I will never forget about the first video that I saw on your channel. I was looking for something about radioactive decayment. I was struck by the illuminating way you explained things. Thank you.
At 15:42, the numerators for inverse Transforms of uy, uz are slightly off! Numerator for uy should have been uy(dash)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Similar correction for uz. For the rest, the video is perfect! :)
Sir, you have a really amazing time way of explaining things! I admire your teaching a lot and your videos very interesting as always! Hope your channel reaches out to many more people! May mass×acceleration always be with you! 🙏
There is a small error in the expressions of inverse velocity transformation for uy and uz shown at 15:18. Thanks for such very knowledgeable videos. Got to learn many things from your videos that are difficult and time consuming if one goes to books. Thanks and keep going :-)
There is no one who can remain without action even for a moment. Indeed, all beings are compelled to act by their qualities born of material nature (the three guṇas
Discovered your channel yesterday, and am currently studying the same topic. Waiting eagerly for Relativistic Doppler Effect as well as effect of medium speed, as these are the only things a bit confusing. Thanks for this clear and amazing lecture.
Thanks for this. Around 9:00-9:30, I don't understand how the following has to be the case mathematically: If ∆t approaches zero when ∆t' approaches zero, then lim ∆x'/∆t' as ∆t approaches zero is equivalent to lim ∆x'/∆t' as ∆t' approaches zero. Why is this. I mean just because ∆t and ∆t' both approach zero, it doesn't mean that the limits above have to be the same, does it. If so, why would this be the case mathematically? Thanks.
This is good explanation of relative velocities, but how about the actual distances traveled? How does length contraction and time dilation for UFO A and B play here?
Doubt in problem solving section (16:14):Will it even yield the same result if I will attach s(prime/dash) frame with earth and s frame with a spaceship. I tried it but got wrong result. Ans in this scenario came out to be 0.72c
Hi, I am also from IIT Kanpur physics PG 1972 batch. I wish to share a GeoGebra file showing Graphic Relativistic addition of velocities. Sliders are included for your students to have hands on feel for changes in frame & object velocities. Nice work by you
If observer S1 was instead going in the same direction in velocity as the spaceship in question, and we agree that time dilates as we approach the speed of light, and we also agree that the speed of light is a universal constant; could we postulate that one could in fact proceed beyond the speed of light by maintaining that same velocity constant in a time dilation that also approaches the speed of light? I’m not sure how to properly word the question that I’m asking. Essentially this: if we exist at a speed approaching the speed of light, would we be able to tell since light behaves consistently in the dilation we exist in? And if not, could we use a relativistic speed in a specific frame of reference and then accelerate another object to a relativistic speed within that initial frame of reference? And if we could, would that object “slow down” or carry its time dilation with it? Somewhat of a supercavetation for space time, in theory? Forgive me if you’ve dealt with questions like this or if they come across underinformed.
Sir I have a question. Rocket A started from a point 10 crores km away from a goal at velocity of 2 lakh km/second another rocket B started at the same time from middle point at the velocity of 1 lakh km/second in linear direction.what will be their relatve speed as per special theory of relativity ? Will they reach at the goal simultaniously or not ?
Instead of reinventing the wheel, we can exploit the fact that u’=γ (x-vt) and t’=γ (t-ξx) are parametric equations dependent on t s.t x’:t↦ x’(t) and t’:t↦ t’(t) Now, consider dx’/dt = (dx’/dt’)(dt’/dt) by chain rule If dt’/dt :≠ 0 on some interval, then dx’/dt’ = (dx’/dt)/(dt’/dt) Therefore dx’/dt’= u’= γ (u-v)/ γ (1-ξu) = (u-v)/ (1-ξu) where ξ = v/c^2 and u= u_sub(x)
Why the Space ships' velocities don't add 🤔, though it is true for light as per my understanding I.e, 2c is not possible . What happens in the Hadron Collider where v is close to c ? I'm confused. Please enlighten me.
When we derived Lorentz transformation, we assumed that the relative motion was happening only along x-dimension. Here however the object has a velocity component in all the three dimensions. Why are we using the same equations should we need not to derive a different set of equations for this case.
What would be if we have done this proof with length contraction and time dilation? If we do this proof with that way we will find another result. In that case we would find an equation which says the relative velocity of the object from the referance frame of the other moving object is smaller than the velocity of the object from the referance frame of the standing (which has no velocity) object. this is a contradiction.
For instante, if we had this two objects going in opposite directions each with 100% of the speed of light, if we substitude in the transformation eqn, we will get u' = c.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
15. Speed of light in moving medium ► ruclips.net/video/WQfqHDsHAZM/видео.html
Real talented Physics teacher... Hats off sir
Bengalis are The Talented People...!!! 🌝❤️✨
I will never forget about the first video that I saw on your channel. I was looking for something about radioactive decayment. I was struck by the illuminating way you explained things. Thank you.
At 15:42, the numerators for inverse Transforms of uy, uz are slightly off!
Numerator for uy should have been uy(dash)*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Similar correction for uz.
For the rest, the video is perfect! :)
Sir, you have a really amazing time way of explaining things! I admire your teaching a lot and your videos very interesting as always!
Hope your channel reaches out to many more people!
May mass×acceleration always be with you! 🙏
sir your way of explanation is really amazing, your videos are clearing my all doubts related to relativity
Thanks a lot
Love the way u teach man. Making every bit very clear
The way you explain is great sir 👍
There is a small error in the expressions of inverse velocity transformation for uy and uz shown at 15:18.
Thanks for such very knowledgeable videos. Got to learn many things from your videos that are difficult and time consuming if one goes to books. Thanks and keep going :-)
yes
There is no one who can remain without action even for a moment. Indeed, all beings are compelled to act by their qualities born of material nature (the three guṇas
Your whole relativity playlist is awesome..... ❤️❤️❤️❤️
I've just completed it.
You are great 🙏🙏
Great video...
Sir why sicronisation happen?
❤️ best teacher
Very nice explanation sir.Thank you🙏❤
Discovered your channel yesterday, and am currently studying the same topic. Waiting eagerly for Relativistic Doppler Effect as well as effect of medium speed, as these are the only things a bit confusing. Thanks for this clear and amazing lecture.
Thanks sir for this crystal clear explanation 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Nice sir
finally concept smjh agya, adbhut anand ki anubhuti horhi hai 🤩
Interesting...Have not completed the video yet😅 but i know it is going to be interesting 😃
I am so glad I listened to this video. Goes to explain the momentum equations in a later video.
at 7:55 □t - v □x/□tc² ?
hey sir your teaching is really awsm!!
Good explanation.
Clear and to the point explanation .Thank you sir
great explanation. thank you
Great video sir, Good detailing and Break down of Equations as well as presenting their significance, Really loved it. God bless you ❤
Sir i understood lessons as well .thank you sir to help to us to improve our knowledge . I was amazing when you teaching .good luck.❤❤❤
Perfect explanation sir
Well explained sir.... 👏👏have understood it clearly.. Thank you so much!
amazing explanations sir, thanks
Nicely done video.🙏
Thanks for this.
Around 9:00-9:30, I don't understand how the following has to be the case mathematically:
If ∆t approaches zero when ∆t' approaches zero, then lim ∆x'/∆t' as ∆t approaches zero is equivalent to lim ∆x'/∆t' as ∆t' approaches zero.
Why is this.
I mean just because ∆t and ∆t' both approach zero, it doesn't mean that the limits above have to be the same, does it. If so, why would this be the case mathematically?
Thanks.
?? If both are going to zero, then what's the point?
Thank u ❤️
You are just awesome ❤️
Why is that in velocity composition law if ux'=-v ux is 0, and undefined (0/0) if ux=c and v=-c?
In the last two cases where ux = c and v = -c, I get ux' = c, in both cases
Thank you sir
This is good explanation of relative velocities, but how about the actual distances traveled?
How does length contraction and time dilation for UFO A and B play here?
Doubt in problem solving section (16:14):Will it even yield the same result if I will attach s(prime/dash) frame with earth and s frame with a spaceship. I tried it but got wrong result. Ans in this scenario came out to be 0.72c
I would be really grateful if anybody could explain this. Thanks in advance
No, you should assign s frame with B coz question asks velo of A wrt 'B' so one frame of reference must be at B
Hi, I am also from IIT Kanpur physics PG 1972 batch. I wish to share a GeoGebra file showing Graphic Relativistic addition of velocities. Sliders are included for your students to have hands on feel for changes in frame & object velocities. Nice work by you
Dear Sir,
What will happen S' frame is moving in Y direction with velocity V
If observer S1 was instead going in the same direction in velocity as the spaceship in question, and we agree that time dilates as we approach the speed of light, and we also agree that the speed of light is a universal constant; could we postulate that one could in fact proceed beyond the speed of light by maintaining that same velocity constant in a time dilation that also approaches the speed of light?
I’m not sure how to properly word the question that I’m asking.
Essentially this: if we exist at a speed approaching the speed of light, would we be able to tell since light behaves consistently in the dilation we exist in? And if not, could we use a relativistic speed in a specific frame of reference and then accelerate another object to a relativistic speed within that initial frame of reference? And if we could, would that object “slow down” or carry its time dilation with it? Somewhat of a supercavetation for space time, in theory?
Forgive me if you’ve dealt with questions like this or if they come across underinformed.
Sir I have a question. Rocket A started from a point 10 crores km away from a goal at velocity of 2 lakh km/second another rocket B started at the same time from middle point at the velocity of 1 lakh km/second in linear direction.what will be their relatve speed as per special theory of relativity ? Will they reach at the goal simultaniously or not ?
Instead of reinventing the wheel, we can exploit the fact that
u’=γ (x-vt) and t’=γ (t-ξx) are parametric equations dependent on t s.t x’:t↦ x’(t) and t’:t↦ t’(t)
Now, consider
dx’/dt = (dx’/dt’)(dt’/dt) by chain rule
If dt’/dt :≠ 0 on some interval, then dx’/dt’ = (dx’/dt)/(dt’/dt)
Therefore dx’/dt’= u’= γ (u-v)/ γ (1-ξu) = (u-v)/ (1-ξu) where ξ = v/c^2 and u= u_sub(x)
Derivations such as these are fundamental for concepts and from an Indian perspective, often asked in the exams.
Keep uploading
15:30
the inverse transformation for y and z are written wrong😅
Why the Space ships' velocities don't add 🤔, though it is true for light
as per my understanding I.e, 2c is not possible . What happens in the Hadron Collider where v is close to c ? I'm confused. Please enlighten me.
When we derived Lorentz transformation, we assumed that the relative motion was happening only along x-dimension. Here however the object has a velocity component in all the three dimensions. Why are we using the same equations should we need not to derive a different set of equations for this case.
But S' frame is moving with v in only x direction.
wow a britisher looking like Indian !
?
@DC-zi6se I see britishers in him.
Sir agr ap hindi mai pdate to pdne mai or bhi mja ata thanku so much sir
15:25 the right equations are not correct. They are not simetric.
Anyway, you're great!
What would be if we have done this proof with length contraction and time dilation? If we do this proof with that way we will find another result. In that case we would find an equation which says the relative velocity of the object from the referance frame of the other moving object is smaller than the velocity of the object from the referance frame of the standing (which has no velocity) object. this is a contradiction.
For instante, if we had this two objects going in opposite directions each with 100% of the speed of light, if we substitude in the transformation eqn, we will get u' = c.
Plz try to speak in hindi
And you also😁🤣
Hmm
😭😭😭Ha u ka sekama re ka oela.
op
Thanks sir 🙏🙏