Superluminal Speeds (faster than light) - Sixty Symbols
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Help us make better videos by supporting us on Patreon: / sixtysymbols
More links and info below ↓↓↓
This video features Professor Mike Merrifield from the University of Nottingham. Additional animation and editing in this video by Pete McPartlan.
Gamma Trilogy: • Gamma Trilogy - Sixty ...
Moon Trees: • MOON TREES - Sixty Sym...
Discuss this video on Brady's subreddit: redd.it/68spjn
V838 Monocerotis: www.nasa.gov/m...
Visit our website at www.sixtysymbol...
We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
And Twitter at / sixtysymbols
This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham
bit.ly/NottsPhy...
Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran
www.bradyharanb...
Additional editing & animation by Pete McPartlan
Email list: eepurl.com/YdjL9
Apologies for a few minor sound glitches part way through this recording.
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
Numberphile gets brown paper,
Computerphile gets continuous form paper,
Sixty Symbols gets a spare A4 sheet from the printer!
Different budgets! :)
Shouldn't numberphile be better at managing their budget to get the best paper? :)
+scatterlogical That'd be....Wealthphile? (Brady should really do a wealthphile :)
You don't realise that the A4 paper is a 2d object with zero thickness
Who gets the toilet paper?
Mike is one of the nicest professors to listen too.
Him and Ed Copeland
Yea he's the best!
PrivateAckbar *to listen to
PrivateAckbar love his voice
why don’t you marry mike then
I sure hope that people don't stop watching this video after only the first minute and then leave thinking that faster than light speeds have been detected.
Any true scientist would look at the video and either disregard it as impossible, or watch until a real explanation not necessitating superluminal speeds is given.
Light echo. That really is a badass phenomenon.
Yeah. Basically B.S.
present your evidence please.
Sounds like my new gamer tag
there's absolutely nothing badass about it.
@@swamphawk6227 name one
Surely, if there would be a cat on the moon, it would travel at speeds greater than the speed of light, in an attempt to catch the spot of laser light.
No it wouldnt
@@Ken-no5ip You're wrong!
@@Ken-no5ip you're wrong
@@Ken-no5ip You're wrong!
But cats have very fast reactions... they have REFLEXES LIKE A CAT !!!
"you would need an infinitely strong wrist"...
you underestimate my power... puberty prepared me :D
He allowed just a hint of a smile there. Did you notice?
And they described the length of my "metal rod" fairly accurate too :D
I thought this comment did not need read-bait.
So disappointed.
Johan Hilbig
You have the capability to make history!!!
Even still, by Newton's 3rd law, you'd be receiving an infinite amount of force from the rod, sending you back into the Earth faster than light (and thus with infinite energy), causing an infinite amount of damage.
The animation in this video was fantastic and really clarified what was being explained, too! Thanks Pete McPartlan!
I see the sweeping a laser across the moon thing to be analogous to sweeping a garden hose across the wall of a house. The water might be coming out of the hose at 2m/s, but if you sweep it across 4m of wall in a second, it's still travelling at 2m/s because all you're doing is changing where each drop will land, not how fast they're moving.
You can actually accelerate the water particles by doing this but not light
@@anonymoususer3741 You've never seen me try to accelerate photons, boy.
So if you had a very strong hose can you make the end of the stream move faster than the speed of light?
One thing that you didn't consider when talking about the metal rod to the moon. When you flick your wrist down here, the tip of the rod on the moon doesn't instantaneously start moving, the force travels up the rod at the speed of sound.
Aziraphale686 well why would you even consider that when it is physically impossible to even move it
because it's an analogy :V
Veritasium ^^
@@kriscurkovic9265 I'm sorry but you are mistaken. You can go check out Veritasium's video on the "rod to the moon" idea where he debunks this thought. The other idea would be of a laser pointer but that is incorrect as well. The photons move at the speed of light in a straight line from the laser to the moon and back. The spot on the moon can move faster than light. There is no law against that. The spot is not a physical object, just an image. When you turn your wrist nothing happens to the photons which are already on the way to the moon - they continue on the same trajectory. But new photons are emitted in the new direction of your laser. It's like waving a garden hose back and forth.
They've found something that can not be explained by the rules, so they jabber.
This is one of the most informative and easily understandable physics videos on RUclips. Nice!
shouldn't we think of the laser as a "shower" of photons landing on the surface of the moon? That way the speed of light isn't exceeded (or atleast that's how i'm imagining it). It would be like a water hose - you are flicking your wrist but actually the water isn't falling on the ground and making it's way faster than your flick. I know it's different because water is being effected by gravity but still i'm just wondering. Any thoughts?
I hope the shots showing the photons falling on the moon (after the car and rocket, etc) does convey that to some extent. And Mike describing at as "a series of light arrivals".
It's when Mike states that you would see light passing you at the speed of light if you were on the moon that I think he is mistaken. The person shining the laser beam would observe superluminal motion though. He does state that the light is not travelling through the stars debris field at faster than the speed of light. Which would contradict his statement about the observer on the moon right?
Also light is affected by gravity but I realise that's not the point you were trying to make Asen. That's just me being pedantic.
Yes, it is like the water drops. if you measure the distance between two neighboring drops where they hit the ground and the time between them landing you would get the "animation" speed of "drops moving" across the ground, even though no drop was moving across the ground.
Light crosses the diameter of the Moon in about 10 microseconds. So if you built a gold particle sprayer on the Space Station that spun once every microsecond and sprayed 10000 particles per revolution (i.e. one every 0.1 nanosecond), then you would have a stream of gold particles spraying across the moon after spending a few hours/days getting there. If you detected where they were landing on the Moon, you would find that the "beam" of gold particles was travelling across the Moon at much faster than the speed of light, even though each gold particle may only be travelling a few hundred meters per second.
The beam would cross the surface of the moon in 1/100th of a revolution, so 1% of the beam would hit the Moon, i.e. about 100 particles each revolution. i.e. the particles would be about 37 meters apart on the Moon's surface. the whole beam crosses the Moon in 10 nanoseconds, so that beam has a speed of about 1000c.
Noah Wood very interesting... my guess is that the observer on the moon would report super-luminar while the illuminated patch is getting closer to them and perhaps sub-luminar when it's going away. Because of the changing time for reflected light to get to their eye. Maybe...
An observer on the moon would see rather strage things happening, since the photons, that are scattered on the surface, only move with the speed of light. So when the beam comes closer towards the observer faster then the speed of light, the photons that were scattered further away move slower than the beam itself, so they lag behind. What the observer on the moon would see is a beam of light traveling away from his position.
"...You would need an infinitely strong wrist to do this."
I've been training almost my whole life for this...
oyyyy m8, I been trainin my wrist at my desk for years m8
Oui monsieur, je le passe a la gache.
Simon Staples ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Simon Staples i
* insert Masturbationen joke here *
Vsauce's "speed of dark" episode compliments this video perfectly
Vsauce is a nuisance.
Sleep Cube you’re giving me douchechills
@@Erwt64 Tell why.
I've been a subscriber to this channel for years & still rewatch these older videos. Professor Merrifield is always great because of his freedom in saying " we don't know".
Ah, the Firefox Nebula.
An incredible explanation/video, thank you
3:48 😱no brown paper! 😱
wrong channel! ;)
So proud of all the smart and curious RUclipsrs who pushed this video onto the Trending list. People really do care about more than the stupid Kardashians!
If only they could move at superluminal speed out of this world...
"When first observed in the early 1970s, superluminal motion was taken to be a piece of evidence against quasars having cosmological distances.
Although a few astrophysicists still argue in favor of this view, most
believe that apparent velocities greater than the velocity of light are optical illusions and involve no physics incompatible with the theory of special relativity."
Taken directly from Wikipedia.
At 3:04, where you rotate the flashlight, you show the light beam as a straight line, but over a long distance the light beam would be curved.
There is only one thing faster than light: BAD NEWS. Everyone knows that!
XD You deserve way more likes. A ton more.
So, dark?
Geometric objects can travel faster than light. Examples are the fringes of a moire pattern or the intersection between two X-angled rods. The arrival of a geometric object is predictable and therefore useless for superluminal communication.
What about the wave function of quantum mechanics? If we look at the Dirac equation or the Schroedinger equation with the rest mass term added back, then we will see that individual waves can travel faster than light, but the envelope of a bundle of waves travels slower than light. This is true of a polychromatic wave packet (more than one frequency involved), but of course when we make a measurement we are coaxing the wave into a monochromatic state (just one frequency). What happens then is something to explore by computer simulation.
If we look at the Schroedinger equation with no rest mass term, which is the usual equation we use, then individual waves travel at half the speed of the object. This is obviously just a moire pattern. Whether it is still a moire pattern with the rest mass term added back, or a switch to the Dirac equation, is an open question.
My keyboard lacks an e-acute key. Apologies.
Title: Superluminal Speeds
Content: Nothing moved faster than the speed of light
No, see, you don't understand. It was only the light that was illuminating the gas that was traveling faster than light. Nothing to see here.
The image is absolutely stunning, Thank you for sharing your knowledge about these sorts of things Professor Merryfield. I love this channel as well as many of the other channels Brady does.
🌾Be Blessed ღ 🌿
lasers can be used to trigger certain sensors so couldn't two separate sensors set far enough apart in this theoretical moon/laser experiment be used to send information faster than the speed of light?
No, if the sensor positions are A and B, and you're shooting the laser at them from point C, then there is no information that's exchanged between A and B but only from C to A and from C to B.
You cannot send information faster than the speed of light, but you can spread information faster than the speed of light.
@@gualbertomicolano6320 so what are the implications of that thought??
@@gualbertomicolano6320
That makes no sense
@gualberto micolano
Oh. Sorry. The way you originally worded it was... Odd.
Professor Mike Merrifield, what a great personality he has and a real pleasure to listen to. Just look at the ways he gives easy to understand examples to explain difficult concepts to simple people like myself. Hope to see more of him on my journey's through the Internet.
Vsauce explained this phenomenon once, but I didn't really get it. Now I do! Thanks, guys!
speed of dark
+tbird81 What?
YOU MEAN THE SPEED OF SPACE
He basically says that the light took a detour through the sphere of dust.This phenomenon doesn't justify an increase by 1 order of magnitude. We are talking 10 - 12 times the speed of light.By WHAT calculation do they get to that conclusion?
Great episode! That was something I'd never thought about but found very interesting.
Would the laser going across the moon concept also be true if you were to fire particles at the moon in the same angular way?
Yes
Rufioh If the particles all arrived in very quick succession, I would think so. But don't take my word for it; I'm not a scientist.
Yes the principle would be the same.
Yes, you just have a series of particles arriving on the moon. It's not a single particle moving horizontally across the surface of the moon.
yes. or bullets for what it matters. actually the photons having no mass has little to do with the ability to steer the end of the) beam/ at superluminal speed
Brady, seriously, you ask the best questions! You're very, very clever at being a layman.
A laser is basically a fire hose of photons. If you swiftly move a fire hose you can spray a large area faster than the speed of the water flowing out of the nozzle.
John Doe that's an engenius way of thinking about that omg!
Its NOTHING like that... the water is a physical thing, where as the light is an illusion... or a brain fail actually...
@@3lite_ light is not an illusion what are you talking about? Photons are physical, quantifiable objects. They just dont have mass. Are you thinking of colour maybe? Because colour is indeed a post processing artifact of the brain and not linked to physical properties of light other that the wavelengths its attributed to after processing
@@MrMegaMetroid I guess you could say illusion is a bad word. But you can't consider it a physical object. Observation. You cannot interact with it like you can pick up a a lighter. Or anything physical. Light is only known cause we can observe it. See it. We wouldn't know it was there if not. Stop light without bending it around you. Hold light without a device it's encased in. But I bet you know that coffee table is there blind or not when you run into it. The debate is superluminal speeds. Nothing but the ever accelerating edge of the universe. Nothing with mass, and or data can ever be accelerated to the speed of light without infinite energy. Not even a golf ball. Not even the smallest physical object you can find. It's not physical in any way. It's the tree that is heard cause your ears are there.
great video, really elegant description and animations - love this channel and deepskyvideos
I am not understanding the difference between an "optical illusion" and actual photons. Even the optical illusion is transmitted by photons - all of which travel at the speed of light, yes? What am I missing?
Imagine a garden hose turned on. The water leaves the hose at a consistent speed as long as the water pressure doesn't change. You might say the speed of the water leaving the hose is the "speed limit" of this particular system.
You could then take the hose and in one quick flick of the wrist, spray the side of your house from left to right, leaving a trail of water on the wall. If you were to look at just the impact point between the water and the side of the house, it would be traveling along the wall at a speed faster than the speed of the water coming out of the hose.
A naive interpretation of this scenario would suggest that the water itself must be moving at the speed of the impact point traveling along the wall. But we know this isn't the case. Instead, the traveling impact point is merely an illusion caused by water moving in different locations, but all at or below the "speed limit" of the water leaving the hose.
In fact, the diagram of the laser and rod found in this video is slightly misleading, because if you were to actually shoot photons out of a laser over a long distance, then change the direction you were pointing the laser, the opposite "end" of the laser wouldn't move immediately in response. Instead, there would be a lag between what you're doing with the laser and where that light is impacting your target, just like if you quickly moved a hose and watched the trail of water "catch up" to where you're now pointing it.
Many thanks!
I am actually working on a story idea that involves "real" vs "apparent" ftl effects. Your explanation is appreciated.
exactly there would be lag , so i stil dont understand how it is more than speed of light wth . its not . but nvm me am not that smart to understand it anyway .
In the example I gave, the contact point between the water and the house is moving faster than the speed of the water coming out of the hose. In the exact same way, the contact point between the light coming out of your laser and whatever far away surface we're illuminating would be moving faster along that surface than the speed of light itself. But this doesn't break any laws of physics, because the "contact point" I've been referring to isn't any sort of physical object or individual particle, it's merely a location where things are happening based on previously-emitted photons.
Brilliantly explained and illustrated for my simple mind. Kudos.
ok, i get that the light coming from the material was hitting us that way. But how did the light coming from the star light up the material around the star faster than light? doesn't this make the light sort of go outwards from the star faster than light?
i watched it again and still don't get it. Shouldn't the width of the structure be two light months then instead of a year?
exactly dude . to me this video is nonsens but am only regular human not scientist
The material stops moving but the light with their image does not so it catches up and brings the image to land on our telescopes maybe?
Armands Liniņš the matter being illuminated was already out there. We weren't watching a single expanding shell; we were watching light illuminate different shells in a volume, like how the laser is just pointing at different things.
4:34 that animation explained everything to me, thank you for it :D
Mike Merrifield has aged gracefully
He's gotten old surprisingly fast!
or he just hasn't shaved.
it's just optical illusion
Nah ... its all in his beard ... if he were to shave it off, he wouldn't look as old ...
Don't forget that the beam would become wobbly and curvy if you tried this over sufficiently large distances too.
My comment's posted at a superluminal speed too.
InkEyes no
InkEyes nope
IngLouisSchreurs everywhere
It's not really click bait lol. They had a well-made video on an interesting topic, and they cover what is said in the title so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
Hit me if I'm wrong, but I can clearly see superluminal speeds being discussed, maybe you haven't watched the video before commenting, generally a bad thing to do...
I have to say this is one of the most interesting videos this channel has put out... at least for me :D thanks Sixty Symbols :D
I have a question about inflation. If the universe did expand FTL, then wouldn't all the light upto that event be redshifted into oblivion? How do we have the cosmic microwave background then? Unless of course, the CMB happened after inflation stopped. Would anyone mind clearing that up?
Feynstein 100 As far as I know, inflation is still ongoing, so there would be no "after inflation stopped" (yet).
NoriMori
Inflation has stopped, and it stopped before the CMB. There is an acceleration in the speed of the universe's expansion right now (dark energy), but that is way slower than inflation would have been.
I think that is exactly what happened. Microwaves are the original UVs and visible light that got redshifted into oblivion by the inflation. Thats why they are in the infrared (edit: well, infra-infra red :D ) spectrum now?
"Expanding faster than light" doesn't really mean anything. Expansion is described by a unitless scale factor per unit time (dimensions of frequency). What we can say about expanding space is that two points a given distance apart have a given recessional speed. If this speed is faster than light, then any signals either is currently producing will never reach the other. We live in a part of the universe that was once causally connected to, for instance, what we now observe as distant quasars. But we are no longer connected to them. We can only observe the light they emitted long ago when they were much closer and thus receding much more slowly. In the same way, the CMB, which comes nearly from the "edge" of the observable universe, was emitted by parts of space that, at the time, were receding from us much more slowly than _c_ but are now receding much faster. And yes, the light has been tremendously redshifted, but not nearly "into oblivion."
I am not a physicist, but my understanding is thus: The CMB does not come from only far away places. The CMB is everywhere throughout space, including around Earth. Our "map" of the CMB is the strength of microwave radiation passing through us here, when we look out in each direction. The fact that it has been stretched out (redshifted to microwave frequency) by the time it reached us to be detected, lets us infer how energetic the early universe was. In other words, the CMB was already "redshifted into oblivion," but it turns out the sudden inflation (and ongoing expansion) did not cool it quite into oblivion...yet.
The animation does a great job of helping to explain this concept. Kudos.
Ok so, if I understand this correctely : we see an expanding ring of matter because what we see is in fact the light coming from a sphere of matter so big that when lightened up by a flash we see first the part nearest to us, then gradually the rest so we get the illusion of an expanding ring.
But
logically, following that, as we perceive the light coming from the farthest parts of the sphere, should'nt we observe this illusionnary ring shrinking after reaching its maximum size ?
I think so, but that shrinking ring would probably be millions of times (at least) dimmer than the initial expanding ring. This is because we'd only be seeing light that happened to reflect off the "back" surface of the sphere and then passed through the front surface unhindered. That would only be a tiny fraction of the light, most of it would have escaped out the "back" of the sphere toward observers in that direction.
But to me, it appears that we can quite clearly see the parts of the sphere on the side of the star (relative to us). If the main light we see was the light passing through this sphere, than we would only be able to really see the part of the sphere directely between us and the star. But that's not the case as we are cleary seeing this expanding ring.
This suggest that the matter forming the sphere is actually absorbing the light then reemitting it in every direction (diffusion effect), and so there is no reason that the illuminated part of the sphere behind the star would be that much fainter than the rest.
Unless of course the way light interacts with this sphere is a different mechanism I am not aware of.
Rethinking it, you're probably right in that I'm exaggerating the degree of the reduction in brightness. I think the amount of brightness reduction would be related to the diffusion rate of light (how much light gets absorbed/diffused by the cloud vs how much gets through unhindered).
If the diffusion rate was very high, say 90%, then I'd be more correct because the majority of the light that gets diffused off the back wall of the sphere towards Earth would then be re-diffused as it passes through the front wall and our image of a shrinking ring would become highly distorted and incoherent, in addition to being dimmer. But if the diffusion rate is more like 1%, then most of the light that gets diffused off the back wall toward us would complete its journey.
Oh, right, I forgot that the light coming from the back wall have to go through the front wall before reaching us. It makes sense now.
Thanks for the answer !
Look, it's simple: the gas is not expanding faster than light, it's just being illuminated by light travelling several times faster than light to illuminate it. That settles it. Nothing else to see or think about here 👍
That zoom-in on the star towards the beginning was really cool!
Infinitely strong wrist... gentlemen, my day has come!
Now you just need a rod that reaches to the moon
Pesc Goldtfisch gentlemen, my day has come.
Best & simplest explanation I've seen on the subject.Thank You!!
At 2:28 shouldn't it be 3x10^8 on the sign?
benj149 Probably miles an hour
I think he's using different units of some sort
benj149 It's probably in kilometers. It's a UK-based channel, after all.
benj149 Yeah 6.7x10^8 is the speed of light on miles an hour
I.. I do not think I have ever seen the speed of light written in MPH before.
he's very good at explaining a complex process so that everyone can understand.
You can move 1 dot around superluminal, but how does that apply to that star?
Isn't the star lightning up everything in a sphere around it?
Isn't the larger that cloud is, the further light has traveled from the star?
How does an angle changing apply to the radius of a cloud surrounding a star?
If my understanding is correct (both of what you're asking and what the video explained), then while the light from the pulse would reach the sphere around it at the same time (assuming it's a perfect sphere with the star at its center point), an observer would see it light up from the center outward due to the geometry of spheres. There's always going to be a point on the outside of a sphere that's closer than the rest of the surface to an outside observer, and because light travels at a constant speed, as the light leaves the sphere, it reaches an observer at different times depending on how far from that closest point it was.
I hope that made sense and was what you're looking for.
The light from the star hits the cloud all at the same time, but due to the shape of a sphere, we see the light from the closest point on the cloud first, and all the other light drags behind. Think of a sphere projected on a 2D plane, all the points on it would look roughly the same distance in relation to the observer, but we know the center of the sphere is closer to us than the points on the circumference. That is what creates the offset in the light reaching us.
So you're saying the light left the star a long time before the explosion became visible, which is how it was able to light up a shell that far away so fast.
Just...watch the animation at 5:35 a bunch of times. That's pretty much exactly what's happening.
@@Gooberpatrol66 basically... just like neutrinos at first werent understood, and SEEMED to be moving faster than the speed of light... but after research it was found that they simply left first... therefore making it impossible to catch up to them... same as a drag race... it's not about who is the fastest car... it's about which gets to the finish line first...
I'm a simple man, I see Professor Merrifield and I instantaneously press "like" because I know it is going to be both educational and entertaining, and he comes across as a genuinely nice person. Same goes for Professors Copeland, Bowley, Eaves, Padilla, Moriarty and Gray, too. If there ever was a gang of people I'd like to get down in the pub for a pint or three, they are definitely it.
Than its false depiction of the laser pointer. It should be like a Waterhose, where the light stays on its original path.
It's an accurate depiction, it's just too fast to see at such a short distance
You didn't watch the whole video. It shows and explains exactly what you describe
I agree with Anton. At 3:11 the laser beam stays straight while being panned. But in reality it would curve over a long distance as you pan it back in forth. Each photon would fly off in a straight line from where it left the laser. Just as panning a water hose causes the water to form a curve.
No it shouldnt... that's as false as you trying to state an already stated comment to try and look intelligent, when your OBVIOUSLY not, and a pathetic attempt at intelligence....
@@my3dviews no... it wouldn't.. cause just like he said... it then becomes a PHYSICAL thing, as were light isnt..
Rapidly brightening objects like novae and supernovae are known to produce a phenomenon known as light echo. The light that travels directly from the object arrives first. If there are clouds of interstellar matter around the star, some light is reflected from the clouds. Because of the longer path, the reflected light arrives later, producing a vision of expanding rings of light around the erupted object. The rings appear to travel faster than the speed of light, but in fact they do not.
I don't really understand the explanation when used in this context? If the light was moving outwards from the star at a velocity of 1 light year per month, then there is still something strange going on because it would mean that the light itself is going faster than the speed of light.
It was an illusion, because the light closer to you reaches you first, and since the shell had a spherical shape it got illuminated from the center outwards.
Its wrong
No, because you see, reasons.
Saw this earlier in the Hubble Space Telescope channel, they have a series called Hubble's Universe Unfiltered which is fantastic and definitely worth a visit. Thank you Professor Merrifield for the great explanation.
"6.71x10^8"
What the hell is that disgusting Number, the the speed of light is, when rounded, 3x10^8 ms^-1
Thank you Professor Merrifield! Wonderfully explained.
I love that Brady accidentally falls upon a published theory of time travel. An infinitely long rod, spun around creating time vortices, is a published theoretical method of time travel...it took scientists a very long time to come up with it, and Brady just happens to make the leap from laser pointers to metal rods, which could potentially build a time machine if it could be done.
No one can convince me that Brady isn't secretly Stephen Hawking...I mean have you ever seen them in the same room before?
what sort of scientist is spending time creating impossible theories of time travel?
squid bait my favorite sort!
Nick Fox The metal rod is a pretty common example that everyone uses to explain how you cant move an object faster than light, so im pretty sure it wasn't accidental but instead was to not have people asking the same in the comments.
Movement through the inside of an object travels at the speed of sound.
Nick Fox it's a pretty common example used in a number of problems to do with the speed of light. It's definitely been discussed in some video before so it's no surprise that he would think of it. Plus he's spent the last 5+ years talking to scientists and mathematicians as his career, must be a pretty well learned guy by now.
wow!!! I have been thinking about an infinitely stiff rod wiggling so the end moves faster than light for ages!! Soooo v glad I have an explanation finally. Thanks UON!!
GO TO LUDICROUS SPEED
SHE'S GONE PLAID!
For a brief moment in time, you can see the dust particles that surround the star. That is so cool!
In another words, I just clicked on click-bait.
Imo, this video has some of the best animations on sixty symbols so far
explanation makes no sense, if light is expanding and shines on series of concentric clouds even then it cant look like faster then light since its..well concentric and light travel at speed of light, and result would look like similar to expanding gas. those clouds should be closer to earth and kind of hollow cone shaped to explanation in video be viable.
the cloud isn't expanding, its simply illuminating. Also, the measurement that calculates the speed of expansion is wrong. So while the clouds are actually being illuminated below the speed of light, what we are seeing is that they are "expanding" above the speed of light, and this faulty observations is due to our calculations which takes into account our distance from the star. Once you correct for the phenomenon, it makes sense.
The observer is at fault here.
Dude there was a gas cloud like a sphere around the star,when the star iluminated, it lit the whole sphere all at once,the rays going from the star to the cloud did in fact travel at the speed of light,but since its a sphere the closest point to us is at the center so it reached us first then the rest later,hopefully this makes sense
I love it when people speak with authority but are actually wrong. The explanation is so simple I can't see why you didn't get it.
That is honestly one of the most beautiful things I've seen.
It's Aliens. Calling it now.#First
NOOOOOOOOOOO
damn it, you took my job.
I am going to petition trump to deport u
Norbert Wendler #ItsNeverAliens
I am a complete “enthusiastic neophyte” when it comes to astrophysics (I just set up the telescope and tell the handset to point it at stuff for me to look at...😉) and I find this manner of explanation to be excellent; both informative and entertaining without being patronising.
Thumbs up from Buzz... 😁
If you have to put _(faster than light)_ after _superluminal_ in your title, you're probably attracting the wrong audience. :-)
knowledge is free
This entire channel is topical, introductory physics. The entire point is that it's not above the heads of anyone.
Professor Mike makes difficult science easy with his down to earth explanation
What is this 670,000,000 nonsense? Use scientific units please.
It's supposed to be a speed limit sign for heaven's sake.
Fergus Maclachlan it's a joke about metric and imperial units
It's in miles per hour, which is typical of a UK speed limit sign. Perhaps it is meant to be about metric and imperial units, but to me it just looks like a speed limit sign.
He explained this incredibly well considering how actually complex the subject is.
This is one of my favorite objects in space. Not only does it demonstrate light echos, but an animation of it looks almost exactly like the DS9 wormhole.
Awesome professor. Others could learn from him on how to explain and relate.
that was the best explanation I have heard for that. Thank you for the video.
More videos, more often please! Thanks Brady!
Mind blown.....
This is one my favourite RUclips channels because of videos like this.
Shout out to Veritasium!
Considering the sheer amount of Brady's videos, I suppose it was inevitable that I see one go up in real time. Silly me, watched the video before commenting.
Super faulty logic (concerning the claim that the laser movement on the wall would appear to be moving faster than the speed of light).
While the effect of the nova (or whatever it was) may indeed have exceeded the speed of light, the laser example used to explain it is ridiculous.
The laser light itself advances at the speed of light. So as the distance increases from the laser to the point of reflection there is an increasing time lag before the light even hits the target and then even after that occurs, there is the time required for the reflection to reach the eye of the observer also at the speed of light. There is no way that a laser can be used to demonstrate even the illusion of anything happening faster than the speed of light. No matter what the experimental situation, the laser is only going to reconfirm the speed of light.
It's like trying to still-photograph a hummingbird's wings with slow film.
It's like trying to use a light microscope to see things smaller than the wavelength of the light. The impossibility is hardwired right into the hypothesis.
YES finally. I thought of that phenomenon quite often but because I don't know much about physics and so I didn't know what to search for since it's quite hard to explain. But thank you for clarifying this.
Great video, amazing phenomenon explained very clearly. Thank you!
Still, he got our hopes up making us think it may actually be possible for objects to travel faster than light. That was a right dirty trick!
I hate clickbait
Very cool. Interesting to think that by this principle you could convey information instantaneously to vastly distant locations. It's a sort of superluminal communication, albeit one-way.
Except the light from the laser beam can only travel at luminal speed. The motion of the beam source could only be detected after photons which "knew" about the movement had arrived at the detector. So no information could be conveyed faster than the light which carries it.
Jonathan Stewart But you could still get a signal to two different people very close in time. It wouldn't be simultaneous of course, but it would be faster than either of them could contact each other.
Yeah, that's what I was imagining. Suppose you're at one point on a triangle with each point, Planet A and Planet B one light year away. I shoot my laser pointer towards Planet A, then pan it over to Planet B. Each planet receives the photons a year later, from my perspective at more or less the same instant. So Planet A and Planet B, despite being separated by a light year, are instantaneously receiving information from the distant source, receiving information that would have taken them a year (or more, or less depending on the angles of the triangle) to convey to each other. So the message could be to each send a spaceship towards the other planet. It could then meet in the middle.
But you could achieve the exact same result by just sending them both a beam each, there's no benefit to sweeping a beam of light between them.
@@GetOutsideYourself you are not transferring information from one planet to the other, you just transfer information from yourself to the planets, at the speed of light. Its the same as if you take two seperate beams. The light doesn't sudden travel faster from you to the planets. And the planets cant send Informations to each other that way because they need to send it to you first. At the soeed of light. So it would be even slower than if they talked directly
I can imagine that in the future we can create a some kind of communication device using this princípe. The message from one point will move faster than light to the another.
Beautiful explanation and flow to this video, thank you!
I was either scared or excited there for a second, I'm not sure which one was it. But the explanation calmed me down
For once, im glad that youtube recommended something i liked, thanks!
Does gravity travel faster than light?
Suppose anything gets created all of a sudden, will we see it first or feel its gravity first?
Need Break gravity travels at the speed of light so you’d experience both phenomena simultaneously
@@xTurqz so gravity is change in space. Is light also a kind of change in space? Like tiny vibration in space just like sound is vibration in atmosphere?
This was a great episode! you sort of set up a mystery and then solved it! fascinating discussion
I love the fact that even though astromers know a lot, Mike is almost always saying something like : we dont know or we can't fully explain .. . Science continually tries to find out more. 😊
Very interesting phenomenon. Thank you for sharing and explaining.
The expanding ring of material would still have to be lit up by light traveling at a light year per month. Otherwise it wouldn't be illuminated. My question regarding the speed of light pertains to particle physics. Basically do atomic particles have their own individual time frame reference, and second are they subject to being restricted to the speed of light. Specifically electrons jumping from one level to another instantaneously.
No, you see, because, reasons. Nothing to see here. Case closed.
And now for an even greater head-fcuk, something that is not a photon can also achieve this superluminal effect. Shadows. Wave your hand (extremely fast) across the beam of a sufficiently powerful light source, and you'll be able to cast a shadow across the surface of the Moon that will appear to move faster than light.
One thing that might help explain the laser pointer thing is that if you plot where the beam intersects a series of planes at increasing distance it will follow a curve because it's basically shooting out some photons at each angle (ignoring that there aren't discrete angles for the sake of the argument) so further away the photons there will be from longer ago. Each photon moves at the speed of light but the "impact" points (again, loose analogy for the sake of the argument) are further apart further away, allowing the image formed by the sequence of "impacts" to move faster.
This was beautiful! Thank you
Really cool thing I learned today!!!! Earned my sub.
best channel ever! thx guys
"Superluminal" also has meaning in computer programming. A computer program is super-luminal if it performs it's functions in the shortest possible number of movements of the hypothetical turing machine which represents it.
Well that easy to follow and made a lot of sense.. usually it takes me a while to grasp stuff like this lol
This is a great way to communicate properties of relativity to a layman like myself.
Woah, I've wondered about exactly concept before, but didn't know how to ask about it.
Beam of light vs rod of steel, the difference that prevents the effect is not light vs. (massive) steel, it is beam vs. rod. You can do the trick with a massive beam of neutrons.