How Can SPACE and TIME be part of the SAME THING?

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 21 дек 2024

Комментарии • 1,7 тыс.

  • @meghjoshi
    @meghjoshi Год назад +653

    Space and time are relative, the more time I spend with my relatives the more space I need

    • @hooked4215
      @hooked4215 Год назад +11

      In fact, the ratio is inverse. Wrong.

    • @hooked4215
      @hooked4215 Год назад

      That is precisely an inverse ratio.@@richardparker1338

    • @scorelessbow128
      @scorelessbow128 Год назад +20

      ​ "Actually" kid in the comments. It's a joke, let it be.

    • @ashhole03
      @ashhole03 Год назад +6

      ​@@hooked4215It's a joke. Stop.

    • @hooked4215
      @hooked4215 Год назад

      I have stopped a long time ago but you have kept moving so you think that I am the moving one.@@ashhole03

  • @binhta
    @binhta 10 месяцев назад +22

    Wow, I just happened to come across this video and I found the explaination super helpful with such a complex concept (you can tell that I'm not a science major here). The use of interactive graphics really helps guide the viewers to have a better understanding of the talk. But the real genius is how Mr. Arnold breaks the concept down and use simple languages to clarify the complexities of space-time (I'm still not there yet but may be I will someday). STEM students can truly benefit from this type of education. I'll definitely keep following this and hope my granddaughter will benefit from this someday, should she chooses to go into science/engineering. Thank you.

  • @life_score
    @life_score 9 месяцев назад +21

    That’s a lot of difficult key concepts packed into one easier to understand video, bravo! 👏

  • @wayneyadams
    @wayneyadams Год назад +163

    My favorite concept which I read way back when I was in Junior High school is that "when you travel at any speed you trade space for time." You gain time (time dilation) and you lose space (length contraction).

    • @Rampada
      @Rampada Год назад +4

      Continuous acceleration 🤔, as it makes no sense if the graph is constant

    • @dalecollins477
      @dalecollins477 Год назад +11

      Good explanation. In my opinion, space does not contract, but rather the travelling object simply viisits less places the faster it goes. If it had to visit all places between the start and end it would have to visit anifinite number of them (because you can always sub divide between two points), which would take forever. Zenos paradox about the movement of an arrow first highlighted the infinite number of points between any two places. Modern maths makes a pathetic attempt, by inventing the concept of limits (where the crux phrase is 'at infinity', which of course can't happen), to show movement is possible if you draw a line of ink on paper, the ink will not be contigous, and the faster you draw the line, the less places the ink will mark the paper. I think it's the same for spacetime. The faster you go, the less places iyou 'visit. It works the other way too. The faster you go the less points of time you vist, so it seems time contracts. Time dialation is (in my opinion) when points in time are skipped over just like the points in space. 🙂

    • @Rampada
      @Rampada Год назад +2

      @nswanberg replying to whom? Please mention

    • @RedNomster
      @RedNomster Год назад +2

      @nswanberg not moving at all isn't the slowest you can go in space, correct? Extreme curvature of the space you're not moving in also plays a role in how "still" you are to outside observers. I propose you are more still relative to the rest of the universe while you are falling into a black hole, despite the presumption that falling is moving. It isn't in this case -- let me explain. When you swap space and time coordinates is when you're most still in my opinion, as falling towards and reaching the singularity is as inevitable as "falling" into the future in any given moment. So movement towards the singularity in a black hole isn't through 3 dimensional space, but through 1 dimensional time. The singularity IS your future, and there's no way to avoid it. You can move out of its way no more than you can move back in time.
      So I would say the singularity is the slowest you could move, but what do I know

    • @dalecollins477
      @dalecollins477 Год назад +2

      @@RedNomster Good stuff! Also, the more still an object is it seems, the cooler it is. The cooler something is the less engery it has. So perhaps black holes are the coldest places in the unviverse, with the least energy? Just outside the event horizon then (too adhere to the conservation of energy), there should be all the engery of the particles that pass across it, and hence this would be very 'hot'?

  • @aanchaallllllll
    @aanchaallllllll Год назад +4

    0:08: 🌌 The concept of space-time is essential for the existence of the universe and all physical phenomena.
    2:54: 🌐 The concept of combining space and time into a 4-dimensional continuum called spacetime is not intuitive, but can be understood by comparing it to the geometry of space.
    5:31: ⏳ Time and space have an inverse relationship, as shown by the equation E^2 = t^2 - x^2.
    8:21: ⏳ The concept of time and its relationship with space explained, including the conversion between the two using the speed of light.
    11:09: 🌌 The existence of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension is crucial for the existence of life and to avoid paradoxes.
    13:53: 📚 Brilliant offers a practical course on Special Relativity with interactive learning tools and monthly new content.
    Recap by Tammy AI

  • @datachief7093
    @datachief7093 11 месяцев назад +13

    This is EXCELLENT! I have tried to come to terms with spacetime for ages, but Arvin has shed light where no-one else has been able to. Thank you!

  • @Yewbzee
    @Yewbzee Год назад +38

    The bigger question revolves around whether spacetime, the foundation of our current physics models, can still be considered the fundamental layer of reality, or if it instead originates from a more foundational underlying structure. While our current models have thrived on the spacetime framework, recent challenges and breakdowns in certain areas have prompted us to question whether spacetime alone can continue to provide a comprehensive explanation.

    • @bluevalentine2009
      @bluevalentine2009 Год назад +4

      That's why so many physicists have spent their lives trying to formulate one equation for the entire universe. Einstein has been the closest with E=mc2. But that only says energy must have mass and vice versa. It doesn't account for time, which is relative to the observer. So easy to understand yet so hard to grasp until you grasp it.

    • @alphagt62
      @alphagt62 Год назад +3

      I’m wondering if, and how, fields play into this structure? As he has demonstrated in other videos, space is made up of fields, like the Higgs field, and other boson fields. Is there any connection between these fields and the 4 dimensions that our universe appears to have? Matter cannot exist without these fields, so, can we have three dimensions without these fields? I’m not even sure I’m asking the right question.

    • @altrag
      @altrag Год назад

      @@alphagt62 > Is there any connection between these fields and the 4 dimensions that our universe appears to have?
      Yes, they're deeply connected. The fields that we describe in the Standard Model only work in 4 dimensions. (Of course you can create fields in other numbers of dimensions, but they would not be the fields of the Standard Model. They would be something completely different.)
      > Matter cannot exist without these fields
      Matter _as we know it._ That's a very important caveat to always keep in mind when we're discussing these kind of philosophical topics that we can't prove (or disprove) using any known science.
      > can we have three dimensions without these fields?
      Fields are a mathematical model we humans use to describe what we've learned about reality, but they don't define reality. Reality just is what it is. It existed long before we invented the concept of "fields" and it will continue to exist long after we and our knowledge of fields has gone extinct.
      > I’m not even sure I’m asking the right question
      You are, you're just asking it in the wrong frame of mind. You need to dissociate what the universe is from how we mere mortals understand the universe (and that's not particularly easy - don't feel bad about it!)
      One thing to always remember is that these questions cannot be answered (at least not without a view of the universe from outside the universe, which we're unlikely to ever get). They're philosophical questions rather than scientific, and they're questions philosophers have been struggling with for as long as humanity has existed. Each era within the framework of their own knowledge of course - the ancient Greeks for example pondered their "celestial spheres" rather than our current conceptualization of fields within the Standard Model - but the underlying questions are essentially the same.
      Anyway that's enough rambling from me. I'll say you're off to a good start! Happy philosophizing! :D

    • @theharwizard8093
      @theharwizard8093 Год назад +3

      @@alphagt62so the fields actually are space time. The 3 physical dimensions are just those fields all stacked on one another and that forms the “fabric” of reality

    • @Yewbzee
      @Yewbzee Год назад +1

      Considering the longstanding emphasis on spacetime as the foundation of reality, it's worth pondering if we've got it reversed. What if consciousness is the true fundamental layer, from which spacetime and all its intricacies emerge? Challenges in our current models might be pointing us towards such a profound paradigm shift. There are many scientists now seriously considering this. Look up Prof. Donald Hoffman and his work on this.

  • @hahahasan
    @hahahasan Год назад +63

    I love that you casually gave one of the most intuitive explanations for the twin paradox as an aside for your main subject matter. Your talent and hard work as an educator is so incredibly rare. Thank you.

    • @yziib3578
      @yziib3578 Год назад +7

      The video did not cover the twin paradox. It only showed what observer A would see about observer B time. It did not show what observer B would see of observer A time. So it did not show the paradox, that from observer A perspective B time is slower and from observer B perspective A time is slower.

    • @hahahasan
      @hahahasan Год назад +3

      @@yziib3578 it showed that whomever travels in space and returns to that point is younger. How does this not show the twin paradox?

    • @juliavixen176
      @juliavixen176 Год назад +3

      @@Va1demar This is literally the very first thing covered by every single explanation of Special Relativity. Admittedly, some of the explanations suck, but to summarize... actually, I'm just going to go to bed, there are dozens of good videos about this on RUclips that you can watch, here, for free.

    • @juliavixen176
      @juliavixen176 Год назад

      @@yziib3578 Both observers agree with each other about the spacetime interval each traveled. If one twin only travels on one side of the triangle, then the other twin *must* travel along the two other sides of the triangle. Spacetime intervals are invariant. Two sides of a triangle are always longer than the third side.
      Do the Twin (so-called) "Paradox" with triplets or quadruplets and it should make more sense.

    • @hahahasan
      @hahahasan Год назад +1

      @@Va1demar I struggle to understand your point from a theoretical perspective, but please bear in mind we have an incredibly large amount of empirical evidence for a constant speed of light. As in we go out and measure it under many many different scenarios and it comes out the same.

  • @shethtejas104
    @shethtejas104 Год назад +35

    Hello Arvin. You should be made the education minister for the whole world owing to your exceptional pedagogic skills. Schools in general tend to repress creative questions from children. Someone like you would reverse that and then we will not just be finding new answers, but we will also be finding new questions, both of which are paramount for scientific progress.
    Excellent video as always. I especially liked you putting a very obvious question 'how can two quantities with different dimensions be equated'. One question: In the video you mentioned that multi dimensional time would allow time loops to exist. How is it then that we humans are trying to invent a time machine in a space-time which has only one dimension for time? Shouldn't it be outrageously impossible?

    • @chrisstevens-xq2vb
      @chrisstevens-xq2vb Год назад

      Yep time travel is impossible just like bending space is impossible

    • @shethtejas104
      @shethtejas104 Год назад

      @@chrisstevens-xq2vb what do you think about the proposed alcubierre drive?

    • @chrisstevens-xq2vb
      @chrisstevens-xq2vb Год назад

      @@shethtejas104 Funny asf. You can’t bend space.

    • @shethtejas104
      @shethtejas104 Год назад

      @@chrisstevens-xq2vb Ok chill. I was just asking your thoughts on it. Relax.

    • @chrisstevens-xq2vb
      @chrisstevens-xq2vb Год назад

      @@shethtejas104 it’s called being direct….

  • @LeeHoFooks
    @LeeHoFooks Год назад +20

    That is when your girlfriend says she needs some space and time to think about things.

    • @kobiecamp1134
      @kobiecamp1134 5 месяцев назад +1

      No, this is when your girlfriend is trying to get rid of you in a nice way.

    • @piusxiv
      @piusxiv 3 месяца назад

      😂

  • @myBestWishes677
    @myBestWishes677 Год назад +4

    It would interesting to understand the notion of spacetime from a LQG perspective or a quantized fields approach, for example the notion of "points in spacetime" would be replaced by what? Traditional Minkowsky spacetime would have any meaning at all in LQG? Or it would it be replaced by a spinfoam where the traditional notion of points in space would cease to have any meaning at all?

  • @philjamieson5572
    @philjamieson5572 Год назад +12

    I love your commentary; it's so concise and ultra clear. Those two things really help me to grasp these complex ideas.

  • @dougg1075
    @dougg1075 Год назад +27

    Time adjusts itself for each person to make sure light speed is the same for each person/observer ( whatever that is). Crazy

    • @steveco1800
      @steveco1800 Год назад +3

      Well I guess that’s to say time is relative to the perspective of each person because it’s limited by the speed of light? So somebody in another galaxy is existing in our future, but at the same time from their perspective we are existing in their future…I need to watch the video again 🧐

    • @smlanka4u
      @smlanka4u Год назад +3

      Einstein's relativity didn't prove that time is relative. Relative time is only a principle in it.

    • @juliavixen176
      @juliavixen176 Год назад +2

      It's because of inertia. Moving at a constant velocity is exactly the same as standing still. Everyone and everything is standing still with respect to itself, and so relative to itself, it emits light at the speed of light.

    • @gaopinghu7332
      @gaopinghu7332 Год назад +1

      ​@@smlanka4u you are right. There have been, however, experiments that proved it.

    • @smlanka4u
      @smlanka4u Год назад +1

      @@gaopinghu7332, High-energy muons decay slowly because they are not similar to the low-energy muons. It doesn't mean that speed changes the time. Also, photons experience time even if they don't decay faster, and their wavelenth increases with time. Planck time is not relative.

  • @tariqmalik8521
    @tariqmalik8521 6 месяцев назад +3

    One of the simplest best presentation of space time. For our future young generation scientist, it is very important to understand the space time concept. It is necessary to extend our understnding of Einstein's Theory of relativity, his EMC² and also the new concepts on Gravitation...is not a force and beyond. As usual, good job from ARVIN.

  • @vijaysahani3464
    @vijaysahani3464 Год назад +3

    Dear Arvin sir, you have simplified complex topic to a great extent. Love you.

  • @rva11
    @rva11 Год назад +8

    This is such an amazing encapsulation of a difficult topic. I could have skipped dozens of videos by simply starting here!

    • @chrisstevens-xq2vb
      @chrisstevens-xq2vb Год назад

      So how does space bend?🤣

    • @leeg8461
      @leeg8461 Год назад

      ​@chrisstevens-xq2vb
      Over backwards.😉

    • @chrisstevens-xq2vb
      @chrisstevens-xq2vb Год назад

      @@leeg8461 People actually believe nothing can bend🤦🏼‍♂️

    • @-blaire-
      @-blaire- Год назад

      @@chrisstevens-xq2vb space isnt ''nothing''

  • @ericwilson5203
    @ericwilson5203 Год назад +6

    Great video! I find it helpful to think speed is converted from time. We are all moving through time at the speed of light. You hinted at the conversion factor… borrowing just a little time and can give you a lot of extra speed
    Gravity is constant acceleration so we need speed to overcome that and appear stationary. So we convert some of our time to speed so our time goes a little slower.

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon Год назад

      No constant speed can "overcome" non-zero acceleration, this part doesn't check out. To compensate for acceleration and appear stationary you need another acceleration, i.e. changing speed, but it would mean changing time dilation.

    • @ExistenceUniversity
      @ExistenceUniversity Год назад +1

      Nor are we all travelling at light speed lol

    • @Name-js5uq
      @Name-js5uq Год назад

      ​@ExistenceUniversity yes we are all traveling at the speed of light. Sorry, but you are wrong. Here is the proof:
      ruclips.net/video/au0QJYISe4c/видео.html
      From science clic English.

    • @ExistenceUniversity
      @ExistenceUniversity Год назад

      @@Name-js5uq Science clic is wrong. If you were traveling at the speed of light then you'd have no experience of time or space. You wouldn't exist as you do.
      In fact you can find my 2 year old debunking of his video in that comment section lol

    • @BenjaminMilekowsky
      @BenjaminMilekowsky Год назад

      The short answer is our world is perfect and balanced in any terms,

  • @artdonovandesign
    @artdonovandesign 12 дней назад +1

    Dear Prof. Arvin,
    I developed my love of Physics watching your very channel!
    So much of it is far above my head, but that certainly doesn't matter. I'm just fascinated by its complexity and I marvel at Physicists like yourself who've actually mastered it.
    The physics and science featured in your episodes have also influenced my art in a major way.
    Best Wishes and Thank You!

  • @hahahasan
    @hahahasan Год назад +11

    I do wonder a little about the extra time dimensions sometimes. It seems permissable for string theorists to posit extra spatial dimensions that loop back on themselves on small scales. So why not posit extra time dimensions on very small and/or fast scales? anti particles already kinda look like they go back in time from a certain perspective. I know there is so much I'm missing in this conjecture but would appreciate what avenues to go down to understand why it wouldn't be feasible.

    • @GokulRaamthelegend
      @GokulRaamthelegend Год назад +2

      They probably exist on a quantum level, based on string theory. As mentioned in this video, they might be unstable on a large scale. Thus higher dimensional life forms might exist on a quantum level based on particles we haven't discovered yet. Those life forms may not exist as how we know it, they might have a different concept of existence that we yet do not understand

    • @hahahasan
      @hahahasan Год назад +3

      @@GokulRaamthelegend I wouldn't go as far as life forms. All of our current understanding of life necessitates macroscopic structures well beyond the remit of QM.

    • @juliavixen176
      @juliavixen176 Год назад +2

      Having two time-like coordinates will make it so that energy is no longer conserved, and you will never be able to get two things to stand still (be at rest) with respect to each other. There are at least two string theories with multiple time-like dimensions, and they predict things like protons decaying into heavier neutrons and stuff. Also atoms can't form, because you can't get protons and neutrons to stick together (stand still with respect to each other).

    • @hahahasan
      @hahahasan Год назад +1

      @@juliavixen176 we already know from GR energy isn't strictly conserved. E.g. redshift photons. I mean it's still conserved as far as time translation symmetry is upheld, by Noether's theorem, but GR breaks that symmetry routinely.
      Also AFAIK zero-point energy of the vacuum is still an unsolved problem and potentially linked to the negative pressure required for the spacetime expansions we currently observe.

    • @hahahasan
      @hahahasan Год назад +1

      @@juliavixen176
      I mention zero point energy in response to your statement about not being to get two things to stand still w.r.t each other. As in by Heisenberg uncertainty we can't get things to stand still period! And the energy associated with this is somewhat poorly understood atm and leaves room for zany theories such as extra time dimensions. Well I guess people that know more than me can rule it out, but I'd like to be pointed to resources that tell me why.
      also sorry for the somewhat unclear initial reply, I'm responding on my phone and the app doesn't let me see your comment as I reply

  • @chrislocke8914
    @chrislocke8914 3 месяца назад

    Arvin, this was a wonderful presentation, made beautiful because of your faith. Your love of creation really came out and really makes this video special (not relatively, absolutely).
    After 23 seconds “space time, the canvas, that the Painter with all the colours needed to create their master piece”
    And at the end, the fine tuning,
    If the universe were any different, one dimension more one less, and we wouldn’t exist
    Finally, you gave thanks along with the loving couple gazing at the stars.
    You mentioned thanking your lucky stars- but I take this as code word for thanking something else that really does exist. God bless you.

  • @henrytjernlund
    @henrytjernlund Год назад +3

    I've been wondering if divisional algebras which work only in 1, 2, 4, and 8 dimensions has something to do with space time. Also I read something, not sure where, that in hyperbolic geometry that what might be time dimensions have to be smaller in number than space dimensions, that the smallest number of dimensions which works is 4 dimensions. And perhaps why space-time is 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. Now that might be just the geometry of space-time. But does that still tell us what space-time IS? What it's made out of?

    • @lunam7249
      @lunam7249 Год назад

      there is NON-EUCLIDIAN GEOMETRY math which answers alot of your questions, also N-DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRY both are upper division class math 700s

  • @John777Revelation
    @John777Revelation Год назад +4

    Scientists now believe that empty space is actually filled with Quantum or Vacuum Fluctuations. _"Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual (i.e. non-material) particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs. Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. This is theoretically allowable because the particles annihilate each other within a time limit determined by the uncertainty principle so _*_they are not directly observable._*_ "_ (Source: Wikipedia) Despite its name, Virtual “Particles" are *immaterial.*

  • @kthwkr
    @kthwkr Год назад +8

    I think the oddest, weirdest, and most significant science discovery was by Maxwell. His differential equations showed the speed of light was constant to all observers. That's told us that the universe was one weird place.

    • @APBT3chnoM0nkey
      @APBT3chnoM0nkey 7 месяцев назад

      Can you explain this? That sounds super logical to me, but i know little about science

    • @frankdimeglio8216
      @frankdimeglio8216 7 месяцев назад

      ​@@APBT3chnoM0nkeyWHAT E=MC2 FUNDAMENTALLY means is that gravity/acceleration involves what is balanced inertia. INDEED, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. This CLEARLY proves what is the fourth dimension, AND this CLEARLY solves what is the coronal heating “problem”. I have proven why the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS I have proven why WHAT IS THE MOON will (and does) move away very, very, very slightly in relation to WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground !!!!
      By Frank Martin DiMeglio
      Gravity/acceleration involves what is balanced inertia, as WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. This is CLEARLY consistent with the FOURTH dimension AND conservation of energy, AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (INDEED, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM are linked AND BALANCED opposites.) Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. What is E=MC2 is consistent with TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE; AS c squared CLEARLY does represent a dimension of SPACE (ON BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Great. MOREOVER, WHAT IS THE MOON will (and does) move away very, very, very slightly IN RELATION TO what is THE EARTH/ground. Great. I have FUNDAMENTALLY and truly explained the cosmological redshift AND WHAT IS THE FOURTH dimension. (Consider WHAT IS complete combustion AND WHAT IS E=MC2.) GREAT. Again, gravity/acceleration involves what is balanced inertia; AS WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma; AS I have FUNDAMENTALLY and truly explained the motion of what is THE MOON; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Great !!!! Again, consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. Perfect. Think. Again, I have CLEARLY proven WHAT IS the FOURTH dimension ON BALANCE. “Mass”/ENERGY is CLEARLY electromagnetic/gravitational ON/IN BALANCE. GREAT !!!!
      By Frank Martin DiMeglio

  • @martinhernandez6579
    @martinhernandez6579 Год назад +1

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but with the muon g-2 experiment and the probability of many different particles existing, is it probable that shows that extra dimensions exist and that they have different values so when they briefly interact in our space time universe, they can be measured with these out of the ordinary values?

  • @dactylntrochee
    @dactylntrochee Год назад +3

    On one hand, this is the closest I've ever come to grasping the concept, so bravo for Arvin. On the other hand, if C is distance/time, then C squared would be distance squared over time squared. Well, I know what a distance squared is (three inches on the sides of a square yields nine square inches), but I can't grasp the meaning of a time squared. What's a square second? This continues to flummox me.
    Still, it's the clearest demonstration of the concept I've seen so far, and my livelihood doesn't depend on my understanding it, so I'm satisfied for today.

    • @Pedro_MVS_Lima
      @Pedro_MVS_Lima Год назад +1

      Maybe this won't help you, but a squared second would be something we cannot intuitively understand, as we don't have the practical experience. Said otherwise, in the practical sense, it has no meaning. Like a meter to the fourth, we don't have the practical experience. What we can do is process it analytically, and maybe it's easier to figure out what a fourth dimension of space might be as we already deal with three of them. Other than that, a fourth dimension of space has no practical meaning.
      Another possible way of looking at it, although again it may not be helpful at all, is to consider acceleration. If velocity is the rate of change of distance per time unit (second) and acceleration is the rate of change of velocity per time unit, then acceleration would be the rate of change of distance per time unit squared (squared second).
      Or, maybe more properly said, the rate of change, per time unit, of the rate of change, per time unit, of the distance. The analytical meaning(?) here would be that we had to consider twice independent variations in time.

    • @36on22
      @36on22 Год назад

      Good explanation. The acceleration example was what occurred to me as well: change in velocity per change in time or change in distance per second per second. Like the gravitational acceleration at MSL on earth, 9.8 m/s^2 for a free falling mass in a vacuum.

  • @2quick4u84
    @2quick4u84 Год назад +1

    Hi Arving, i want to ask why the fabric/matrix of space-time is always drawn as a net of squares or sometimes triangles? does is it have a real physical meaning? thanks

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  Год назад

      No physical meaning. It is only for visualization purposes, so that you can see the fluctuations and bending.

  • @topg1084
    @topg1084 Год назад +1

    absolute amazing video im 35 yrs old and always was wondering about space time since school no one explained it better than this video.

  • @idrisarab5110
    @idrisarab5110 Год назад +3

    Eagerly awaiting for your the simplest explanations for very difficult problems.❤

  • @Nehmo
    @Nehmo Год назад +1

    Why does the Pythagorean theorem not work here? Why do you replace the plus with and minus sign in the formula? 6:11

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  Год назад +1

      Because we are no longer dealing with distances on both axis, we are dealing with time on one axis. So Lorentz transformation would now need to be applied.

  • @peakxv13
    @peakxv13 Год назад +3

    What a brilliant video!!! you answered some of my most fundamental questions. Thank you.

  • @frankmccoy2305
    @frankmccoy2305 6 месяцев назад +1

    Wow! Brilliant thanks. Been looking to get the Minkowski graph explained in the sense of shortest/longest distance concept and the C indicator in the vertical time coordinate. Your graphs are excellent as are your explanations. Hard to find teacherswho can word these kind ocomplexities properly.

  • @Dxeus
    @Dxeus Год назад +4

    The beauty of Arvin Ash's video is that after watching it for just a few minutes, I immerse myself in the experience, likening myself to a subatomic particle, and attempt to truly grasp what Arvin is conveying, and that's why it takes a couple of hours to watch the full video.

  • @dhruvilpatel4218
    @dhruvilpatel4218 Год назад +2

    13:20 it's not that we happen to live in precisely such universe, but life could have formed in only these 3,1 space time dimension universe only, so if life exists then universe has to be 3,1. Otherwise there would be no life to perceive it. Therefore no life form has ever perceived any universe other than 3space 1 time dimentional universe.

    • @dhruvilpatel4218
      @dhruvilpatel4218 Год назад +3

      It's like "odds of being born is astronomically low, but yet everyone who exists has beat it"

    • @MaeveFirstborn
      @MaeveFirstborn Год назад +1

      That's essentially a version of the anthropic principle. I'd add, in addition, that life AS WE KNOW IT could only exist in 3,1 because life AS WE KNOW IT evolved through chemical chance within this universe - there's no reason to think that life couldn't, theoretically, come to exist in a 4,1 or even idk a 7,4 universe, it just would not resemble our life at all!

    • @dhruvilpatel4218
      @dhruvilpatel4218 Год назад

      @@MaeveFirstborn yes, true. Universe with different physical laws can sustain life with different biologies. Maybe our own universe can sustain different kind of biological evolution about which we might not aware of.

  • @davivify
    @davivify Год назад +4

    When we speak of _space curviture_ it seems to me that this implies higher dimensionalty. That is, how can you curve something if you don't have at least one extra dimension to curve it in? One of the seminal books I grew up with was Flatland. Which explored a people constrained to a 2D plane. That plane may very well be curved, but the Flatlanders would never know it. But we, from our 3D perspective, could plainly see that.

    • @Pedro_MVS_Lima
      @Pedro_MVS_Lima Год назад +1

      A space can be curve, meaning it may have curvature properties, without requiring the existence of further dimensions. However, it may eventually be simpler to describe it if one does consider further dimensions. I mean, what's so special about orthogonal straight lines but their simplicity of use by our minds?
      The issue is that the concepts we use to describe reality should not be confused with reality itself. In that sense, Earth may very well be the center of the Universe, it's a possible but highly inconvenient description that would only go against the Occam's Razor Principle.

    • @ethansutton8843
      @ethansutton8843 5 месяцев назад +1

      ​@@Pedro_MVS_Limawhat a well thought out response. Thank you.

  • @andrewhowie3418
    @andrewhowie3418 Год назад +1

    Thanks

  • @JSSTyger
    @JSSTyger Год назад +4

    "Space time" is what an astronaut exclaims when he's suiting up for a space walk.

    • @fourbz9428
      @fourbz9428 6 месяцев назад +1

      groan... i really wish i hadnt read this lol

    • @ithinkthonkthunk5333
      @ithinkthonkthunk5333 6 месяцев назад

      spacewalks are recorded by professional divers in the NBL.
      The truth is they are more like waterwalks vs outer spacewalks but where is the magic in that!?!

  • @Ffollies
    @Ffollies 8 месяцев назад

    At 7:20 that's a good illustration but from other videos I understood it differently. I though everything moves at the same speed through a combination of space and time. So wouldn't the twin brother who travelled end up lower on the t line than his brother who stayed on Earth? Because the total length they both travelled needs to be the same right?

  • @akashparua4606
    @akashparua4606 Год назад +16

    As a ML engineer who works with multidimensional tensors all the time , this felt surprisingly easy

  • @yannickhufschmid5883
    @yannickhufschmid5883 Год назад +1

    what unit does E have now?
    when i follow the equation E^2=(ct)^2-x^2 i get a unit of meters for E, but arvin said it was the time that passed for the travelling object/person, whitch would imply the unit would be seconds, so which is it?

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon Год назад

      @@trucker-lol not in this case

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon Год назад

      Technically in this formula E is the spacetime interval, in meters. You need to divide it by c to get proper time.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Spacetime_interval
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time

  • @RGF19651
    @RGF19651 Год назад +3

    The explanations in this video as to why there are exactly 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension in space/time seems to provide an argument against string theory, which requires either 11 or 26 spatial dimensions depending on symmetry considerations.

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  Год назад +2

      String theory theorizes dimensions that are small and curled up inside the large 3 spatial dimensions. Such dimensions could exist, but 4 or more large spatial dimensions are essentially ruled out.

    • @RGF19651
      @RGF19651 Год назад

      If these small “extra” dimensions are curled up to smaller than the Planck length, can we ever perceive them, or are they just a mathematical construct (convenience) to allow string theory to “work”?

  • @yanntal954
    @yanntal954 Год назад +1

    7:08 Shouldn't these paths be impossible as they are going backwards in time?

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  Год назад

      Correct, the graphics were a bit off. Good catch.

  • @petergreen5337
    @petergreen5337 Год назад +4

    Thank you very much for your professional insight and helpful advice.

  • @antuck1
    @antuck1 Год назад

    7:11 In the zigzag line, it goes down on the t axis. Does that mean going backwards in time? I'm confused

  • @4verse79
    @4verse79 Год назад +4

    Really, I have never seen/heard an explanation less clear and comprehensible than this.

    • @CD-SU
      @CD-SU Год назад

      I am no novice of the subject and I always click on videos that look like it could help me understand a bit more: this was a mistake as I am a little bit confused now. I have to go elsewhere to get some understanding back.

    • @RedNomster
      @RedNomster Год назад +2

      The key is understanding 4:40 and 6:40. In space, the *shortest* route is a straight line. In time, the *quickest* route is anything but a straight line, BECAUSE, moving slows down time relative to the traveler themself. It's only misleading if you're assuming slow velocities like walking (it's mathematically still true, just a negligible difference), or more apparently, that the traveler in greater motion meets the non-moving traveler at a later time. They both meet at the same exact time, but one took a longer path through space, and motion through space slows time for that person relative to a stationary observer. The closer you are to the speed of light, the slower time passes for you, relative to a stationary observer. Light itself experiences no time, because it travels at the fastest possible velocity in the universe. This is special relativity. General relativity on the other hand paints the opposite scenario, depicting the slowest possible velocity in the universe. When falling into a blackhole, the dimensions of time and space flip. Instead of 3 dimensions of space, there is only 1, because no matter how fast you're going in any "direction" you'll always end up falling into the singularity of the black hole. It is physically the only location in 3 dimensional space you can head towards, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, which is synonymous with 1 dimensional time. AKA, the future.

    • @steveco1800
      @steveco1800 Год назад +1

      @@RedNomsterSo time is slower the closer you are to the speed of light - what if you’re moving away from each other at the speed of light, would time appear stopped from each person’s perspective when looking back at the other person?
      But then if you’re travelling towards each other at the speed of light you would collide at twice the speed of light, so speed is relative as well? And because you need light to see, it would be like someone killed you in your past?🧐😅

    • @RedNomster
      @RedNomster Год назад

      @@steveco1800 moving at light speed would require you to be massless. Like a photon (light), if you reach lightspeed, you wouldn't see anything, because you would have 0 time to experience during your travels.
      But, if you're traveling very near the speed of light, according to special relativity, you experience light like ever before. Meaning a person in a car traveling near the speed of light would actually see their headlights shine and illuminate what's in front of them like ever before. Light is the same for all observers, stationary or not. It seems unintuitive, but it's experimentally proven!
      It would look different, though. As you're traveling near light speed, light coming in your direction, aka the universe and objects you see would be blue shifted. The same way cosmic expansion causes redshift by expanding the space and thereby light waves traveling in space, light waves from behind you would be redshifted. It's called the doppler affect, and is the same as sirens 🚨 sounding louder as they approach, but quieter after they pass you, even if they're the same distance from you at both moments.
      Faster than light speeds is when you start seeing yourself in the past and such! But that's a theoretically impossible velocity through space.

    • @kobiecamp1134
      @kobiecamp1134 5 месяцев назад

      ​@@steveco1800It doesn't matter rather you're traveling toward, or away from something, or somebody in regards to how time passes. But it matters how much activity is spent within your travel in time.

  • @effectingcause5484
    @effectingcause5484 Год назад +1

    11:40 If I travel in the past and kill my father, then he would not be alive to meet my mother. So now I am never born to go back into the past and kill my father which means now my father lives and does too meet my mother. My mother then goes on to give birth to me, so I grow up and travel the past again and kill my father again. Now I am never born again and I do not go back to kill my father again. So now my father lived again and meets my mother again. Now Ill be born again and the cycle repeats itself forever. This causal paradox is possible, it just means I will forever be stuck in this time loop. Every time I kill my father, the very next moment in my future is me being born again.

  • @Marmots4reFun
    @Marmots4reFun Год назад +3

    Really great video! There were moments where I felt like I might actually be able to understand some of iat a novice level. Maybe watch a 10 or 20 more times. Not being cheeky here… I’ve been banging my head against this wall for years, just a really hard concept to a simile. May just have to check out that brilliant course.

  • @gordonreid5603
    @gordonreid5603 2 месяца назад +1

    Thank you for your clear and simplified version of this topic!

  • @photon434
    @photon434 Год назад +9

    Your Minkowski graph of the math of spacetime is a powerful teaching tool. I wonder if space or time can exist at all without each other. If there was no time, how could a place exist? If there was no place, would time have meaning? Are time and space inseparable? 🕳

    • @byamboy
      @byamboy Год назад +1

      I always thought about that. I came to the conclusion that no, they can't be separated, but at the same time, space is more important and central than Time. Time is a consequence of energy. To reach that conclusion, I used my naked imagination: Imagine you have a superpower: you can freeze everything to the quantum level. Now I want you to freeze this universe completely, until no electron can move, no virtual particle pops up in the quantum field forever. In this scenario, you'd still have space, wouldn't you? With your mind's eye, you can still see the oceans and forest and planets completely static. But time would be gone because it would literally never be capable of passing. Now, try to begin to imagine anything to conceptualize time without space. You can't even begin. You can't even think or imagine a superpower or anything. A vaccum? That's would be a space. A true vacuum? That would be space again. A black universe devoid of anything? Still a location in the grand scheme of things. So space is the basis and time is the property.

    • @ASTROPLANET13
      @ASTROPLANET13 Год назад +1

      ​@byamboy It's this type of reasoning that makes me think Roger Penrose's idea of a cyclic universe is the most likely theory (ofc my opinion means little lol.)
      When true heat death finally happens and all the blackholes evaporate, time will be meaningless. No how matter how unlikely something is, any possibility of it happening will mean it will eventually happen. Even if takes 100^1000^100000 years to happen.

    • @WhitefirePL
      @WhitefirePL Год назад

      Well you can think of them separately, as you can think about x or y direction in space. Space without time dimension would be just a frozen moment of the universe. Time without space would be a blank and EXTREMALY boring existence with nothing to see or touch or experience.

    • @juancarlosdiazsalgado9644
      @juancarlosdiazsalgado9644 Год назад

      La elementalidad de las ideas de tiempo y espacio, nos impide o dificulta hablar de ellos. No se pueden definir sin caer en redundancias o círculos viciosos. Así, el tiempo es el intervalo que transcurre entre dos eventos. Espacio es el ámbito que habitamos. Propongo un nuevo término designar tres cosas fundamentales, que no tienen definición, es el término EXTENSIÓN, para esas tres magnitudes fundamentales, o magnitudes dimensionales fundamentales, ya que de la EXTENSIÓN, se derivan, el espacio, el tiempo y la masa. Que son tres cosas extensas. Porque pueden existir en el Universo y podemos referirnos a ellas como existentes. Porque los podemos estudiar porque muestran propiedades diferenciables, de una con respecto de las otras. Porque las podemos medir usando instrumentos diferentes. Porque acceden, de alguna manera a ser percibidas. Porque podemos cuantificarlas y los cálculos.que hacemos son congruentes. Pero que nos intrigan cuando tratamos de verlas individualmente; es decir, darles calidad absoluta de existencia. Porque, aunque no se haya dicho, la masa también es relativa al espacio y al tiempo, ya que incrementa con la velocidad o energía cinética. Incluso, se origina de la velocidad misma, se genera a partir de bosones que corren a la velocidad de la luz. Entonces la EXTENSIÓN, puede asumir el papel arquetípico o primordial, con respecto de esas tres modalidades de entes diferenciados pero relativísticamente asociados.

    • @amaliaantonopoulou2644
      @amaliaantonopoulou2644 Год назад +1

      @@byamboy I can easily imagine a black universe devoided of anything, but I can still suspect there is some kind of time, since even this dark universe devoid of nothing, is something. So Space is the bases and time follows as a property.

  • @djdigital3806
    @djdigital3806 Год назад +2

    You are so smart.
    I’m an Electrical Engineering Technician and fully understand what time is now.
    Great Video and excellent special effects. 🤗
    Subscribed ✔️

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  Год назад

      Thanks for watching!

  • @oldmechanic5744
    @oldmechanic5744 Год назад +3

    If spacetime can expand and contact, the forces contained in it could also be larger or smaller. Perhaps explaining dark matter and energy

  • @sadagoapan
    @sadagoapan 4 месяца назад

    Though I've no formal background in theoretical physics, I've a question from the top of my head. The existence of closed time-like curves in multidimensional time could possibly be excluded by imposing the entropy inequality along each of those time dimensions. Instead of just a single arrow of time, we would now have several arrows of time along each time dimension. That would allow only strictly monotonic time-like curves, quite similar to how we're able to move only along the arrow of time in this universe. Why does that not work?

  • @binbots
    @binbots Год назад +6

    General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is making measurements in the predictable past. QM is trying to make measurements of the probabilistic future.

    • @c.s.4273
      @c.s.4273 Год назад

      I don't understand your second sentence, can you please elaborate?

    • @mattblack6736
      @mattblack6736 Год назад

      Whats stopping you using GR to make measurements of the probabilistic future?... Nothing, your statement is wrong. I feel like you're getting hung up on the time aspect when the forces involved are at different magnitudes of strength. A tiny magnet can overcome the gravity of earth etc

    • @drbuckley1
      @drbuckley1 Год назад +1

      A "predictable past" is an oxymoron. Maybe you mean the "observable" past? There is no such thing as "the present moment" because your present is not my present. The differences may be imperceptible but they are nevertheless measurable. Every observer has a unique world-line because of "locality" (two particles may not occupy the same space at the same time). Quantum observations are never "instantaneous" but are measurements of things that already happened.

    • @MrADAM0021
      @MrADAM0021 Год назад

      Time and Space are an illusion humans are wasting their time by studying the observable universe,,the thing is that we cannot imagine and define things that are out of this world similar to computer AI whatever data you give to computer ,it only play and give information within that limit ,computer can give you new insight but within the range of data we provided but can not generate new ideas beyond the scope of data provided ,similarly this world is our box(data) we are only creating new information by combining the information that are within this world ,,we can not define and explain things that we have not seen before.

  • @vishv221
    @vishv221 Год назад

    How can something move only in time? Movement is associated with the changing of place in space right? #5:51

  • @aftabjaved3726
    @aftabjaved3726 8 месяцев назад +1

    I am so impressed my the way you explained that i hit like button and subscribed spontaneously. Hats off to you sir. You are by far better than many as i keep watching such content.
    From Pakistan

  • @StaticBlaster
    @StaticBlaster Год назад +5

    I've been having to make various appointments recently, and the point is when you make an appointment, you need four pieces of information: the cross streets, the floor number and the time. So, they must be part of the same thing.

    • @Yasmin-pi5pr
      @Yasmin-pi5pr Год назад

      lol the variables of an event, excellent.

  • @Google_Does_Evil_Now
    @Google_Does_Evil_Now 10 месяцев назад +2

    Very nice explanation using the speed of light, time and distance equation to show space time.
    Time Dilation effect: gravity effect is weaker than speed effect. Could that be related to gravity being the much weaker force compared to the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force, which is where photons and speed of light come from? The forces are different, so their effect will be different.
    Is that why gravity has a weaker effect on time than speed has on time
    Looks like all the things are directly related: forces, time, distance, mass, energy.

    • @stewiesaidthat
      @stewiesaidthat 10 месяцев назад

      Gravity is not a force. It's a measurement. It's like saying temperature is a force. Non-static measurements are measurements of acceleration/motion.
      The law for determining the amount of force in the system is Newton's Law of Motion F=ma.
      Mass is static. It's length, width, height, volume. Acceleration is what gives mass force. Gravity is the measurement of the force being applied to accelerate the mass in space. Temperature is the amount of acceleration the mass has in time. For time, you can use E=mc. Atomic energy converts to radiant energy with acceleration.
      When an atom gets to c, it becomes a photon. It still has mass, radiant mass that is, in the form of length. The photon's wavelength is its mass factor. (c) is the speed of light and E or F is the Force factor. As the photon's wavelength increases, it's force factor decreases since force decreases with distance (longer wavelength).

    • @Google_Does_Evil_Now
      @Google_Does_Evil_Now 10 месяцев назад

      @@stewiesaidthat if gravity is not a force then why is it measured as F = ma, where you can measure gravity as mass x acceleration due to g (gravity)?
      I see that Einstein spent 10 years struggling with whether gravity is a force or not, and eventually said it's a result of the effect of 2 body's mass acting upon each other and the amount of space-time they curved. Something like that.
      It's taught in school as a force. In every day life it's treated as a force. Where do you use it not as a force but as a curvature of space-time?

    • @stewiesaidthat
      @stewiesaidthat 10 месяцев назад

      @@Google_Does_Evil_Now Gravity and Temperature are measurements of acceleration. Gravity is the measurement of how much force is being applied to accelerate the mass in space while Temperature is the measurement of how much acceleration the mass has in Time.
      F=ma/E=mc. Acceleration in Space/Acceleration in Time. Mass is just stored energy so F=a/E=c or Force equals Acceleration/Energy equals Acceleration. The difference between Atomic energy and radiant energy is its Acceleration factor.
      Everything in the universe is then defined by its Acceleration factor. Which means the Proper frame of reference is the acceleration factor.
      The earth spinning on its axis, the frame of reference is the zero acceleration factor or its axis. Because the earth is spinning, it's mass is being accelerated not only outward but also forward causing curved space. As the radius from the center increases, so does the acceleration factor. F=ma. Since the Force (Earth's rotational speed) remains the same, the mass the must decrease in value. This can be observed by the thinning atmosphere with an increase in altitude. The Earth's mass is not being pulled inward but accelerated outward.
      This has been verified with synchronized clock experiments showing that as the radius increases, so does the acceleration factor. The earth rotating on its axis creates curved space.
      If mass does no create Acceleration, then what does?
      If you go back to the big bang, you will see that its an acceleration event. Current theory says its both space and time but logic dictates that it was a Time event. The point that un-accelerated energy transitioned to an accelerated state. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. That means space always was and that the current state of energy (accelerated) was in a different state.
      What causes planets to orbit stars, stars to orbit black holes, galaxies to move through space? The logical explanation is an energy imbalance. The same energy imbalance that creates hurricanes, tornadoes, typhoons. Space is an ocean of energy. Planets and stars are just clumps of that energy that became attracted by electromagnetism.
      The laws of physics are the same for all frames of reference. As QM has shown, packets of energy react to differences in electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is the attractive force. Gravity is the result of an object being accelerated on space. An object that accelerates itself does not experience gravity as there is no outside force acting upon it. This was shown by the hammer&feather drop tests. The mass of each object had no influence on the acceleration factor. The object in the air has a +5 acceleration factor than what the ground has. When the hammer is released, it is no longer being accelerated at the +5 Frame of Reference. Since an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, the ground (moving through curved space) is following behind and Impacts the hammer. The same as when an object falls off the back of the truck and hits the trailing vehicle.
      Newton was right about the apple falling being a difference in Acceleration factors. What he didn't understand is why. The mass of the earth doesn't curve space, the motion of the earth (spinning on its axis) is what creates curved space. This is something Einstein never understand. If you listen to Sean Carroll's podcast on Einstein, you will see that Einstein didn't really understand physics. His biography is littered with examples of plagiarism. He stole other people's ideas, had no clue how they worked, and cobbled together his Spacetime fantasy universe using relativity as the basis for his physics.
      If you check, using acceleration as the proper frame of reference, you will see that relativity is 180 degrees from reality.

  • @infidelcastro5129
    @infidelcastro5129 Год назад +4

    The (very simplistic) way I look at spacetime is that space is a computer monitor and time is the ‘refresh’ key which allows more than one thing to happen in any given point on that monitor. Imagine how much bigger the monitor would need to be if we needed a new section of it for each new window we open.

    • @rootyroot
      @rootyroot Год назад

      The way I visulise it (if comparing to a computer) is, 1 plank time unit = 1 CPU cycle.

    • @Jake-rj4dx
      @Jake-rj4dx Год назад +1

      simulation argument is getting waaay strong.

    • @pallypaw5460
      @pallypaw5460 Год назад +1

      @@Jake-rj4dx simulation argument is really an escape clause for those that dont believe in god. Basically confirming that a superior being has created this idealistic program / universe / reality.

  • @PraveenKumar-fo2yn
    @PraveenKumar-fo2yn 9 месяцев назад

    How could you detect additional 4th dimension if we are in 3 spatial dimension field. We can compare that with 2d object leaving on paper. It cannot see the 3d object. Please correct me if my perception is wrong. Are there any experiments that can confirm that 4th spatial dimension does not exist. Also you mentioned that there would be time loops if we have more dimensions in time . Time loops will happen only if we are able travel through time dimension. Since travelling through time is not possible. Does it make sense to think about time loops. As per your example time loop can even happen if we think of time as 1 dimensional. Since we are always travel back and forth to create loop. So we may not even need more dimensions to think about time loops

  • @platyp1999
    @platyp1999 Год назад +4

    Can you please make a video about the leading theories of what there was before the big bang? If there are any notable ones, that is

    • @bvrfrog
      @bvrfrog Год назад

      MgT: Yes, Please!!

    • @Pedro_MVS_Lima
      @Pedro_MVS_Lima Год назад

      As time began with the Big Bang, what's the meaning of "before" in that question?

  • @AtulyaISMite
    @AtulyaISMite Год назад +1

    7:32 "during the same time" - what does that mean when time has ran differently for them?

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  Год назад

      If a twin stays on earth for 2 years, and his other twin travels at high speed for 2 years and comes back, then the "during the same time" refers to the 2 years.

  • @YashKumar-xc7fj
    @YashKumar-xc7fj Год назад +4

    Arvin, Magnetars would be very interesting topic to explore. BTW very nice work in this one. 👍

  • @TheLeoFoss
    @TheLeoFoss Год назад

    So two questions:
    1. How is Fermat's principle of least time to the discussion of the time elapsed between distance traveled between two points? and 2: I can move up or down, back or forth, forward or backward, but I can only move in one direction in time. So what makes time a different dimension?

  • @nelsonclub7722
    @nelsonclub7722 Год назад +7

    Space and time are indeed relative, the more time I spend with my relatives, the more space I need

  • @tomusic8887
    @tomusic8887 7 месяцев назад

    10:51 does this cause the eart to attract the moon? The time difference? We say the universe is flat but spacetime curved, as I understand ,so that leaves time to curve? .....🤷

  • @dmofOfficial
    @dmofOfficial Год назад +3

    E = experienced time 😉

  • @rahulpsharma
    @rahulpsharma Год назад

    So what is the unit of ‘E’? RHS is distance (after the conversion factor’c’) but E is said to be elapsed time.. So how does that add up?
    Thanks in adv n Regards
    Rahul

  • @noidontthinksolol
    @noidontthinksolol Год назад +4

    time is movement, which is the simplest way to put it

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 Год назад

      Motion doesn't create time. Only clocks create time. ;-)

    • @noidontthinksolol
      @noidontthinksolol Год назад

      @@schmetterling4477 im not talking about clock time. clock time is just based on earths rotation. it is meaningless in space

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 Год назад

      @@noidontthinksolol There is nothing else than clock time. The rotation of Earth alone doesn't create time. Time requires the communication of the state of the clock to an external system, i.e. an energy transfer. In case of a rotating planet that's a very, very small loss of energy, which makes rotating planets reasonably good clocks.

  • @frontech3271
    @frontech3271 Год назад

    00:08:10 - How is it possible for one to "stand perfectly still" in the universe?

  • @cranesouder7003
    @cranesouder7003 Год назад +4

    Sorry, but I believe that Newton was right and Einstein is wrong. Einstein's THEORY has never definitively been proven! All you are doing is regurgitating unproven rhetoric.

    • @appogiatura
      @appogiatura 2 месяца назад +1

      Uh, dude you should review the scientific definition of “theory.”

  • @victordelmastro8264
    @victordelmastro8264 9 месяцев назад

    I'd like to point out that Modelling Causality as a Poisson Process (events on a time line w/ exponentially distributed inter arrival times) we are transforming from the Bayesian into an exponential form of causality (np=t*lambda), e^mean*variance and plotting 'open point' on the timeline allows for a least Paths solution to A QM Model of Causality I refer to as the 'Temple Model of the QM of Causality'. The open point on the timeline represents the 'Temple' State Space Model itself. It allows the 'user' to apply the same exponential transform to the 'other parts' of the model. We can manipulate causality even w/ a pair of dice.

  • @kerycktotebag8164
    @kerycktotebag8164 Год назад

    can the shortest line for time be intuitively visualized as a conic section swept out over a complex plane in minnkowski representations as well? where the conversion factor (or another factor im not aware of?) is the imaginary part?
    i just don't know how to positivistically visualize an inverse relation that seems negative to me (the minus sign).
    i don't even know how to ask this, bc i don't know what or if I'm misunderstanding important concepts in the field im inquiring about, which is a problem i had in school too....

  • @rossholst5315
    @rossholst5315 9 месяцев назад

    Now having this curved time makes sense for reference frames that are not co-moving together. Like if we are in London and want to travel to New York, we could just float a while until the earth brought New York to where London was and land.
    However that only makes sense if we are floating with respect to the day/night cycle, but are still traveling around the sun with the earth. If we were to just float and have no movement, we would quickly find ourselves in a void between galaxies.
    So it would seem that the frame of reference would need to be established. And that would be what we might seem to call “perspective.”
    And holding the speed of light constant seems fine. But can energy be conserved, if time is not constant?
    If we send information via light, but you are traveling away from the source the light would be redshifted. Thus the wavelength is longer, meaning a lower frequency and therefore the energy of the signal would appear to be weaker.
    However we could also assume that the light has the same amount of energy, and that time has been stretched. Meaning a second when it left might now be 1.2 or 2 seconds.
    Just some thoughts…not sure the answers, but it seems to relate to how transforming 1 variable to be constant changes the shapes of the other variables…

  • @chrismuratore4451
    @chrismuratore4451 Год назад

    So, if in a Minkowski spacetime diagram, the X axis represents all 3 spatial dimensions as one, does that mean there is hidden information encoded in every points relation to the X axis? And is there a transformation that can be applied to convert it into a typical 4D spacetime diagram?

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon Год назад +1

      Our monitors can only show in 2D and our brains can only visualize up to 3D. So we have to use either sections or projections, throwing out the other 2 dimensions.

  • @gutovbg
    @gutovbg Год назад

    Arvin, shouldn't the negative sign come before the time coordinate in the equation, instead of before the space coordinate?

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon Год назад

      There are two alternative conventions regarding the signs, we just pick one and stick with it, it works either way.

  • @abcdef2069
    @abcdef2069 Год назад

    at 7:08 how can the white line move backward in time?
    at 4:42 the line of A and B represents time elapsed, but then you POINTED the SAME line representing constant velocity and not the slope?
    at 5:10 how can green line and blue line represent the same meaning that is time elapsed?
    this explanation is very confusing

  • @Peter-uk6pt
    @Peter-uk6pt Год назад

    Thank you for making this video. I have been wondering about units of measurement in Minkowski space. It seems the units, oblique to the time and space axes, would be units of length such as meters or light seconds. What about along the time axis. Would that still be in meters or would it be in seconds. Thanks again.

  • @petevenuti7355
    @petevenuti7355 Год назад

    13:07 the 1D space & 3d of Time box says tachyons only? Does that mean only one particle or a zoo of particles that travel faster than light?
    And what the hell is 3D time anyway😮

  • @csabakoos1650
    @csabakoos1650 Год назад

    Why can´t there be a master clock running in the backround, with the speed of causality calculating the effect of gravitational time dilation as soon as it sets in after the big bang. This clock also keeps track of relativ distans betwin this points of energy and theire gravitational efect down to planc scale. Relative distance in 3 D plus relative gravitational time dilation in how many D?

  • @jedidiahanarfi
    @jedidiahanarfi Год назад +1

    This is why I want to have a joint PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience and Theoretical Physics. Goodness, I adore Physics! Much love! ❤️

  • @RhinoTheTerrible
    @RhinoTheTerrible 21 день назад

    Every time I hear the phrase "space-time", I want to cry! Time is nothing but the result of existence, like the slag of smelting. Except time doesn't exist; it can't be touched, or seen by any means, it has no beginning or end, can only be relatively and subjectively measured, can't be felt or applied or manipulated, and can only be experienced - like a concept or idea, theoretical. Time is not an effectual force of the universe, OR space; it is merely the experiencing of the actual affecting forces. Please keep it real and say SPACE (with no adulterating suffix) when you mean actual space. Time is not even a catalyst, it's a remnant.
    Thumbs up, great video.

  • @charlesmyers8150
    @charlesmyers8150 Год назад

    question, are our lifetimes traveling in a straight line, or zigzag, or curve in spacetime? I don't mean physically,as in a spaceship.
    As we live year to year, a year being a made up way to judge time passing, spacetime means we are aware of our place in spacetime, or not.

  • @JohnMark61355
    @JohnMark61355 6 месяцев назад

    Thanks you. So, are we believe this time/space precision happened by chance?

  • @bondtrader8567
    @bondtrader8567 10 месяцев назад +1

    If c which is the speed of light .... That's the universal limit .. over larger distances time slows down .. we are seeing galaxies many years ago ... So how does his equation hold up with c being relative too to a larger universe with infinite limits ... Help ..........? Your feedback would be nice

  • @blackshard641
    @blackshard641 Год назад +1

    It may be a mistake to assume that time only has one dimension. After all, what are many worlds if not parallel slices of time laid atop each other? Closed time-like loops would explain mysteries like entanglement and the quantum eraser experiment, wherein the universe seems to maintain holistic consistency at the expense of Reductionist specificity. Isn't the grandfather paradox just another mistake of applying quantum-level phenomena to the macroscopic world, like Schrodinger's cat?

  • @altrag
    @altrag Год назад +2

    "If it was anything else, the universe would be unstable!"
    That's such a silly argument. Certainly if it was anything else the universe would not function as we know it with things like inverse square laws. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be some other type of universe that wouldn't work. It would just need different forces that coupled in different ways. Would certainly be unfathomably different from what we know but that's not really relevant as we wouldn't exist in such a universe to begin with.
    A more interesting argument (IMO) is "this is the simplest possible configuration", as the universe generally seems to prefer simple structure over complex at the most fundamental level.
    There is good justification for 2 dimensions of space not being "enough" - things would have a hard time moving passed each other (and in a 1D space it would be impossible) while 3D gives lots of space to move around in well.. space.
    A 4D space would work (in some manner) if forces dropped off with an inverse cube law rather than an inverse square law (and 5D with an inverse quartic law and so on). But those extra dimensions aren't "needed" in order for objects to move freely in the same way that the third dimension improves over the second.
    That's all more philosophy than science of course. We have no way to really know why the universe is the way it is. Its all just made-up justifications to satisfy whatever we want to believe. In my case, I don't feel comfortable telling the universe what it can or cannot do. It can do whatever the hell it wants and our only role is to try and understand it after the fact. The argument that the inverse square law would fail in >3 dimensions for example is subtly demanding that the universe "must" use an inverse square law, but there's just as little justification for that demand as there is for directly demanding that it "must" have 3 spatial dimensions. Physically a meaningless distinction (the universe does indeed have 3 spatial dimensions and an inverse square law) but philosophically problematic - again, IMO.

  • @williamthompson7087
    @williamthompson7087 Год назад +2

    Thanks for trying! What in the universe is not moving and what is our velocity relative to it?

    • @ArvinAsh
      @ArvinAsh  Год назад +1

      Nothing as far as we know. Everything is moving relative to something.

  • @minicosmos
    @minicosmos Год назад

    Hi Arvin, why gravity's propagation speed is same as light?

  • @Yasmin-pi5pr
    @Yasmin-pi5pr Год назад +1

    I don't understand why the variable "t" is replaced by distance formula (x= c*t), and not by t=x/c? :/ some one help please?
    I am loving your channel! You are an excellent teacher. I really enjoyed when you said "drum roll" lol We new it was coming! I also liked how you described with the graphics the difference between newtonian time (absolute) and relative time, it's very visual.

    • @Pedro_MVS_Lima
      @Pedro_MVS_Lima Год назад +1

      The variable t wasn't replaced, it is still there. The constant c was added to the expression as a "conversion" factor, making the expression not only dimensionally correct, but quantitatively correct as well.

    • @lunam7249
      @lunam7249 Год назад +1

      c= light speed...astronomers had much influence...looking at a distant star, its simple to say its 4 LIGHT YEARS AWAY, HARD to understand 10E19 METERS AWAY...

  • @herbertattema9890
    @herbertattema9890 11 месяцев назад

    I just stumbled upon your channel and I am blown away by your relatively indepth review

  • @martinaee
    @martinaee Год назад +1

    I literally have a “Space-Time” playlist … I think I’ll put this on it 😊💜💫

  • @joerarey8496
    @joerarey8496 Год назад

    I like that you point out that 'time' on the surface of earth is slower compared to an identical clock in unaccelerated space.
    However, gravity doesnt 'curve' spacetime, it pinches it in to the core of the gravity well (the earth in this case). Any 'curves' or orbits have to do with the other object's speed relative to the earth's gravity well.
    Light gets bent very little as it races by our dimple of a gravity well. As a contrast, a person standing on the surface has their curved spaacetime starting at the top of their head, out their feet and running straight to the core. Our way there is blocked and that's why we feel 'weight'
    The way to the center of the core is blocked because matter under acceleration stratifies by density with the heavy dense stuff at the bottom and the light atmosspheric gasses at the top.
    What would have been a nice touch in the video would be to further the explanation that time is fastest in unaccelerated spacetime, it's slower on the surface of the earth with our meager 9.8m/s2 acceleration and it is most definitely slowest at the core.
    assumptions of Newtonian weightlessness at the core are not considering this reality. The densest elements migrate to the core, while gasses go up. Acceleration is greatest at the core and time is slowest.

  • @aiart3615
    @aiart3615 Год назад

    Does this mean that if I move in a circle in space, then I go faster into the future than if I move forward, in a line, in any direction in space (from the point of the moving object)?

    • @Yasmin-pi5pr
      @Yasmin-pi5pr Год назад +1

      the straight line means constant speed. The longer line, means more distance in the same absolutely time (t), so more velocity. So you can go faster into the future if you move faster, but basically what you are doing is slowing time from your point of view (elapsed time).

  • @juliepaola-y9w
    @juliepaola-y9w 22 дня назад +1

    really congratulation for that explanation, it was very clear for me. the formula shows that the more one travels in space, the shorter the elapse time, or duration. here credibility play a special roll, science is about evidence. for sure, the more one travel, more elapse time. take your car, take your bicicle, there is not need to be in the space, every body knows that.. thanks you

  • @Nogill0
    @Nogill0 Год назад

    Unified Spacetime decomposes uniquely into 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension for every observer. It brings up the interesting problems again of what constitutes an observer, and what constitutes an "event". Intersection of world lines? How does that work in QM? Surely not point-like. An "event" has to be extended in some sense, with dimensions in space and time. And it's hard to imagine a point-like observer. Things seem to get blurry. The way Spacetime decomposes seems to be necessarily blurry. So at some scale the three spatial dimensions are difficult to quantify, and so too for the temporal dimension.

  • @ShaziaQ
    @ShaziaQ 9 месяцев назад

    You made this complex concept super easy & understandable 👍

  • @meandyouagainstthealgorith5787
    @meandyouagainstthealgorith5787 11 месяцев назад

    I'm troubled by the concept of dimensions. Is there evidence for dimensional space as opposed to space defined by four rays?

  • @danielhoran8416
    @danielhoran8416 8 месяцев назад +1

    This video was very informative and explained so well. Thanks for sharing

  • @eaglesclaws8
    @eaglesclaws8 Год назад

    Is the sec dem not connected to the 3rd? One runs right into the other and are connected.

  • @fritzschlereth
    @fritzschlereth Год назад

    I'm sorry but I noticed you said you have a link in the description. Where is the description?

  • @l.clevelandmajor9931
    @l.clevelandmajor9931 День назад

    What about the hypothesis that there are actually more than 3 spatial dimensions, most of them being distance related, while still only one time dimension exists? I have read that there are 11 dimensions in all, 10 being spatial. Not sure if these articles are backed up by physics, but even if good math that explains it does not exist, we cannot prove the other spatial dimensions don't exist.