I never get tired of thinking about ideas like this, even though I only really understand less than half of it. Thanks for explaining this so well that even I can grasp the central points.
That's why the atomic clocks in GPS satilittes have to be adjusted, because of their speed while orbiting. Their clocks don't chime with ours down on the ground, so adjustments have to be made. Its a small difference, but without the correction your GPS position of the ground would be way off.
This video was very good! I've heard many times "E=mc^2 which means that matter can be formed from energy", but stopping there. There aren't many videos explaining this type of thing in simple terms and I would really like to learn some more... Hope there is a part II (and III) coming soon!
I truly love your videos!! Each one makes me a little bit crazier!! The weirdest science fact I've heard is quantum superposition. As an MIT teacher once said "superposition is code for I have no idea what's going on". The best way to describe the world!
Just a nerdy comment that probably doesn’t help: You *can* tell the difference between acceleration and gravity. Take *that* flat earthers! The difference is what is confusingly called “tidal forces”. When you simply accelerate, the forces every bit of you feels are all identical. Gravity, however, pulls different bits of you towards the center of gravity of a planet (for example). That means different bits don’t quite get pulled in the same direction making you get a bit squashed. That’s what they mean when they say you get spaghettified near a black hole. Being able to separate the two allows you to specify that the bit that is responsible for the tidal forces is the bit that bends spacetime, the other bit is just you accelerating *through* spacetime. Told you it wouldn’t help.
That's technically true but also only works because gravity isn't the same everywhere. If you use a point mass for calculations, or you have a larger body in a constant gravitational field, there's no way to tell the difference. Essentially you can't tell the difference under experimental conditions between a perfectly constant field and a perfectly constant acceleration, but because reality doesn't usually exist under experimental conditions we can use other differences to tell them apart.
The weirdest fact I guess is that the double slit experiments outcome depends on if it is measured or not, and furthermore that "measuring" in this case is any kind of interaction and has nothing to do with conciousness. Those two.
jam rose E=pc where E is Photon energy - P( = h/y ) is Photon momentum - c is the speed of light ( can be applied for electrons as well coz they are wave-particle duality elementary particles also )
I haven't heard yet anything more weird than quantum...... Could not completely understand it yet...... Wish if you could make one more video which completely covers quantum theory....... Thanx
wow your videos are really insightful its like exploring this thing in science i have explored before but you do it in a way to confirm or disconfirm my thought about like light and stuf
every video i watch of you makes may day. its got everyting i like. its short, its funny, its entertaining and ist jam pack with knowledge. thanks Nick
Ipoh Nick, I discovered your channel a week ago and I am enjoying so SO much every video and knowledge you pass on. It is amazing. Really. A special request from me if it is doable. Please make a 20:19 seconds video about black holes. There are tons of material on the matter and when I imagine you giving a long and entertaining lecture on the matter I see people minds being blown out! Or well sucked into singularity. Cheers and excellent work!
I don't really do long videos like that. My standard right now is around 10 minutes. I do have a black hole playlist though: ruclips.net/p/PLOVL_fPox2K-zpTeryROTkmzzsMssSMWp
2)i am assuming - when exchange of energy between two points occurs, the path which energy followed is the path of least resistance. always everywhere-therefore I consider this a universal law. 1)energy exchange between two points max speed is C. Or C is max for energy flow.
I love your show and think every topic you talk about is well informed. I would love to get your thoughts and also the real science to prove the earth is round or flat. Thank you for your time Nick
+The Science Asylum, Light speed this is a motion,energy this is a total motion,then can not be energy less than light speed,can not be total motion less than motion. Can not be E
Thanks. My own simple answer to myself was that the 1/2 was for accelerating bodies. C does not accelerate. That would be a simple answer your specifics of your reply account most accurately of what happens. Good job.
I like the formulation "Mass is a property of energy", so the more energy something contains, the more rest mass it has. So my hot cup of coffee has slightly more mass than my cold cup of coffee. The energy of the MATTER inside my coffee is still much much larger than its thermal energy, thus the mass changes only insignificantly. (I think a lot of students have a missconcept to differentiate mass and matter clearly)
C is for Causality. It's the speed of causality. Which could be sound frequencies or literal cause and effect. Anything that perturbs the E/M spectrum uses value of C to represent causality.
Isn't E=mc2 the logic consequence of adding the energy necessary to counteract and hold into place every subatomic particle that is trying to "escape" the atom in an acceleration that will reach the speed of light?
Greetings, I have a question that's been confusing me for a while. How do they shoot electrons in an electron microscope and in the double slit experiment, if-as I understand- we can only determine the wave of probability, so how can they shoot it accurately. Another thing is if they shoot electrons how do the keep it atomless?
+F B The trick to avoiding quantum weirdness is to shoot a bunch of them at once. If there are billions of trillions of electrons in a beam, then they're all forcing each other to be a specific place... they're not probabilistic anymore. That's the same reason your body as a whole isn't a wave of probability: Too many particles interacting with each other. Particles are only probabilistic when they're by themselves or in VERY small numbers. Electrons normally hang out snugly in atoms, so they heat a piece of metal using a high electric current to loosen them. Then they use a high voltage to give them the extra energy to escape. Once they're out and they have all that energy, atoms aren't strong enough to capture them again. Yes, some of them slow down along the way and get captured by atoms in the air, but if there are billions of trillions of electrons then air atoms can't catch them all.
@@ScienceAsylum you said as well as the other PhD guys are also saying " particles are probalistic...", how then did you identify it as a particle when it's still probabilistic? Why didn't you call it another word or object and again that object you will call it how did it get its own definition, measurement and properties to be called so when it's but a probability ? Is an electron probabilistic to another electron? Who is it probable to? Nature has no probability, it's humans that have that lack of information not particles. Every thing is finite and defined. It's not the interaction of the observer that gave it its properties, in fact how is that even sensible that because I observed an electron then that thing became an electron, huhhhhh?? They say it's neither here nor there, they say it's a wave probability distribution, what da heck!! How and where then did all atoms, particles and objects get there definite structures properties? Is it because you observed it? That will be absurd,! Did you give the particle purpose meaning functions attributes because you observed it? The cosmos is finitely designed and determined, your observations cant change it, it can only interact or measure what's already predefined. There are so much crap streaming around concerning quantum mechanics and all these are due to the inherited deficiency and damages of the human intellectual apparatus from Adam.
The weirdest thing I have heard is how if a gluon and quark are separated that the energy it took to do that will cause a new quark to be created taking the energy needed, making it impossible for gluons to be free particles.
+Wild Bill Well, it's not a gluon and a quark... it's a quark and a quark, but yes that's pretty weird. Gluons are the particles that hold quarks together. Hence "glue-on" hehe.
+The Science Asylum The one I was just reading about is around gluon "balls" and they said even if they could make it, quarks would be created so you can't have free gluons or quarks. The other reference was one of these vids that said if you could pump in enough energy to break quarks apart, new quarks would be created to keep the classic arrangement of 2 or 3 quark sets.Now this is my deduction but it make be wrong but it seems as though quarks and gluons must be different forms of the same thing.
+Wild Bill Gluons are in a type of particle called a "force carrier," so they basically only exist to help quarks interact with each other. You can't really have quarks without gluons (or gluons without quarks), so it's not entirely wrong. If you put energy in between the quarks to separate them, it causes the gluons in the middle to decay into more quarks. All this stuff is happening on a level that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to ANYONE, so don't feel too bad.
+The Science Asylum -- Thanks, I have been casually looking into quarks and gluons for awhile now, there is something about them I find mind blowing and they are pretty much the current end of the line for the question that started me on this physics quest, which was, what is matter. I find nearly everything about quarks and gluons really mind bending when you consider that out of it we get matter as we experience in day to day life. On my bizarre list is that gluons and not the quarks are where the mass really is in a proton and neutron, that gluons both attract and repel, holding quarks together yet also keeping them apart giving matter it structure/substance. You are right it does not make sense but it sure a lot of fun to think about. Thanks for your replies.
When we write E = γmc^2 where γ is the speed-dependent Lorentz factor (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) and expand this into Taylor series over v/c, we get E = mc^2 + 1/2 mv^2/c^2 + ... Here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Low_speed_expansion
You said Einstein said you can't tell the difference between acceleration and gravity. But if you are experiencing one G and have two clocks you can. If the lower clock is going slower than the higher clock, they you are sitting on a rocket ship on the launch pad in earth's gravity well (right picture). If both clocks tick at the same rate than you are acceleration in space far from a massive object (left picture).
Weirdest I've heard is , everything is just excitations in a bunch of fields. Want a thought experiment? Look out your window and try to imagine that for a while.
👍 I always think about that. I also think about the complexity of the order and process of all these vibrations in fields leading to intelligent thinking, concepts and ideas! Somebody please visualize that in a graph 🤣
I think I heard mass is energy and I really can't get along with this idea and also, I need more explanation on rest energy and total energy thank u for the video
+farouk kodokuna Yes, mass is just a type of energy. The word "rest" in rest energy is just a way of saying "sitting still" or "stationary." It's the energy particles like protons and electrons have even if they aren't moving. If they are moving (and they almost always are), then they also have kinetic (motion) energy. Total energy is just rest energy + kinetic energy.
+The Science Asylum thank u very much I understand the part of rest energy but I heard in an other video that " mass is a form of energy" , " mass is a frozen energy" , " mass can be converted to energy" r wrong statements they said that mass us a property that energy exhibits please I am not trying to say that u r wrong but this is science and we have to hear all ideas and opinions
Well, all statements are right. But to keep it truthful and simple, just remember mass is energy times the speed of light squared (for masses that are not moving).
@@omarfarouk3848 Its about where mass comes from. We have the intuitive idea that a thing with mass 2kg consists of parts that have a mass themselves that can be summed up to result in those 2kg. With very small particles this intuition becomes more and more false. There you have a proton with a certain mass and the parts it is made from add up to less than 1% of the Protons mass. Where do the 99% come from? From the binding energy of those parts. Energy has basically every property mass has. So for the resulting proton its irrelevant that the mass comes from energy. Mass is energy is mass. Thats where sentences like "mass is frozen energy" come from. Mass is all what we see when very much energy is bound in a special way.
What if a clone says: if you are saying mass and energy have no difference, why it is wrong to write E=m? (You may use other units and put c=1 but what if you don't? Does it depend on our unit system whether E and m have no difference or have difference and can be "transformed" in to one another?) Does something like transforming has any physical reality? Thanks man.
A weird fact is that the pressure and temperature in sun's core is not enough to keep fusion going and yet it does because of the the quantum tunneling phenomena. It means that we need way more pressure than suns core to kick start and keep it going. I thought it may be worthwhile to add this in the pull or mind blowing facts here.
Weirdest science: School days! The "Industrial Arts" teacher moved on to "carpentry", having us saw through a length of plank the very same week that the Physics teacher explained there's nothing shorter than a Plank Length... This one had me unable to sleep for days! :D Stay crazy! :D
It is just the number of electrons an atom gains to get 8 electrons in its valence shell. Example- Oxygen has an oxidation number of 2 because it has 6 electrons in its valence shell so it gains 2 electrons.
Hey smarty pants.... could you please make a video on "WHY" the speed of light is constant at all IRFs????????? i believe most of us didnt get an answer to that... ONLY YOU can tell us in your way
I'm not a scientist (understatement) but I'm wanting to know how weight fits in with this. If energy is the same as mass, and energy can be turned into mass, does the energy when weighed, equal the same as the mass it makes when weighed? Or am I missing something?
Weight (a.k.a. gravity) is usually called a "force" which is a little different than mass. A lot of people get them confused because manufacturers sometimes put "kg" (a unit for mass) on their scales. They do it because it's practical... lots of people don't want to have to do a calculation every time they weigh something... but scales ALMOST NEVER measure mass. They measure weight, the Earth's downward pull. The point in this video is that, if you're dealing with a situation that requires E=mc^2, then just forget about the concept of "mass" and talk about "energy" instead. It's going to make a lot more sense.
+Sj M Also, you're still aloud to think deeply about things if you're not a scientist... as long as you consult one when you're confused... which you just did :-)
Great and short video... more please... Photons are weird.... Electron giving of energy is weird...how much energy and how electron gets its energy from..
If you raise say a rock from ground level to 1 foot off the ground is there anything we can measure in the rock to know that it now has more potential energy?
Energy is rectilinear light force propagation in the z-axis at 'c' in free space in which time creates pockets called photons with quanta of energy ⚡⚡. This is trapped via portels in the x-plane into a fixed point by quarks that form the proton, which holds mass in the Y-column.
So if the gamma factor is used to account for total energy(i.e rest + motion energy) then it means it can't be less than one due to first law of thermodynamics?
You could say that, I guess... but I think it's easier to say something rest energy is it's minimum energy (and that just happens to be where the gamma factor = 1).
The weirdest fact I know is that we never actually touch anything, the force we feel on our hands is the repulsion of electrons in your hands and on the surface.🤯
+Andrew Shantel I'm not sure what you're asking. Matter is "destroyed" all the time during matter/antimatter interactions, but it's *energy* is never destroyed. It's just moved into something else (like photons of light).
So about photon.... It has Energy so it can be considered as matter?? Also at the time of big bang there was energy so there was also matter create at that instant of big bang??
I wouldn't consider a photon to be matter. As far as I'm concerned, "matter" requires "rest mass" and photons don't have that. Energy is a property of matter, but not exclusively. It's also a property of things that aren't matter.
Can you tell how the conversion take place I mean like when some bomb explodes then energy is realeased because mass is converted into energy so how do this happen I mean the process just think the definition of energy and the mass then try to convert one definition to another it is getting impossible to understand can you please answer rhis
1) Mass doesn't transform into energy. Mass is a _type_ of energy. The c^2 in E=mc^2 is just a unit conversion. 2) The transformation you're talking about is a transformation of matter into light, not mass into energy. Mass and energy are just numbers.
In E=MC2, energy & mass are equivalent & mutually convertible as C is constant. By same logic in relativistic & non relativistic kinetic energy, mass is constant, therefore Energy & motion are equivalent & mutually convertible. Equvalence of energy to both mass & motion implies mass & energy are also equivalent & mutually convertible. During annihilation of stationary electron & positron mass is converted to motion of photons. In pair production motion of photon is converted back to mass. During nuclear reactions mass is converted to motion of neutrons and gamma ray photons. Energy, Mass & Motion are equivalent & mutually convertible.
Hi Dr. Lucid. Watching your activity over YT I noticed that you broke one basic rule in Physics. Your energy is way bigger than the one given by E=mc^2. Greetings for your precious work! It's Ok to be a little crazy! :-)
I still don't get the C in the equation. I always visualize the mass to be sped up to the SOL to convert it to energy but I know this is wrong and I need someone to clarify and correct me on this.
Some kinds of energy are relative to the observer, I am thinking about kinetic energy. Energy contributes to gravity, but does that mean that gravity can be relative to the observer as well?
No. The _existence_ of things is not relative. Different observers can disagree on the time between events and even sometimes the order of events, but they all agree that the events have occurred. The formation of the event horizon of black hole is an event that all observers agree happened.
@@ScienceAsylum Understood. But if the energy/mass that results in the formation of the black hole is relative to the observer, doesn't that make it look for some observers as if the event horizon formed even though there wasn't enough energy/mass for this to happen vice versa? Post Scriptum: I guess I just answered my question myself. What it "looks" like for a distant observer is not really relevant for anything within the event horizon. Thanks again for clearing things up.
No, everyone sees it form. There is enough energy in a every frame of reference. It's formation requires a different amount energy in each frame of reference. We do our calculations in the frame why the least amount of energy is required: the rest from of the object becoming a black hole: ruclips.net/video/5uHwyzEnsIw/видео.html
yes, "spooky action at a distance".. but if you take in account that the entangled particles still have to be separated first (obviously that has to respect the c limit and thus takes time) that becomes quite a bit less spooky. But still pretty weird.
Igor Keller youre wrong. All quantum fields are connected. 1 electron can emit a photon for ex. So there is this connection. And spacetime itself its a quantum field for gravity....that means its connected with all of them....so quantum fields are entagled ....and spacetime as a quantum field entagled can make electron , quarqs etc entagled instantanly This is why the Universe is 13.8 billions y old and 90 billions acros ....and stil the opuse side of the 90 billions are entagled given the Big Bang singularity .... Now , its mind blown for u?
Given Planck lenght is the pixel where reallity is born its fair to assume that quantum fields are pixelated as well at the Planck level and because its so stupidity small scale Entangled .....So quantum fields are pixelated and entangled each neighbour pixel with its neighbour pixel ... the farther you go the less entangled they get. But , aslo there is a connection - a vibration beteen all quantum field ( electron field , quarq field , spacetime itself, neutrino field , etc ) ...So what you get its this spoky action at the distance . Its just pixelation of quantum fields and entanglement into the fields itsellfs and all the fields . Sean Carrol its the man that thinks this. And for me this is the best explination I have seen so far.
Also this pixelation its not as you may visualise it- as consecutive . Its in a wave forne.....This is why you collapse the wave of a particle when you observe it ( aka interact ) and cant know precisely momentum and location , because you force the very pixelation ( thats in a wave forme ) to be part of our reallity. To simply put it , the Universe render itself in a Planck scale when observation its made .... Side note- observation means interaction , not necessarly concioness.
As you may know spacetime is emergent ....if you paid attention to this theory ...and its backed up by imposibility to unify GR with QM. So this wave form of the Universe must be more fundamental that spacetime itself and all quantum fields. In fact quantum fields doesnt make sense long before Planck scale , but still....that doesnt rule out the pixelation of them . It may very well be emergent from the wave function of the Universe itself..... It doesnt even makes sense to seek beyound that... could we ever escape our reallity? need like an super advanced civilization - beyound gods ...if this thing would be possible....what would you find outside spacetime itself? And what forme would you have to take to do that?
Jose, a very important caveat to this is that an "observation" does not necessarily imply an "observer," as in a conscious mind. An observation is a synonym for "interaction," and interactions happen all the time with no conscious brain anywhere near them!
In the Many Worlds Interpretation it's simpler: observation allows you to *discover* which reality you're in. That's one reason I'd prefer MWI to be true: it allows free will to co-exist with determinism. Kind of ;) Of course, what I'd *prefer* to be true is completely irrelevant to physics, which is happily doing whatever it does, regardless of my preference...
Is the constancy of light speed in vacuum something valid only in special relativity meaning for all inertial frames only or does it hold even for noninertial frames (General relativity)??
@@ScienceAsylum One more question please, if E=gamma*m*c² represent the total energy of a body won't that include internal energy as well? I mean don't they always say that internal energy cannot be measured in thermodynamics and you can only quantify the change in its value? here's an example if an object is resting on the ground motionless, does mc² give the value of its internal energy?
That depends on what you mean by "m" ...they're both full equations if the "m" in E=mc^2 is relativistic mass and the "m" in E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 is rest mass. ruclips.net/video/ueuwWiR-Dw4/видео.html
Notice how he said have mass. Not are mass. Mass I the force of push. Matter is constantly pushing out spaces fabric causing gravity which is space pushing back. Yeah I said space has mass! The faster you travel, the more potential for push/mass you have. Moving EM pushes things via their EM field, therefore it has mass.
I still don’t get this. If energy isn’t a thing but rather a property or accounting measure of something just like velocity is then how can it become something tangible like matter ?
Energy doesn't become matter or any elementary particle. Rather, it is present in a quantum field, which means that a point in that field is significantly above its vacuum state, which we observe as a particle, carrying the properties of that field [electric charge is responsible for normal tangibility]. As for why there is any points of non-ambient states of energy anywhere in any field, there really isn't a great answer, though I would peg cosmic inflation as being responsible
@@arnesaknussemm2427 Because mass is an abstract concept! We called it mass when energy is trapped or confined. For example, If you shine a flashlight into a black hole, the mass of the black hole will increase by the amount of light’s energy divided by c^2. Light is trapped once it entered a black hole, and the collection (black hole) has mass, but not the photon itself. Obviously E=mc^2 do not say that energy is fundamentally the same as matter. We called that because we define matter is something that has mass, but it doesn’t mean they are the same thing. Wet is a property of water. But water and wet are the same? No!
im watching these videos, cause once, a math teacher on my school said: PI is 3.7 or something, of course i corrected it to 3.141592 . But then he/she (i dont want to get personal or something) said: good you knew that, then lets say Pi is 3. I felt not good at all with that idea, you cant do that in MATH! im not exaggerating, Pi is just not 3! its precission should be at least 3.14. remember: only trust yourself (or not even yourself).
The weirdest thing I have heard that may be we all are living in a simulation and we all are been control by someone else or we are controlling yourself but in another universe just like we are playing a vide game but we are not but the character is like a computer may be we are a computer program and speed limit is light of speed ...🤣🤣
Why this come as a surprise for you? Like billions of people think the same ....you know God being the master and all that shit...for me the surprise would be that there is no simulation ...aka God.
Mass and the Acceleration equivalence principle F=ma is formed by the constant de-compression.. . . Now space is a division of Solidity into entropy as time unfolds C2 the second law of thermodynamics.. . .But also in the future E2 will equal a multiplication of Volume +1=0 now at the expense of gravitational potential -1.. . .E2=M2 C4+P2 C2.. . .Time is inverse as objects free fall multiplying energy compression +1=0 now -1 dividing expansion like frequency and wavelength.. . .With antimatter contracting energy compression +1=0 now -1 de-compressing expansion of Mass and the Acceleration equivalence principle F=ma.. . .Simply because there exists only two positive and negative electromagnetic waves.. . .Only Two Solution's !!
The weirdest fact in science must be the astonishing coincidence that earth’s moon is capable of making a solar eclipse only because it’s relative size and distance makes it appear exactly the same size as the sun. What are the odds?!
If most/all constants are constants due to random chance, does that mean Einstein was wrong when he said 'God doesn't play dice with the universe?' onanothernotehelloimmajoringinastrophysicsandmathmakesmecrybutyoureoneofmybiggestinspirationsandirewatchyourvideoswheneveritmakesmecrymorethanusualthanksfornoticingmemyweekisblessed
The fine tuning of the constants in our universe is a mystery. The infinity of universes (each having different constants sets, to the very least..) hypothesis combined with the so called "weak anthropocentric principle" (in a nutshell: it is fine tuned that way because otherwise conditions would not allow us humans to exist and ponder about this fine tuning..) gives a logical explanation, albeit not an entirely satisfactory one.. but it is hard to say if we will ever be able to formulate a better one though. Einstein's expression reflects something else: his attachment to a certain, already outdated, view of science at a time where rising quantum mechanics was shaking the very foundations of determinism.
I never get tired of thinking about ideas like this, even though I only really understand less than half of it. Thanks for explaining this so well that even I can grasp the central points.
That the Science Asylum is a great channel
P.S. The weirdest science fact I've ever heard is when I learnt that time was not constant, but depends on the relative speed. Blew my mind!
That's why the atomic clocks in GPS satilittes have to be adjusted, because of their speed while orbiting. Their clocks don't chime with ours down on the ground, so adjustments have to be made. Its a small difference, but without the correction your GPS position of the ground would be way off.
Did you mean absolute instead of constant .
Can invert that to say that c is not a constant but a temporal artefact after all c is not a velocity but the rate of causality.
@@SynKronos what do you mean by rate of causality?
Rahila Batool Propagation is synchronous with frequency such that time is frequency over it’s inverse. Any velocity is a temporal illusion.
This video was very good! I've heard many times "E=mc^2 which means that matter can be formed from energy", but stopping there. There aren't many videos explaining this type of thing in simple terms and I would really like to learn some more... Hope there is a part II (and III) coming soon!
Thanks. I have a Higgs Boson video planned, but it's a tricky topic.
I truly love your videos!! Each one makes me a little bit crazier!!
The weirdest science fact I've heard is quantum superposition. As an MIT teacher once said "superposition is code for I have no idea what's going on". The best way to describe the world!
Kristell Fadul I second this weird fact
The weirdest fact I heard ist that Symetry leads to a conservation law
Just a nerdy comment that probably doesn’t help:
You *can* tell the difference between acceleration and gravity. Take *that* flat earthers!
The difference is what is confusingly called “tidal forces”. When you simply accelerate, the forces every bit of you feels are all identical. Gravity, however, pulls different bits of you towards the center of gravity of a planet (for example). That means different bits don’t quite get pulled in the same direction making you get a bit squashed. That’s what they mean when they say you get spaghettified near a black hole.
Being able to separate the two allows you to specify that the bit that is responsible for the tidal forces is the bit that bends spacetime, the other bit is just you accelerating *through* spacetime.
Told you it wouldn’t help.
That's technically true but also only works because gravity isn't the same everywhere. If you use a point mass for calculations, or you have a larger body in a constant gravitational field, there's no way to tell the difference. Essentially you can't tell the difference under experimental conditions between a perfectly constant field and a perfectly constant acceleration, but because reality doesn't usually exist under experimental conditions we can use other differences to tell them apart.
The weirdest fact I guess is that the double slit experiments outcome depends on if it is measured or not, and furthermore that "measuring" in this case is any kind of interaction and has nothing to do with conciousness. Those two.
It's good that you know it has nothing to do with consciousness.
The Science Asylum I appreciate you told me that, it's pretty new to me and I LOVE that fact to debunk my co worker :)
Can u please tell me in detail??
Light experiences no time. Even though we watch it happen.
Tru
time and space are relative to observers frame of reference
That there exists a channel name science asylum that is worth noble prizeeee!!!
I think i flaunted much. But really, good job nick!!
You can also use E^2=(mc^2)^2(pc)^2 if you don't know what γ is.
I think you forgot the + between (mc^2)^2 and (pc)^2
Siegbert Greisselbart I did, didn't I! Thanks for pointing that out.
It's the energy on objects at motion.
Fusion Tricycle what is "pc"
jam rose E=pc where E is Photon energy - P( = h/y ) is Photon momentum - c is the speed of light ( can be applied for electrons as well coz they are wave-particle duality elementary particles also )
I haven't heard yet anything more weird than quantum...... Could not completely understand it yet...... Wish if you could make one more video which completely covers quantum theory....... Thanx
wow your videos are really insightful its like exploring this thing in science i have explored before but you do it in a way to confirm or disconfirm my thought about like light and stuf
every video i watch of you makes may day. its got everyting i like. its short, its funny, its entertaining and ist jam pack with knowledge. thanks Nick
Glad you like them! 🤓
I don't understand what exactly the Time Symmetry from Noether's theorem means...
I like your videos before the ad is done lol
"Gravity isn't a real force" I'm still coming to terms with that one!
In the equation E=MC Sq. only mass is considered whereas with mass the particles also carry electric and magnetic charge which also carry energy.
Ipoh Nick, I discovered your channel a week ago and I am enjoying so SO much every video and knowledge you pass on. It is amazing. Really. A special request from me if it is doable. Please make a 20:19 seconds video about black holes. There are tons of material on the matter and when I imagine you giving a long and entertaining lecture on the matter I see people minds being blown out! Or well sucked into singularity. Cheers and excellent work!
I don't really do long videos like that. My standard right now is around 10 minutes. I do have a black hole playlist though: ruclips.net/p/PLOVL_fPox2K-zpTeryROTkmzzsMssSMWp
definitely it was how the wave function collapses under observation! and then how its all visible in a bose-einstein condensate was the FATALITY!! :)
2)i am assuming - when exchange of energy between two points occurs, the path which energy followed is the path of least resistance. always everywhere-therefore I consider this a universal law.
1)energy exchange between two points max speed is C. Or C is max for energy flow.
I love your show and think every topic you talk about is well informed. I would love to get your thoughts and also the real science to prove the earth is round or flat. Thank you for your time Nick
+The Science Asylum,
Light speed this is a motion,energy this is a total motion,then can not be energy less than light speed,can not be total motion less than motion.
Can not be
E
i am a physics student and it helps me a lot , and i understand more things in this funny way..
Thanks. My own simple answer to myself was that the 1/2 was for accelerating bodies. C does not accelerate. That would be a simple answer your specifics of your reply account most accurately of what happens. Good job.
I like the formulation "Mass is a property of energy", so the more energy something contains, the more rest mass it has. So my hot cup of coffee has slightly more mass than my cold cup of coffee. The energy of the MATTER inside my coffee is still much much larger than its thermal energy, thus the mass changes only insignificantly. (I think a lot of students have a missconcept to differentiate mass and matter clearly)
I did a better job with this in the following video: ruclips.net/video/XkPudRiWspc/видео.html
C is for Causality. It's the speed of causality. Which could be sound frequencies or literal cause and effect. Anything that perturbs the E/M spectrum uses value of C to represent causality.
Correction: "c" is the _maximum_ speed of causality. Causality is allowed to go slower, just not faster.
Isn't E=mc2 the logic consequence of adding the energy necessary to counteract and hold into place every subatomic particle that is trying to "escape" the atom in an acceleration that will reach the speed of light?
I am getting mad as I am getting into Physics. Your channel is kinda nice. Crazy like me !!!
The wierdiest thing thing I ever heard was that time and space are one thing
You accurately portray my view of physics.
*maniacly mumbles about light*
Greetings, I have a question that's been confusing me for a while. How do they shoot electrons in an electron microscope and in the double slit experiment, if-as I understand- we can only determine the wave of probability, so how can they shoot it accurately. Another thing is if they shoot electrons how do the keep it atomless?
+F B
The trick to avoiding quantum weirdness is to shoot a bunch of them at once. If there are billions of trillions of electrons in a beam, then they're all forcing each other to be a specific place... they're not probabilistic anymore. That's the same reason your body as a whole isn't a wave of probability: Too many particles interacting with each other. Particles are only probabilistic when they're by themselves or in VERY small numbers.
Electrons normally hang out snugly in atoms, so they heat a piece of metal using a high electric current to loosen them. Then they use a high voltage to give them the extra energy to escape. Once they're out and they have all that energy, atoms aren't strong enough to capture them again. Yes, some of them slow down along the way and get captured by atoms in the air, but if there are billions of trillions of electrons then air atoms can't catch them all.
@@ScienceAsylum you said as well as the other PhD guys are also saying " particles are probalistic...", how then did you identify it as a particle when it's still probabilistic? Why didn't you call it another word or object and again that object you will call it how did it get its own definition, measurement and properties to be called so when it's but a probability ? Is an electron probabilistic to another electron? Who is it probable to? Nature has no probability, it's humans that have that lack of information not particles. Every thing is finite and defined. It's not the interaction of the observer that gave it its properties, in fact how is that even sensible that because I observed an electron then that thing became an electron, huhhhhh?? They say it's neither here nor there, they say it's a wave probability distribution, what da heck!! How and where then did all atoms, particles and objects get there definite structures properties? Is it because you observed it? That will be absurd,! Did you give the particle purpose meaning functions attributes because you observed it? The cosmos is finitely designed and determined, your observations cant change it, it can only interact or measure what's already predefined. There are so much crap streaming around concerning quantum mechanics and all these are due to the inherited deficiency and damages of the human intellectual apparatus from Adam.
i find the humor in this video to be more entertaining than nicks newer vids
I really think you should do a video on gamma factor
The weirdest thing I have heard is how if a gluon and quark are separated that the energy it took to do that will cause a new quark to be created taking the energy needed, making it impossible for gluons to be free particles.
+Wild Bill
Well, it's not a gluon and a quark... it's a quark and a quark, but yes that's pretty weird. Gluons are the particles that hold quarks together. Hence "glue-on" hehe.
+The Science Asylum The one I was just reading about is around gluon "balls" and they said even if they could make it, quarks would be created so you can't have free gluons or quarks. The other reference was one of these vids that said if you could pump in enough energy to break quarks apart, new quarks would be created to keep the classic arrangement of 2 or 3 quark sets.Now this is my deduction but it make be wrong but it seems as though quarks and gluons must be different forms of the same thing.
+Wild Bill
Gluons are in a type of particle called a "force carrier," so they basically only exist to help quarks interact with each other. You can't really have quarks without gluons (or gluons without quarks), so it's not entirely wrong. If you put energy in between the quarks to separate them, it causes the gluons in the middle to decay into more quarks. All this stuff is happening on a level that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to ANYONE, so don't feel too bad.
+The Science Asylum -- Thanks, I have been casually looking into quarks and gluons for awhile now, there is something about them I find mind blowing and they are pretty much the current end of the line for the question that started me on this physics quest, which was, what is matter. I find nearly everything about quarks and gluons really mind bending when you consider that out of it we get matter as we experience in day to day life. On my bizarre list is that gluons and not the quarks are where the mass really is in a proton and neutron, that gluons both attract and repel, holding quarks together yet also keeping them apart giving matter it structure/substance. You are right it does not make sense but it sure a lot of fun to think about. Thanks for your replies.
If you squeeze a spring in space and it hooks shut, does it weight more? is there a pre-relativity explanation?
Maybe you should have a look at MFU and maybe you can explain what's your take on it Just a thought
KE = 1/2 mv^2. E = mc^2. What is the 1/2? I have heard that 1/2 could be put in E=mc^2 but is insignificant.
When we write E = γmc^2 where γ is the speed-dependent Lorentz factor (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) and expand this into Taylor series over v/c, we get E = mc^2 + 1/2 mv^2/c^2 + ...
Here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Low_speed_expansion
So is mass related to energy or is mass concentrated energy?
video about quarks and their arrangement to form matter.. plz
Isn't it for a moving particle E=sqrt (m^2*c^4+p*c^2) ?
I am using relativistic mass of course.
You only need that big one if "m" is "rest mass." If you're using relativistic mass, then E = mc^2 works just fine.
You said Einstein said you can't tell the difference between acceleration and gravity. But if you are experiencing one G and have two clocks you can. If the lower clock is going slower than the higher clock, they you are sitting on a rocket ship on the launch pad in earth's gravity well (right picture). If both clocks tick at the same rate than you are acceleration in space far from a massive object (left picture).
Weirdest I've heard is , everything is just excitations in a bunch of fields.
Want a thought experiment? Look out your window and try to imagine that for a while.
Yeah. I totally agree with that.
👍 I always think about that. I also think about the complexity of the order and process of all these vibrations in fields leading to intelligent thinking, concepts and ideas! Somebody please visualize that in a graph 🤣
I think I heard mass is energy
and I really can't get along with this idea
and also, I need more explanation on rest energy and total energy
thank u for the video
+farouk kodokuna
Yes, mass is just a type of energy. The word "rest" in rest energy is just a way of saying "sitting still" or "stationary." It's the energy particles like protons and electrons have even if they aren't moving. If they are moving (and they almost always are), then they also have kinetic (motion) energy. Total energy is just rest energy + kinetic energy.
+The Science Asylum
thank u very much
I understand the part of rest energy
but
I heard in an other video that " mass is a form of energy" , " mass is a frozen energy" , " mass can be converted to energy" r wrong statements
they said that mass us a property that energy exhibits
please I am not trying to say that u r wrong
but this is science and we have to hear all ideas and opinions
Well, all statements are right. But to keep it truthful and simple, just remember mass is energy times the speed of light squared (for masses that are not moving).
@@omarfarouk3848 Its about where mass comes from. We have the intuitive idea that a thing with mass 2kg consists of parts that have a mass themselves that can be summed up to result in those 2kg. With very small particles this intuition becomes more and more false. There you have a proton with a certain mass and the parts it is made from add up to less than 1% of the Protons mass. Where do the 99% come from?
From the binding energy of those parts. Energy has basically every property mass has. So for the resulting proton its irrelevant that the mass comes from energy. Mass is energy is mass.
Thats where sentences like "mass is frozen energy" come from.
Mass is all what we see when very much energy is bound in a special way.
I love your videos! The full equation is actually: E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
Technically, they're both full equations. It just depends on how you define "m." ruclips.net/video/ueuwWiR-Dw4/видео.html
What if a clone says: if you are saying mass and energy have no difference, why it is wrong to write E=m? (You may use other units and put c=1 but what if you don't? Does it depend on our unit system whether E and m have no difference or have difference and can be "transformed" in to one another?) Does something like transforming has any physical reality? Thanks man.
It's actually quite common in special relativity to write E=m by setting c=1.
This channel reminds me of the zany 1990s children's science TV show Beakman's World.
🤓🤓🤓
Pls make a video briefly explaining mass and energy of light
A weird fact is that the pressure and temperature in sun's core is not enough to keep fusion going and yet it does because of the the quantum tunneling phenomena. It means that we need way more pressure than suns core to kick start and keep it going. I thought it may be worthwhile to add this in the pull or mind blowing facts here.
True! I did a video on that exact topic a few months ago: ruclips.net/video/lQapfUcf4Do/видео.html 🤓
Weirdest science: School days!
The "Industrial Arts" teacher moved on to "carpentry", having us saw through a length of plank the very same week that the Physics teacher explained there's nothing shorter than a Plank Length... This one had me unable to sleep for days! :D
Stay crazy! :D
Make a video on oxidation number
It is just the number of electrons an atom gains to get 8 electrons in its valence shell. Example- Oxygen has an oxidation number of 2 because it has 6 electrons in its valence shell so it gains 2 electrons.
Hey smarty pants.... could you please make a video on "WHY" the speed of light is constant at all IRFs?????????
i believe most of us didnt get an answer to that... ONLY YOU can tell us in your way
Wes Baumguardner, I think Ram is referring to how light always moves at the same exact speed in a vacuum.
I'm not a scientist (understatement) but I'm wanting to know how weight fits in with this. If energy is the same as mass, and energy can be turned into mass, does the energy when weighed, equal the same as the mass it makes when weighed? Or am I missing something?
Weight (a.k.a. gravity) is usually called a "force" which is a little different than mass. A lot of people get them confused because manufacturers sometimes put "kg" (a unit for mass) on their scales. They do it because it's practical... lots of people don't want to have to do a calculation every time they weigh something... but scales ALMOST NEVER measure mass. They measure weight, the Earth's downward pull. The point in this video is that, if you're dealing with a situation that requires E=mc^2, then just forget about the concept of "mass" and talk about "energy" instead. It's going to make a lot more sense.
+Sj M Also, you're still aloud to think deeply about things if you're not a scientist... as long as you consult one when you're confused... which you just did :-)
+The Science Asylum -- Aloud, seriously, I should have allowed that to slip and not said something aloud about it, my bad :)
MrWildbill47
**facepalm** Oh well, I guess I have to own it now. I can't believe I did that... I'M BETTER THAN THIS!!
Great and short video... more please...
Photons are weird....
Electron giving of energy is weird...how much energy and how electron gets its energy from..
What the HECK is Mass? ruclips.net/video/XkPudRiWspc/видео.html
What the HECK is Energy? ruclips.net/video/snj1wBtn6I8/видео.html
I like your videos
If you raise say a rock from ground level to 1 foot off the ground is there anything we can measure in the rock to know that it now has more potential energy?
Just its height. If we had sensitive enough equipment though, there would be a difference in its mass.
Plz make a video about what is infinity
That is a mathematical and philosophical question. Not for physics.
Energy is rectilinear light force propagation in the z-axis at 'c' in free space in which time creates pockets called photons with quanta of energy ⚡⚡. This is trapped via portels in the x-plane into a fixed point by quarks that form the proton, which holds mass in the Y-column.
what about photon does it have mass= E/c**2
Can it be said that mass is energy compressed in a smaller space?
Not really: ruclips.net/video/XkPudRiWspc/видео.html
So if the gamma factor is used to account for total energy(i.e rest + motion energy) then it means it can't be less than one due to first law of thermodynamics?
You could say that, I guess... but I think it's easier to say something rest energy is it's minimum energy (and that just happens to be where the gamma factor = 1).
Yeah nice videos man am a BIG FAN
Mass is energy which contained in a point in space
Energy is spreading in space within Law of thermal dynamic
What's the difference between mass and momentum at high speeds.
Again, he made an uninteresting topic interested!
The weirdest fact I know is that we never actually touch anything, the force we feel on our hands is the repulsion of electrons in your hands and on the surface.🤯
Wow. I took some time to think about that and it is damn mind-blowing :) A video about that subject would be fantastic
@@UglyKidJoe71 Vsauce made a video about it
@@tomkamo3930 veritasium did too
So what mass was converted into the thermal energy that leaves my body? Can it be converted back to mass ever?
Thanks
Can you please tell if gravity and acceleration are the same thing?btw ur channel is great!!
Kind of: ruclips.net/video/a205YJsbBSQ/видео.html
so if there is something more than e=mc2 will that be able to destroy matter
+Andrew Shantel I'm not sure what you're asking. Matter is "destroyed" all the time during matter/antimatter interactions, but it's *energy* is never destroyed. It's just moved into something else (like photons of light).
Can you plz provide us a video giving detail distinction about matter and energy??
We know mass is property of matter and energy both. But what is relation between matter and energy??
No no. Mass and energy are both a property of matter.
So about photon.... It has Energy so it can be considered as matter??
Also at the time of big bang there was energy so there was also matter create at that instant of big bang??
I wouldn't consider a photon to be matter. As far as I'm concerned, "matter" requires "rest mass" and photons don't have that. Energy is a property of matter, but not exclusively. It's also a property of things that aren't matter.
But I think I heard somewhere that energy is just a number that is constant. It doesnt really carries physical meaning.
So I m confused
Can you tell how the conversion take place I mean like when some bomb explodes then energy is realeased because mass is converted into energy so how do this happen I mean the process just think the definition of energy and the mass then try to convert one definition to another it is getting impossible to understand can you please answer rhis
Nuclear Fusion Explained: ruclips.net/video/LKUPAk5049M/видео.html
How mass transforms into energy in fission, fusion, annihilation etc. & energy of photon change to mass in pair production as per E=mc2.
1) Mass doesn't transform into energy. Mass is a _type_ of energy. The c^2 in E=mc^2 is just a unit conversion.
2) The transformation you're talking about is a transformation of matter into light, not mass into energy. Mass and energy are just numbers.
In E=MC2, energy & mass are equivalent & mutually convertible as C is constant. By same logic in relativistic & non relativistic kinetic energy, mass is constant, therefore Energy & motion are equivalent & mutually convertible. Equvalence of energy to both mass & motion implies mass & energy are also equivalent & mutually convertible.
During annihilation of stationary electron & positron mass is converted to motion of photons. In pair production motion of photon is converted back to mass. During nuclear reactions mass is converted to motion of neutrons and gamma ray photons. Energy, Mass & Motion are equivalent & mutually convertible.
+The Science Asylum,
For big mass about,for small mass wrong(m*(c^2)>c)
E=m*(c^2)
For small mass about,for big mass wrong(m*(c^2)
Hi Dr. Lucid. Watching your activity over YT I noticed that you broke one basic rule in Physics.
Your energy is way bigger than the one given by E=mc^2. Greetings for your precious work!
It's Ok to be a little crazy! :-)
There's a missing "pc" term, part of the complete equation that really helps understanding why massless objects still have energy.
I address the "pc" term in this video: ruclips.net/video/ueuwWiR-Dw4/видео.html
1:52 Was that the Feynman Lectures on Physics? I have that book :)
Yep!
I have the first Feynman lectures book. I haven't gotten through it, but I want to get the other ones eventually too.
The amount of energy in me can best be described as E=m/c^2. Cheers!
I still don't get the C in the equation. I always visualize the mass to be sped up to the SOL to convert it to energy but I know this is wrong and I need someone to clarify and correct me on this.
You don't convert mass to energy. That's not how it works. The equation means that mass _IS_ energy. ruclips.net/video/XkPudRiWspc/видео.html
The wierdest fact I have known is
"All the things you known will be wrong when you study more"
I see it more like a massive plot twist xD
When the wavelength becomes small small will light turn into hydrogen?
Some kinds of energy are relative to the observer, I am thinking about kinetic energy.
Energy contributes to gravity, but does that mean that gravity can be relative to the observer as well?
You are correct... and, yes, gravity can be relative to the observer. Almost everything is.
@@ScienceAsylum Wow thanks.
But doesn't that mean that black holes can be relative to the observer as well?
No. The _existence_ of things is not relative. Different observers can disagree on the time between events and even sometimes the order of events, but they all agree that the events have occurred. The formation of the event horizon of black hole is an event that all observers agree happened.
@@ScienceAsylum Understood.
But if the energy/mass that results in the formation of the black hole is relative to the observer, doesn't that make it look for some observers as if the event horizon formed even though there wasn't enough energy/mass for this to happen vice versa?
Post Scriptum: I guess I just answered my question myself. What it "looks" like for a distant observer is not really relevant for anything within the event horizon.
Thanks again for clearing things up.
No, everyone sees it form. There is enough energy in a every frame of reference. It's formation requires a different amount energy in each frame of reference. We do our calculations in the frame why the least amount of energy is required: the rest from of the object becoming a black hole: ruclips.net/video/5uHwyzEnsIw/видео.html
You're an ANGRY scientist
Weirdest thing is entanglement in quantumphysics for me. Especially that there is nor time, nor distance involved for the particles.
yes, "spooky action at a distance".. but if you take in account that the entangled particles still have to be separated first (obviously that has to respect the c limit and thus takes time) that becomes quite a bit less spooky. But still pretty weird.
Igor Keller youre wrong. All quantum fields are connected. 1 electron can emit a photon for ex. So there is this connection. And spacetime itself its a quantum field for gravity....that means its connected with all of them....so quantum fields are entagled ....and spacetime as a quantum field entagled can make electron , quarqs etc entagled instantanly
This is why the Universe is 13.8 billions y old and 90 billions acros ....and stil the opuse side of the 90 billions are entagled given the Big Bang singularity ....
Now , its mind blown for u?
Given Planck lenght is the pixel where reallity is born its fair to assume that quantum fields are pixelated as well at the Planck level and because its so stupidity small scale Entangled .....So quantum fields are pixelated and entangled each neighbour pixel with its neighbour pixel ... the farther you go the less entangled they get.
But , aslo there is a connection - a vibration beteen all quantum field ( electron field , quarq field , spacetime itself, neutrino field , etc ) ...So what you get its this spoky action at the distance . Its just pixelation of quantum fields and entanglement into the fields itsellfs and all the fields . Sean Carrol its the man that thinks this. And for me this is the best explination I have seen so far.
Also this pixelation its not as you may visualise it- as consecutive . Its in a wave forne.....This is why you collapse the wave of a particle when you observe it ( aka interact ) and cant know precisely momentum and location , because you force the very pixelation ( thats in a wave forme ) to be part of our reallity. To simply put it , the Universe render itself in a Planck scale when observation its made ....
Side note- observation means interaction , not necessarly concioness.
As you may know spacetime is emergent ....if you paid attention to this theory ...and its backed up by imposibility to unify GR with QM. So this wave form of the Universe must be more fundamental that spacetime itself and all quantum fields. In fact quantum fields doesnt make sense long before Planck scale , but still....that doesnt rule out the pixelation of them . It may very well be emergent from the wave function of the Universe itself..... It doesnt even makes sense to seek beyound that... could we ever escape our reallity? need like an super advanced civilization - beyound gods ...if this thing would be possible....what would you find outside spacetime itself? And what forme would you have to take to do that?
Oppenheimer once told his brother, "I need physics more than friends".
The weirdest thing I have read in science is that observation creates reality. When I finally got to understand this it blew my mind!
+José Ricardo Tábora it doesn't create it, it just determines it (I promise it's not a trivial semantic difference)
Jose, a very important caveat to this is that an "observation" does not necessarily imply an "observer," as in a conscious mind. An observation is a synonym for "interaction," and interactions happen all the time with no conscious brain anywhere near them!
In the Many Worlds Interpretation it's simpler: observation allows you to *discover* which reality you're in. That's one reason I'd prefer MWI to be true: it allows free will to co-exist with determinism. Kind of ;) Of course, what I'd *prefer* to be true is completely irrelevant to physics, which is happily doing whatever it does, regardless of my preference...
Is the constancy of light speed in vacuum something valid only in special relativity meaning for all inertial frames only or does it hold even for noninertial frames (General relativity)??
It still holds _locally_ in general relativity. Globally, concepts like "speed" are ambiguous... and I mean all speeds, not just the speed of light.
@@ScienceAsylum Alright, thanks!
@@ScienceAsylum One more question please, if E=gamma*m*c² represent the total energy of a body won't that include internal energy as well? I mean don't they always say that internal energy cannot be measured in thermodynamics and you can only quantify the change in its value? here's an example if an object is resting on the ground motionless, does mc² give the value of its internal energy?
E=mc^2 is half equation. Full equation is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2.
That depends on what you mean by "m" ...they're both full equations if the "m" in E=mc^2 is relativistic mass and the "m" in E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 is rest mass. ruclips.net/video/ueuwWiR-Dw4/видео.html
@@ScienceAsylum There is only energy, no mass, no rest mass, just energy. What is rest anyway in this universe?
You didn't go over the whole equation, E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + pc^2.
Is m = e/c^2 at rest then?
That depends on your "m" and "E." If you want rest mass, then you plug in rest energy. If you want total mass, then you plug in total energy.
Notice how he said have mass. Not are mass. Mass I the force of push. Matter is constantly pushing out spaces fabric causing gravity which is space pushing back. Yeah I said space has mass! The faster you travel, the more potential for push/mass you have. Moving EM pushes things via their EM field, therefore it has mass.
Nothing _is_ mass. Mass is a property. Things _have_ mass.
I still don’t get this. If energy isn’t a thing but rather a property or accounting measure of something just like velocity is then how can it become something tangible like matter ?
Energy doesn't become matter or any elementary particle. Rather, it is present in a quantum field, which means that a point in that field is significantly above its vacuum state, which we observe as a particle, carrying the properties of that field [electric charge is responsible for normal tangibility]. As for why there is any points of non-ambient states of energy anywhere in any field, there really isn't a great answer, though I would peg cosmic inflation as being responsible
@@snowthemegaabsol6819 but is that what Einstein meant when he wrote this paper? After all , quantum field theory wasn’t a thing back then.
@@arnesaknussemm2427 Because mass is an abstract concept!
We called it mass when energy is trapped or confined.
For example,
If you shine a flashlight into a black hole, the mass of the black hole will increase by the amount of light’s energy divided by c^2.
Light is trapped once it entered a black hole, and the collection (black hole) has mass, but not the photon itself.
Obviously E=mc^2 do not say that energy is fundamentally the same as matter.
We called that because we define matter is something that has mass, but it doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
Wet is a property of water.
But water and wet are the same? No!
im watching these videos, cause once, a math teacher on my school said: PI is 3.7 or something, of course i corrected it to 3.141592 . But then
he/she (i dont want to get personal or something)
said: good you knew that, then lets say Pi is 3.
I felt not good at all with that idea, you cant do that in MATH!
im not exaggerating, Pi is just not 3! its precission should be at least 3.14.
remember: only trust yourself (or not even yourself).
Fun Fact: 22/7 is actually a better approximation than 3.14
The weirdest thing I have heard that may be we all are living in a simulation and we all are been control by someone else or we are controlling yourself but in another universe just like we are playing a vide game but we are not but the character is like a computer may be we are a computer program and speed limit is light of speed ...🤣🤣
Why this come as a surprise for you? Like billions of people think the same ....you know God being the master and all that shit...for me the surprise would be that there is no simulation ...aka God.
the clock is cool... but the 52-x^2 +x = 10 can also give you x = -6....
Can there be a negative mass exist.....?
Mass and the Acceleration equivalence principle F=ma is formed by the constant de-compression.. . . Now space is a division of Solidity into entropy as time unfolds C2 the second law of thermodynamics.. . .But also in the future E2 will equal a multiplication of Volume +1=0 now at the expense of gravitational potential -1.. . .E2=M2 C4+P2 C2.. . .Time is inverse as objects free fall multiplying energy compression +1=0 now -1 dividing expansion like frequency and wavelength.. . .With antimatter contracting energy compression +1=0 now -1 de-compressing expansion of Mass and the Acceleration equivalence principle F=ma.. . .Simply because there exists only two positive and negative electromagnetic waves.. . .Only Two Solution's !!
The weirdest fact in science must be the astonishing coincidence that earth’s moon is capable of making a solar eclipse only because it’s relative size and distance makes it appear exactly the same size as the sun. What are the odds?!
Light speed being constant to all observers has to one of the crazier facts...
The weirdest science fact I’ve ever learned is reality is ruled by probability.
Why does light move at 299,792,458 m/s but not 299,792,459 m/s or 299,792,457 m/s? That's probably the weirdest one for me.
Random chance? (which isn't that unbelievable if there is a multiverse where different universes have different speeds of light.)
If most/all constants are constants due to random chance, does that mean Einstein was wrong when he said 'God doesn't play dice with the universe?'
onanothernotehelloimmajoringinastrophysicsandmathmakesmecrybutyoureoneofmybiggestinspirationsandirewatchyourvideoswheneveritmakesmecrymorethanusualthanksfornoticingmemyweekisblessed
The fine tuning of the constants in our universe is a mystery. The infinity of universes (each having different constants sets, to the very least..) hypothesis combined with the so called "weak anthropocentric principle" (in a nutshell: it is fine tuned that way because otherwise conditions would not allow us humans to exist and ponder about this fine tuning..) gives a logical explanation, albeit not an entirely satisfactory one.. but it is hard to say if we will ever be able to formulate a better one though.
Einstein's expression reflects something else: his attachment to a certain, already outdated, view of science at a time where rising quantum mechanics was shaking the very foundations of determinism.