Although it's important to note that the Michelson-Morley experiment was NOT what inspired Einstein (he wasn't even aware of the experiment in 1905). Einstein's inspiration was different: it was the steadily growing scientific discomfort with the state of Maxwell's electrodynamics and its relation to mechanics PLUS Lorentz's 1904 paper in which Lorentz noticed that following the standard (Galilean) transformation of coordinates with another strange one which involved the time coordinate, the result was the invariance of Maxwell's equations. (The bizarre fact that Maxwell's equations failed for _uniformly_ moving observers was a major conundrum.) Einstein noticed that many paradoxes of electrodynamics (like the magnet-and-coil example he cites in the intro to his 1905 paper) would go away if it could be justified somehow that the Lorentz-transformed E and B fields were _real_ (Lorentz assumed they were just mathematical niceties without physical meaning). But this meant the transformed _time_ coordinate would _also_ have to be justified to be real somehow. So this was Einstein's starting point (that's why his paper has a title that seems so odd to modern audiences: "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"). Sometime in the 1950s he recalled his thinking about the problem back in 1905 and said: "I became convinced that _time itself_ was suspect". As an added bonus, he was able to make his theory not dependent on any light medium which by 1905 was a big problem for physicists, not unlike what we have now with dark matter: more and more _ad hoc_ "tuning knobs" had to be added to ether to make it work, like ether's inability to support longitudinal waves alone forced a super-bizarre constitutive equations on it (many famous people had noticed that problem even before Maxwell, and worked on it without much success: Poisson, Fresnel, Lord Rayleigh, Kirchhoff, etc.). And piling up of _ad hoc_ tuning knobs is a tell-tale sign of a theory on its last legs. That's what happened in 1905, it solved all those problems (there were many more).
Because this doesn't cover everything, and no one on YT can test you for your comprehension of the subject matter. Plus, taking your YT "degree" to college to get a Master's or PhD won't get you very far. 😄
The problem is that Einstein never acknowledged nor credited the work Lorenz or Poincare. All he ever said was that he stood oh the shoulders of giants. .Poincare was French and Einstein was German, so there was no love lost there. And it has been said that he did not even believe in relativity until his professor (Minkowski ?) convinced him of it.
It seems from this that Lorentz had done most of the work on special relativity and was just resisting the physical implications. Einstein just went with it. This is the best depiction of what's happening in SR that ive ever seen.
@@MrWATM Another mindless one? Well, Einstein's relativity is absolute BS. That's WTF. But no one is interested, because they like to be one of the boys, and not make waves. And absolute irrational weirdness is really more entertaining than real science. The most disturbing thing is that its not difficult to figure out where Einstein deceives with his nonsense, but seems no one thinks critically. No wonder we are in such a mess these days. People are stupid.
The Lorentz Transformation has more than just one equation that represents it. You can see the other equations in the book, Putting the Curve into Spacetime.
@@xiaoxiao-kg5np yeah, not so much. It's called a theory because it's already passed every single test anyone could put it through. Calling it nonsense just makes you look ignorant and confused.
@@MaryAnnNytowl Nah, its "passed" fraudulent tests, and its 100% nonsense, designed to confuse. I bet you cant explain how to derive the lorentz transformation equation, simple as it is, without making terminal r=errors, which I can point out to you as make them... Science is contaminated with nonsense, same as every other endeavor of man. Einstein's idiotic material is one of the root causes of that cancer. You think its true, so its up to you to explain it, but I bet you can not.
The most succinct explanation is that the Lorentz Transformation is a feature of Special Relativity in which the perceived proper length of an object in motion, when measured from an inertial frame of reference, is reduced in relation to its velocity.
The Initial assumption could be wrong. What if the earth is actually moving very slowly through the Aether and the Michelson-Morley experiment only verified that we were not moving as fast as thought it?
The assumption that velocity of light was the same in all frames did not account for the effects of gravity, that would change its speed. These great theories could not explain the flat rotation curve of galactic orbits, but instead gave rise to the ideas of dark matter and energy.
The Lorenz Transformation Einstein used the Lorenz transformation to describe Special Relativity in his 1905 paper, while here we see SR used to describe the Lorenz Transformation. What then, exactly, is the Lorenz Transformation? And why is the Pythagorean Theorem renamed to this exotic and esoteric sounding Lorenz Transformation*? Thank you in advance. * *[Which in the 1905 paper, by the way, was used to describe non-Newtonian physics using Newtonian principles - just as confusing to an ordinary mortal like myself]
One of my problem was about to visualise Albert Einstein's Train explanation which I had watched one of his docoumentary . After Watching this my visualisation on time dilation, length contraction is cleared . Thank you for creating this beauty
Nice video and presentation. Is it fair to say that the prerequisites for light propagation are e0 and u0? Also that e0, u0 are attributes of light medium, Aether? Also that c is a constant, only if u0 and e0 are constants. Any particle or solar plasma wind intruded into the vacuum-Aether space will change e0, u0 and c. Also that solar wind increases the permittivity e0, u0 and caused a permittivity, permeability gradient around solar that is created a velocity gradient of a passing light and hence bends it? That gravity bends light is coincidence or correlation but proof?
Just as with a Hieronymus Bosch painting which is nothing if you look too closely at a single painting but if you look at the painting from a far distance or better yet look at many different Bosch paintings you'll find interesting patterns .... similar to that .... view the series of videos of which this is one and again look for patterns not in a particular set of words but in the aggregate of the series of videos
Time or a partical can never be at rest. Fill in V^2 = C^2 ... The observer on the train at C^2 speed, most conclude that mass still exist at lightspeed... And when he most... We most...
But why time of an event depends on the time the light reach the observer? Still dont get it. For me, these are two different things. Something happens somewhere at some time, and there is some time needed for the light to get to the observer. It is clear, that observer would see the event little bit later than it happened. All those nice films on YT (they are indeed very nice and helpfull) explain only the observational effect. We can say, they describe only a dialation of observation. But the problem is, Special Relativity claims, that there is a real time dialation. One of the twins would be real younger, when he returns on Earth. And where is the connection between the longer way the light has to travel and slowing all the physicall prcesses in one frame of reference?
Wait, so if Michelson and Morley where trying to prove the Ether exists, but "failed", but then Einstein explains why it "failed" using special relativity, does that then prove the Ether exists then???
If you are looking for a different perspective or equation on the Lorentz Transformation then check out this video: ruclips.net/video/UisP1toGuRk/видео.html
Aether and light are one in the same. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: A small prize for a big brain. A prize will be given to the first person who proves that Lorentz transformation does not violate the conservation of momentum. The prize is open to the public from high school students to physics professors. Please go to the following website for more details. sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/challenge
Eeven though the speed of light will be mesured differently according to an observer*s movement, the observer will still see a difference in the light and its energy, namely a frequency shift, observed as redshift or blueshift.
Simply put, moving clocks tick out time more slowly than a stationary one at your side, and also on the strength of the gravitational field they are in. (a 'clock' refers to the sense of time for any given frame of reference in a state of relative motion to some other). Interestingly, GPS satellite data takes into account BOTH effects on time measurement in its calculations. The effect of the high rate of speed of the satellite makes it seem to us on the ground as if its clock is ticking out time more slowly than ours on earth, while the effect of earth's gravitational field at the surface (vs the high altitude of the satellite) makes it seem as if OUR clock is ticking out time more slowly than the satellite's. The effects therefore are OPPOSING ones! However, as it turns out in this case (the particular speed of the satellites plus the strength of earth's gravitational field at the surface), the net result is such that the gravitational effect wins out slightly over the speed-related one (of the satellite) and so our clock (on earth) ticks out time slightly more slowly than the one on the high speed satellite. Although both time effects are incredibly small they are important in terms of calculating and determining ones precise location on the earth's surface. Now if the satellite were traveling at a sufficiently high rate of speed, the net result would be that ITS clock would seem to be slower than the stationary one at the surface. ie, the effects would NOT be opposing ones in that case, but would rather add up. GPS satellites determine ones location by calculating the TIME it takes for a signal to reach us on earth. That is why the two relativistic time effects are so important.
How could contracting the length of the E/W arm cause the light beams to return to being in phase? The beam in the N/S arm isn't affected by the earth's rotation at all, no experiment has ever shown that the speed of light or radio along a meridian is affected in any way, just ones crossing meridians in an East or West direction. If in fact the E/W arm had been contracted, it actually would have put the two beams out of phase, not brought them into phase. What that actually shows is that light doesn't follow a zig-zag path when in motion perpendicular to its direction, as shown in Einstein thought experiments involving a light beam bouncing up and down between two horizontally moving mirrors in a light clock. That's exactly what Michelson erroneously thought would happen in the N/S arm. Why didn't he detect the Sagnac effect with the E/W arm of his device? Because the single beam went in both directions, canceling out each direction's added/lost velocity due the earth's rotation. That's why Sagnac disks don't reflect the same beam back to the emitter, they send two beams in opposite directions around the disk. Michelson's device could never show light being out of phase no matter what, simply because of the way it was designed in the E/W direction and the lack of real zig-zag effect postulated by Einstein. So that was all the experiment actually proved, Einstein being wrong about the zig-zag effect. The light does not move in a longer diagonal path at all, it moves in a vertical path AND a horizontal path at the same time. If a zig-zag path effect existed, you would notice it any time you moved something on a jet perpendicular to the direction of travel, which you don't.
it’s not earth’s rotation the device was expected to be affected by, it was the earth’s movement around the sun, because it would theoretically be moving with and then later against the ether
@@barnacleburrito3728 Yeah I wrote that comment a while ago. I guess it wouldn't disprove the zig-zag effect because the earth's rotation is not fast enough for that to be detectable, it would have to be a significant fraction of light speed. And yeah I know it wasn't designed to detect earth rotation but it could have if they used two opposite direction beams instead of one bounced beam. I still say Einstein's zig-zag path theory is bogus though. The photons never moved in a diagonal path, they moved in a perfectly vertical path. The fact that the clock apparatus moved horizontally in relation to an observer is not a factor because the observer can't measure the speed of light in another frame from his, how could they when neither the light source nor the mirror were in their frame, do it by eye? Since there's no way to gauge the speed of photons whose source and destination are both in another inertial frame, the observer would not see an inconsistency and have to try to correct it by invoking time dilation or length contraction.
Cosmological Red shift violates Conservation of energy in a no aether theory. Also, with an expanding universe where the expansion is also accelerating, space must be glued to galaxies in order to also accelerate them which is clearly absurd. There is an aether and relativity is clearly an incorrect theory.
In Henry clock the light to hit the top, the light must have vertical component of speed , C and horizontal component speed of the train, so will hit the same point.All theory is base on that the light is independent of source. That means that the light will be strait vertical line, doesn't matter the train is stationary or it is moving.This explanation is good if instead light will be bullet.
What is the peoples walking on the earth like planet looks like, how ever I thought about mount Rushmore for a moments I thought 💭 it was then I was witnessing the peoples on the land walking away towards the shape of Mount Rushmore I taken a picture from the humans near the ocean. I was worried about how much influence I have been. And I and my craft left the area.
I agree with your opinion. Reality is truly impossible to know based on human senses. Nothing that has ever seemed or felt a particular way is necessarily true, just like most of physics.
Length contraction and time dilation are real effects, and there is no absolute vantage point from which anyone can say anything that is not just what it seems like from a particular reference frame.
@@bakunin888 If you genuinely believe that 'Length contraction and time dilation are real effects...' then, what is stopping you from believing that people and objects really do shrink into the distance? I think that, anyone who claims Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is correct, hasn't actually studied or looked into the theory properly. *Scientists are reluctant to even suggest that Einstein might be wrong for fear of being labelled an idiot* . After all, who has the guts to make such claim against the world-renowned genius? .
@@StuMas that's very arrogant of you, to think that you are the only one who has bothered to look into it, and that you are so brilliant that you saw what millions of others missed. Your first paragraph is reasonable but your second is absurd. If time dilation doesn't happen, why can muons traveling at near light speed in a particle accelerator be observed to exist for much longer than the average muon decay lifetime? That's just one of hundreds of experiments supporting relativity.
@@bakunin888 Please, don't misquote me. Though, I did intentionally 'lay a bait' to encourage a debate, I did not claim to be the " *only one* " by any stretch of RUclips! I simply said, "... *anyone that thinks SR is correct* .." Anyway, just to be sure, you do know that it's Special Relativity about which, I have some 'beef' - not General Relativity? *How much do you know about the nature of Time(s)?* .
@caltech When you'd removed the Annenberg Media audio introduction, you'd shifted all of the audio on the video, making it out of sync by many seconds. All of the videos like this have been affected.
So if the Ether doesn't exist, the light and everything in the universe, is moving...what is the transportation of that mass in the universe....gravity...l guess... but... what is gravity....the curve of the space time by the mass... according to...(Albert Einstein )....but what is space time........🤔👍😀
this shows that you get twin paradox wrong. wikipedia has page for it, feel free to learn something. they not just see each other as moving, one of them is accelerating and he feels acceleration, while other does not
Diolectic Not really. The "twin paradox" involves observers either in non-inertial frames (frames with non-stationary velocity) or in multiple inertial frames. Fermilab's Prof. Don Lincoln made two very decent videos explaining this: ruclips.net/video/GgvajuvSpF4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/noaGNuQCW8A/видео.html
While the photon is moving vertically up and down in the light clock on lorentz's train you simultaneously show it also moving left and right - light does not travel sideways.
I always was concerned about how Planck constant fit in this theory. Now I understand how it is possible to literally move in space. It has to be because of the compaction of the electrons on the atom. Very good presentation. I enjoy this stuff better than porn.
To be honest the most important part about all of this was probably the experiment itsself. Without the experiment there wouldn't be any reason to believe in relativity
If "all is vibration" the superimposed Entanglement 1-0-infinity in/of e-Pi-i reciprocation-recirculation relative-timing, ie at Absolute Zero-infinity floating in No-thing singularity at Eternity-now and relative-timing ratio-rates of log-antilog orthogonal-normal self-defining infinitesimal Singularity-point quantization as holographic Conformal Field superposition, Relativity => 0-1-2-ness cubic plane of resonant probability is orthogonal-normal to displacement in 3D-T Aether-> holography-quantization, a parallel coexistence assessment of here-now-forever Actuality.
Ha ha cracking me up man I noticed when I was driving home heading east my vehicle was shorter than when I drive west. Why don’t we stop the nonsense everyone knows Earth does not move.
There is something confusing me. If we replace in the proof the light-clock with something else e.g. a ball, there would be no difference in the time measurements between the moving train and the man staying outside!
Hey caltech - great vid but you're making a critical error in your animation when you show the trajectory of Lorentz's light in his photon clock move laterally with his frame. We know light propagates forward at c but the lateral (left-right) speed of a photon's trajectory must equal zero. If you allow the trajectory of Lorentz's light to travel at the same speed as Lorentz's reference frame the photon will have x-axis and y-axis velocity. Light can only propagate forward at c from its emission point. In another part of the vid you're also showing the sphere of light in Lorentz's reference frame move laterally with his frame - this gives this sphere of light an infinite amount of emission points along Lorentz's line of travel. From Einstein's stationary frame he will conclude c travels faster than c. Consider this vid ruclips.net/video/92RE8WQkU2c/видео.html
@@JanPBtest if an observer is moving left to right near the speed of light and emits a photon upward vertically a stationary observer must see the photon travel straight up vertically. The moving observer will not see light move vertically. He will see the photon move transversely because he is moving away from the photons straight trajectory. Light must always travel in a straight line regardless how fast it’s source is moving.
@@randykubick You write: "if an observer is moving left to right near the speed of light and emits a photon upward vertically a stationary observer must see the photon travel straight up vertically". This is incorrect. It will move up vertically wrt the moving frame. If you were correct, it would imply an absolute frame and an absolute vertical direction.
@@JanPBtest if the light moves left to right in the moving frame with the moving observer then a stationary observer would observe light not traveling in a straight line. This would allow light to travel from point a to point b faster than light for a stationary observer. You’re creating a paradox. Light always travels in a straight line. Reference frames move relative to the trajectory of straight moving light. If you are in an airplane moving at Mach 10 across the top of a glass smooth body of water and you drop a particle into the water the speed and direction of the waves created are a function of the property of the water not the motion or vector of the Mach 10 plane. A person standing on the same water at zero speed creates the exact same waves in the water. Light is exactly like this analogy. The speed and direction of light is a property of the electromagnetic field which is AT REST in the background across the entire universe. If you study the thought experiments in simultaneity you will see the experiment only works if the electromagnetic field sits idle at rest in the background. No one except me I guess ever points this out. But none of this invalidates Einstein’s SR and GR equations. I fully agree with the SR and GR math just not the explanations they carry.
Seriously the best graphical explanation of special relativity ever. Helped me so much and I show it to my students all the time.
09:54 is when it will click in your mind. Don't skip to it!!
Although it's important to note that the Michelson-Morley experiment was NOT what inspired Einstein (he wasn't even aware of the experiment in 1905). Einstein's inspiration was different: it was the steadily growing scientific discomfort with the state of Maxwell's electrodynamics and its relation to mechanics PLUS Lorentz's 1904 paper in which Lorentz noticed that following the standard (Galilean) transformation of coordinates with another strange one which involved the time coordinate, the result was the invariance of Maxwell's equations. (The bizarre fact that Maxwell's equations failed for _uniformly_ moving observers was a major conundrum.) Einstein noticed that many paradoxes of electrodynamics (like the magnet-and-coil example he cites in the intro to his 1905 paper) would go away if it could be justified somehow that the Lorentz-transformed E and B fields were _real_ (Lorentz assumed they were just mathematical niceties without physical meaning). But this meant the transformed _time_ coordinate would _also_ have to be justified to be real somehow. So this was Einstein's starting point (that's why his paper has a title that seems so odd to modern audiences: "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies"). Sometime in the 1950s he recalled his thinking about the problem back in 1905 and said: "I became convinced that _time itself_ was suspect". As an added bonus, he was able to make his theory not dependent on any light medium which by 1905 was a big problem for physicists, not unlike what we have now with dark matter: more and more _ad hoc_ "tuning knobs" had to be added to ether to make it work, like ether's inability to support longitudinal waves alone forced a super-bizarre constitutive equations on it (many famous people had noticed that problem even before Maxwell, and worked on it without much success: Poisson, Fresnel, Lord Rayleigh, Kirchhoff, etc.). And piling up of _ad hoc_ tuning knobs is a tell-tale sign of a theory on its last legs. That's what happened in 1905, it solved all those problems (there were many more).
Thank you for this explanation and analysis!
Incredibly fine explanation of the Lorentz Transformation. Thank you!
2 years of college physics, now I think I am understanding what is that diagram is about, and it cost me nothing, thank you.
This episode actually won an Emmy for it's awesome graphics and explanations on the relativistic nature of light and time.
Space time diagram is such a simple idea and yet twists and contorts every cell of the mind while attempting to grasp them!
This video felt to me like I time travelled to past and saw it myself how Lorentz and Einstein made theory of relativity.💎
Thanks
Fill in C^2 for V^2....
This is gold
pure gold
Fine Gold
Valhalla Gold!
Why did I pay $5000 for my stupid BS. degree when all this is here for free? :'(
Ask for your money back.
Because this doesn't cover everything, and no one on YT can test you for your comprehension of the subject matter. Plus, taking your YT "degree" to college to get a Master's or PhD won't get you very far. 😄
Caltech has the best learning resources on the planet.
you have to much money
You only paid $5000 for a 4 year degree?
The problem is that Einstein never acknowledged nor credited the work Lorenz or Poincare. All he ever said was that he stood oh the shoulders of giants. .Poincare was French and Einstein was German, so there was no love lost there. And it has been said that he did not even believe in relativity until his professor (Minkowski ?) convinced him of it.
Thankyou for this!!! The most effective explanation I've got on lorentz transformations.
These are great. Please do this type of stuff on mathematics that will help so much.
It seems from this that Lorentz had done most of the work on special relativity and was just resisting the physical implications. Einstein just went with it.
This is the best depiction of what's happening in SR that ive ever seen.
This is the greatest thing ever happened to me
mate, you are not very Logical are you? Else you would figure out that all this tripe is one big lie.
@@xiaoxiao-kg5np What.
The.
Fuck?
@@MrWATM Another mindless one? Well, Einstein's relativity is absolute BS. That's WTF. But no one is interested, because they like to be one of the boys, and not make waves. And absolute irrational weirdness is really more entertaining than real science. The most disturbing thing is that its not difficult to figure out where Einstein deceives with his nonsense, but seems no one thinks critically.
No wonder we are in such a mess these days. People are stupid.
@@xiaoxiao-kg5np prove that its a lie, scientifically
Why
The Lorentz Transformation has more than just one equation that represents it. You can see the other equations in the book, Putting the Curve into Spacetime.
These videos are far more superior than a lot of new ones! Great classics.
Amazing explanation !!
Perspective...is a beautiful realization.
Amazing! Finaly understood the concept
But the music was anoying
@@anatollegros3454 you get a university lesson for free and have the audacity to complain about the music. Must be an American.
@@chuckphilpot7756 hey, I'm an American, and I liked the music! 😄 Don't judge us all by a few idiots, please.
An amazing video to get myself familiarized with this difficult topic. Thanks for sharing.
Its only difficult because its all irrational nonsense.
@@xiaoxiao-kg5np yeah, not so much. It's called a theory because it's already passed every single test anyone could put it through. Calling it nonsense just makes you look ignorant and confused.
@@MaryAnnNytowl Nah, its "passed" fraudulent tests, and its 100% nonsense, designed to confuse.
I bet you cant explain how to derive the lorentz transformation equation, simple as it is, without making terminal r=errors, which I can point out to you as make them...
Science is contaminated with nonsense, same as every other endeavor of man.
Einstein's idiotic material is one of the root causes of that cancer.
You think its true, so its up to you to explain it, but I bet you can not.
Where is Minkowski???
The analogy at 8:10 is genius!
at 13:00 also :)
omfg this video is so good
Indeed!
The whole series is amazing, especially the Maxwell episode
The sheer beauty and eloquence of mathematics-yet it all hinges on a discovery of Faraday.
That was the best explanation ever!!
The best Physics lecture i have ever seen
The intro music is so... 1980s! :P But the space-time diagrams are phenomenal for those times!
yes, they are much better done than most modern attempts
Can you tell me this music's name?
@@bakunin888 um, what? You haven't seen PBS Spacetime, apparently. Or any number of other channels on here, for that matter.
@@MaryAnnNytowl they aren't as good if you want to properly understand it, not just have a nice illustration
The most succinct explanation is that the Lorentz Transformation is a feature of Special Relativity in which the perceived proper length of an object in motion, when measured from an inertial frame of reference, is reduced in relation to its velocity.
The Initial assumption could be wrong. What if the earth is actually moving very slowly through the Aether and the Michelson-Morley experiment only verified that we were not moving as fast as thought it?
We tried at different months. If the earth move with the aether in January, it would most certainly move fairly fast opposite to the aether in June
The assumption that velocity of light was the same in all frames did not account for the effects of gravity, that would change its speed. These great theories could not explain the flat rotation curve of galactic orbits, but instead gave rise to the ideas of dark matter and energy.
Amazing explaination.....master!
Finally I did understand that damn cone of light thing!
still there is something missing, the why! Why should time slow and space subtract, what does the process represent?
The Lorenz Transformation
Einstein used the Lorenz transformation to describe Special Relativity in his 1905 paper, while here we see SR used to describe the Lorenz Transformation. What then, exactly, is the Lorenz Transformation? And why is the Pythagorean Theorem renamed to this exotic and esoteric sounding Lorenz Transformation*? Thank you in advance. *
*[Which in the 1905 paper, by the way, was used to describe non-Newtonian physics using Newtonian principles - just as confusing to an ordinary mortal like myself]
One of my problem was about to visualise Albert Einstein's Train explanation which I had watched one of his docoumentary . After Watching this my visualisation on time dilation, length contraction is cleared . Thank you for creating this beauty
Nice video and presentation.
Is it fair to say that the prerequisites for light propagation are e0 and u0?
Also that e0, u0 are attributes of light medium, Aether?
Also that c is a constant, only if u0 and e0 are constants. Any particle or solar plasma wind intruded into the vacuum-Aether space will change e0, u0 and c.
Also that solar wind increases the permittivity e0, u0 and caused a permittivity, permeability gradient around solar that is created a velocity gradient of a passing light and hence bends it? That gravity bends light is coincidence or correlation but proof?
This is so well explained my grandmother would understand it.
17:30 how did you derive these equations
Well done.
Extremely well explanation of the relativity effect for lay people... (like myself)
This is beautiful
:D such great videos
Just as with a Hieronymus Bosch painting which is nothing if you look too closely at a single painting but if you look at the painting from a far distance or better yet look at many different Bosch paintings you'll find interesting patterns .... similar to that .... view the series of videos of which this is one and again look for patterns not in a particular set of words but in the aggregate of the series of videos
Time or a partical can never be at rest. Fill in V^2 = C^2 ... The observer on the train at C^2 speed, most conclude that mass still exist at lightspeed... And when he most... We most...
But why time of an event depends on the time the light reach the observer? Still dont get it. For me, these are two different things. Something happens somewhere at some time, and there is some time needed for the light to get to the observer. It is clear, that observer would see the event little bit later than it happened. All those nice films on YT (they are indeed very nice and helpfull) explain only the observational effect. We can say, they describe only a dialation of observation. But the problem is, Special Relativity claims, that there is a real time dialation. One of the twins would be real younger, when he returns on Earth. And where is the connection between the longer way the light has to travel and slowing all the physicall prcesses in one frame of reference?
If the luminiferous ether doesn’t exist, and light propagates as a wave, what is it that’s ‘waving’ ?
an electric and magnetic field
Photons
@@Ihaveanamenowtaken The thing waving can't also be the thing it's waving through.
Wait, so if Michelson and Morley where trying to prove the Ether exists, but "failed", but then Einstein explains why it "failed" using special relativity, does that then prove the Ether exists then???
The experiment failed to show the ether because the ether doesn't exist. Einstein's theory ignores the ether.
The MM experiment didn't fail. It accurately showed that the ground isn't moving.
If you are looking for a different perspective or equation on the Lorentz Transformation then check out this video:
ruclips.net/video/UisP1toGuRk/видео.html
Even relativity is just Pythagoras 😂😂
What is the effect of the ether on light?
Aether and light are one in the same.
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Is there a problem with watching these in sequence?
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:
A small prize for a big brain.
A prize will be given to the first person who proves that Lorentz transformation does not violate the conservation of momentum. The prize is open to the public from high school students to physics professors. Please go to the following website for more details.
sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/challenge
Eeven though the speed of light will be mesured differently according to an observer*s movement, the observer will still see a difference in the light and its energy, namely a frequency shift, observed as redshift or blueshift.
Simply put, moving clocks tick out time more slowly than a stationary one at your side, and also on the strength of the gravitational field they are in. (a 'clock' refers to the sense of time for any given frame of reference in a state of relative motion to some other).
Interestingly, GPS satellite data takes into account BOTH effects on time measurement in its calculations. The effect of the high rate of speed of the satellite makes it seem to us on the ground as if its clock is ticking out time more slowly than ours on earth, while the effect of earth's gravitational field at the surface (vs the high altitude of the satellite) makes it seem as if OUR clock is ticking out time more slowly than the satellite's. The effects therefore are OPPOSING ones!
However, as it turns out in this case (the particular speed of the satellites plus the strength of earth's gravitational field at the surface), the net result is such that the gravitational effect wins out slightly over the speed-related one (of the satellite) and so our clock (on earth) ticks out time slightly more slowly than the one on the high speed satellite.
Although both time effects are incredibly small they are important in terms of calculating and determining ones precise location on the earth's surface. Now if the satellite were traveling at a sufficiently high rate of speed, the net result would be that ITS clock would seem to be slower than the stationary one at the surface. ie, the effects would NOT be opposing ones in that case, but would rather add up.
GPS satellites determine ones location by calculating the TIME it takes for a signal to reach us on earth. That is why the two relativistic time effects are so important.
RIEMMAN LORENTZ FORCE as ZETA THETA EPSILON FUNCTION TRANSFORMATION
How could contracting the length of the E/W arm cause the light beams to return to being in phase? The beam in the N/S arm isn't affected by the earth's rotation at all, no experiment has ever shown that the speed of light or radio along a meridian is affected in any way, just ones crossing meridians in an East or West direction. If in fact the E/W arm had been contracted, it actually would have put the two beams out of phase, not brought them into phase. What that actually shows is that light doesn't follow a zig-zag path when in motion perpendicular to its direction, as shown in Einstein thought experiments involving a light beam bouncing up and down between two horizontally moving mirrors in a light clock. That's exactly what Michelson erroneously thought would happen in the N/S arm.
Why didn't he detect the Sagnac effect with the E/W arm of his device? Because the single beam went in both directions, canceling out each direction's added/lost velocity due the earth's rotation. That's why Sagnac disks don't reflect the same beam back to the emitter, they send two beams in opposite directions around the disk. Michelson's device could never show light being out of phase no matter what, simply because of the way it was designed in the E/W direction and the lack of real zig-zag effect postulated by Einstein. So that was all the experiment actually proved, Einstein being wrong about the zig-zag effect. The light does not move in a longer diagonal path at all, it moves in a vertical path AND a horizontal path at the same time. If a zig-zag path effect existed, you would notice it any time you moved something on a jet perpendicular to the direction of travel, which you don't.
it’s not earth’s rotation the device was expected to be affected by, it was the earth’s movement around the sun, because it would theoretically be moving with and then later against the ether
@@barnacleburrito3728 Yeah I wrote that comment a while ago. I guess it wouldn't disprove the zig-zag effect because the earth's rotation is not fast enough for that to be detectable, it would have to be a significant fraction of light speed. And yeah I know it wasn't designed to detect earth rotation but it could have if they used two opposite direction beams instead of one bounced beam.
I still say Einstein's zig-zag path theory is bogus though. The photons never moved in a diagonal path, they moved in a perfectly vertical path. The fact that the clock apparatus moved horizontally in relation to an observer is not a factor because the observer can't measure the speed of light in another frame from his, how could they when neither the light source nor the mirror were in their frame, do it by eye? Since there's no way to gauge the speed of photons whose source and destination are both in another inertial frame, the observer would not see an inconsistency and have to try to correct it by invoking time dilation or length contraction.
So is the audio out of sync or is that just my point of view ?
If you bend space and time it'll re-sync
Unbelievable that this is available for free. To anyone with internet access.
Deceptions are always free
Shit gets real at 19:37
It's all real. This is how it actually happened.
Excellent explanation.
Cosmological Red shift violates Conservation of energy in a no aether theory.
Also, with an expanding universe where the expansion is also accelerating, space must be glued to galaxies in order to also accelerate them which is clearly absurd.
There is an aether and relativity is clearly an incorrect theory.
I agree AND the ground is not moving
old but gold. Thank you.
In Henry clock the light to hit the top, the light must have vertical component of speed , C
and horizontal component speed of the train, so will hit the same point.All theory is base on
that the light is independent of source. That means that the light will be strait vertical line,
doesn't matter the train is stationary or it is moving.This explanation is good if instead light
will be bullet.
Amazing video!
Feeling like I'm experiencing the situations,,
It's the best explanation as a whole ❣️❣️❣️
What is the peoples walking on the earth like planet looks like, how ever I thought about mount Rushmore for a moments I thought 💭 it was then I was witnessing the peoples on the land walking away towards the shape of Mount Rushmore I taken a picture from the humans near the ocean. I was worried about how much influence I have been. And I and my craft left the area.
Lástima que no tenga subtítulos en español
7:41, 12:46
KEYWORDS / PHRASES: It seems like, appears to be, feels like, etc..
How something seems/feels to an observer does not dictate its reality.
I agree with your opinion. Reality is truly impossible to know based on human senses. Nothing that has ever seemed or felt a particular way is necessarily true, just like most of physics.
Length contraction and time dilation are real effects, and there is no absolute vantage point from which anyone can say anything that is not just what it seems like from a particular reference frame.
@@bakunin888 If you genuinely believe that 'Length contraction and time dilation are real effects...' then, what is stopping you from believing that people and objects really do shrink into the distance?
I think that, anyone who claims Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is correct, hasn't actually studied or looked into the theory properly. *Scientists are reluctant to even suggest that Einstein might be wrong for fear of being labelled an idiot* . After all, who has the guts to make such claim against the world-renowned genius?
.
@@StuMas that's very arrogant of you, to think that you are the only one who has bothered to look into it, and that you are so brilliant that you saw what millions of others missed. Your first paragraph is reasonable but your second is absurd. If time dilation doesn't happen, why can muons traveling at near light speed in a particle accelerator be observed to exist for much longer than the average muon decay lifetime? That's just one of hundreds of experiments supporting relativity.
@@bakunin888 Please, don't misquote me. Though, I did intentionally 'lay a bait' to encourage a debate, I did not claim to be the " *only one* " by any stretch of RUclips! I simply said, "... *anyone that thinks SR is correct* .."
Anyway, just to be sure, you do know that it's Special Relativity about which, I have some 'beef' - not General Relativity?
*How much do you know about the nature of Time(s)?*
.
@caltech When you'd removed the Annenberg Media audio introduction, you'd shifted all of the audio on the video, making it out of sync by many seconds. All of the videos like this have been affected.
Remember that vacuum is empty of all matter except energy or Aether, and that e0 and u0 are attributes of Aether.
2 CORINTHIAN
13:8
GENESIS 13
19C, Invokes A
Newest, Claim
Of Light Speed
Dependent Not
On it's Medium
Tq for the explanation like this kind with sciencist 😘😘😘
Is cellular endowmentis
So if the Ether doesn't exist, the light and everything in the universe, is moving...what is the transportation of that mass in the universe....gravity...l guess... but... what is gravity....the curve of the space time by the mass... according to...(Albert Einstein )....but what is space time........🤔👍😀
26:07 le jeune Joey Starr a Caltech
Thank you
Fantastic, would you check the sync audio-video? I think by 23 minutes it may be out?
This shows that the "twin paradox" is wrong. Because both twins see each other as the one who's moving & thus Gamma is the same for both.
The "time difference" actually has more to do with the acceleration which the clock in orbit is experiencing, not speed.
this shows that you get twin paradox wrong. wikipedia has page for it, feel free to learn something. they not just see each other as moving, one of them is accelerating and he feels acceleration, while other does not
i don't need excuse when random idiot has some crazy idea
Diolectic
Not really. The "twin paradox" involves observers either in non-inertial frames (frames with non-stationary velocity) or in multiple inertial frames. Fermilab's Prof. Don Lincoln made two very decent videos explaining this:
ruclips.net/video/GgvajuvSpF4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/noaGNuQCW8A/видео.html
CipiRipi00 Check Don Lincoln’s videos on this. He explains why it’s wrong. Btw, he’s from Fermilab, so there’s no non-sense there.
This could be the best video ever for introducing these important fundamentals
Thank you, RUclips.
Thank you so much
He was important to general relativity.
ruclips.net/video/feBT0Anpg4A/видео.html
Hey, caltech good steins or stones, tell us what law of physics forces the shiny dot to go not vertically?
While the photon is moving vertically up and down in the light clock on lorentz's train you simultaneously show it also moving left and right - light does not travel sideways.
Light travels in any direction, and all directions. Otherwise, we wouldn't see the left and right sides of things. 😉😄
Precition
8:12 ~ 14:20
I always was concerned about how Planck constant fit in this theory. Now I understand how it is possible to literally move in space. It has to be because of the compaction of the electrons on the atom. Very good presentation. I enjoy this stuff better than porn.
Yes
you'll find the effect in the z axis
Gamma as is peculier
To be honest the most important part about all of this was probably the experiment itsself. Without the experiment there wouldn't be any reason to believe in relativity
If "all is vibration" the superimposed Entanglement 1-0-infinity in/of e-Pi-i reciprocation-recirculation relative-timing, ie at Absolute Zero-infinity floating in No-thing singularity at Eternity-now and relative-timing ratio-rates of log-antilog orthogonal-normal self-defining infinitesimal Singularity-point quantization as holographic Conformal Field superposition, Relativity => 0-1-2-ness cubic plane of resonant probability is orthogonal-normal to displacement in 3D-T Aether-> holography-quantization, a parallel coexistence assessment of here-now-forever Actuality.
Fireee !
Concave .4to 8.1
Ha ha cracking me up man I noticed when I was driving home heading east my vehicle was shorter than when I drive west. Why don’t we stop the nonsense everyone knows Earth does not move.
If the Earth didn't move life wouldn't exist and you wouldn't exist
DITTO
1913: Sagnac
Effects Shifts
1887, Fails To
At different times
There is something confusing me. If we replace in the proof the light-clock with something else e.g. a ball, there would be no difference in the time measurements between the moving train and the man staying outside!
Hey caltech - great vid but you're making a critical error in your animation when you show the trajectory of Lorentz's light in his photon clock move laterally with his frame. We know light propagates forward at c but the lateral (left-right) speed of a photon's trajectory must equal zero. If you allow the trajectory of Lorentz's light to travel at the same speed as Lorentz's reference frame the photon will have x-axis and y-axis velocity. Light can only propagate forward at c from its emission point. In another part of the vid you're also showing the sphere of light in Lorentz's reference frame move laterally with his frame - this gives this sphere of light an infinite amount of emission points along Lorentz's line of travel. From Einstein's stationary frame he will conclude c travels faster than c. Consider this vid ruclips.net/video/92RE8WQkU2c/видео.html
No, I think you are incorrect. The photon is emitted vertically in Lorentz's frame, so it moves vertically in that frame.
@@JanPBtest if an observer is moving left to right near the speed of light and emits a photon upward vertically a stationary observer must see the photon travel straight up vertically. The moving observer will not see light move vertically. He will see the photon move transversely because he is moving away from the photons straight trajectory. Light must always travel in a straight line regardless how fast it’s source is moving.
@@randykubick You write: "if an observer is moving left to right near the speed of light and emits a photon upward vertically a stationary observer must see the photon travel straight up vertically". This is incorrect. It will move up vertically wrt the moving frame. If you were correct, it would imply an absolute frame and an absolute vertical direction.
@@JanPBtest if the light moves left to right in the moving frame with the moving observer then a stationary observer would observe light not traveling in a straight line. This would allow light to travel from point a to point b faster than light for a stationary observer. You’re creating a paradox. Light always travels in a straight line. Reference frames move relative to the trajectory of straight moving light. If you are in an airplane moving at Mach 10 across the top of a glass smooth body of water and you drop a particle into the water the speed and direction of the waves created are a function of the property of the water not the motion or vector of the Mach 10 plane. A person standing on the same water at zero speed creates the exact same waves in the water. Light is exactly like this analogy. The speed and direction of light is a property of the electromagnetic field which is AT REST in the background across the entire universe. If you study the thought experiments in simultaneity you will see the experiment only works if the electromagnetic field sits idle at rest in the background. No one except me I guess ever points this out. But none of this invalidates Einstein’s SR and GR equations. I fully agree with the SR and GR math just not the explanations they carry.
@@randykubick There is no room here to explain this in more detail. Bottom line is the video is correct. You need to study this a bit more.
Not Einstein but Minkowski was explained !