channel, and stay tuned for more exciting content!

Yes, the string theory itself is about 60 years old, and Fuzzball idea was conceived in the late 90s. It's just as old as me!😂😂

Thanks for your comment. I'm really happy you liked it!

I really appreciate your kind words. I try my best. Stay tuned for more content!

Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate you taking the time to type this. May I politely steer you towards the paradox and ask you how your comment is relevant here? I'm curious!

@@timebeforespace Black holes are based on a mathematical misconception. Singularities have always been a stubbornly persistent fictional term.

Thanks for your response. I'm not sure if you correctly acknowledge the painstaking works of brilliant physicists over the last 80 years, all proving that black holes do exist. If you end up calling them fiction, I won't argue. You have all the right to believe in that. As a human, I respect your beliefs. But as a physicist, I would ask you to solve Einstein's equations for black holes, just classically, without even String Theory, and provide a solution that smears the singularity and proves black holes as fiction. I'm taking this chance, and I bet, one cannot. Now, with String Theory, things are fuzzy, and there I might agree that singularities might be smeared out. But let's talk classical GR and try to show that Penrose and Hawking were wrong about singularities. I'm genuinely curious. Please email me anything that you have to show: timebeforespace17@gmail.com Once again, thanks for your comment. I really appreciate your patience.

@@timebeforespace If you want to understand physical reality you need to know the math from Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodinger and Dirac. Nothing fundamental has happened mathematically in the last 80 years. The shape of a galaxy is common in nature, from atoms to our solar system, the overwhelming majority of the mass is in the center. The same must be true for galaxies. Where there is mass there is energy. The night sky should be lit up from the galactic center, but it isn't. The modern explanation for this is because gravitational forces there are so strong that not even light can escape, even though the mass of the photon is zero. Einstein's answer would be because the mass there is dilated relative to an Earthbound observer. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to our own galactic center, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. Or more precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. Einstein wrote about dilation occuring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no dilation it must be very, very low mass or have low mass in its center. To date, 5 very, very low mass galaxies have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. The known laws of physics perfectly explains the phenomenon we see. Black holes were popularized by television and movies in the 1960's and belief in them gradually came to be despite the fact that Einstein said they cannot exist and there was no evidence.

You lost me here, "Nothing fundamental has happened mathematically in the last 80 years." I can not argue if you think the last 80 years were not fundamental, Hawking's work, or String theory are not fundamental. Let's just agree to disagree...

Thank you for your question. Honestly, we don't know yet. Einstein's relativity tells us how matter affects space-time, but it does not tell us why. And that would bring me to the philosophy of physics. The very essence of describing nature through physical theories is that they tell us how does nature do it. Once we know that, we can proceed on making predictions, but the reason why nature is the way it is, is beyond the aim or scope of physical theories. It's like we are trying to find the ultimate patterns in nature but not trying to know why the patterns exist in the first place...

Many thanks! I really appreciate your comment. Thank you for your wishes and stay tuned for more!

Thank you very much for your comments! I'm happy you found it engaging. Yes, I would surely bring more videos on such topics. Stay tuned for more!

Thanks! I'm happy that it was able to make an impact! Stay tuned for more!

I'm really glad you liked it! Please stay tuned for more such interesting videos!

Firstly, thank you for your comment. I'm glad that you like the gravity hotel. It sounded fun, so I added that analogy. Now, to answer your question, the swirling fabric around 7:10 is the way objects produce waves of spacetime called gravitational waves. As for how expansion affects it, we would need to get into scales. Gravitational waves range from a few kilometers to the size of the universe. The size depends on the object that creates it. Now, the expansion also occurs around 70 kilometers per second per megaparsec. So, as you correctly pointed out, it must have an effect on gravitational waves. But the answer is mostly, we don't know yet. People are still working on it. I'll soon take up this topic in an upcoming video and try to answer it in more detail.

@@timebeforespace awesome, looking forward to that! Also, would love to hear more from the chalkboard world 😎👍

Definitely, the chalkboard world is here to stay!!

Hello, Thank you for your comment. I'm happy you're interested in gravity. Actually, these gravitons act as mediators between objects, and they do so by being virtual. Hence, these virtual gravitons would create the force of gravity. I am planning to do a video on gravitons soon, and I'll try to incorporate your idea into it. But for that, you might want to type in your hypothesis and send it to me in a precise manner. Who knows, you might come up with some great insight! Please let me know, and we can exchange emails here: timebeforespace17@gmail.com

I'm really happy that you feel so. I'll keep on bringing many more interesting videos and keep you hooked. Thanks for watching and stay tuned for more!

Dear Benjamin, Thanks for your comment. I hope you enjoyed the talk and the videos. Now for your question, firstly the speed of light being constant does not fix its momentum to be a constant. Momentum can be defined as: m times v for classical objects but not for light because it does not have any mass(we call it rest mass to separate it form energy) as you correctly pointed out. So for light one defines momentum (denoted by p) as: p = E/c = h/lambda, where E is the energy, c is the speed of light, h is Planck's constant and lambda is the wavelength of light. So now, you can see that different light particles(photons) can indeed have different qualities. And that is the wavelength(alternatively, you could define it using frequency), this is the reason, red light and blue light, having different colors(wavelength) still travel at the speed of light. Please let me know if this answers your question.

@@timebeforespace almost, it explains how light can have varying momentums, but im still not set on why, qualitatively, light's speed must be fixed. I understand our math requires it to be so and that relativity makes that assumption and we've gotten repeated evidence supporting relativity, but the very concept that a velocity can be a fixed characteristic seems counterintuitive. Let's approach the question from the perspective of black holes. The radius of a black hole is determined by the equilibrium point between the black holes gravity and the light's momentum. So the highest? momentum light is closest to the center and the radius expands out from there. We can see this radius because some light only bends around the hole before escaping to be observed. Well the question would then be, would this phenomenon be any different if light had some small range of velocities rather than one constant?

Dear Benjamin, I wish to understand this first, why do say this: So the highest? momentum light is closest to the center and the radius expands out from there. If one wants to sketch the calculation of the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole, they would want to calculate the total energy of an object, kinetic + potential around the black hole. The sum is zero at the horizon and that is how you would get the radius of the hole. But if you agree to my sketch, then you would agree that as I keep increasing energy of the object, it would go further away from the horizon. But E=pc for light, where E= energy, p=momentum and c=speed of light. Hence, its momentum will increase as it goes away from the horizon. I'm not sure why you think it is otherwise. But, disregarding this sketch, ket us try to understand the consequences of the variability that you mention at the end of the comment. For simplicity, let us assume there were three light speeds, all constant, say c1<c2<c3, where c3 is the maximum. In this case, we would see assume three horizons of black holes. With the inner most one H3 (due to c3) the real horizon(nothing crossing it could ever come back), middle one H2(due to c2), nothing except lights with speed c3 could come back and lastly the H1(due to c1) where nothing except lights with speed c3 and c2 could come back(as they are faster than c1). If these different lights had different defining properties then would be able to see them in principle but if all of them had same spectrum, it would be impossible to distinguish them and hence all the horizons would be the same to us. But if you look back and see what changed in this description, you will notice that actually, nothing did. We would still be limited by H1 and would never see H2, and H3 and hence we would define the speed limit to be the lowest of all the speed limits( in our case c1) and we would have no way to find out if the other speeds exist. Because we are limited by the lowest one. It is like asking if there are particles of speeds higher than light. There might be, but we are limited by light so we can never see them.

@@timebeforespace And that's precisely the assumption that the constant speed of light feels to be to me. Einstein noted that everyone who measured the speed of light in Maxwell's equations would return the same value which naturally led to the assumption that light must therefore be constant. But that assumption doesn't negate the assumption that there are other speeds of light since, as you said, we would have no way of ever discovering them since they would be obscured by the lowest speed. So, it's possible that 3*10^8 is simply the lowest speed light can achieve and simply a threshold rather than a constant? Also you said "Hence, its momentum will increase as it goes away from the horizon. I'm not sure why you think it is otherwise." then followed with "c1<c2<c3, where c3 is the maximum. In this case, we would see assume three horizons of black holes. With the inner most one H3 (due to c3)". If the highest theoretical speed and hence highest energy light is closest to the center, then for E=pc and constant c the highest p would also be closest to the center, no? Like in a deep well, the ones closer to the center are travelling more rapidly than the ones at the edge. Did I make a mistake? I'm still new to thinking of gravity as curved space

@Benjamin-kl7ge Thanks for your response, I really appreciate how this is turning out to be a great conversation about Physics. Let's start from above, I agree, it could be a threshold, but then I would say that as Physics works on observations, and we haven't yet found deviations from special theory of relativity, so there actually is any way of knowing otherwise. Although, it would be interesting to see what mathematical implications this spectrum of speed limits could have. I'm curious and would be happy to look at it if your could work something out. Next, about the speed, light has the same speed regardless it's energy, so even if c3 is the highest and it's horizon is closest to the center, it's momentum and energy are determined by it's wavelength. There is this concept of gravitational redshift, the closer you get to a black hole, the redder you become, i.e, your wavelength increases. And energy or momentum are both inversely proportional to wavelength hence they get lesser as you go closer to the center. Another way to look at this is by understanding the convention of potential energy. We set the potential to be zero at infinity, far away from all the sources of any kind of physics. Now as you get closer to objects, the gravitational potential gets more negative but your kinetic energy is always positive. But inside of a black hole, no matter what you do, the gravitational potential is always more than your kinetic energy and hence total energy which is a sum is negative. So, objects can never come out. The closer you go you require more energy to come back and closer is lesser energy. I hope this helps! I'm looking forward to your response. Feel free to send me other questions or things that you work out here at: timebeforespace17@gmail.com

Thanks for your comment! I'm glad you liked it. What other topics are of your interest? Let me know, and stay tuned!

I'm glad you liked it. Please stay tuned for more such informative videos!

Yes, that is quite nice. Could you share why you like it and what consequence it has on our universe?

Direct detection of superpartners in high energy colliders like LHC of the existing particles in the universe. For example, finding Photino or Selectron, which are theoretical superpartners of our beloved photon and electron, respectively. As far as a time scale is concerned, I don't want to discourage you, but it could take decades or even centuries. Well, it took about 100 years for gravitational waves to be found, so yeah, you get the point...

Thank you so much for your appreciation! I'm excited to hear that you found my explanations helpful and engaging. I'm glad to know that I accomplished the task of breaking down those concepts in a way that resonated with you. Keep that enthusiasm alive!

Thank you for your feedback and encouragement! I'm happy you appreciate my style, and I'll surely continue creating more content.

Regarding your question, I would rather say the opposite. The absence of a symmetry is being bounded. Imagine we are living in the velocity space such that every point in space represents a velocity (and not position, as it does now). Now, this velocity space would be bounded by a point called the speed of light. As of now, you can go to any point in space in principle. But in the velocity space, you will not be allowed to go to or beyond that point of speed of light. This will break the translational symmetry and, hence , breaking a symmetry creates a bound.

Symmetries do give rise to conservation laws. It's one of the most important theorems in physics, called the Noether theorem. I'll soon make a video on it...

@@timebeforespace woah, that's such a creative way to think about the speed of light bound, a velocity space! As per my understanding, visually it could be like a 3d sphere(if considering 3d) that centers around our 'stationary' point of reference... with 'lightspeed' or c being at the 'surface'. The translational symmetry would definitely be limited to that space's domain. Correct me if my understanding/visualization is faulty.

Yes, but then those velocity translations are not the translations in our world. We call the velocity translations, boosts, and yes, boosts are limited by c.

Thank you for your comment! I'm happy you found it useful.

Thanks! I'm glad you liked it. I agree. The profound beauty of nature lies in its ability to reveal itself through the lens of physics, manifesting as us, physicists, and constantly pushing the boundaries and quantifying its own limits.

I'm glad you liked it. More interviews on the way! Let me know if you'd like some physicist to be interviewed.

@@timebeforespace Dr. Heino Falcke from the EHT, Dr. Kevin Burdge from the Kavli Institute at MIT.. some intetesting suggestions

@@joansonnenberg4348 Thanks for your suggestions!

Thanks for your comment. Actually, we are altering the future every moment. Even this very comment affects the events in its future light cone.

Absolutely! Yet it is such a wonderful thing that we can explore its vastness through our tiny brains!

:)

Hello, thanks for comment. I'm not sure what you mean by "filling a variable in math". Are you trying to point to the direction of the Cosmological Constant? You may want to look at this video:ruclips.net/user/shorts7syxPKXBZHQ

@@timebeforespace no

@@brianhulben1695 Then, I'm not sure what you mean by it. Dark Energy is not any mathematical variable.

So what is it?

It's an observation that we still don't have a clear scientific model for. It's named dark as we don't understand it yet. This energy is accelerating the expansion of the universe. We are still trying to understand it...

Thank you for your comment. You may want to read up on the Bekenstein bound of information. I would soon make a video explaining just that.

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it! Stay tuned for more such interesting talks and videos!

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the gasses you see on earth do disperse. But this does not stop gasses from collapsing under their own gravity. The key to such a collapse is the amount of gas. Huge amounts of gas mean huge mass, which means great gravitational attraction between the outer most layers of gasses with the inner blobs. This attraction leads to the runaway collapse.

In the line of your reasoning, what stops these gases from leaving Earth and disperse into the vacuum of space then? Are we covered by a container/capsule that holds the atmosphere in place or is it not gravity?

The video will be released soon!

So, you think one can never visualize the moon by going around it? In which case, the moon would appear to be rotating with respect to the observer.