I sometimes get a bit full of myself and think I am smart. Then I watch these videos and get reminded that I am very mediocre. Thank you Space Time for keeping me grounded!
@@Saemsen78we don’t “make it complicated”, it is that complicated. Do you think the relationship between standard physics and quantum mechanics is simple? Because nobody’s been able to figure it out
@@davebartosh5 _"The fun part is the seeming infinite complexity."_ The sad part about this is that gravity is easily explained and can be understood by someone that has a 5th grade education. The even sadder part about this is all the college professors of physics and PhD's created quantum mechanics only to get funding to further their careers along to do nothing more than creating more stupid $#!+ to live off more funding for the rest of their lives while basically doing nothing their entire career all the while the world has soaked up these worthless ideas like a religion because some college professor said it was so.
@@nathanwoodruff9422 Go back to living in a mud hut then if you don't like science. Leave a like and subscribe while you're here. Your comments help the channel!
At the risk of sounding cliche , you sir are a gracious host. You work very hard to try to explain it as simply and intuitively as possible. I should qualify that by saying, what you are trying to explain is also easily the most difficult (or at least reached the limit of human intellectual capability) to comprehend profession one can undertake. Your grace of course comes from the fact you know you are speaking to a lot of people who are not at that paid grade, so to speak. Present company included! I can see that you are striving wth great humor and humility to try make us see what you do. Not for ego but because you know it's true and beautiful information in a crazy world!! And you want to share it!!!! Great job bro!!!! Everyone involved!!! Thanks!!!! I love this show!!! Even if 45% of the time I'm, " in the weeds" too one degree or another!!!
My mental abilities do not come close to reaching that far. I tell myself that gravity does not exist. What people think as gravity is really a universal force called laziness. All things on earth are lazy and want to lay down on the ground for a nap. At least I can relate to and wrap my brain around this theory.
I love how this channel makes me feel both simultaneously smart and dumb at the same time
3 года назад
That is because you are being wowed and awedby the ideologies being exposed. every time you feel silly and you still believe it, that's you placing your eternal faith into a theory. You should always be careful about where you place that faith. "In six days" a wonderful book compiled by PhD scientist.
The interaction of timekeeping and gravitational field strength has profound implications for diagnosing the error in Bell's Theorem. If Einstein had been alive when John Bell published his derivation, I reckon Einstein would have reminded Bell that timekeeping is local. When the eastbound particle is at distance +x and the westbound particle is at -x, they are not the same age. The time-varying components of λ(x,t) have decohered and do not have the same phase. Any gravitational gradient along the path suffices to produce dechorence of the phase of λ(x,t). That decoherence explains why Bell's inequality does not agree with experimental observation. In short, the violation of Bell's Inequality proved that Einstein was correct about the warping of spacetime. Bell's derivation would only apply to a cosmos free of gravitational gradients.
When you approach massive object, server node in that part of a simulation is under heavy load from calculation all those particles, so calculations are performed at a lower rate and your clock ticks slower ^_^
I gotta say: the shout-outs the science content creator community has been doing for each other is a welcome sight. I've been watching and following all of you for A WHILE, and to see this solidarity playing out makes me happy beyond description. Keep being awesome, guys!
Top-notch editing. Whoever is the team/individual responsible for this, I love you. Also, I can't quite put it into words, but the writing has become far more enjoyable! Love you too, Matt.
"well, the answer is 'Lol no'" XD This is the kind of thing that brings science from this unreachable thing to something we can all have fun discussing. Not to mention, shows you are absolutely great sports! Thanks a ton for the smile! 🎩👌
"If you haven't watched the last video" would be a lot better advisory if you put a link in the comments, or numbered your videos, or anything other than have your audience search the last 8 months of videos for this videos name. Love your guys videos but it would be super helpful if you guys had some numbering or something for easy reference.
They would be helpful in the description! If you didn’t know however, in the upper right hand corner a box pops up when they are talking about another video/channel with links.
I had the same concern. I searched for "gravity" in the channel, and found this video from a similar creation date: "How Does Gravity Warp the Flow of Time? " ruclips.net/video/GKD1vDAPkFQ/видео.html
Wow! This is first time that I have begun to grapple with how Space/Time and gravity work together. Well explained, thank you. I did say begun didn’t I?
I've watched all the videos in the past 2 years and some before that. This has been my favorite. This is the only one I had to come back to multiple times to truly grasp what's being told to me. Truly fascinating.
Is this video explaining the topic clearly? He said temporal direction 5:36, so I googled temporal direction. It's defined as division from your eye looking forward and they tell you how many degrees to the left to the right up and down You can see when looking forward. But he shows an three person podium for for gold silver and bronze, or 1st, 2nd and 3rd. And he calls that temporal direction. So the way he's using it doesn't seem to work with Google's definition. I'm finding his explanations on this video in another video unclear. It's like they're being explained by someone who kind of understands the subject but not that deeply and not that fully so their explanation is a little bit hard to follow. Is anyone else having this problem? Can you usually follow every science video you watch? I can usually follow all of the science videos I watch but I have to admit that quantum is a bit tricky.
5:43 "the 4 velocity of a massive object is pointed almost entirely in the time direction" - What is a '4 velocity'? He's talking quickly, I'm not sure his emphasis is in the right places, Do you know of a video that explains this concept in a different way, that you found more understandable? To the guy, in case you read this, please can you review with a small audience if they understand each part of the video, and where they start to struggle? Maybe give them a clicker or button they can press while watching the video. Any time they start to struggle they can press the button. You'll get feedback on the areas that need some thought on how to communicate them in a better way. I think you're fairly good, and you could possibly become a very good communicator. This is why I'm writing this constructive comment. I think there's a chance that if you read it that you'll actually be able to see that I'm trying to be constructive and give you a tool which will help you become an even better communicator. Prof Brian Cox is great but we need more science communicators. Tibees is good too.
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now Yeah it's true these videos are pretty heavy. It's mostly because these topics are not possible to explain step by step in full detail in 15 minute videos. A lot of the content of this channel is gradually building up, with the earlier videos explaining easier concepts and building on top of those concepts more and more. (in the video, he references one such video you may want to watch before this one) The videos do seem to be geared more towards people who already have hobbyist interest in the topic, and not beginners, but it's certainly possible for beginners to dig deeper and find understanding. Tbh, for hobbyists, this channel really is the best, expert explanations can often be extremely dry and difficult to comprehend, so this channel takes a different approach and is able to explain really hard concepts and give you that aha moment. To answer your specific questions, "temporal direction" just means direction through time. You can think of space as 3d with 3 dimensions or 3 "vectors". A velocity through space has 3 vectors. Now, spacetime is a singular concept, meaning time can also be thought of as a vector. So put it together, and spacetime has 4 vectors, 3 of space and 1 of time. The time vector is the "temporal direction". And a "4 velocity" is a velocity vector described in space time with all 4 vectors accounted for.
Already in 1962 I wrote about that. It is the quantum property of the particle in the gravitational field that make it move in direction of the time gradient ( also influenced by the space distortion). Part of the probability distribution of the particle will spend more time where time goes slower so the properbility that it is where the time go slower increases and it moves. Easy peasy
@@Dave5843-d9mConsider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE; as gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars and planets are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! Again, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. (Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE, as c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE.) Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as what is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. “Mass”/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electroMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM F=MA. c squared CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
"Our old friend the Spacetime diagram. Let's have just two dimensions of space so we have space, for time" Beautiful sentence. Felt like a bonk on the head
@@sonofsupernova3455 Well I assume it was just a way of answering what was probably accidentally a pretty good question by explaining how they can be fairly sure the Neutrino Background exists. The username was coincidental. Funny (to my juvenile mind), but coincidental. I suppose they could have avoided using the name by attributing the question to someone else, but that just wouldn't be cricket, would it.
I felt like you and I found lectures at Stanford University in RUclips by Lennard Susskind for free. There’s whole units at Stanford you can do free on RUclips in cosmology, all of relativity, quantum and Newtonian physics and much more. You go at your own pace without having to cram for exams. At the end of and during the lectures Susskind answers questions from the students he’s lecturing to.
@Science Revolution its not impossible for gravity to move water horizontally. Gravitational force acts in all directions not merely perpendicularly down from the moon for example. Some of the gravitational force will resolve to a direction other than perpendicular. Therefore it will move the water "horizontally".
@Science Revolution you fail to grasp some basic aspects which interact and produce very complex outcomes. Seems like your post is a preamble for flat /hollow world… 🤦♂️
Also take into consideration the moon and earth spin and shift on their axis. So gravitational force exerts in directions to shift the water horizontally. Explains tides I guess too.
Time seems to stop from the perspective of an observer (elsewhere) but the person falling carries on as normal The observer would see the "faller" getting more and more red-shifted until they were no longer visible. Trippy
@billshiff2060 Your statement sir, that "time stops at the horizon of a black hole" is a simplification often used in popular science to explain certain aspects of black holes. However, it's important to clarify that time doesn't literally stop at the event horizon; rather, it appears to slow down significantly from the perspective of an outside observer due to gravitational time dilation. Now, from the viewpoint of someone outside the black hole observing an object falling towards it, time appears to slow down for the object as it approaches the event horizon. As the object gets closer to the event horizon, its clock appears to tick slower and slower, approaching a standstill as it reaches the event horizon. This phenomenon occurs because the gravitational field near the black hole is so intense that it warps spacetime, causing time to behave differently than in regions of weaker gravity. But.... from the perspective of the object falling into the black hole, time continues to progress as normal. The person or object falling into the black hole would not experience time stopping; rather, they would continue to experience time passing as they cross the event horizon and eventually reach the singularity at the center of the black hole. So..., the idea that "it shouldn't be possible to fall into a black hole since time stops at the horizon" is not accurate. Objects can indeed fall into black holes, and from their perspective, time continues to progress normally. The phenomenon of time dilation near black holes is a fascinating part of general relativity, but it does not prevent objects from crossing the event horizon.
@@johnnyreb280 uh huh so tell me How long will it take for you to watch someone fall through the event horizon? If the person falling in is watching you at the same time, what will he see? You will never see him fall in. He will see the entire future of the universe as he watches you. So nothing prevents objects from falling in EXCEPT it will take all of future time to see it happen. You fall in normally EXCEPT you will see the end of the universe before you do.
@@billshiff2060 It's correct that you will never see him fall in, but not because he never falls in. Because he will start to slowly fade away. The reason behind that is because the light waves emitted from the person falling in to the black hole slowly get longer and longer until the wave leaght are to long for our eyes to detect. And the reson for the wave leaghts getting longer and longer is because the closer you get to the center of the black hole, the higher the gravity gets and the more it impacts the time, which makes tha light waves "wave" slower and slower (if that makes sense).
I love this video. I've always hated the idea of using the heavy ball on a rubber sheet to show how gravity works when you are literally using gravity to explain gravity. So, all we have to do is reduce the flow of time on the side of an object that's the direction we want it to go ... physicists! Get right on that! :D
I feel like this series would be a very helpful one in saying "speed of causality" instead of "speed of light" as discussed previously on the channel. When you consider causality as constant, the shifting into and out of time makes things less confusing and easier to keep straight
@Science Revolution care to provide your alternative explanation? the whole purpose behind science is to explain natural activities with the best known explanation that fits all of the known evidence. if you don't have an alternative theory that fits all of the evidence, then all you are doing is pointlessly ranting.
Anti gravity is a product of the center of a magnet, However you need to know keep iron out of the picture. If you want to play with anti gravity you will find everything you need at the center of a magnetic force. But keep in mind iron is not part of the energy you would be working with. PROOF: Take a bar magnet and tap just the center of same on Plastic, glass or granite rocks and you will see them loose significant weight!!
I love and hate watching videos like this, for the moments where I have a thought that is above my knowledge and I feel there is an awakening to a new understanding happening, then losing it because I did not fully grasp the concepts that brought me to it and I have difficulties trying to recapture it to explore further
I know exactly what you mean! I think that me trying to recapture it is part of what makes me lose it. Instead of going with wherever my understanding is moment to moment I will try to go back to where it was when I felt I was getting close to that "Aha" moment. Then I get lost thinking about how to get there again when I could be putting that energy into thinking further on the topic!
indeed. Even after 100 years...but he came close....its is the SPEED of mass that causes frontal spacetime(ST) to contract (Einsteins SR' length contraction') as ST wraps around a speeding object..so warped time now becomes the particle property of 'inertia'. the higher the speed the more inverse time the object has and therefor it takes more time to yet move it (the in-product of both is constant). Although this ST contraction is linear, in restmass you have the accumulative speeds of all tiny unaligned sub atomic particles. this unalignment is what gives the illusion of radially working gravity in the case of restmass . but fundamentally the effect is linear. thats all....capice?
No dude, it's like trying to understand economics through a 15 min vídeo instead of reading a 100+ pages essay with much more depth and concepts that usually get overlooked by media makers
I find all this super fascinating. Iv been reading tons of physics books, and watching tons of physics videos, and This week is the first time in my life Iv really clearly wrapped my head around why we have gravity and why there is a cosmic speed limit "the speed of light" Iv always had an intuitive sense of these things, but to understand it completely is like a huge breath of fresh air, probably the closest thing to a religious experience or epiphany Iv had. So thank you.
Speak for yourself. Maybe there’s a cosmic speed limit for you, but not me. I don’t hold myself back by prescribing self-defeating limits & thoughts like that onto myself.
Well you are kind of crazy because there's no way for anything to speed up or slow down. Everything is travelling at exactly the same total speed through space-time!
Yeah I think this channel proves that many more humans then we think really crave a deeper understanding of the nature of reality, with THE most up-to-date scientific explanations, WITHOUT dumbing it down (even if we don’t fully understand). It’ comes from desire for exploration, the desire to TRY and understand..to TRY and see the future of humanity’s technological and intellect growth, without surviving long enough to see “it” happen.
I had no hope whatsoever of understanding anything at all about this, I just came to listen & marvel. But thanks to your brilliant analogy with the boats, I at least understand a bit of what---if not much of the why. Thanks!
Gravity doesn’t cause matter to change it’s position relative to other matter in a time line. It’s just a matter of the rate at which the “clocks” tick
Due to the gravitational laws time for your head is very slightly faster than your feet. So your feet are slower. In practice this makes minimal difference at all.
@@scienceisall2632 However, from the POV of his phone / eyes, his feet are late, since it took information some time to get from his feet to his eyes (via light).
This must be the most thought provoking video I ever saw. Had to see video 2-3 times to make sense of it. Each sentence that you say is a topic in itself and actually deserves separate time to think about. Connected many dots for me, and possibly reignited childhood curiosity in me after several years 🙂
This is the best video I have ever seen in my life. And I have always been interested in science. It makes a lot of sense. The why time and gravity are so tightly related.
Amazing how mathematics correlate with a totally real phenomenon. One of my teachers said to me once that imaginary numbers (and complex numbers) have vital importance in electrical plants (AC), that blew my mind.
Complex numbers describe rotation (isomorphic) perfectly. From the canoe example in the vid, rotation is fundamental to the Universe; 'straight line' concept is the human mind getting in the way of understanding.
As an electrical engineer in a power plant, your teacher is absolutely correct. Electricity doesn't make sense in math if you disregard "imaginary" numbers
@@stapleman007 woah I never realized that. It's so true. We are the ones drawing lines in the universe. The universe doesn't work in "lines". Can't believe I never realized this myself
It's almost like the existence of 3 dimensional movement creates a drag on the 4th dimension. An object that is on earth, but stationary on earth is still effectively unchanged by tidal time dilation, but an object that is stationary irrelevant of all larger masses would be moving the fastest through the time portion of spacetime. 3 dimensional movement seems like a very important key to how gravity exists.
That is exactly right. The 4-velocity of any object is given by (c, v)/sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2], where v is the Newtonian 3-dimensional speed. Of course, we know that v = 0 or 0 < v < c for any object with nonzero mass. As v gets closer and closer to c, the quantity sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] gets closer to 0, so the coordinates of the 4-velocity increase indefinitely. This means that the temporal component of the 4-velocity, given by c/sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2], also increases indefinitely, and a larger temporal component of the 4-velocity translates to a smaller apparent rate of passage of time.
However a atomic clock undepent from velocity keeps its time. That this is effected by the different speed from two or more objects is a fact as astronauts to the moon did prove i.c. GPS Satellites.
You do realize that the 4th dimension is an alternative type of physical matter that is bound by the laws of that dimension, and not actually time, time is more like a large ribbon of a wave that intersects with space, it's not an actual dimension, time is a wave that gives linear temporal structure to space, the slowdown of time is due to the collection of more mass particles in a given area of space, it's almost as if each particle attracts and takes a small bit of time or temporal energy from the time wave, when scientists refer to time as a dimension, they throw off their thinking about the small inner workings of what really causes time dialation, in each universe or reality, every atom at the quantum level vibrates according to that universe's quantum frequency, each universe has a slightly different quantum frequency, and time is the wave that these various frequencies are measured by, and it's the accumulation of particles in a particular area of space that determines the gravitational force and the temporal drag. I'm guessing that since time is a wave, similar to how light is a wave, it too is subject to the affects of gravity and thus slows down. I guess that's the simplest way to think about it, however time itself, is not a physical dimension. In actually comparing it to a river or a stream is probably most accurate cause it does flow in a wave.
Time is a Dimension. And can be measured. There are facts in our Universum wich cannot be cleared away. Distance is one of them and also time So people , physicist, which study quantum mechanics think that time in quantummechanics is reversable. But in realy time, no great quantummechanics can be reversed. No atomic bomb can be undun. No plasmatic fusion in Sun can be undun. And every process goes forward in time. Time is not a second product of Gravitation. And its for sure that timeexperience in objects with different speed compared to each other is different, but each object is going straight forward in time. 4th Dimension yeah yeah but everywhere forward. Even in Black Holes. Time has a more entropic caracter than it has e wave function.
I have a decent education in physics. BS and MS. And my first answer is "yes". If time was not progressing, you would not be attracted to the nearest massive object.
This was such a shoddy vid. If you needed this or this did it for you and not schooling your school failed you. So much is wrong here and dude probably doesn’t have a degree.
Nice shout out to Science Asylum. He's got some of the most entertaining science content on RUclips. He's a modern day Bill Nye or Beakman. He really needs more subs. He's so good.
This episode was strangely quite understandable (thanks to the super animation at 2:55 ), previous episodes on gravity had their quirks but were somewhat accessible too. But their whole series on quantum field was definitely Arcane Knowledge, only accessible to ones who did advanced math AND quantum physics. I have an okay kinda advanced but not pro knowledge on math, and all the episodes on quantum fields and whatnot were a real pain x) But all this arcane thing is really dependent on your current knowledge. If you wrote basic formulas that involve derivatives and primitives, like the formula for mean value of periodic signal, or anything that involves sums with the big Sigma, a non-STEM person would see it as dark magic already ^^ Just like I can't understand a thing when Laplacian, Rotationals, matrixes, Einstein convention and other advanced tools and writing conventions are all mixed into the same equation :p
@@mythicdawn9574Well this is just how I felt about this channel in general lol, very eye-opening stuff. Even if this episode was easier to follow, it was still very enlightening imo.
The relationship between time and gravity is a profound concept in physics, particularly in the context of Einstein's theory of general relativity. According to this theory, gravity is not a force in the traditional sense but a curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Time and gravity are deeply interconnected, as gravity can influence the passage of time time slows down in stronger gravitational fields, a phenomenon known as gravitational time dilation. However, asking if time causes gravity reverses the typical cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, gravity is understood to emerge from the curvature of spacetime, where time is one component of this four-dimensional fabric. The presence of mass and energy warps spacetime, creating what we perceive as gravity. This raises an intriguing question: If time is affected by gravity, could there be scenarios where alterations in the flow of time might influence the gravitational field, perhaps in ways we have not yet fully explored? Could further understanding of the relationship between time and gravity lead to new insights into the nature of the universe?
I like imaging the "everything goes at c" as a point system. You have 100 points that you can spread across space and/or time. The number of points never change, but something like light has all 100 points in space, 0 points in time. Something at absolute zero has all their points in time and zero in space (impossible, I know). A rocket has some in both. The sum never changes, but the ratio does.
"like light has all 100 points in space, 0 points in time" -- Ah, but photons have momentum, don't they? So, given that m = e/c^2, wouldn't that imply that even if the amount of mass implied by the energy of that momentum is infinitesimal, some mass (or its energy equivalent) theoretically exists. And thus, light is not truly timeless.
@@jklappenbach light isn’t timeless because In reality it does interact with fields and it exists in a non-uniform gravitational potential. It could only be considered timeless in thought experiments or approximated in carefully controlled experiments. For example, traveling across potential differences in gravity (or flow of time) changes its wavelength. Interactions with dust or magnetic fields in space alter it as well. Saying it’s timeless is a useful first order approximation that helps grasp the concepts but just like every other physics formula or conjecture, it’s a simplification.
It's flowing in relation to something that is not flowing as fast because mass is effecting it, ie an object going the speed of light seems to stop time.
I’m an astrophysics student and that just blew my mind. So some of my time is being extracted (causing me to move through time just a little bit slower) and used to keep me stuck to the surface of earth. Wow.
You don't sound much like an astrophysics student to me. Time is not being extracted from anything because, as you should know as a so-called physics student, that time is nothing more than a measurement of motion. Maybe you should actually enroll in a few college courses and become an actual student rather than come on RUclips pretending to be one.
@@madeleinecallan3153 I like astrophysics, but I don't like bullshit, and neither should you. I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing concepts. Learn the difference, genius. Who's the real fool here?
These last couple episodes have been my favorites so far. Thanks Matt! I studied fluid dynamics so the kayaker analogy really clicked for me. All this got me wondering, if the Higgs field creates drag on things moving in the spatial dimension, giving those things mass, could the Higgs field also be causing drag on things with mass as they move in the time dimension, causing clocks to run slower around things with mass?
I was forced to come to a similar conclusion when I was first confronted with the "time is a human construct" argument. Like, no... Time is demonstrable and things have distance from each other in it. Especially the "same" things.
You trade time for speed, hence you cannot go at the speed of light because you have run out of time to accelerate. In a gravity field you are accelerating down, slightly reducing available time.
@@seriousmaran9414 I'm gonna say something very stupid certainly. So you assume an object has a finite "amount of movement" in those 4 dimensions and you just transfer your time amount to space with energy ? Can't you somehow "bring more time" to your system with an external source, to allow yourself to accelerate more ? Like, you reach 99.9% of c, and then you "refill" your time movement with science magic to allow you to push further ? Or does bringing time in would always result in lowering your spatial movement ? What does mass represent in this thought experiment ? The time amount of movement ? A ratio describing how much energy is required to draw time to space movement ? I like your analogy, I take note. But it leads to weird ideas (at least me) when you want to push the limits.
@@mythicdawn9574 You can't add anything more because you're still capped at the speed of light. Actually, I think what he's referring to is the 4-velocity of an object, which is the change in x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2.t^2=0, so it makes more sense than simply having the speed of light appear out of nowhere. In that formulation, the speed of light is actually the conversion factor between the dimensions of space and time, and the far-less-magical zero is the total magnitude of the 4-vector.
@@photinodecay can you try to explain this to someone who is starting to study fundamental math? because unfortunately your level is much more advanced than mine. :/
Dividing Intelligence into Intelligence and Wisdom is very useful way to look at things. And the division in game was just to give a different spec to Mages vs Clerics but considering book knowledge vs knowledge gained from life in the community and books covering the same is how they decided on Wisdom for Clerics. They envisioning the old village priest there. Because they talk to everyone they draw from everyone's wisdom.
Int: Knowing that Tomatoes are fruit. Wis: Knowing that they don't go in a fruit salad. Cha: Selling a tomato-based fruit salad Smarts: calling it "Salsa!"
To many big words for me I would have to sit down and study to understand. But I enjoy how your looking at the relationship between gravity and time, never pondered that.. Thank you
Whoa! Never thought of time having a 'real' velocity. So when space and time are switching their positions beyond the event horizon, does that mean that inside the black hole space induces gravity?
I learned not too long ago to prefer to think of the speed of light as the speed of causality. Light being massless is not subject to acceleration constraints from mass, so it's speed limit is causality itself. So rather than thinking of speed of light being some arbitrary value that can't be exceeded, it's more useful to think of causality as not possible to exceeded, which makes better logical sense. This helps with logic of other concepts involving speed of light. It's like saying nothing can travel faster than the speed of a car, when a better way to think of it would be to refer directly to the speed limit of the road. Nothing would exist without causality having a speed limit because everything would happen at once from past to future.
Everything clicked the moment he said "warping of time causes gravity." Apparently even though I don't understand a third of what this channel's about, I'm still slowly learning through osmosis.
try and explain it to someone else, then you will 'see what parts you did not understand' and that becomes your question for this RUclips channel. Good luck.
🙄 Right, you fully understand it just by hearing that phrase. Okay, if warping of time causes gravity, and mass causes the warping of time, why does mass cause the warping of time?
@@Armageist Never said I fully understood it o_O I'm just saying it makes sense intuitively that if time is slower in one spot than in an adjacent spot, things will veer toward the slower spot. If nothing else, it's at least less cyclical in reasoning to say mass warps time, which in turn causes gravity, than it is to say gravity slows down time.
Because I'm not a scientist but just a science nerd, I have to fact check every single thing you say... so far you are 100% correct. Fascinating video. TY
Scientist have discovered how to slow and speed up time. To speed it up have fun and smile, to slow it frown and have a bad time. I enjoy learning this great stuff but the time to do so always runs out fast.
Matt, you do great work. Thank you. I have always been fascinated by theoretical physics, but I had serious and well founded doubts I was studious enough to earn a living in a field that competitive. Still; I always enjoyed watching edutainment on the subject and told myself I would some day pursue the study in earnest as I neared retirement for my own pleasure. I cannot tell you how many times in life I would have a stray thought about the implications of some experiment or the theory of relativity and then seek someone who could help me understand the answer. Usually, the things I pondered were too unusual and I would get no answer; or an answer without an explanation. I think this is the 4th or 5th time you've just jumped straight to my curiosity as part of your lecture on the topic. (I always knew four velocity was an implication, I must have just been asking the wrong people.) Anyways thank you. Literally the best edutainment I've ever consumed.
I have the (silly) hobby to ask people if they'd like some recommendations; especially science-channel and such. Yeah, its random and i'm often called Robot for it, but who cares? I live for those few who say 'Yes thanks' (though No thanks is also nicer than calling me non-alive...) and i wont stop asking around. I wanna spread Education, so i recommend edu-channel, duh!
Because we would not be interacting with anything and thus experience no time. It is only through movement that we deviate from this and interact with things, thus less movement through time and more movement through space.
Don't confuse "time measured" with "time elapsed". This is a problem with Einstein Relativity. You cannot measure time universally, but that doesn't mean that time changes according to your measures. And also, Einstein failed to define what "time" really is, so all his theories are based on an undefined concept. Of course you cannot define time as "a dimension", that is just categorising it, not defining it.
This might help: "Do we travel through time at the speed of light?" - Sabine Hossenfelder ruclips.net/video/iBTez-nTKes/видео.html Spoiler alert: A distance in space is measured in metres (m), and time is measured in seconds (s), so the two are not directly interchangeable. The trick is to dvide a distance (measured in m) by c (in m/s) to get a time measurement in seconds, or to multiply a time by c to get a distance in metres (s * m/s = m).
I feel like a lot of physics dealing with _c_ makes more intuitive sense when you think about it as the speed of causality. It's then obvious that massless things like EM waves & gravitational travel at the _speed of causality_ in a vacuum. It also makes it easy to see how mass/energy impedes this, like a viscosity scalar.
@@HiroNguy Glad I'm not the only one. 😄 Once I realized this, it was much clearer why _c_ is a fundamental limit. Speeds beyond it would require effects to come before their causes. Also makes it simpler to see that _c_ is a baseline from which things can be slowed instead of our intuition that the human-scale speeds we experience are the baseline and some things just happen to occur faster.
@@RubelliteFae Looks like we reached the same conclusion lol. You're definitely not the only one. But I can't remember how I reached that conclusion. I think Gabe or Matt might have mentioned something like that in one of their videos, but I can't remember which one. I actually went one step further and realized that causality must have a finite speed, otherwise time wouldn't exist. Everything would happen at the same instant. But the problem is, how do we stop massless particles from traveling faster than c? Massive particles are easy. They need infinite energy. So they can't even travel at c, much less faster. But massless particles don't have this restriction. So what's stopping them from going faster? 🤔
@@feynstein1004 "causality must have a finite speed, otherwise time wouldn't exist." Yes exactly! And thus is inexorably linked to the arrow of time, entropy, etc. "Everything would happen at the same instant." Or worse, effects would precede their causes, violating a fundamental assumption of physics. "how do we stop massless particles from traveling faster than c? ... what's stopping them from going faster?" Causality is. If speed was limitless (limit approaching infinity), then effects could precede causes by an infinite amount. This would make it seem like things happen randomly and for no reason-we'd never have formed the concept of reason (unless in all the infinite randomness we just happened to be the results of billions of years when causes happened to precede effects, which is technically possible, but that's a whole different discussion about multiverses and probability). Another way to think about it is in terms of other limits of physics, for example, the meaninglessness of a temperature below absolute 0. Also, think about the concept of speed: it's the relationship between distance and time. The speed of causality being a limit define space, time, and all other speeds. I think the only reason it really confuses people is because we are used to boundaries being set to 0 and boundlessness being at ∞ or -∞. (Since maths are tools for symbolically understanding the Universe,) we could redefine numbers or distance/time based on _c_ being 0, but that would make all other numbers unintuitive and not particularly useful for everyday life. Does that make sense?
@@RubelliteFae "Or worse, effects would precede their causes, violating a fundamental assumption of physics." Indeed. It appears causality needs at least a 1-D topology. Without a finite speed, all events get compressed to a 0-D point and it's impossible to distinguish cause from effect anymore. "Causality is. If speed was limitless (limit " I mean, I get that but youe explanation is more about the why of it than how. And don't get me wrong, I do understand why causality needs to be finite, but I also want to know how that rule is enforced. I guess an appropriate analogy would be the height to which we can build structures on earth. We know it can't be infinite because that would be illogical. So there must be some limit. But how is that limit enforced? Through the material properties of substances. Once we get to a certain height, a material's weight overcomes its compressive strength and it's impossible to build any higher.
The first big step to understanding time properly is to recognize that time cannot be separated from space. Once we have space-time, we realize that gravity is a curvature of space-time. Does time create gravity? No. Does space-time curvature create gravity? Yes. Can this make it seem like time creates gravity if we limit our gaze upon but a part of the whole? Yes.
I think photons are affected by "gravity" in the sense that they are going straight through a warped spacetime, which is why something massless may appear to be affected by gravity into a lensing effect. If I am understanding it correctly, large masses sort of "bend" spacetime, and they might do so in a way that allows light to continue to move only through space and not time in a perfectly straight line according to how spacetime is compressed or warped near large masses.
No. Light moves on space itself. Curved space equals curved light. The gravitational lense would not be possible otherwise. A lense bends light to a fix point that makes you perceive the source of the light differently. Does that help?
Causation is so interesting. Recently I saw proof that all clocks, watches etc. exist entirely as a consequence of time. For a moment I wondered how people knew what time it was prior to that.
before clocks i think people dont thought of time as we see it today on a clock but rather if the sun rises and when is at its maximum and setting and that determin what part of the day it is and depending on the place of the sun/moon detemin winter/ summer period.
"You are currently hurtling through time at the speed of light. But be careful. If even a tiny bit of your breakneck temporal velocity leaks into one of the dimensions of space and you're standing in the wrong place at the time, you will rapidly accelerate to your doom. You think I'm kidding. I just described the true source of gravity....... Don't look down." Pure poetry!
The amount I've learned from watching RUclips videos and then fact checking things is crazy. I wish I had this obsession when I was in school. I would've loved to have studied space and the universe and made it a job that I loved instead of breaking my back day in and day out.
I sometimes get a bit full of myself and think I am smart. Then I watch these videos and get reminded that I am very mediocre. Thank you Space Time for keeping me grounded!
@Nathan Melia How would you explain it in a much quicker and equally comprehensive way?
I didn't understand anything in this video.
If you study and think enough you're smart. Physics topics like this have lot of misconceptions in mainstream science
It’s all in your head and not the universe the universe came from simplistic singularity we make it complicated
@@Saemsen78we don’t “make it complicated”, it is that complicated. Do you think the relationship between standard physics and quantum mechanics is simple? Because nobody’s been able to figure it out
So does that also mean: the heavier the topic, the more time it takes to understand it? 🧐
According to the video, the more time it takes to understand the topic, the heavier it is.
Thats the truth of relativity
Especially if you are stuck in gravity well like we are (((
@@staas1737 That's perfect!
Actually he is saying that the more time it takes the "heavier" the topic.
The only thing I understood was the word “boat”. Even then I was confused because they looked like kayaks.
Kayaks are a type of boat. Hopefully this explains the entire video.
@@durnsidh6483 Nemo says it's pronounced but.
That is because they are actually canoes.
Underrated comedy gold.
Why didn't the boat in the fast timestream pull the slow timestream away from the bank. I just don't get it.
This video holds the record for how quickly Matt made my brain hurt.
Same. I can often follow the general idea that's spoken about, but not with this one 😅
Every time he says "In our last episode..." I think "woah, I must have missed that." But no, I never have.
Oh man this hits home. I'm in too deep LMAO
i wouldnt want it any other way
lmfao, yea and I still can't understand
Lol me too
view their videos as class and repeat them if you really wanna learn all. Is too much for 1 viewing
You're one of my favorite physics channels too Matt 😊
Hi sciences asylum , your biggg fan ! Your channel Is awesome , both of you are my favourite phy channels
I'm telling ScienceClick and Eugene!
agreed, but you did an even better job on this topic! it was through your video that this concept finally clicked. sorta.
Aww, it's nice when these guys like each other 🤗
@@GraveUypo yeah his video upon gravity because of time was mind blowing literally , science Asylum is underrated but awesome
What I learn from these videos most of all, is that reality has no obligation to make sense to me.
The fun part is the seeming infinite complexity. We may never even have a grasp on reality.
42 up votes. It's going to have to take someone who doesn't know any better to upvote you again. 😛
@@davebartosh5 Exactly, in order to understand reality we've have to leave reality, which we obviously can't.
@@davebartosh5 _"The fun part is the seeming infinite complexity."_ The sad part about this is that gravity is easily explained and can be understood by someone that has a 5th grade education. The even sadder part about this is all the college professors of physics and PhD's created quantum mechanics only to get funding to further their careers along to do nothing more than creating more stupid $#!+ to live off more funding for the rest of their lives while basically doing nothing their entire career all the while the world has soaked up these worthless ideas like a religion because some college professor said it was so.
@@nathanwoodruff9422 Go back to living in a mud hut then if you don't like science. Leave a like and subscribe while you're here. Your comments help the channel!
At the risk of sounding cliche , you sir are a gracious host. You work very hard to try to explain it as simply and intuitively as possible. I should qualify that by saying, what you are trying to explain is also easily the most difficult (or at least reached the limit of human intellectual capability) to comprehend profession one can undertake.
Your grace of course comes from the fact you know you are speaking to a lot of people who are not at that paid grade, so to speak. Present company included! I can see that you are striving wth great humor and humility to try make us see what you do. Not for ego but because you know it's true and beautiful information in a crazy world!! And you want to share it!!!!
Great job bro!!!! Everyone involved!!! Thanks!!!! I love this show!!! Even if 45% of the time I'm, " in the weeds" too one degree or another!!!
Every single one of these physics videos makes me feel like I'm touching the very edges of my mental abilities. Thanks for that.
That's because they're trying to get you to believe in unicorn farts...
My mental abilities do not come close to reaching that far. I tell myself that gravity does not exist. What people think as gravity is really a universal force called laziness. All things on earth are lazy and want to lay down on the ground for a nap. At least I can relate to and wrap my brain around this theory.
It isn’t real science.
@@DJ_Koob this guy definitely doesn't have major cognitive dissonance in his life
Don't you mean "Mental Dilation?"
I love how this channel makes me feel both simultaneously smart and dumb at the same time
That is because you are being wowed and awedby the ideologies being exposed. every time you feel silly and you still believe it, that's you placing your eternal faith into a theory.
You should always be careful about where you place that faith.
"In six days" a wonderful book compiled by PhD scientist.
Superposition
@ I don't think you know what a scientific theory is.
I agree, but mostly dumb.
When you observe how smart you are, you're acting dumb. When you observe how dumb you are, you're acting smart. Heisenberg understood.
The boat analogy is wonderful and was really clear. I was trying to think about it theoretically, but with that analogy it's a LOT easier to picture.
I agree. It was a very effective method of clarification. Gave me a major step forward in understanding as well.
The interaction of timekeeping and gravitational field strength has profound implications for diagnosing the error in Bell's Theorem.
If Einstein had been alive when John Bell published his derivation, I reckon Einstein would have reminded Bell that timekeeping is local. When the eastbound particle is at distance +x and the westbound particle is at -x, they are not the same age. The time-varying components of λ(x,t) have decohered and do not have the same phase.
Any gravitational gradient along the path suffices to produce dechorence of the phase of λ(x,t). That decoherence explains why Bell's inequality does not agree with experimental observation. In short, the violation of Bell's Inequality proved that Einstein was correct about the warping of spacetime. Bell's derivation would only apply to a cosmos free of gravitational gradients.
When you approach massive object, server node in that part of a simulation is under heavy load from calculation all those particles, so calculations are performed at a lower rate and your clock ticks slower ^_^
most umderrated comment ever
I like your style of thinking.
Its lagging. Perfect. My friends will have a blast with this fact
Yeah, framerate sucks down here. That's why it's so windy down here, them giant fans are trying to cool the GPU.
@@LUXINK subconscious is powerful. We are recreating reality through a more playful form, probably as a defense.
I gotta say: the shout-outs the science content creator community has been doing for each other is a welcome sight. I've been watching and following all of you for A WHILE, and to see this solidarity playing out makes me happy beyond description. Keep being awesome, guys!
The explanation that all objects are moving at light speed through SPACETIME blew my mind.
Objects=Matter?
Think about this, gravity is not created but it's a wave function and only when we measure it is when it appears 🤔
This guy can say anything and people will believe him😂
SPACE is nothing and TIME is SPACE therefore SPACETIME IS NOTHING. How can nothing travel.
@@stewiesaidthat how did they measure it🤔
Top-notch editing. Whoever is the team/individual responsible for this, I love you.
Also, I can't quite put it into words, but the writing has become far more enjoyable! Love you too, Matt.
I'm so ready to feel dumb. Bring it on.
yea, been studying this stuff for like soooo long (probably a little over a month) while keeping up with school,
"well, the answer is 'Lol no'"
XD This is the kind of thing that brings science from this unreachable thing to something we can all have fun discussing. Not to mention, shows you are absolutely great sports! Thanks a ton for the smile!
🎩👌
Now you know why the bowling ball on a trampoline demonstration of gravity will never go away.
You can never fully understand how much this episode blew my mind! It's like someone proving to you that red is now blue.
"If you haven't watched the last video" would be a lot better advisory if you put a link in the comments, or numbered your videos, or anything other than have your audience search the last 8 months of videos for this videos name. Love your guys videos but it would be super helpful if you guys had some numbering or something for easy reference.
They would be helpful in the description! If you didn’t know however, in the upper right hand corner a box pops up when they are talking about another video/channel with links.
I had the same concern. I searched for "gravity" in the channel, and found this video from a similar creation date: "How Does Gravity Warp the Flow of Time?
" ruclips.net/video/GKD1vDAPkFQ/видео.html
No I think this dude of all the physics channels manages to over-complicate everything with the way he explains thing. There are better channels imo
"Speak for yourself. I'm still quite confused."
Bold of you to assume the rest of us aren't confused 😂
Its because how he talks using alot of fancy words
He botched the explanation so bad
Wow! This is first time that I have begun to grapple with how Space/Time and gravity work together. Well explained, thank you. I did say begun didn’t I?
I've watched all the videos in the past 2 years and some before that. This has been my favorite. This is the only one I had to come back to multiple times to truly grasp what's being told to me. Truly fascinating.
Is this video explaining the topic clearly?
He said temporal direction 5:36, so I googled temporal direction. It's defined as division from your eye looking forward and they tell you how many degrees to the left to the right up and down You can see when looking forward. But he shows an three person podium for for gold silver and bronze, or 1st, 2nd and 3rd. And he calls that temporal direction. So the way he's using it doesn't seem to work with Google's definition.
I'm finding his explanations on this video in another video unclear. It's like they're being explained by someone who kind of understands the subject but not that deeply and not that fully so their explanation is a little bit hard to follow.
Is anyone else having this problem? Can you usually follow every science video you watch? I can usually follow all of the science videos I watch but I have to admit that quantum is a bit tricky.
5:43 "the 4 velocity of a massive object is pointed almost entirely in the time direction" - What is a '4 velocity'?
He's talking quickly, I'm not sure his emphasis is in the right places,
Do you know of a video that explains this concept in a different way, that you found more understandable?
To the guy, in case you read this, please can you review with a small audience if they understand each part of the video, and where they start to struggle? Maybe give them a clicker or button they can press while watching the video. Any time they start to struggle they can press the button. You'll get feedback on the areas that need some thought on how to communicate them in a better way.
I think you're fairly good, and you could possibly become a very good communicator. This is why I'm writing this constructive comment. I think there's a chance that if you read it that you'll actually be able to see that I'm trying to be constructive and give you a tool which will help you become an even better communicator.
Prof Brian Cox is great but we need more science communicators. Tibees is good too.
@@Google_Does_Evil_Now Yeah it's true these videos are pretty heavy. It's mostly because these topics are not possible to explain step by step in full detail in 15 minute videos. A lot of the content of this channel is gradually building up, with the earlier videos explaining easier concepts and building on top of those concepts more and more. (in the video, he references one such video you may want to watch before this one) The videos do seem to be geared more towards people who already have hobbyist interest in the topic, and not beginners, but it's certainly possible for beginners to dig deeper and find understanding. Tbh, for hobbyists, this channel really is the best, expert explanations can often be extremely dry and difficult to comprehend, so this channel takes a different approach and is able to explain really hard concepts and give you that aha moment.
To answer your specific questions, "temporal direction" just means direction through time. You can think of space as 3d with 3 dimensions or 3 "vectors". A velocity through space has 3 vectors. Now, spacetime is a singular concept, meaning time can also be thought of as a vector. So put it together, and spacetime has 4 vectors, 3 of space and 1 of time. The time vector is the "temporal direction". And a "4 velocity" is a velocity vector described in space time with all 4 vectors accounted for.
I love watching these despite not understanding a thing ❤️
❤
6:48 great to see a shout out to Nick's channel, PBS!
Yes !
And Eugene as well!
Already in 1962 I wrote about that. It is the quantum property of the particle in the gravitational field that make it move in direction of the time gradient ( also influenced by the space distortion). Part of the probability distribution of the particle will spend more time where time goes slower so the properbility that it is where the time go slower increases and it moves. Easy peasy
Everything takes the easiest route. Time ticking slow is easier than time going fast. So everything migrates (aka falls) towards slower time.
This explanation of yours is the only one which makes sense to me, brilliant!
@@Dave5843-d9mConsider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE; as gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars and planets are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! Again, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. (Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE, as c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE.) Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; as what is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. “Mass”/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electroMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON. WHAT IS E=MC2 IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM F=MA. c squared CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
"Our old friend the Spacetime diagram. Let's have just two dimensions of space so we have space, for time"
Beautiful sentence. Felt like a bonk on the head
penrose diagram joins the chat
"The answer is lol, no" cracked me up.
I had to pause to stop laughing.
An odd choice to include that user name, did I miss something?
@@sonofsupernova3455 Well I assume it was just a way of answering what was probably accidentally a pretty good question by explaining how they can be fairly sure the Neutrino Background exists. The username was coincidental. Funny (to my juvenile mind), but coincidental.
I suppose they could have avoided using the name by attributing the question to someone else, but that just wouldn't be cricket, would it.
aaaaahh these videos make me want to start learning physics from scratch but i have no time velocity to exchange
I felt like you and I found lectures at Stanford University in RUclips by Lennard Susskind for free. There’s whole units at Stanford you can do free on RUclips in cosmology, all of relativity, quantum and Newtonian physics and much more. You go at your own pace without having to cram for exams. At the end of and during the lectures Susskind answers questions from the students he’s lecturing to.
@@secretdiva9414 Thanks for that information. Will get to that.
@Science Revolution its not impossible for gravity to move water horizontally. Gravitational force acts in all directions not merely perpendicularly down from the moon for example. Some of the gravitational force will resolve to a direction other than perpendicular. Therefore it will move the water "horizontally".
@Science Revolution you fail to grasp some basic aspects which interact and produce very complex outcomes. Seems like your post is a preamble for flat /hollow world… 🤦♂️
Also take into consideration the moon and earth spin and shift on their axis. So gravitational force exerts in directions to shift the water horizontally. Explains tides I guess too.
Bothers me that it shouldn't be possible to fall into a black hole since time stops at the horizon.
Check out Time Factor Theory for a different approach. Click the big T to the left!
Time seems to stop from the perspective of an observer (elsewhere) but the person falling carries on as normal
The observer would see the "faller" getting more and more red-shifted until they were no longer visible. Trippy
@billshiff2060
Your statement sir, that "time stops at the horizon of a black hole" is a simplification often used in popular science to explain certain aspects of black holes. However, it's important to clarify that time doesn't literally stop at the event horizon; rather, it appears to slow down significantly from the perspective of an outside observer due to gravitational time dilation.
Now, from the viewpoint of someone outside the black hole observing an object falling towards it, time appears to slow down for the object as it approaches the event horizon. As the object gets closer to the event horizon, its clock appears to tick slower and slower, approaching a standstill as it reaches the event horizon. This phenomenon occurs because the gravitational field near the black hole is so intense that it warps spacetime, causing time to behave differently than in regions of weaker gravity.
But.... from the perspective of the object falling into the black hole, time continues to progress as normal. The person or object falling into the black hole would not experience time stopping; rather, they would continue to experience time passing as they cross the event horizon and eventually reach the singularity at the center of the black hole.
So..., the idea that "it shouldn't be possible to fall into a black hole since time stops at the horizon" is not accurate. Objects can indeed fall into black holes, and from their perspective, time continues to progress normally. The phenomenon of time dilation near black holes is a fascinating part of general relativity, but it does not prevent objects from crossing the event horizon.
@@johnnyreb280 uh huh so tell me
How long will it take for you to watch someone fall through the event horizon?
If the person falling in is watching you at the same time, what will he see?
You will never see him fall in.
He will see the entire future of the universe as he watches you.
So nothing prevents objects from falling in EXCEPT it will take all of future time to see it happen.
You fall in normally EXCEPT you will see the end of the universe before you do.
@@billshiff2060 It's correct that you will never see him fall in, but not because he never falls in. Because he will start to slowly fade away. The reason behind that is because the light waves emitted from the person falling in to the black hole slowly get longer and longer until the wave leaght are to long for our eyes to detect.
And the reson for the wave leaghts getting longer and longer is because the closer you get to the center of the black hole, the higher the gravity gets and the more it impacts the time, which makes tha light waves "wave" slower and slower (if that makes sense).
I'm afraid that if I played D&D with Matt as the Dungeon Master, I would never truly understand the quest he was sending me on.
it'd be fun to play a barbarian in that case
@@nmarbletoe8210 me, playing a barbarian with 20 INT: ah yes this gravity is made out of time but the real question is CAN YOU EAT IT
@@RedSkyYT64 Yes, you can eat it. It's called a banana.
I have to.
@@markodowd3476 sending out prayers.😁
All I know is the more time I'm alive the more I feel gravity...
I love this video. I've always hated the idea of using the heavy ball on a rubber sheet to show how gravity works when you are literally using gravity to explain gravity.
So, all we have to do is reduce the flow of time on the side of an object that's the direction we want it to go ... physicists! Get right on that! :D
It's tough to represent a 4 dimensional concept in 2 dimensions.
Only way to reduce that flow of time is with a source mass.
@Scott Henderson when you say that gravity is a force. you already lost the right to call yourself educated
I feel like this series would be a very helpful one in saying "speed of causality" instead of "speed of light" as discussed previously on the channel. When you consider causality as constant, the shifting into and out of time makes things less confusing and easier to keep straight
On point! The time collapses when the time measures itself. The begins when the time ends🌅
Matt @ 12:23: "So, who wants to play?"
Me: ***EVERYONE!***
Right? When do we roll for initiative?
@@dicebar_, if you have to ask...
--Dave, ... you're in your surprise round
Everyone: ME!
Drinking game: do a shot every time Matt says “time”... promise gravity will increase in no... time 😬
When I read this I counted that he said “time” like 7 times and like 6 more “times” before I got this wrote 😂
Gravity had to have increased, because I somehow ended up on the floor.
so if gravity increases in no time then it is only increasing in space?
Badum Tss !
@Science Revolution care to provide your alternative explanation? the whole purpose behind science is to explain natural activities with the best known explanation that fits all of the known evidence. if you don't have an alternative theory that fits all of the evidence, then all you are doing is pointlessly ranting.
11:56
And just like that... Matt's 'The physics of D&D' side channel was born.
Department of Defense?
Matt: "would you like to play ... a game?"
--Dave, the ultimate goal is to survive heat death. GO!
@@daviddelaney2407 Never had a doubt.
Even he can't explain the peasant railgun, though :
I've been saying for a long time that gravity is an emergent system caused by the effect of mass on time. Nice to see someone fully explain it.
Anti gravity is a product of the center of a magnet, However you need to know keep iron out of the picture. If you want to play with anti gravity you will find everything you need at the center of a magnetic force. But keep in mind iron is not part of the energy you would be working with. PROOF:
Take a bar magnet and tap just the center of same on Plastic, glass or granite rocks and you will see them loose significant weight!!
No , try again ...
@@bumcrackwatchco.lmao who tf are you? Quit yapping
A guy named Albert einstiene said this very long time ago
Just what einstein said
I love and hate watching videos like this, for the moments where I have a thought that is above my knowledge and I feel there is an awakening to a new understanding happening, then losing it because I did not fully grasp the concepts that brought me to it and I have difficulties trying to recapture it to explore further
Think as deeply as you can every time that happens! That's how your brain gets used to deep thinking about these topics
I know exactly what you mean! I think that me trying to recapture it is part of what makes me lose it. Instead of going with wherever my understanding is moment to moment I will try to go back to where it was when I felt I was getting close to that "Aha" moment. Then I get lost thinking about how to get there again when I could be putting that energy into thinking further on the topic!
Stop smoking weed kid
I didn't understand one bit. There are other videos that better explain this.
"Do we now perfectly understand the source of gravity?"
*rewatches video five times*.... no ...
indeed. Even after 100 years...but he came close....its is the SPEED of mass that causes frontal spacetime(ST) to contract (Einsteins SR' length contraction') as ST wraps around a speeding object..so warped time now becomes the particle property of 'inertia'. the higher the speed the more inverse time the object has and therefor it takes more time to yet move it (the in-product of both is constant). Although this ST contraction is linear, in restmass you have the accumulative speeds of all tiny unaligned sub atomic particles. this unalignment is what gives the illusion of radially working gravity in the case of restmass . but fundamentally the effect is linear. thats all....capice?
You could read a book instead of wasting time on videos. Just saying.
@@RWin-fp5jn nicely put there
@@qltcn Videos are just books with moving pictures, assuming both the video and the book contain the same information.
No dude, it's like trying to understand economics through a 15 min vídeo instead of reading a 100+ pages essay with much more depth and concepts that usually get overlooked by media makers
3:54 the intro music made me laugh out loud, I love when editors have fun 😂
I find all this super fascinating. Iv been reading tons of physics books, and watching tons of physics videos, and This week is the first time in my life Iv really clearly wrapped my head around why we have gravity and why there is a cosmic speed limit "the speed of light" Iv always had an intuitive sense of these things, but to understand it completely is like a huge breath of fresh air, probably the closest thing to a religious experience or epiphany Iv had. So thank you.
Which strain of mushrooms would you recommend 🤔
Speak for yourself. Maybe there’s a cosmic speed limit for you, but not me. I don’t hold myself back by prescribing self-defeating limits & thoughts like that onto myself.
"Do we now understand how gravity works?"
Me: yeah
Him: No
Me: No
😂
So did I, ashamed of myself😁
🤣
🥲
@@newhorizon3229 obscure unused emoji by anyone but you emojii Indeed
So when I yell "SLOW DOWN" at parked cars I'm not crazy.
Nah; that's only when they yell back.
Well you are kind of crazy because there's no way for anything to speed up or slow down. Everything is travelling at exactly the same total speed through space-time!
(Also, you may be crazy for completely unrelated reasons ;) )
Yes! Yes you are. They can hear quite fine and you need not yell. See... the newer cars have antennae built into the windscreen or roof.
This all has nothing to do with cows.
"#39 ON TRENDING" wow, didn't know people loved this stuff so much.
Yeah I think this channel proves that many more humans then we think really crave a deeper understanding of the nature of reality, with THE most up-to-date scientific explanations, WITHOUT dumbing it down (even if we don’t fully understand).
It’ comes from desire for exploration, the desire to TRY and understand..to TRY and see the future of humanity’s technological and intellect growth, without surviving long enough to see “it” happen.
@@jazzyoz Yup, I'll never fully understand, but I do have an interest in this stuff. I'm always curious how things work.
39 not 3
I had no hope whatsoever of understanding anything at all about this, I just came to listen & marvel. But thanks to your brilliant analogy with the boats, I at least understand a bit of what---if not much of the why. Thanks!
Last time I was this early, my feet were here slightly less early
Gravity doesn’t cause matter to change it’s position relative to other matter in a time line. It’s just a matter of the rate at which the “clocks” tick
@@scienceisall2632 It was a funny comment. Don't do him like that.
Due to the gravitational laws time for your head is very slightly faster than your feet. So your feet are slower.
In practice this makes minimal difference at all.
@@scienceisall2632 However, from the POV of his phone / eyes, his feet are late, since it took information some time to get from his feet to his eyes (via light).
"actually general relativity doesn't need quantum mechanics to explain gravity"
Dr. Don Lincoln: Hold my lepton
You are correct sir! You get a star 🌟 on your paper!
Hahaha
Another good channel :)
Your very right
This must be the most thought provoking video I ever saw. Had to see video 2-3 times to make sense of it. Each sentence that you say is a topic in itself and actually deserves separate time to think about. Connected many dots for me, and possibly reignited childhood curiosity in me after several years 🙂
Dude i concluded the result half way through the video.
watching this video three times is so many teapots floating through 4-velocity spacetime
concur! I couldn't sleep after watching this video. Don't watch spacetime before bed.
Watch scienclic for deeper understanding
This is the best video I have ever seen in my life. And I have always been interested in science. It makes a lot of sense. The why time and gravity are so tightly related.
So in a very true sense of the phrase, time is "wibbly wobbly, timey wimey"
😂 It sure is
Amazing how mathematics correlate with a totally real phenomenon. One of my teachers said to me once that imaginary numbers (and complex numbers) have vital importance in electrical plants (AC), that blew my mind.
Complex numbers describe rotation (isomorphic) perfectly. From the canoe example in the vid, rotation is fundamental to the Universe; 'straight line' concept is the human mind getting in the way of understanding.
As an electrical engineer in a power plant, your teacher is absolutely correct. Electricity doesn't make sense in math if you disregard "imaginary" numbers
@@stapleman007 woah I never realized that. It's so true. We are the ones drawing lines in the universe. The universe doesn't work in "lines". Can't believe I never realized this myself
It's almost like the existence of 3 dimensional movement creates a drag on the 4th dimension. An object that is on earth, but stationary on earth is still effectively unchanged by tidal time dilation, but an object that is stationary irrelevant of all larger masses would be moving the fastest through the time portion of spacetime. 3 dimensional movement seems like a very important key to how gravity exists.
That is exactly right. The 4-velocity of any object is given by (c, v)/sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2], where v is the Newtonian 3-dimensional speed. Of course, we know that v = 0 or 0 < v < c for any object with nonzero mass. As v gets closer and closer to c, the quantity sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] gets closer to 0, so the coordinates of the 4-velocity increase indefinitely. This means that the temporal component of the 4-velocity, given by c/sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2], also increases indefinitely, and a larger temporal component of the 4-velocity translates to a smaller apparent rate of passage of time.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 yeah what he said
However a atomic clock undepent from velocity keeps its time. That this is effected by the different speed from two or more objects is a fact as astronauts to the moon did prove i.c. GPS Satellites.
You do realize that the 4th dimension is an alternative type of physical matter that is bound by the laws of that dimension, and not actually time, time is more like a large ribbon of a wave that intersects with space, it's not an actual dimension, time is a wave that gives linear temporal structure to space, the slowdown of time is due to the collection of more mass particles in a given area of space, it's almost as if each particle attracts and takes a small bit of time or temporal energy from the time wave, when scientists refer to time as a dimension, they throw off their thinking about the small inner workings of what really causes time dialation, in each universe or reality, every atom at the quantum level vibrates according to that universe's quantum frequency, each universe has a slightly different quantum frequency, and time is the wave that these various frequencies are measured by, and it's the accumulation of particles in a particular area of space that determines the gravitational force and the temporal drag. I'm guessing that since time is a wave, similar to how light is a wave, it too is subject to the affects of gravity and thus slows down. I guess that's the simplest way to think about it, however time itself, is not a physical dimension. In actually comparing it to a river or a stream is probably most accurate cause it does flow in a wave.
Time is a Dimension. And can be measured. There are facts in our Universum wich cannot be cleared away. Distance is one of them and also time
So people , physicist, which study quantum mechanics think that time in quantummechanics is reversable. But in realy time, no great quantummechanics can be reversed. No atomic bomb can be undun. No plasmatic fusion in Sun can be undun. And every process goes forward in time. Time is not a second product of Gravitation. And its for sure that timeexperience in objects with different speed compared to each other is different, but each object is going straight forward in time. 4th Dimension yeah yeah but everywhere forward. Even in Black Holes.
Time has a more entropic caracter than it has e wave function.
I have a decent education in physics. BS and MS. And my first answer is "yes". If time was not progressing, you would not be attracted to the nearest massive object.
This was such a shoddy vid. If you needed this or this did it for you and not schooling your school failed you. So much is wrong here and dude probably doesn’t have a degree.
Nice shout out to Science Asylum. He's got some of the most entertaining science content on RUclips. He's a modern day Bill Nye or Beakman. He really needs more subs. He's so good.
He's also really good at interacting with the community in a helpful way to explain things. Definitely a great educator.
Yeah I like Nick's content a lot; I've been watching his stuff for a while now.
Don’t insult him by referencing Bill Nye. Nye uses a mixture of real science and junk science to justify a manifold leftist agenda - downright evil.
This stuff is basically the closest we can get to real life "arcane knowledge" lol. Mind boggling...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and I'd apply a similar line of thinking to theoretical knowledge.
I now feel like I know the secrets of life and death and can begin my journey to becoming a necromancer.
@@Aquatarkus96 we are all wizards!
This episode was strangely quite understandable (thanks to the super animation at 2:55 ), previous episodes on gravity had their quirks but were somewhat accessible too. But their whole series on quantum field was definitely Arcane Knowledge, only accessible to ones who did advanced math AND quantum physics. I have an okay kinda advanced but not pro knowledge on math, and all the episodes on quantum fields and whatnot were a real pain x)
But all this arcane thing is really dependent on your current knowledge. If you wrote basic formulas that involve derivatives and primitives, like the formula for mean value of periodic signal, or anything that involves sums with the big Sigma, a non-STEM person would see it as dark magic already ^^ Just like I can't understand a thing when Laplacian, Rotationals, matrixes, Einstein convention and other advanced tools and writing conventions are all mixed into the same equation :p
@@mythicdawn9574Well this is just how I felt about this channel in general lol, very eye-opening stuff. Even if this episode was easier to follow, it was still very enlightening imo.
Tea pot in space: Oh no, not again.
My first thought: That's the wrong kind of teapot.
Tea pot in space: wait...I've been here before...wasn't I a whale last time?
@@nelsonyurok that was the bowl of petunias. You're thinking of the long dark tea time of the soul
Ole Bertie would be proud of his legacy
The relationship between time and gravity is a profound concept in physics, particularly in the context of Einstein's theory of general relativity. According to this theory, gravity is not a force in the traditional sense but a curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass and energy. Time and gravity are deeply interconnected, as gravity can influence the passage of time time slows down in stronger gravitational fields, a phenomenon known as gravitational time dilation. However, asking if time causes gravity reverses the typical cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, gravity is understood to emerge from the curvature of spacetime, where time is one component of this four-dimensional fabric. The presence of mass and energy warps spacetime, creating what we perceive as gravity. This raises an intriguing question: If time is affected by gravity, could there be scenarios where alterations in the flow of time might influence the gravitational field, perhaps in ways we have not yet fully explored? Could further understanding of the relationship between time and gravity lead to new insights into the nature of the universe?
10:15 That’s um... quite the user name they got you to say there Matt
The username kinda made me do a double take too.
Yeah that was extremely jarring, been a long time since I've heard _that_ word
loooooooool
@@hash8169 Pretty sure Milf means the same thing everywhere though lol
PBS - A Family Company
The nod to the Science Asylum and Eugene Khutoryansky was really galant.
I'll add Science Click as an honorable mention
The Science Click Vid on "we are all travelling at the speed of light" literally blew my mind.
I like imaging the "everything goes at c" as a point system. You have 100 points that you can spread across space and/or time.
The number of points never change, but something like light has all 100 points in space, 0 points in time. Something at absolute zero has all their points in time and zero in space (impossible, I know). A rocket has some in both. The sum never changes, but the ratio does.
Yeah the vector in time space, its projection to the axes.
@@innosanto Yup yup. That's the one .
What does sound traveling through a near infinitely dense medium rank at?
"like light has all 100 points in space, 0 points in time" -- Ah, but photons have momentum, don't they? So, given that m = e/c^2, wouldn't that imply that even if the amount of mass implied by the energy of that momentum is infinitesimal, some mass (or its energy equivalent) theoretically exists. And thus, light is not truly timeless.
@@jklappenbach light isn’t timeless because In reality it does interact with fields and it exists in a non-uniform gravitational potential. It could only be considered timeless in thought experiments or approximated in carefully controlled experiments. For example, traveling across potential differences in gravity (or flow of time) changes its wavelength. Interactions with dust or magnetic fields in space alter it as well. Saying it’s timeless is a useful first order approximation that helps grasp the concepts but just like every other physics formula or conjecture, it’s a simplification.
At first it made sense to see time flowing, but then flowing is itself something that happens over time.
It's flowing in relation to something that is not flowing as fast because mass is effecting it, ie an object going the speed of light seems to stop time.
I’m an astrophysics student and that just blew my mind. So some of my time is being extracted (causing me to move through time just a little bit slower) and used to keep me stuck to the surface of earth. Wow.
That is amazing really.
Does that means that time stops inside a black hole?
You don't sound much like an astrophysics student to me. Time is not being extracted from anything because, as you should know as a so-called physics student, that time is nothing more than a measurement of motion. Maybe you should actually enroll in a few college courses and become an actual student rather than come on RUclips pretending to be one.
@@YouVWatcher that might explain black holes...
@@madeleinecallan3153 I like astrophysics, but I don't like bullshit, and neither should you. I'm not arguing semantics. I'm arguing concepts. Learn the difference, genius. Who's the real fool here?
These last couple episodes have been my favorites so far. Thanks Matt! I studied fluid dynamics so the kayaker analogy really clicked for me.
All this got me wondering, if the Higgs field creates drag on things moving in the spatial dimension, giving those things mass, could the Higgs field also be causing drag on things with mass as they move in the time dimension, causing clocks to run slower around things with mass?
Something I realized recently: Time is just a way for different things to happen at the same location/place.
I was forced to come to a similar conclusion when I was first confronted with the "time is a human construct" argument. Like, no... Time is demonstrable and things have distance from each other in it. Especially the "same" things.
Thanks Matt. Great episode as always, and I hope I understand it fully soon
so... objects falling straight down are "rotating" from time-speed to space-speed?
Yes.
You trade time for speed, hence you cannot go at the speed of light because you have run out of time to accelerate. In a gravity field you are accelerating down, slightly reducing available time.
@@seriousmaran9414 I'm gonna say something very stupid certainly. So you assume an object has a finite "amount of movement" in those 4 dimensions and you just transfer your time amount to space with energy ? Can't you somehow "bring more time" to your system with an external source, to allow yourself to accelerate more ? Like, you reach 99.9% of c, and then you "refill" your time movement with science magic to allow you to push further ? Or does bringing time in would always result in lowering your spatial movement ? What does mass represent in this thought experiment ? The time amount of movement ? A ratio describing how much energy is required to draw time to space movement ?
I like your analogy, I take note. But it leads to weird ideas (at least me) when you want to push the limits.
@@mythicdawn9574 You can't add anything more because you're still capped at the speed of light. Actually, I think what he's referring to is the 4-velocity of an object, which is the change in x^2+y^2+z^2+(ict)^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2.t^2=0, so it makes more sense than simply having the speed of light appear out of nowhere. In that formulation, the speed of light is actually the conversion factor between the dimensions of space and time, and the far-less-magical zero is the total magnitude of the 4-vector.
@@photinodecay can you try to explain this to someone who is starting to study fundamental math? because unfortunately your level is much more advanced than mine. :/
I love the D&D reference. Skill and saving throws are very important...
That game is a great analogy for life.
Keep making the good shows
I know it's a simplification/reduction of moral character, but I often find myself evaluating people's alignments based on D&D substructures
Dividing Intelligence into Intelligence and Wisdom is very useful way to look at things. And the division in game was just to give a different spec to Mages vs Clerics but considering book knowledge vs knowledge gained from life in the community and books covering the same is how they decided on Wisdom for Clerics. They envisioning the old village priest there. Because they talk to everyone they draw from everyone's wisdom.
@@RedRocket4000 This was known long before the 1970s.
Int: Knowing that Tomatoes are fruit.
Wis: Knowing that they don't go in a fruit salad.
Cha: Selling a tomato-based fruit salad
Smarts: calling it "Salsa!"
Time and gravity are literally lawful neutral!
I like the idea of time machines staying in one place and seeing everything pass at high speed so much more now
To many big words for me I would have to sit down and study to understand. But I enjoy how your looking at the relationship between gravity and time, never pondered that.. Thank you
You're
"The answer is: lol, no." I'm so gonna steal that one.
Also worth a lol: Matt spelling out that users name, M1lf, so as not to have to say it.
@@gakzor I was gonna say the same thing, lmao
Whoa! Never thought of time having a 'real' velocity. So when space and time are switching their positions beyond the event horizon, does that mean that inside the black hole space induces gravity?
All I heard was "Timey, Wimey."
not gonna lie, it was kinda wibbly-wobbly
This is the greatest comment of all time
Wibly wobbley
This video explained the Wimey part. Watch the other for the Timey part.
Well you heard more than me then 😅
I learned not too long ago to prefer to think of the speed of light as the speed of causality. Light being massless is not subject to acceleration constraints from mass, so it's speed limit is causality itself. So rather than thinking of speed of light being some arbitrary value that can't be exceeded, it's more useful to think of causality as not possible to exceeded, which makes better logical sense. This helps with logic of other concepts involving speed of light. It's like saying nothing can travel faster than the speed of a car, when a better way to think of it would be to refer directly to the speed limit of the road.
Nothing would exist without causality having a speed limit because everything would happen at once from past to future.
It's actually * G R A V I T I M E *
Electricity and magnetism were once considered as two separate forces of nature.
* S P A C E G R A V I T Y *
@@NeonVisual gravity.... in SPAACE.
Everything clicked the moment he said "warping of time causes gravity."
Apparently even though I don't understand a third of what this channel's about, I'm still slowly learning through osmosis.
try and explain it to someone else, then you will 'see what parts you did not understand' and that becomes your question for this RUclips channel. Good luck.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 You make me genuinely miss school.
Agree, good comment. Also great suggestion by Stephen
🙄 Right, you fully understand it just by hearing that phrase. Okay, if warping of time causes gravity, and mass causes the warping of time, why does mass cause the warping of time?
@@Armageist Never said I fully understood it o_O
I'm just saying it makes sense intuitively that if time is slower in one spot than in an adjacent spot, things will veer toward the slower spot.
If nothing else, it's at least less cyclical in reasoning to say mass warps time, which in turn causes gravity, than it is to say gravity slows down time.
Because I'm not a scientist but just a science nerd, I have to fact check every single thing you say... so far you are 100% correct. Fascinating video. TY
Scientist have discovered how to slow and speed up time. To speed it up have fun and smile, to slow it frown and have a bad time. I enjoy learning this great stuff but the time to do so always runs out fast.
❤
Matt, you do great work. Thank you.
I have always been fascinated by theoretical physics, but I had serious and well founded doubts I was studious enough to earn a living in a field that competitive.
Still; I always enjoyed watching edutainment on the subject and told myself I would some day pursue the study in earnest as I neared retirement for my own pleasure. I cannot tell you how many times in life I would have a stray thought about the implications of some experiment or the theory of relativity and then seek someone who could help me understand the answer. Usually, the things I pondered were too unusual and I would get no answer; or an answer without an explanation.
I think this is the 4th or 5th time you've just jumped straight to my curiosity as part of your lecture on the topic. (I always knew four velocity was an implication, I must have just been asking the wrong people.)
Anyways thank you. Literally the best edutainment I've ever consumed.
I have the (silly) hobby to ask people if they'd like some recommendations;
especially science-channel and such. Yeah, its random and i'm often called Robot for it,
but who cares? I live for those few who say 'Yes thanks' (though No thanks is also nicer than calling me non-alive...)
and i wont stop asking around.
I wanna spread Education, so i recommend edu-channel, duh!
I guess you could say I'm trading my time and/or space for a space and time to space out and watch Spacetime. :D (Worth it!)
I loved Matt reading “lol” as a word
Back in my day we pronounced lol and we would even sometimes spell it as lawl
How can we be at the light speed in the time dimension?
Because we would not be interacting with anything and thus experience no time. It is only through movement that we deviate from this and interact with things, thus less movement through time and more movement through space.
Be at absolute zero.
Don't confuse "time measured" with "time elapsed". This is a problem with Einstein Relativity. You cannot measure time universally, but that doesn't mean that time changes according to your measures.
And also, Einstein failed to define what "time" really is, so all his theories are based on an undefined concept. Of course you cannot define time as "a dimension", that is just categorising it, not defining it.
This might help: "Do we travel through time at the speed of light?" - Sabine Hossenfelder
ruclips.net/video/iBTez-nTKes/видео.html
Spoiler alert: A distance in space is measured in metres (m), and time is measured in seconds (s), so the two are not directly interchangeable. The trick is to dvide a distance (measured in m) by c (in m/s) to get a time measurement in seconds, or to multiply a time by c to get a distance in metres (s * m/s = m).
Why do you have very big stars that turn into red supergiants and the wolf rayet do it differently? What is the mechanism? Can you explain me?
"let's posit a teapot in space". The whole situation became suddenly a lot Britishier.
It's probably a reference to Russell's Teapot.
I feel like a lot of physics dealing with _c_ makes more intuitive sense when you think about it as the speed of causality. It's then obvious that massless things like EM waves & gravitational travel at the _speed of causality_ in a vacuum. It also makes it easy to see how mass/energy impedes this, like a viscosity scalar.
👍 I actually grok that. Good visualization.
@@HiroNguy Glad I'm not the only one. 😄
Once I realized this, it was much clearer why _c_ is a fundamental limit. Speeds beyond it would require effects to come before their causes.
Also makes it simpler to see that _c_ is a baseline from which things can be slowed instead of our intuition that the human-scale speeds we experience are the baseline and some things just happen to occur faster.
@@RubelliteFae Looks like we reached the same conclusion lol. You're definitely not the only one. But I can't remember how I reached that conclusion. I think Gabe or Matt might have mentioned something like that in one of their videos, but I can't remember which one. I actually went one step further and realized that causality must have a finite speed, otherwise time wouldn't exist. Everything would happen at the same instant. But the problem is, how do we stop massless particles from traveling faster than c? Massive particles are easy. They need infinite energy. So they can't even travel at c, much less faster. But massless particles don't have this restriction. So what's stopping them from going faster? 🤔
@@feynstein1004 "causality must have a finite speed, otherwise time wouldn't exist."
Yes exactly! And thus is inexorably linked to the arrow of time, entropy, etc.
"Everything would happen at the same instant."
Or worse, effects would precede their causes, violating a fundamental assumption of physics.
"how do we stop massless particles from traveling faster than c? ... what's stopping them from going faster?"
Causality is. If speed was limitless (limit approaching infinity), then effects could precede causes by an infinite amount. This would make it seem like things happen randomly and for no reason-we'd never have formed the concept of reason (unless in all the infinite randomness we just happened to be the results of billions of years when causes happened to precede effects, which is technically possible, but that's a whole different discussion about multiverses and probability).
Another way to think about it is in terms of other limits of physics, for example, the meaninglessness of a temperature below absolute 0. Also, think about the concept of speed: it's the relationship between distance and time. The speed of causality being a limit define space, time, and all other speeds. I think the only reason it really confuses people is because we are used to boundaries being set to 0 and boundlessness being at ∞ or -∞. (Since maths are tools for symbolically understanding the Universe,) we could redefine numbers or distance/time based on _c_ being 0, but that would make all other numbers unintuitive and not particularly useful for everyday life. Does that make sense?
@@RubelliteFae "Or worse, effects would precede their causes, violating a fundamental assumption of physics." Indeed. It appears causality needs at least a 1-D topology. Without a finite speed, all events get compressed to a 0-D point and it's impossible to distinguish cause from effect anymore.
"Causality is. If speed was limitless (limit " I mean, I get that but youe explanation is more about the why of it than how. And don't get me wrong, I do understand why causality needs to be finite, but I also want to know how that rule is enforced. I guess an appropriate analogy would be the height to which we can build structures on earth. We know it can't be infinite because that would be illogical. So there must be some limit. But how is that limit enforced? Through the material properties of substances. Once we get to a certain height, a material's weight overcomes its compressive strength and it's impossible to build any higher.
The first big step to understanding time properly is to recognize that time cannot be separated from space. Once we have space-time, we realize that gravity is a curvature of space-time. Does time create gravity? No. Does space-time curvature create gravity? Yes. Can this make it seem like time creates gravity if we limit our gaze upon but a part of the whole? Yes.
"Let's leave that teapot for now."
*cries in British*
Smiles in *Union Jack*
As long as it doesn't experience any force, it will be fine.
throw all the teapots into the spacetime!
new revolution. at the game store you know the one buy the movie theatre
@@merrick8000 are you staging a boson tea party?
I look forward to the next installment, "Gravity, and its opposite: Comedy."
Judging by how quick I got here - yes
Good one buddy
2x speed is better
Twice the speed to understand this video ! Are you a new Einstein?! :-) Specialy with this kind of simple subjects... 🤨
Damn this 1.5x thing is gonna change my life.
@@pierrot8358 I watch almost every video on 2x speed.
i like to come here anytime i start thinking i understand things. a heaping spoonful of humility is good for the constitution
I think photons are affected by "gravity" in the sense that they are going straight through a warped spacetime, which is why something massless may appear to be affected by gravity into a lensing effect. If I am understanding it correctly, large masses sort of "bend" spacetime, and they might do so in a way that allows light to continue to move only through space and not time in a perfectly straight line according to how spacetime is compressed or warped near large masses.
No. Light moves on space itself. Curved space equals curved light. The gravitational lense would not be possible otherwise. A lense bends light to a fix point that makes you perceive the source of the light differently. Does that help?
"So who wants to play?"
Yes!!!! Me me me me me me !!!!!
I'm in!
Me! Me! Me!
Well, we have enough for a party now!
Just felt like say, "Yes"
Glad to see a Eugene channel shoutout! Such a unique way of presenting physics
I was also thinking of Science Asylum where I learned this before. Nice that it was mentioned
@ Same with me. Science Asylum has consistently blown my mind on several topics. Glad to see he got a shout out. Now i have to go check out Eugene.
Causation is so interesting. Recently I saw proof that all clocks, watches etc. exist entirely as a consequence of time. For a moment I wondered how people knew what time it was prior to that.
before clocks i think people dont thought of time as we see it today on a clock but rather if the sun rises and when is at its maximum and setting and that determin what part of the day it is and depending on the place of the sun/moon detemin winter/ summer period.
If you're actually down to play some D&D, count me in!
I would love to play as well!
Me too
here's another one
I'm up for it as well
It has been a while since I got to be a player, if there is any chance I could join I will.
the most savage "lol no" I've heard this year
"You are currently hurtling through time at the speed of light. But be careful. If even a tiny bit of your breakneck temporal velocity leaks into one of the dimensions of space and you're standing in the wrong place at the time, you will rapidly accelerate to your doom. You think I'm kidding. I just described the true source of gravity....... Don't look down." Pure poetry!
True
The amount I've learned from watching RUclips videos and then fact checking things is crazy. I wish I had this obsession when I was in school. I would've loved to have studied space and the universe and made it a job that I loved instead of breaking my back day in and day out.
No views - 144 likes? RUclips proving that time is relative
No RUclips just uses a slower validation method for views than likes.
8 year old video. But does help explain how views work - ruclips.net/video/oIkhgagvrjI/видео.html
Gross likes
I like first then watch 🤷🏻♂️
@@cherubin7th But in a sense that _is_ a different relative flow of time for like data vs view data :)