The question of why gravity is so weak seems to me quite suspicious. I can't see a good reason to expect it being stronger, so there's no paradox in it. If it was significantly stronger, you could also wonder why it is so strong. Explaining one mystery with another mystery doesn't sound like a promising strategy, even if the explanation is testable and elegant.
If your arm started moving in another dimension it would get heavier? Is this because it is picking up extra energy by accelerating in a new ( hidden ) direction.
It's cool that they talk about the possibility of a particle that is like the electron but heavier, and just recently they might have found it. I love when videos predict the future.
question: if what we are looking for is basically heavier versions of the same things, would it also make sense to look for lighter versions as well? is it possible that we have these "heavier versions" as what we would consider the regular versions in that they interact with the extra dimensions, while there are lighter versions that fail to interact with these extra dimensions and thus have less mass (with the lighter versions not being usually observed variety)?
This extra-dimensional theory also conveniently explains (something about) dark matter: it is a particle (or series of particles) that largely exists/interacts in these other dimensions but still conveys mass in the cosmological gravity permutations. Neat!
That's a good idea. As well, its not that electricity effects plastic in a small amount, its just that electrical current behaves differently based upon the atomic and molecular structure of substances its passing over. In that sense, if we look at all of the elements and combinations of elements, we can have a relatively limitless amount of dimensions because every dimension just makes the forces behave differently, not necessarily flowing-or-not-flowing.
There's a nice, very readable book, called "QED: The strange theory of light and matter" by the late physicist Richard Feynman From the book description: "Here Feynman provides a classic and definitive introduction to QED, that part of quantum field theory describing the interactions of light with charged particles. Using everyday language, spatial concepts, visualizations, and his renowned "Feynman diagrams" instead of advanced mathematics, Feynman clearly and humorously communicates both...
Talking about dimensions always brings to my mind the idea of vibration, to me vibration is nothing more than the manifestation of the amount of energy a particle has, go into a lower dimension and you become heavier, go into a higher dimension and you become lighter, I really would like to study a more intricate dimension model, of course there's still too much relations between the distance of two or more particles, as they might react different like those little black holes.
The question I asking myself right now, if there are extra dimensions in which gravity extends thus making it weaker, then why are the other fundemental forces aren't affected by these extra dimensions. I am asking out of curiosity. If you answer please provide sources.
I thought the same thing and but i know that dark matter interacts gravitationally with out but in no way... this really is a huge fucking mystery to me. Ive been ovsessing about that question for months.
As I'm listening to this I can't help but relate this to radio signals. Would extra dimensions be kin to side lobes of radio waves. Where the frequency is constant but the magnitude loses efficacy? This isn't the forum for this question I'm sure but does this make sense. Is that a decent way of imagining dimensions or new vectors in space?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the magnet and center of the earth be at the same distance from the nail for us to compare the two forces? With the magnet a few milimeters from the nail while the center of the earth is thousands of km away, I don't think it is fair to say that gravity is weak.
Actually when you talk about protons, it makes more sense to compare the electromagnetic and the strong force and not gravity. The strong force is what keeps nuclei together. However, a helium isotope (ie. something made of two protons) is only stable if you add a neutron to the mix, otherwise EM wins out over the strong force. This is because the neutron only adds to the strong force and not to the EM repulsion.
I get what you mean. I think the way in which they intend to portray gravity as a weaker force is through a comparison of the mechanical forces experienced by the smallest quantum of charge of the respective force, when an identical quantum of charge is placed at a defined distance. So, in the case of the electromagnetic charge, it'd be + (or -) 1/3 [quark], and in the case of the gravitational force, it'd be two masses of the lightest particle. (1/2)
Serious question: since gravity caused by a large mass warping space time, then is a magnetic field completely different from gravity? I think so. So what the heck are they talking about at 0:52 and on? "A small magnet picking up a nail and countering against Earth's gravity"... it's two different types of "forces"?
+Digs Fossils-n-Knives The point being made in the video at 0:52 is that it takes the entire earth to attract that nail, yet the tiny magnet generates a stronger force than gravity. It was just to give us an idea of scale.
+doggonemess Yeah but why don't they simply accept, that Gravity is different from EM-Force. What's the deal? They dont have to behave in the same way, or do they?
I don't know why but ..science always leaves out friction ...i think its a force that needs to be included and factored in any theory..To me friction is what created matter in the first place ..it also created black holes and what is stopping the planets from turning completely into dark matter ...i sent that theory to stephen hawking a year later they announced that friction created black holes ...after they sent me an email saying they don't read peoples theories hahaha
it would make sense if the planets ..some what friction/center frugal force is what is producing- causing the week force in the gravitational pull ...planets/galaxies are suppose to traveling at a certain speed
+Peter Geras I think it's more exciting than scary, I wonder what people are going to say about what are all the strings and membranes in, and what created them...
This explains double slit experiment right? That's why particle moves like probability wave because it goes in all dimensions and possibilities until we bring it to our world.
When you talk about "light" the implication is that you mean radiation (in the normal usage: "visible light") and light is made of particles called photons. To be precise, the EM force results from the exchange of *virtual photons*, a youtube comment is a bit short to explain what that means, but you will find a lot of information if you google the above term. So while they're technically the same particle with the same properties (quantum numbers), the circumstances are a bit different.
But what are extra dimensions like? And why are they sometimes formed like looping strings? I don't have a concept of dimensions themselves having a form or geometry.
I think they purposely record in public areas or add the noise to give an "everyday person" affect to our perception. Really it just distracts and annoys the hell out of me. I don't know about you guys, but i try to avoid sounds of background talking and cars backing up from the comfort of my home.
Then again, if you view it in terms of reach, and how sustainable a certain force is - in a naturally occurring mechanical system that has reached it's quiescent state - then you've to admit that gravity is the strongest of all forces. That and the fact that it's puzzled comprehension for so long, is always attractive (in so far as we know) - all make it, philosophically and metaphysically atleast - an awesome force.
Can gravity be observed in space, similar to the way that the back-ground radiation was, to measure if there is a direction or a portion of the universe where it is stronger?
Very well put! =) But to me, this comparison only makes sense if you consider the volume of matter involved in each case, which is what they try to do in the video. Saying that the tiny magnet is exerts a stronger force on the nail, then the earth does. But then comes the question: how many magnets would be necessary to balance the gravitational force if we could concentrate the earth's mass in single point at 1m from the nail? (The magnets being at 1m from the nail as well). See my point?
They're not comparing forces. The intention (I believe) is to show that the force exerted by an entire planet (mass = 6*10^24 kg!) on a needle can be balanced (and ultimately exceeded) by the pull of a tiny magnet (mass = ~10 g!). If you want to compare forces numerically, take e.g. two protons. If you do the maths, you'll find that the electromagnetic force between them is approx. 10^36 times bigger then the force due to gravity. So you see that gravity is in fact very weak. Está convencido?
It's really hard (neigh impossible) to imagine even 4D Euclidean Space so they tend to imagine "4D" as different world/universe. If you say you could imagine 4D space, try imagining a new color.
But it could hold another universe. There is a lot of it could in science (just saw i reacted to a 3 year old post, but time is relative so there you go)
Best way to explain it is Separate the spatial dimensions from the time dimensions 3 dimensional space makes sense to us, as does 2D space Going beyond what we understand for space isn't easy Simplest way to think about it is 4D space is a way of having multiple objects occupy the same 3D space without involving time to any degree When you shift things along a 4 dimensional axis it basically vanishes to us unless we can change the direction we are looking in 4D space... Which we can't 4 spatial is a way of keeping things both relatively close and in our own universe/timeline However interpreting the 4th space dimension as a dimension across time means another universe or timeline making the 5th perceivable dimension the flow of time Either way if you're traveling between universes or not You don't want to suddenly occupy the same 3 dimensional space and traverse to the same point on the 4th dimensional axis because you would end up inside each other 🤣
I just had a thought. Let me know if someone thought of this already, but is it possible for dark matter to be the missing gravity from another universe?
Sir Intellegence There is theories about that. The main concept is; There might be extra dimensions in which there exists galaxies we cannot see. These galaxies will contribute with mass to the universe, but we cannot see the physical galaxy, it is convenient to say that this is the missing mass we call dark matter.
but the same volume of matter can have different densities and generate different intensities of magnetic feild. So the criteria of comparison are quite blurry to me. =P
Just puting a theory out there; is it possible that Dark Matter is matter within these extra dimensions but do not interact with our dimension, only that their gravity comes through? Just as our gravity disperses into other dimension, we receive gravity from other dimension?
No, you're not wrong. The two protons repel each other because they have like charges. But their mutual gravitational attraction is for all practical purposes negligible. If you do the maths (force due to charges divided by force due to gravity) you will find that the repulsive force due to their electric charges is 36 orders of magnitude (i.e. 10^36 times) bigger then the attractive force due to gravity (and this does not depend on their separation since it cancels out in the fraction).
What honestly baffles me here is why do we still compare gravity (which is a curvature of 4D spacetime due to energy/mass) and the E-M force (which describes interactions between charged particles mediated by photon exchanges). It feels like we're still taking them as classical physics phenomena when we have the quantum electrodynamics and general relativistic models which appear to be a lot more accurate in describing them. It makes sense to me that gravity is so much weaker than the other forces because of how scarcely the objects we experience are packed with matter (I'm thinking size of nucleus compared to size of atom and Schwarzschild radius of the mass of an atom). If you look at the few phenomena where gravity (or extreme spacetime curvature) exceeds any other force (i.e. at black holes), it's where mass is truly densely packed. I'm not against the idea of higher dimensions, but why use gravity v/s EM force as the proving grounds for that? I don't know too much about this though, can anyone clarify?
If gravity 'bleeds' into extra dimensions, & is actually as strong as the electromagnetic force at small distances - how can it have the same 1/R^2 dependence? Allegory: The Huygens' model of light propagation. Gravity will continue to bleed into multiple dimensions throughout ALL THE INTERVENING SPACE between source & test mass. So, it should decay faster than 1/R^2. This is contrary to observation Even if there's a correction factor for supra-nuclear scales, it's hardly an elegant hypothesis
physics before: ''oh, i don't understand something, let's say it's something with eletromagnetism!'' Physics now: ''oh, i don't understand something, let's say it is something with extra dimensions!''
buioso oh look we have a genius here! Of course mate, but we have 18984738748385 theories explaining something with extra dimensions, and when they are tested, ta daa! they are proven wrong, back then, when a theory is proved wrong, they at least used another explanation.
We live in 4 dimensions (if not counting gravity). 3 spacial dimensions and a time dimension. The rest of the dimensions (again, not counting the gravity) is unknown.
Jeff Rey how do you know there is only one time dimension? What if people age from elders to babies but our time dimension has a minus in frond of it (ex. X dimension and -X dimension which is the exact opposite direction of X) Well that was a silly example, I am sure you laughed but don't take it directly for human aging. There are proofs. Now what about mater that exist in different time dimensions? Have you ever wondered if that is possible? Lol I need answers too people! tell me!
+{code911/〉 There is no such distance, at least not in the four dimensions. In common three-space plus time, both forces fall off according to r^2, with r the distance from the origin of the force. Let's say you have a field with gravitational strength Gm and electromagnetic strength Bm; that influences a test particle (say an electron) at distance r from the source of the field (say a muon). The forces the test particle feels is Gm/r^2 and Bm/r^2, where Bm>>Gm, then there is no solution for r so that Gm/r^2 = Bm/r^2; If there are other dimensions in which gravity is leaking, then starting at some short distance R (which is unknown) we would expect to see the test particle experiencing a 5d gravitational force Gm[4d]/r^2
+{code911/〉 Gravitational force is; F=GMm r^-2 Coulomb interaction is F=(4pi epsilon_0 )^-1 qQ r^-2 If you set these equal to each other the radius terms drop out of the equation and you're left with GMm = (4pi epsilon_0)^-1 Qq So the force of gravity and electromagnetism can never be equal based upon radius distant from each other, but rather it's based upon the respective masses and charges of the particles. You can find a mass/charge ratio which makes the force equal, and it will be equal at any radius.
Maybe gravity is more of a side effect of a force, rather than an out right force of it's own ... something like, I don't know, conciousness. ( does conciousness weigh anything? Does the universe weigh up correctly?
COL. SS HANS LANDA -- Consequently, a German soldier conducts a search of a house suspected of hiding Jews. Where does the hawk look? He looks in the BARN, he looks in the ATTIC, he looks in the CELLAR -he looks everywhere he would HIDE. But there are many places it would never occur to a hawk to HIDE, (PAUZES) However, ...
I don't think science answers questions like "Why is one force weaker than another force?" If extra dimensions could explain this then we'd have to ask "Well, why are there extra dimensions?"
+Anthonyg Gordon Yes CERN *did* find the Higgs. They found a new particle, and that particle matches precisely what the predictions were for the Higgs boson.
+Anthonyg Gordon Yes CERN *did* find the Higgs. They found a new particle, and that particle matches precisely what the predictions were for the Higgs boson.
All that exists in space should be 3D matter in different forms. So, light itself must be extremely tiny 3D bubbles of matter. And the bubbles stick together by some connecting force and spread in space and on surface of other objects. Right?
uuhh maybe the makers of PHD comics make an extra effort and make their videos in the landscape type aspect ratio instead of the portrait type and also avoid breathing disturbances in the background maybe add some music also but otherwise I LOVE phd comics
hmmmmmmm it's said that the closer particles get to the speed of light the more mass they gained a lot of people seem to think as the protons move through the collider graised the surface they were being suspended from and the experiment pulled more protons from the containment walls of the collider but I've known for a while that it couldn't have been the case because at those velocities the collider would just get torn to shreads, sooooo FTL is impossible because the closer you get the closer you get to an infinite mass particle as it protrudes into the other dimensional axis and copies, meaning eventually you would get a particle with so much mass, even the collapse of the universe wouldn't give it the push it needs to go any faster? also entangled multidimensional particles end up being affected more by the gravity of a larger body because the particles exist on all the dimensional planes that the gravity bleeds out into?
Is gravity weak because, not because it is a force in our universe, but because it is the force OF the universe? Put another way, gravity was strongest at the start because all space and time was concentrated, and because the universe has expanded the strength of the universe (ie. gravity) across space-time has been spread across the four dimensions we live in. The force of gravity is then incredibly strong, but seems weakest because our point of measurement is small in scale. Further, could the measured results of the Higgs boson be the gravity other of universes pulling against our own? Just thinking...
@angus davison great point, ive wondered if gravity is universal. as our universe expands, gravity is the same amount but spread out more thus making it weaker. example, get a 5 gallon bucket filled with water. water is gravity in a said bucket. water (gravity) is contained and strong. dump water (gravity) out into a pool. same volume but not as contained or strong. ;) oh my silly examples.
BeFoRe - Cinematic CS:GO - Trailer Online this may be the point where dark matter comes in and throwing our matter's gravity out of the way? i dont know. i just know that magnetic force is stronger than gravity... but, maybe gravity gets stronger, the closer to the center of object you get and the gravity fields get weaker the further away from the center. so in a sense, its our perspective of gravity that limits us? im confusing myself now, my apologies.
Yes, the example you gave is perfect. But distance plays a big role here, so the comparison between the planet and the magnet is silly. If you could concentrate the the planet's mass in a volume of the size of the magnet, gravity would easily win. That's my point. Have a nice day ^_^
+Grace Butler (The Dove Lady) No, "knowing" is not a fundamental force. Knowing is a property of thought, which is a property of the electrochemical interactions in the brain, which is all electromagnetism.
No, but the majority of it's mass is very far away from the nail. If we could put together all of earth's mass in a volume as tiny as the magnet, the comparison would be fair, in my opinion =)
+Xenowarrior92 A truly valid point! These things grow by accretion & they know how to suck like nothing else in the universe & they want to create one here in our local solar system? They shouldn't be playing with these dangerous toys even if there's a whole lot of money in it.
at this point i pray that they will utterly fail.. cuz if they succeed in making this shit real...well either we get sucked in another realm... or we die...and i am not comfortable by having my faith in the hands of some idiots...
+Xenowarrior92 I'm in agreement with you. In my view, they flock to particle physics because there's very big money in it. They're money junkies disguised as [smug] particle physicists who imply they know what they're doing. Bad science on every level.
Because the point is to show that gravity is weak compared to the other fundamental forces... Your example is silly, because you can also separate magnets with your fingers.
In that case you would have a black hole and not your everyday planet. Gravity is in fact the strongest force on a cosmological scale, but only because matter is overall electrically neutral. Um boa dia também para você. º_º
finding higgs boson was among one of the most important things we could have done! other wise there wouldn't be an explanation for the reason why "objects" have mass!
12Bn is not that much. B2 bomber cost 2Bn each. so one LHC is only cost the same as 6 B2 bomber. which is sad, since LHC is way more useful than fucking bomber
seriously, it's sad how some people see some big expensive scientific project (that are actually the most usefull things we can do for future generations) and say hey it's really expensive and useless, then they see military budget in different countries (like the US where military budget is like HUNDREDS of billions of tax dollars) and say nothing because they are too proud of their country when really, it's the most useless thing in the history of useless things ever bought, and to answer raffy kock , first we should probably try to understand a way to make efficient fusion, which is why we should do some research with fundamental particles before and then , using some things we learned with this, try to build some (hopefully) low cost reactor that can be competitive and really productive, but hey, there are still some projects like ITER that are going on (and if I'm right, it also costs a couple of billions which means fusion is funded)
Kevin White I certainly agree on the military funding. If everyone can be self sustainable then we won't need to forcefully impose on other countries to supply us with material, goods or any such things.
Another way to even the distances would be to place the magnet at one earth radius away from the nail. Done. Then you have our beautiful planet and gravity still wins. I agree with everything you said, it's just the example on the video that is dumb. =)
I like the background noise of the video. it's like you are actually sitting and listening these guys in real time
Loved it - it should be shown in physics classes all over. Hear that teachers?
The question of why gravity is so weak seems to me quite suspicious. I can't see a good reason to expect it being stronger, so there's no paradox in it. If it was significantly stronger, you could also wonder why it is so strong. Explaining one mystery with another mystery doesn't sound like a promising strategy, even if the explanation is testable and elegant.
I want to do this! Why is undergraduate physics so slow!
+Philip Stuckey Because there's a hell of a lot of math and theory you have to understand first!
If your arm started moving in another dimension it would get heavier? Is this because it is picking up extra energy by accelerating in a new ( hidden ) direction.
It's cool that they talk about the possibility of a particle that is like the electron but heavier, and just recently they might have found it. I love when videos predict the future.
muon and tau have been discovered since long.
question:
if what we are looking for is basically heavier versions of the same things, would it also make sense to look for lighter versions as well?
is it possible that we have these "heavier versions" as what we would consider the regular versions in that they interact with the extra dimensions, while there are lighter versions that fail to interact with these extra dimensions and thus have less mass (with the lighter versions not being usually observed variety)?
This extra-dimensional theory also conveniently explains (something about) dark matter: it is a particle (or series of particles) that largely exists/interacts in these other dimensions but still conveys mass in the cosmological gravity permutations. Neat!
That's a good idea. As well, its not that electricity effects plastic in a small amount, its just that electrical current behaves differently based upon the atomic and molecular structure of substances its passing over. In that sense, if we look at all of the elements and combinations of elements, we can have a relatively limitless amount of dimensions because every dimension just makes the forces behave differently, not necessarily flowing-or-not-flowing.
There's a nice, very readable book, called "QED: The strange theory of light and matter" by the late physicist Richard Feynman From the book description: "Here Feynman provides a classic and definitive introduction to QED, that part of quantum field theory describing the interactions of light with charged particles. Using everyday language, spatial concepts, visualizations, and his renowned "Feynman diagrams" instead of advanced mathematics, Feynman clearly and humorously communicates both...
if all particles exist and travel through all dimensions, can those very dimensions explain quantum uncertainity?
@6:55 I knew Prince was coming from other dimensions of reality.
can e please use the widescreen format as it should PLEASE
Talking about dimensions always brings to my mind the idea of vibration, to me vibration is nothing more than the manifestation of the amount of energy a particle has, go into a lower dimension and you become heavier, go into a higher dimension and you become lighter, I really would like to study a more intricate dimension model, of course there's still too much relations between the distance of two or more particles, as they might react different like those little black holes.
How do you bring a new perception to all aspects of science and creating a new set of laws Einstein style to this day and age?
The question I asking myself right now, if there are extra dimensions in which gravity extends thus making it weaker, then why are the other fundemental forces aren't affected by these extra dimensions. I am asking out of curiosity. If you answer please provide sources.
I thought the same thing and but i know that dark matter interacts gravitationally with out but in no way... this really is a huge fucking mystery to me. Ive been ovsessing about that question for months.
As I'm listening to this I can't help but relate this to radio signals. Would extra dimensions be kin to side lobes of radio waves. Where the frequency is constant but the magnitude loses efficacy? This isn't the forum for this question I'm sure but does this make sense. Is that a decent way of imagining dimensions or new vectors in space?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the magnet and center of the earth be at the same distance from the nail for us to compare the two forces? With the magnet a few milimeters from the nail while the center of the earth is thousands of km away, I don't think it is fair to say that gravity is weak.
Actually when you talk about protons, it makes more sense to compare the electromagnetic and the strong force and not gravity. The strong force is what keeps nuclei together. However, a helium isotope (ie. something made of two protons) is only stable if you add a neutron to the mix, otherwise EM wins out over the strong force. This is because the neutron only adds to the strong force and not to the EM repulsion.
I get what you mean. I think the way in which they intend to portray gravity as a weaker force is through a comparison of the mechanical forces experienced by the smallest quantum of charge of the respective force, when an identical quantum of charge is placed at a defined distance. So, in the case of the electromagnetic charge, it'd be + (or -) 1/3 [quark], and in the case of the gravitational force, it'd be two masses of the lightest particle. (1/2)
Serious question: since gravity caused by a large mass warping space time, then is a magnetic field completely different from gravity? I think so. So what the heck are they talking about at 0:52 and on? "A small magnet picking up a nail and countering against Earth's gravity"... it's two different types of "forces"?
+Digs Fossils-n-Knives The point being made in the video at 0:52 is that it takes the entire earth to attract that nail, yet the tiny magnet generates a stronger force than gravity. It was just to give us an idea of scale.
+doggonemess Yeah but why don't they simply accept, that Gravity is different from EM-Force. What's the deal? They dont have to behave in the same way, or do they?
I don't know why but ..science always leaves out friction ...i think its a force that needs to be included and factored in any theory..To me friction is what created matter in the first place ..it also created black holes and what is stopping the planets from turning completely into dark matter ...i sent that theory to stephen hawking a year later they announced that friction created black holes ...after they sent me an email saying they don't read peoples theories hahaha
Susan Dyck
are you serious? :D
it would make sense if the planets ..some what friction/center frugal force is what is producing- causing the week force in the gravitational pull ...planets/galaxies are suppose to traveling at a certain speed
It actually scares me to think how much more has yet to be discovered.
+Peter Geras I think it's more exciting than scary, I wonder what people are going to say about what are all the strings and membranes in, and what created them...
This explains double slit experiment right? That's why particle moves like probability wave because it goes in all dimensions and possibilities until we bring it to our world.
When you talk about "light" the implication is that you mean radiation (in the normal usage: "visible light") and light is made of particles called photons.
To be precise, the EM force results from the exchange of *virtual photons*, a youtube comment is a bit short to explain what that means, but you will find a lot of information if you google the above term. So while they're technically the same particle with the same properties (quantum numbers), the circumstances are a bit different.
But what are extra dimensions like? And why are they sometimes formed like looping strings? I don't have a concept of dimensions themselves having a form or geometry.
Very interesting, I was wondering how extra dimensions would show up at the LHC.
All I could think of during this was Jimmy Neutron.
So a "dimension" is just a direction? Did I understand that correctly?
Does anyone hear background noise ???
+vidya sagar ... we're ALWAYS hearing background noise. ;)
I think they purposely record in public areas or add the noise to give an "everyday person" affect to our perception. Really it just distracts and annoys the hell out of me. I don't know about you guys, but i try to avoid sounds of background talking and cars backing up from the comfort of my home.
I love it when people try to argue physics with physicists.
Then again, if you view it in terms of reach, and how sustainable a certain force is - in a naturally occurring mechanical system that has reached it's quiescent state - then you've to admit that gravity is the strongest of all forces.
That and the fact that it's puzzled comprehension for so long, is always attractive (in so far as we know) - all make it, philosophically and metaphysically atleast - an awesome force.
Yes, but light does have momentum so it can have force. Look up optical tweezers for a cool application of this.
Can gravity be observed in space, similar to the way that the back-ground radiation was, to measure if there is a direction or a portion of the universe where it is stronger?
Very well put! =) But to me, this comparison only makes sense if you consider the volume of matter involved in each case, which is what they try to do in the video. Saying that the tiny magnet is exerts a stronger force on the nail, then the earth does. But then comes the question: how many magnets would be necessary to balance the gravitational force if we could concentrate the earth's mass in single point at 1m from the nail? (The magnets being at 1m from the nail as well). See my point?
Use the edit icon to pin, add or delete clips.
"Ya you found the Higgs, great. Shut it down" lol ;)
They're not comparing forces. The intention (I believe) is to show that the force exerted by an entire planet (mass = 6*10^24 kg!) on a needle can be balanced (and ultimately exceeded) by the pull of a tiny magnet (mass = ~10 g!). If you want to compare forces numerically, take e.g. two protons. If you do the maths, you'll find that the electromagnetic force between them is approx. 10^36 times bigger then the force due to gravity. So you see that gravity is in fact very weak. Está convencido?
Why vertical video?
Ha ha ha they finally said it
shots fired
another dimension isn't another world or universe XD
It's really hard (neigh impossible) to imagine even 4D Euclidean Space so they tend to imagine "4D" as different world/universe. If you say you could imagine 4D space, try imagining a new color.
Ok so now I finally achieved to imagine a new color but I still can't see 4 dimensions :'(
you say that, but it probably exists as a combination of the 3 that already exist in your mind
But it could hold another universe. There is a lot of it could in science (just saw i reacted to a 3 year old post, but time is relative so there you go)
Best way to explain it is
Separate the spatial dimensions from the time dimensions
3 dimensional space makes sense to us, as does 2D space
Going beyond what we understand for space isn't easy
Simplest way to think about it is
4D space is a way of having multiple objects occupy the same 3D space without involving time to any degree
When you shift things along a 4 dimensional axis it basically vanishes to us unless we can change the direction we are looking in 4D space... Which we can't
4 spatial is a way of keeping things both relatively close and in our own universe/timeline
However interpreting the 4th space dimension as a dimension across time means another universe or timeline making the 5th perceivable dimension the flow of time
Either way if you're traveling between universes or not
You don't want to suddenly occupy the same 3 dimensional space and traverse to the same point on the 4th dimensional axis because you would end up inside each other 🤣
I just had a thought. Let me know if someone thought of this already, but is it possible for dark matter to be the missing gravity from another universe?
Sir Intellegence There is theories about that. The main concept is; There might be extra dimensions in which there exists galaxies we cannot see. These galaxies will contribute with mass to the universe, but we cannot see the physical galaxy, it is convenient to say that this is the missing mass we call dark matter.
but the same volume of matter can have different densities and generate different intensities of magnetic feild. So the criteria of comparison are quite blurry to me. =P
Just puting a theory out there; is it possible that Dark Matter is matter within these extra dimensions but do not interact with our dimension, only that their gravity comes through? Just as our gravity disperses into other dimension, we receive gravity from other dimension?
That already has been suggested. I think Stephen Hawking's book "The Universe in a Nutshell" talks a bit about it at one point.
Hey, there's a philosophy to physics as much as an application so keep thinking differently and we can make some progress with a discussion.
nice video and interesting topic. But the audio part need some improvement.
Hey when you mention tiny black holes shouldn't the scientist from LHC detect the Hawking radiation?
No, you're not wrong. The two protons repel each other because they have like charges. But their mutual gravitational attraction is for all practical purposes negligible. If you do the maths (force due to charges divided by force due to gravity) you will find that the repulsive force due to their electric charges is 36 orders of magnitude (i.e. 10^36 times) bigger then the attractive force due to gravity (and this does not depend on their separation since it cancels out in the fraction).
But the 3 dimensions we use are all interchangeable, unlike this gravity one right? Wrong?
what's with the vertical video syndrome?
What honestly baffles me here is why do we still compare gravity (which is a curvature of 4D spacetime due to energy/mass) and the E-M force (which describes interactions between charged particles mediated by photon exchanges). It feels like we're still taking them as classical physics phenomena when we have the quantum electrodynamics and general relativistic models which appear to be a lot more accurate in describing them.
It makes sense to me that gravity is so much weaker than the other forces because of how scarcely the objects we experience are packed with matter (I'm thinking size of nucleus compared to size of atom and Schwarzschild radius of the mass of an atom). If you look at the few phenomena where gravity (or extreme spacetime curvature) exceeds any other force (i.e. at black holes), it's where mass is truly densely packed.
I'm not against the idea of higher dimensions, but why use gravity v/s EM force as the proving grounds for that? I don't know too much about this though, can anyone clarify?
If gravity 'bleeds' into extra dimensions, & is actually as strong as the electromagnetic force at small distances - how can it have the same 1/R^2 dependence? Allegory: The Huygens' model of light propagation. Gravity will continue to bleed into multiple dimensions throughout ALL THE INTERVENING SPACE between source & test mass. So, it should decay faster than 1/R^2. This is contrary to observation
Even if there's a correction factor for supra-nuclear scales, it's hardly an elegant hypothesis
Generally, in science, a 'No' answers more than a 'Yes'
physics before: ''oh, i don't understand something, let's say it's something with eletromagnetism!''
Physics now: ''oh, i don't understand something, let's say it is something with extra dimensions!''
winnermarcelosc and... what's the problem? You need hypothesis or conjectures to work on. They could be right or wrong.
buioso oh look we have a genius here! Of course mate, but we have 18984738748385 theories explaining something with extra dimensions, and when they are tested, ta daa! they are proven wrong, back then, when a theory is proved wrong, they at least used another explanation.
But why would the elecromagnetic force not be diluted by the extra dimensions? why only gravity?
So not all particles have to travel in all dimensions? I always thought they had to
We live in 4 dimensions (if not counting gravity). 3 spacial dimensions and a time dimension. The rest of the dimensions (again, not counting the gravity) is unknown.
Am I the only one who's ever wondered why there's only one time dimension?
Jeff Rey how do you know there is only one time dimension? What if people age from elders to babies but our time dimension has a minus in frond of it (ex. X dimension and -X dimension which is the exact opposite direction of X) Well that was a silly example, I am sure you laughed but don't take it directly for human aging. There are proofs. Now what about mater that exist in different time dimensions? Have you ever wondered if that is possible? Lol I need answers too people! tell me!
... the substance and spirit of QED to the layperson." This book may shed some light (no pun intended) on your question, @missKay023.
I still don't get it, but I'm starting to get it. This was helpful!
can someone numerically show me at what distance gravitational force is equal to electromagnetic force??
+{code911/〉 42
+Sean Pierce i meant , mathematically.
But thanks alot, I appreciate your efforts ;)
+{code911/〉
There is no such distance, at least not in the four dimensions.
In common three-space plus time, both forces fall off according to r^2, with r the distance from the origin of the force.
Let's say you have a field with gravitational strength Gm and electromagnetic strength Bm; that influences a test particle (say an electron) at distance r from the source of the field (say a muon).
The forces the test particle feels is Gm/r^2 and Bm/r^2, where Bm>>Gm, then there is no solution for r so that Gm/r^2 = Bm/r^2;
If there are other dimensions in which gravity is leaking, then starting at some short distance R (which is unknown) we would expect to see the test particle experiencing a 5d gravitational force Gm[4d]/r^2
+{code911/〉 Gravitational force is; F=GMm r^-2
Coulomb interaction is F=(4pi epsilon_0 )^-1 qQ r^-2
If you set these equal to each other the radius terms drop out of the equation and you're left with GMm = (4pi epsilon_0)^-1 Qq
So the force of gravity and electromagnetism can never be equal based upon radius distant from each other, but rather it's based upon the respective masses and charges of the particles.
You can find a mass/charge ratio which makes the force equal, and it will be equal at any radius.
And here we are. Next week we will make those little black holes finally.
Maybe gravity is more of a side effect of a force, rather than an out right force of it's own ... something like, I don't know, conciousness. ( does conciousness weigh anything? Does the universe weigh up correctly?
Get off the 'consciousness' bandwagon, please - you sound like a gibbering newager with that kind of talk.
Gravity is so weak it can't beat my high ground jump.
COL. SS HANS LANDA
-- Consequently, a German soldier conducts a search of a house suspected of hiding Jews.
Where does the hawk look? He looks in the BARN,
he looks in the ATTIC,
he looks in the CELLAR
-he looks everywhere he would HIDE. But there are many places it would never occur to a hawk to HIDE,
(PAUZES)
However, ...
Well I think that we have only 3 dimensions is because it's enough for us to move anywhere and no others are needed
I don't think science answers questions like "Why is one force weaker than another force?" If extra dimensions could explain this then we'd have to ask "Well, why are there extra dimensions?"
You shouldn't be asking why there are extra dimensions. Instead, ask why we only experience 4 dimensions.
+ghgplayer321 That's a fair point.
"Tiny little black holes", they're so cutie
Please caption
awesome, thanks guys!
Another dimension would be a different degree of freedom than x,y,z. In essence, a direction.
I love how scientist said the found the higgs. When in fact they have not found the higgs.
+Anthonyg Gordon Yes CERN *did* find the Higgs. They found a new particle, and that particle matches precisely what the predictions were for the Higgs boson.
+Anthonyg Gordon Yes CERN *did* find the Higgs. They found a new particle, and that particle matches precisely what the predictions were for the Higgs boson.
Pyre Spirit From what I found, they said they found a higgs LIKE particle. Not precisely the higgs particle.
Anthonyg Gordon
That was the initial discovery.
It's since been refined, and confirmed that it was precisely the Higgs.
All that exists in space should be 3D matter in different forms. So, light itself must be extremely tiny 3D bubbles of matter. And the bubbles stick together by some connecting force and spread in space and on surface of other objects. Right?
Asrat Mengesha The mass of a photon is accepted to be zero.
Epic fail, you don't even understand what's matter.
uuhh maybe the makers of PHD comics make an extra effort and make their videos in the landscape type aspect ratio instead of the portrait type and also avoid breathing disturbances in the background
maybe add some music also but otherwise I LOVE phd comics
I'm just 8 years late. Hope I'll catch soon.
It's not the centre of the Earth that is doing the pulling, it's the whole planet. The centre is just a (geometrical) point.
hmmmmmmm
it's said that the closer particles get to the speed of light the more mass they gained
a lot of people seem to think as the protons move through the collider graised the surface they were being suspended from and the experiment pulled more protons from the containment walls of the collider
but I've known for a while that it couldn't have been the case because at those velocities the collider would just get torn to shreads,
sooooo FTL is impossible because the closer you get the closer you get to an infinite mass particle as it protrudes into the other dimensional axis and copies, meaning eventually you would get a particle with so much mass, even the collapse of the universe wouldn't give it the push it needs to go any faster?
also entangled multidimensional particles end up being affected more by the gravity of a larger body because the particles exist on all the dimensional planes that the gravity bleeds out into?
+Aaron Ameer Beg My brain just bleeded out into another dimensional plane. :)
why gravity is influenced by the extra dimensions while electromagnetic force doesnt???
Is gravity weak because, not because it is a force in our universe, but because it is the force OF the universe? Put another way, gravity was strongest at the start because all space and time was concentrated, and because the universe has expanded the strength of the universe (ie. gravity) across space-time has been spread across the four dimensions we live in. The force of gravity is then incredibly strong, but seems weakest because our point of measurement is small in scale. Further, could the measured results of the Higgs boson be the gravity other of universes pulling against our own? Just thinking...
@angus davison
great point, ive wondered if gravity is universal. as our universe expands, gravity is the same amount but spread out more thus making it weaker.
example, get a 5 gallon bucket filled with water. water is gravity in a said bucket. water (gravity) is contained and strong. dump water (gravity) out into a pool. same volume but not as contained or strong. ;) oh my silly examples.
BeFoRe - Cinematic CS:GO - Trailer Online this may be the point where dark matter comes in and throwing our matter's gravity out of the way? i dont know. i just know that magnetic force is stronger than gravity...
but, maybe gravity gets stronger, the closer to the center of object you get and the gravity fields get weaker the further away from the center. so in a sense, its our perspective of gravity that limits us?
im confusing myself now, my apologies.
isn't light actually a electromagnetic radiation, not a force?
I feel smarter just by watching this.
Yes, the example you gave is perfect. But distance plays a big role here, so the comparison between the planet and the magnet is silly. If you could concentrate the the planet's mass in a volume of the size of the magnet, gravity would easily win. That's my point. Have a nice day ^_^
Correct. This is what they are talking about. Gravity is weak, about 1 to 32 (000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00) times weaker than EM.
I wonder if thy ever consider that KNOWING is a Force?
+Grace Butler (The Dove Lady) No, "knowing" is not a fundamental force.
Knowing is a property of thought, which is a property of the electrochemical interactions in the brain, which is all electromagnetism.
WAAAAAaaaaaaHHHHH i love particle physics!!!
No, but the majority of it's mass is very far away from the nail. If we could put together all of earth's mass in a volume as tiny as the magnet, the comparison would be fair, in my opinion =)
Umm, excuse me, there is an electromagnetic force between the Earth and the Sun and all that he mentioned. It's called light. (And other things.)
wait why did it say destroy the world with a black hole on the check list
but my question is this... if they open a fucking black hole? ...a genuine one...how do they expect to close it?...
+Xenowarrior92 A truly valid point! These things grow by accretion & they know how to suck like nothing else in the universe & they want to create one here in our local solar system? They shouldn't be playing with these dangerous toys even if there's a whole lot of money in it.
at this point i pray that they will utterly fail.. cuz if they succeed in making this shit real...well either we get sucked in another realm... or we die...and i am not comfortable by having my faith in the hands of some idiots...
+Xenowarrior92 I'm in agreement with you. In my view, they flock to particle physics because there's very big money in it. They're money junkies disguised as [smug] particle physicists who imply they know what they're doing. Bad science on every level.
"those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it."
That's not how it works. -.-
So this is what happens when Sheldon and Leonard take acid huh? Searching for the Penny particle.
But, I am ok with my shape.
Because the point is to show that gravity is weak compared to the other fundamental forces... Your example is silly, because you can also separate magnets with your fingers.
i have no idea why i said that. I was kinda loopy that day
Could this explain dark matter too?
Could dark matter be canceling gravity somehow?
+Tom M Or is Gravity also pulling on Dark Matter, which is why it seems weaker?
I'll bet their parents wonder, .... ' We spent $450,000 on their education, .... for this? '
well they get to play around with a 6.5 billion dollar collider and i would assume more fun little toys. so yer i think they will live
light is a form of energy not a force
In that case you would have a black hole and not your everyday planet. Gravity is in fact the strongest force on a cosmological scale, but only because matter is overall electrically neutral. Um boa dia também para você. º_º
electromagnetic radiation is not the same as electromagnetic interaction.
12Billion for a particle. And no funding for fusion energy?
finding higgs boson was among one of the most important things we could have done! other wise there wouldn't be an explanation for the reason why "objects" have mass!
Jakob Skov Hansen perfect?
12Bn is not that much.
B2 bomber cost 2Bn each.
so one LHC is only cost the same as 6 B2 bomber. which is sad, since LHC is way more useful than fucking bomber
seriously, it's sad how some people see some big expensive scientific project (that are actually the most usefull things we can do for future generations) and say hey it's really expensive and useless, then they see military budget in different countries (like the US where military budget is like HUNDREDS of billions of tax dollars) and say nothing because they are too proud of their country when really, it's the most useless thing in the history of useless things ever bought, and to answer raffy kock , first we should probably try to understand a way to make efficient fusion, which is why we should do some research with fundamental particles before and then , using some things we learned with this, try to build some (hopefully) low cost reactor that can be competitive and really productive, but hey, there are still some projects like ITER that are going on (and if I'm right, it also costs a couple of billions which means fusion is funded)
Kevin White I certainly agree on the military funding. If everyone can be self sustainable then we won't need to forcefully impose on other countries to supply us with material, goods or any such things.
amazing...
Okay, NOW I'm not confused anymore! 🙄
Over my head.
Another way to even the distances would be to place the magnet at one earth radius away from the nail. Done. Then you have our beautiful planet and gravity still wins. I agree with everything you said, it's just the example on the video that is dumb. =)